Nature's Destiny : How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe

Rating:
Summary: The Extremely Careful Watchmaker
Review: It is a tragic demonstration of what Cremo, in "Forbidden Archeology," politely calls the "knowledge filter" of science, that evolutionists can take the time to read the 428 pages of this book and completely miss the whole point. To claim that Denton has been "converted" to evolutionism is either a serious misreading or deliberate misrepresentation. Perhaps the following, from the conclusion of "Nature's Destiny," will suffice to demonstrate:

"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389)

Can Denton's stance be any more clearer than this? Perhaps. He does say that "to get from a single cell to Homo Sapiens has taken about 4 billion years". Likewise, he seems to assume that evolution is responsible for the diversity and complexity of life, albeit directed by information built into the first cell, by whom or what he does not say. However, he offers little to support the notion that the origin of this first cell (and its wondrous DNA) was "in some way programmed into the laws of nature ... it has to be admitted that at present, despite an enormous effort, we still have no idea how this occurred ..."

He goes on to mention the various theories currently offered, unfortunately with a less critical eye than he should. Even the poor example of snowflakes as a highly ordered state analogous to the molecules of life is thrown a bone. This seems strange in light of the still unanswered challenges presented in his previous book, but it is an example of why evolutionism has survived-- the compartmentalization of science, whereby each scientist, assuming evolution to be proven outside his own! field of expertise, discards or explains away his own contradictory findings (the "knowledge filter" again). We will have to be content with such excellent volumes on the subject as "Forbidden Archeology","The Origin of Species Revisited", and Lubenow's "Bones of Contention". However, this does not detract from the main thrust: the overwhelming evidence of design, inexplicable by "natural" evolution.

Another flaw is his requiring that "evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life" must somehow contradict his own notion of "special creation." Even supposing this were true, he errs in forgetting that the creation of the first cell (to use his evolutionary view) or DNA, or indeed the left-handedness of life's proteins, are in themselves worthy of being considered supernatural acts, in that they do not naturally follow from the (strangely fortituous) laws of nature in the same way as the origin of the heavier elements. He neglects to address the still unresolved (and fatal) problems regarding the early atmosphere, crucial to the origins question. In distancing himself from his perception of "creationism," he exhibits similar forgetfulness when he claims that his argument is consistent with naturalistic science--"that the cosmos ... can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason." But surely he does not mean to include abiogenesis and the fitness of the universe for life. Instead, one gets the impression that he is trying to be charitable to his fundamentalist Darwinian colleagues.

What Denton does do well is take us on a marvelous tour of how finely-tuned the universe is to allow us to exist. He does this in far greater detail than most other books of this kind. He covers such "coincidences" as the many fortituous (and anomolous) properties of water, independent yet working together to support life; the fine-tuning of physical constants; suspicious d! ovetailing of nuclear resonances; the fitness of carbon and other elements for life; the complexity and inexplicability of DNA and proteins; etc. However, details even creationists take for granted are scrutinized, leaving us with a sense of awe (or gnashing of teeth): the fitness of the visual spectrum for vision; the design of the hand; our body dimensions bipedal gait, allowing us to use fire and develop technology; capacity for language; and so on. In doing so he shows us that the "chance" so casually spoken of in evolutionism quickly diminishes to zero upon open-minded examination of our cosmos; and that, indeed, we were meant to discover this fact.

This compilation of smoking guns makes for an always fascinating, always interesting read, bound to raise much ire in evolutionistic circles. Perhaps a better title would have been "Denton's Dangerous Idea." Apologies to many sci-fi writers should be forthcoming, as he demonstrates that many concepts of otherworldly life can be entertained only in our naivete.

