God Chance and Necessity

Rating:
Summary: Well, get it back IN stock ;-).
Review: "The publisher is out of stock," reads the sad little note at the top of this page. That's a shame, because every reader of Richard Dawkins's _The Blind Watchmaker_ ought to read this trenchant reply.

Ward also takes on a few other thinkers (e.g. Peter Atkins) but most of his fire is concentrated on Dawkins. Ward is pretty generous with Dawkins (repeatedly, for example, complimenting him on his writing style) and is certainly no enemy of evolutionary theory. But Ward rightly notes that Dawkins pretty much hasn't got a clue what religion and religious philosophy are about, seems to be hostile to both, and in fact provides evidence himself that the emergence of life via evolutionary processes should be seen as the result of intelligent design (to borrow a useful term from William Dembski).

Warning: not _all_ of Ward's arguments are sound. (At one point, for example, he argues that because there are so many more possible _complex_ explanations than _simple_ ones, the probability of a complex explanation far outweighs that of a simple one and therefore God is a more probable explanation than anything simpler. This isn't correct; the probability of a _particular_ complex explanation is smaller than the probability of just _any_ old complex explanation.)

But many, even most, of his critiques hit their targets. Hey, publisher -- can we get this item back in stock, please?

Rating:
Summary: A Good Review of Issues
Review: .........because it's so easy to dismantle the arguments contained within. I laugh with glee when a theist comes at me with arguments based on this book because they couldn't be worse prepared. I do atually wonder if Ward is not in fact a closet atheist who is out to wreak mischief on poor unsuspecting Christians.

For instance, he uses the argument put forth by St Anselm centuries ago, an argument that was refuted almost as soon as it appeared. It basically goes "if I can imagine God existing, therefore he exists" - but anyone with half a brain will immediately notice that you can use this "logical" argument to prove Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or planets filled with clones of Traci Bingham. His other arguments are similarly weak and the rest of his work is a tirade against Richard Dawkins. For "scientific" backup of his theories he, like other theists, quote people like cosmologist Wickramasinghe. For those who don't know, this is a man who recently suggested that the pyramids were air-raid shelters against meteorites. This puts him and people like Ward et al who use him firmly in Von Daniken-land.

So if you're a theist I can't recommend this work enough and if you're a scientist, read it for a laugh at the quality of opposition you're facing at the beginning of the 21st century.

[e-mail]

Rating:
Summary: Highly recommend this book to theists............
Review: .........because it's so easy to dismantle the arguments contained within. I laugh with glee when a theist comes at me with arguments based on this book because they couldn't be worse prepared. I do atually wonder if Ward is not in fact a closet atheist who is out to wreak mischief on poor unsuspecting Christians.

For instance, he uses the argument put forth by St Anselm centuries ago, an argument that was refuted almost as soon as it appeared. It basically goes "if I can imagine God existing, therefore he exists" - but anyone with half a brain will immediately notice that you can use this "logical" argument to prove Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or planets filled with clones of Traci Bingham. His other arguments are similarly weak and the rest of his work is a tirade against Richard Dawkins. For "scientific" backup of his theories he, like other theists, quote people like cosmologist Wickramasinghe. For those who don't know, this is a man who recently suggested that the pyramids were air-raid shelters against meteorites. This puts him and people like Ward et al who use him firmly in Von Daniken-land.

So if you're a theist I can't recommend this work enough and if you're a scientist, read it for a laugh at the quality of opposition you're facing at the beginning of the 21st century.

[e-mail]

Rating:
Summary: Theism explains a purposeful meaningful universe and US.
Review: 3 star book with 5 star bibliography and intentions.

First, it is a difficult read, deeply philosophic and challenging. I found myself often re-reading and re-analyzing sections. Second, builds up slowly, reaches a peak in chapter 8 with "Brains and Consciousness" although it continues for 2 more rather redundant chapters, despite being a short book of 200 pages.

It is fundamentally a reply to two books: Peter Atkins _Creation Revisited_ and Richard Dawkins _Blind Watchmaker_, first half of the book directed towards Atkins, latter half is contra Dawkins.

The major theme is straightforward:
1-theism is a good explanation of the purpose, function, teleology of the universe as we see it, despite evolutionary denial of purpose in the universe.
2-theism is better than materialism as an explanation for the evolution of life, in particular for the evolution of us: thinking, conscious, believing, moral, responsible.
3-theism is a good answer for conscious of humans, materialism undermines consciousness by making it a random occurence without necessary justification other than the usual evolutionary natural selection mechanism for the differential survival of the survivors.