Rating:
Summary: Flawed facts and arguments
Review: It is a tragic demonstration of what Cremo, in "Forbidden Archeology," politely calls the "knowledge filter" of science, that evolutionists can take the time to read the 428 pages of this book and completely miss the whole point. To claim that Denton has been "converted" to evolutionism is either a serious misreading or deliberate misrepresentation. Perhaps the following, from the conclusion of "Nature's Destiny," will suffice to demonstrate:

"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389)

Can Denton's stance be any more clearer than this? Perhaps. He does say that "to get from a single cell to Homo Sapiens has taken about 4 billion years". Likewise, he seems to assume that evolution is responsible for the diversity and complexity of life, albeit directed by information built into the first cell, by whom or what he does not say. However, he offers little to support the notion that the origin of this first cell (and its wondrous DNA) was "in some way programmed into the laws of nature ... it has to be admitted that at present, despite an enormous effort, we still have no idea how this occurred ..."

He goes on to mention the various theories currently offered, unfortunately with a less critical eye than he should. Even the poor example of snowflakes as a highly ordered state analogous to the molecules of life is thrown a bone. This seems strange in light of the still unanswered challenges presented in his previous book, but it is an example of why evolutionism has survived-- the compartmentalization of science, whereby each scientist, assuming evolution to be proven outside his own field of expertise, discards or explains away his own contradictory findings (the "knowledge filter" again). We will have to be content with such excellent volumes on the subject as "Forbidden Archeology","The Origin of Species Revisited", and Lubenow's "Bones of Contention". However, this does not detract from the main thrust: the overwhelming evidence of design, inexplicable by "natural" evolution.

Another flaw is his requiring that "evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life" must somehow contradict his own notion of "special creation." Even supposing this were true, he errs in forgetting that the creation of the first cell (to use his evolutionary view) or DNA, or indeed the left-handedness of life's proteins, are in themselves worthy of being considered supernatural acts, in that they do not naturally follow from the (strangely fortituous) laws of nature in the same way as the origin of the heavier elements. He neglects to address the still unresolved (and fatal) problems regarding the early atmosphere, crucial to the origins question. In distancing himself from his perception of "creationism," he exhibits similar forgetfulness when he claims that his argument is consistent with naturalistic science--"that the cosmos ... can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason." But surely he does not mean to include abiogenesis and the fitness of the universe for life. Instead, one gets the impression that he is trying to be charitable to his fundamentalist Darwinian colleagues.

What Denton does do well is take us on a marvelous tour of how finely-tuned the universe is to allow us to exist. He does this in far greater detail than most other books of this kind. He covers such "coincidences" as the many fortituous (and anomolous) properties of water, independent yet working together to support life; the fine-tuning of physical constants; suspicious dovetailing of nuclear resonances; the fitness of carbon and other elements for life; the complexity and inexplicability of DNA and proteins; etc. As we read about the ingenuity employed at the molecular level for the sending of nerve signals, manipulation of electrons, conveyance of oxygen, and so on, and the many such contrivances that are essential for life, we are struck by the overwhelming, mind-boggling complexity of it all, and the sneaking suspicion that much is taken on faith in evolutionistic circles. And we see immediately that it cannot be an informed faith based on any scientific evidence, but rather a wishful, forced belief that such nanomachines could have arisen by chance. By the time we have recovered from our revelations about water and carbon, how wonderfully fit they are for our existence, by the time we are finished reading about proteins and the cell, it seems an impossibility that life, being so complex as it is, could have arisen at all, even if it were created by some supernatural being; for this being would have to be possessed of an intellect that beggars our minds. We are used to thinking of cells as simple blobs of protoplasmic jelly, as did Darwin; not so. Now we can understand wny the intricate requirements of life are usually glossed over in popularized treatments on evolution: either the knowledge was not available then, or the inclusion of it would have made evolution impossible, even ridiculous, to defend.

However, details even creationists take for granted are scrutinized, leaving us with a sense of awe (or gnashing of teeth): the fitness of the visual spectrum for vision; the design of the hand; our body dimensions and bipedal gait, allowing us to use fire and thus develop technology; our capacity for language; and so on. In doing so he shows us that the "chance" so casually spoken of in evolutionism quickly diminishes to absurdity upon open-minded examination of our cosmos; and that, indeed, we were meant to discover this fact.

This compilation of smoking guns makes for an always fascinating, always interesting read, bound to raise much ire in evolutionistic circles. Perhaps a better title would have been "Denton's Dangerous Idea." Apologies to many sci-fi writers should be forthcoming, as he demonstrates that many concepts of otherworldly life can be entertained only in our naivete.

Rating:
Summary: Great book
Review: It is such a pity that more open-minded readers don't leave their inpressions by way of book review. It seems that only the hardened materialists have something to say. This is a wonderful book, especially after you have read "Rare Earth" and "Darwin's Black Box." Why? Well, it takes off where "Rare Earth" left off - that the rare conditions of the earth are naturally disposed to life - and that such conditions are not contrary to the "older teleological religious concepts of the cosmos as a specially designed whole, with life and mankind as its primary goal and purpose." It also describes a certain improbablity of life "popping up out of the blue." (Also explained in "Darwin's Black Box"). Read this book!

Rating:
Summary: attempt to reintroduce purpose-teleology back into biology
Review: It's an odd book, not at all what i expected. I only finished it the 3rd time i tried, after putting it to the bottom of the TBR pile as a waste of reading time. The reason i bought it was that recommendations had it being an important contribution to the Creation-Evolution-Design debate, being an account of purposefulness in the universe encoded in the very physical and biological laws of natural science. The first part, on physical constants(or constraints) and how little they can vary and still have a human being friendly universe, was tedious and boring. The reason i found it so was my expectations clashed with the books reality, i thought it was polemical, fast moving, directed at enemies near and far, in general combative. It's not, it is working through the details, especially the first half. So the reason i finished it is not the same reason as i bought it.

Secondly, it is a misused, misconstrued, misread book in the CEd debate. It is a testimony to the strength of the young earth creationists and their desire to completely polarize the conversation that this book is recommended as ID or even worse as creationist. Simply NOT TRUE, the author is a non-darwinian materialist evolutionist with several pages in the preface directed at this confusion. It is almost like the YEC believe the enemy of my enemies is my friend. Just like they jumped at punctuated evolution as a 'proof' of their thinking, they are jumping at this book.

This out of the way, what is the book about?
The first part, roughly half the book, is an extended, detailed account of physical things and how important their exact characteristics are to the presence of life on earth. This is really introduction to the second half, which are the particular characteristics of biological life are generative of the forms of life we see around us. Essentially the book is an argument against S.J.Gould's statement that if you replayed the video tape of life on earth it would be substantially different than it is because the driving forces are undirectional particularly the spontaneity of mutation.
To this argument the 12th chapter, "the tree of life" is, imho, the key point of the book. It is certainly possible to read it by itself and i would recommend this to anyone, the central themes of the chapter are not dependent upon the earlier material. The following chapters are the details of some pieces of the puzzle started in chapter 12, fleshed out, made into sections in their own right.

So i've reduced a 400+ page book to a careful reading of one chapter. So what is the point of "the tree of life"?

Taking the very old image of the tree of life, setting next to it the modern genetic idea of the investigation of DNA sequence space through time via evolution by creatures existing in morphological or phenotypic space. It is his idea that evolution 'fills', 'investigates', or 'explores' the tree of life in a directed, purposeful way. The chapter is a speculative look at the potential forces that could constraint, prune, force into channels this evolutionary force to literally build a tree where the main branches, the truck, maybe even the twigs, certainly the general form was implicit before hand in those laws and constraints. This looks very much like the Neoplatonic idea of forms updated to the world of PCR and Human Genomic Project.

It's speculative, often i wrote-argument from ignorance*- in the margin, as if he believed 'A' rather than 'B' because there was no 'C' on the horizon, and 'A' looked better than 'B'. The only example i really appreciated was the idea that Australia with it's extraordinary marsupial convergence towards placential animals elsewhere in the world, shows that Gould's tape has run a second time in the history of this world and produced much the same creatures, at least morphologically.