From the first page:
"To the majority of those who have reflected deeply and written about the origin and nature of the universe, it has seemed that it points beyond itself to a source which is non-physical and of great intelligence and power."
To the last: "but, of course, really to believe in God is to have some experience of a being of transcendent power and value which is life-enhancing and value-transforming, and to trust the testimony of at least some of those who claim such experience to a pre-eminent degree."
the book is written by a deeply thinking, deeply feeling Theistic Christian, who makes no apologies for his faith, but justifies it in logical, reasonable ways. But i see nothing in the book that will convince a naturalistic, materialistic atheist. Maybe such proofs exist, i don't know, but i do know they aren't in this book, despite the author's intentions and best attempt to present them. At best the arguments are carefully reasoned essays that point beyond themselves to the underlying ideas and books for further study on the readers part. Preliminary, exploratory, good beginnings, not final, or conclusive or something to grab and put into someone's hand, unfortunately.

But that said, the author puts his finger on a critical issue, that materialists like Atkins and Dawkins refuse to admit. Chapter 8, pg 147, "The mystery is how it comes about that the construction of brains, of complicated collections of purely physical particles, gives rise to something apparently non-physical: thoughts, feelings, dreams, images and intentions.' That materialist with a purely randomness underlying evolution end up denying the purposefulness of their own brains, of their own actions. This chapter is the key one in the book, the moral arguments that follow in the next two chapters are basically repetitions of the same ideas in different domains. His arguments are basically sound and derived from Scriptural foundations, yet for some reason the arguments do not appear to deflect the critical judgements of materialism in a significant way. But rather seem more like broad statements than actual 'battle-tested' formulations directed at the metaphysics of materialism. However i believe that the author has insights that i would like to follow up and i will read another newer book to see if he engages stronger, with more details than does this one.

Worth the time, if you are philosophically inclined. Not a book to recommend lightly to anyone, the topic is important and i will continue to look at this author and like books. Not to be discouraged, it is not a simple nor straightforward issue, this collision of two competing world and life views: modern evolutionary materialistic naturalistic atheism and traditional Scriptural Theistic Christianity.

Rating:
Summary: Fantastic book showing the consonance of science and theism.
Review: A very powerful book written by a man who has had first hand discussions with Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins. This book not only reveals the clear rationale and logic of theistic belief, but it also reveals the short-falls, dogma and religious fervour of neo-Darwinist thought - the majority of Ward's references tending toward Richard Dawkins. With clarity and rational thinking, and from completely scientific grounds, Ward takes us from the birth of our Universe with it's mathematics and constants, to the unfolding of the cosmos, to the origins of life, to the evolution of basic life forms, and to the arrival of mind, sentiency and cosmic awareness. Ward's chapter 'The Elegance of the life-plan' reveals the sheer logic of theistic belief, and the Chapter 'Brains and Consciousness' is frankly a sledge-hammer to neo-Darwinian thought. Why is it that neo-Darwinists always say to theists: "Please open you mind". In this book, Ward clearly shows that it's the Christians who ought to be saying exactly that to the materialists.

Contrary to what I wrote in another review for this book early last year, (before I learned better), Ward shows why Michael Behe's fundamentalist efforts to "prove" design on in nature, are futile attempts to grasp the Infinite works of God in scientific terms. Behe's scope was too narrow, and Ward shows that when perceived from the bigger picture - including the mathematical laws of nature and the continuing trend of cosmic evolution - while drilling down to the details which Behe focuses upon, the word 'design' comes into its own - at a far more profound level than Behe first realised.

Rating:
Summary: Dropping Clangers
Review: Aaaargh ! What a complete waste of space this book is. Ward uses every possible logical argument in favour of a Creator without even mentioning the arguments that have been around for decades which make his case redundant. This is a book not aimed at persuading atheists but rather at shoring up the damburst in theistic belief which is causing Christians to desert in droves. That's why there is no mention of any arguments to the contrary in this book.

What a sad and sorry piece of scholarship that is. How I believed in this guy I shall never know, I guess, like Ward for a long time I just reject any criticism of my beliefs out of hand. We all have to drop our anchors in faith, intrinsic value, communicate with our creator, vastly more probable, Dawkins is NOT the truth, mate, mate, mate. I respect your faith.

[e-mail]

Rating:
Summary: Psuedo-scientific theism disguised as real science
Review: Both logic and science are faulty in this book. This is little more than another weak attempt to establish a scientific basis for theism. Theism is about faith. Science is about evidence. The author fails miserably to link the two.

Rating:
Summary: Bad science and bad logic
Review: God, Chance, and Necessity is an attempt by Keith Ward to demonstrate that science, far from being incompatible with God, provides strong confirmation of God's existence. To support his case, Ward attempts to refute arguments by Peter Atkins and Richard Dawkins, two prominent atheist scientists.

Ward's critique of Atkins, although not perfect, does seem to be reasonable for the most part. I agree with Ward that Atkins attempts to make the process of our universe coming into existence naturally seem simpler than it probably is.

However, I find Ward's critique of Darwinian evolution and Dawkins in particular to be highly problematic. Although Ward pretends to accept modern science, most of his chapter "Darwin and Natural Selection" is nothing more than an attack on the theory of evolution that is almost unanimously accepted by biologists today.