It's an interesting book, i would, if i could do the time over again, read chapter 12 to the end, then just skim the 1st half skipping the mass of uninteresting detail. It IS an important contribution to the CED debate but i am afraid from what i see written about it that people are not really reading it before they recommend it. One problem is that it will be attacked from both major sides in the debate. From the naturalistic darwinian evolutionists because not-teleology not-designed is a crucial element of their high level metaphysics and from the creationist side who can not conceive of a design without a designer or purpose without consciousness. The second problem is that it is not polemical, not convincing because it is so speculative and daring, more a putting out of new ideas to see how they fly then a fully mature consistent position.

*actually argument from personal incredulity....

Rating:
Summary: trying to reintroduce teleology-purpose back into biology
Review: It's an odd book, not at all what i expected. I only finished it the 3rd time i tried. The reason i bought it was that recommendations had it being an important contribution to the Creation-Evolution-Design debate, being an account of purposefulness in the universe encoded in the very physical and biological laws of natural science. The first part, on physical constants and how little they can vary and still have a human being friendly universe, was tedious and boring. The reason i found it so was my expectations, i thought it was polemical, fast moving, directed at enemies near and far, in general combative. It's not, it is working through the details, especially the first half. So the reason i finished it is not the same reason as i bought it.

Secondly, it is a misused, misconstrued, misread book in the CEd debate. It is a testimony to the strength of the young earth creationists and their desire to completely polarize the conversation that this book is recommended as ID or even creationist. Simply NOT TRUE, the author is non-darwinian materialist evolutionist with several pages in the preface directed at this confusion.

This out of the way, what is the book about?
The first part, roughly half the book is an extended, detailed account of physical things and how important their exact characteristics are to the presence of life on earth. This is really introduction to the second half, which are the particular characteristics of biological life are generative of the forms of life we see around us. Essentially the book is an argument about S.J.Gould's statement that if you replayed the video tape of life on earth it would be substantially different than it is because the driving forces are undirectional particularly the spontaneity of mutation.
To this argument the 12th chapter, "the tree of life" is, imho, the key point of the book. It is certainly possible to read it by itself and i would recommend this to anyone, the central themes of the chapter are not dependent upon the earlier chapters. The following chapters are the details of some pieces of the puzzle started in chapter 12, fleshed out.
So i've reduced a 400+ page book to a careful reading of one chapter. So what is the point of "the tree of life"?

Taking the very old image of the tree of life, setting next to it the modern genetic idea of the investigation of DNA sequence space through time via evolution by creatures existing in morphological or phenotypic space. It is his idea that evolution 'fills' 'investigates' 'explores' the tree of life in a directed, purposeful way. The chapter is a speculative look at the potential forces that could constraint, prune, force into channels this evolutionary force to literally build a tree where the main branches, the general form was implicit before hand in those laws and constraints.

It's speculative, often i wrote-argument from ignorance- in the margin, as if he believed 'A' rather than 'B' because there was no 'C' on the horizon, and 'A' looked better than 'B'. The only example i really appreciated was the idea that Australia with it's extraordinary marsupial convergence towards placential animals elsewhere in the world, shows that Gould's tape has run and produced much the same creatures.

It's an interesting book, i would, if i could do the time over again, read chapter 12 to the end, then just skim the 1st half skipping the mass of uninteresting detail. It is an important contribution to the CED debate but i am afraid from what i see written about it that people are not really reading it before they recommend it. One problem is that it will be attacked from both major sides in the debate. From the naturalistic darwinian evolutionists because not-teleology not-designed is a crucial element of their high level metaphysics and from the creationist side who can not conceive of a design without a designer or purpose without consciousness. The second problem is that it is not polemical, not convincing because it is so speculative and daring, more a putting out of new ideas to see how they fly then a fully mature consistent position.