What is most appalling about Ward's discussion of evolution, however, is that he has a very poor understanding of the subject. A notable example is Ward's mention of the theory of punctuated equilibria. According to Ward, "Eldredge and Gould have developed the hypothesis of 'punctuated equilibria', according to which long periods of gradual mutation are punctuated by episodic events in which large, fast, saltatory genetic changes (i.e. changes by large sudden jumps) occur in conditions of relative genetic isolation. Such changes occur before any selectional control, though of course they are subject to natural selection once they exist" (Ward, p. 75).

It is clear that Ward does not understand what punctuated equilibria is. The "episodic events" that Ward describes are not saltatory genetic changes that occur before any selectional control. Rather, they are periods when, through mutation and natural selection, evolution occurs relatively rapidly. Niles Eldredge explains this common misconception in his book Time Frames:

"The most common misconception about 'punctuated equilibria' [is] that Gould and I proposed a saltationist model of overnight change supposedly based on sudden mutations with large-scale effects ...[W]e used conventional speciation theory and the notion of adaptive change through natural selection to explain the origin of new reproductive communities (species) and the adaptive modifications of organisms through time!" (Eldredge, pp. 141-142).

This misconception is clearly explained in the chapter titled "Puncturing punctuationism" in Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker. Since Ward criticizes this book extensively, it is surprising that Ward didn't read or read but didn't understand this chapter.

In the chapter titled "The Metaphysics of Theism" Ward proceeds to justify belief in God. Ward writes that God is "not a theory invented to explain particular occurrences in the world. What, then, is the idea of God for? God is primarily the supreme object of worship and prayer" (Ward, p. 96). How does this fit with Ward's previous assertion that "only the existence of God that can explain the propensity to complexity and consciousness that seems so clearly present in evolution"?

Throughout this chapter, Ward tries to argue that theism and materialism (the belief that nature is all that exists) are both equally valid hypotheses, except that theism explains more data. I agree with Ward on the latter point, because assuming God exists, any unexplained phenomenon can be explained with the suggestion that God wanted it. However, I believe the former point is invalid, because theism requires the assumption that an unexplained complex being exists, while materialism does not require this assumption. The theist objection that a complex God requires no explanation is no better than a materialist objection that a complex universe requires no explanation.

In chapter "Evolution and Purpose," we find that Ward doesn't like Dawkins' suggestion that the Utility Function if life is the survival of DNA (Ward, p. 137). Ward writes that "In fact, the survival of genes is not maximized by evolution, since the whole process proceeds precisely by the mutation of genetic material, that is, by replacing genes with better ones." This would be relevant if Dawkins referred to the "Utility Function of evolutionary change" rather than the "Utility function of life." Dawkins agrees that evolutionary change is detrimental to any genes that are lost in the process of that change. In his book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins explains that "Evolution is something that happens, willy-nilly, in spite of all the efforts of the replicators (and nowadays of the genes) to prevent it happening" (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 19). This is consistent with the fascinating error-correction mechanisms we observe in DNA (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 126).

Unfortunately, the few reasonable arguments that Ward makes in his book are overshadowed by the glaring scientific and logical errors he makes. I think most people who have read the books The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, and A River Out of Eden by Richard Dawkins will find that most of Ward's objections to Darwinian evolution and Dawkins' claims have little basis. I would recommend approaching this book with skepticism.

Rating:
Summary: Science discovers Truth!
Review: The fact that this book isn't as critically acclaimed or as famous as any of Richard Dawkins' books is injustice in the extreme. Discovering this book is like discovering a pot of gold.

According to the book's introduction, it was written after Ward had a personal debate with Dawkins about the nature of the cosmos, evolution and the natural world. Ward succeeds in highlighting and underlining the blatant fallacies that exist within Dawkins books (especially 'The Blind Watchmaker').

Ward illustrates scientifically and objectively, that the notion of inanimate atoms "accidentally" evolving from chaos to to galaxies, and from soup-to-man is a notion of blind dogma and absurdity.

Other books I would recommend which highlight similar issues are 'Darwin's Black Box' written by bio-chemist Michael Behe, and the rather blandly named 'Not By Chance' by Physicist Dr. Lee M. Spetner.

These books illustrate the fallacies and absurdity of natural selection on both theoretical and experimental grounds. Behe also highlights the reason why science never shouts "Eureka!" at such discoveries - namely because the "noble pursuits of science" would simply end up shooting itself in the foot.

Rating:
Summary: Not impressive
Review: Ward is Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford University. But I'm not impressed by his reasoning, because no amount of argument can defeat science. As Galileo said, the Earth moves around the Sun no matter what we think. Religion - not just Christianity - is incompatible with science and therefore religion must be superseded. I see no room for both. Nor do I see any need for room for both.