Rating:
Summary: A Peculiar contribution; a worthwhile read
Review: This book could almost be seen as a sequel to Denton's first major critique of Darwinian Evolution, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis." In that book he devastates the Neo-Darwinian paradigm with evidence from various fields of biology, and concludes that life does appear to be designed. But then he does not follow the conclusion to a Designer, but remains a confirmed atheist (or agnostic). Apparently to resolve this peculiar stance of his, he writes the second volume, "Nature's Destiny". In it, he dives into a full-fledged purpose-driven (teleological) view of life and the universe. Or more accurately, what he proposes is a thoroughly deterministic view of life, based on the inherent physical and chemical constants in the laws of nature. While I by no means subscribe to his evolutionary conclusions regarding the evidence he propounds, I found the evidence and research he presented pointing to design to be fascinating.

What makes this book so peculiar is that the remarkable array of evidence he presents in the first 11 chapters is undeniably damaging to the Neo-Darwinian theories, a fact for which creationists and intelligent design advocates alike will applaud his book. Denton clearly shows how hundreds of discoveries in science have repeatedly bolstered rather than weakened the teleological view. Quite predictably, this evidence has made the evolutionists uncomfortable(see other reviews). Yet the conclusions that he draws from this evidence will undoubtedly spawn much more diverse reactions. He basically rejects the existence of God (and therefore cannot rightly be considered a true friend to creation or intelligent design), and retains evolution, albeit in a drastically altered form. His speculations are much more in line with the punctuated equilibrium theorists in this regard, but without relying on the randomness of mutations for the supposed upward drive of evolution. His rejection of God and retaining of evolution will no doubt please the hardened atheistic evolutionists on some level, but it will be interesting to see how the scientific community at large will react to this book. For the reasons I state above, almost all readers will pick and choose from this book, rather than falling directly in line with Denton's beliefs.

Thus where I found the true "meat" of the book to be was in the first 11 chapters, where he deals with scientific evidence pointing to design and purpose, and this is where the book excels. Denton's discussion of water's unique fitness for life, carbon as the standout element for organic chemistry, DNA as unsurpassed among any conceivable information-storing chemical, the rejection of alternate organic chemistries or any arbitrariness in the constituents of life, and much more, presents an astounding glimpse at how delicate and finely-tuned life really is. I found the chapter "Homo Sapiens: Fire Maker" to be one of the most fascinating in the book. Granted, he does enter into several "hypotheticals" in this chapter, but he does present a remarkable analysis of why humans are uniquely suited to possess intelligence and technology. Thus he even acknowledges humankind as the crown of creation. Denton, unlike so many evolutionists today, clearly sees the fingerprint of God in creation. What is so amazing about the book is that an atheist (or agnostic?) scientist presents the objectivity of design arguments. But he emphatically turns away when it comes to identifying God as the Designer. The second half of the book, with his conclusions, is a speculative mix of philosophical and negative theological reasoning, that leads him to the false god of a mystical materialistic purpose in nature. Based on his concluding arguments these book does not deserve 4 stars, but the overwhelming detail of evidence presented that objectively reveals design in nature, makes this book a very worthwhile read (and outweighs the latter portion of the book).

Rating:
Summary: Shall we substitute Science for Philosophy?
Review: This review is written in response to Kevin Closet's review. Over and over I have seen evolutionist's , when they cannot confront the scientific evidence. Revert to the old "Well, why would God have made the universe the way it is?", "Why do women die while giving labor?", "Why if there was a Creator does evil exist?". These objections are indeed fallacies, and belong to the realm of Philosophy, not Science. They hold no weight in a scientific refutation of evidence pointing to Intelligent Design. Kevin states the objection " Why is life so rare if there is a Creator? Why is there so much empty space in the Universe?" as if it is an unanswerable objection. It's not! It is only that you are looking at the Universe through your limited perception. For instance if there are dimension's higher than our standard three(and quantum physics seems to tell us there are, they would be totally beyond our realm of perception. Now let's say intelligent beings lived in one of these higher dimesions, we would be totally unaware of their existence. Their reality would be totally beyond ours, yet it to was created by God. Now their dimensions would be built of ours, just as our three dimensions our built of Length and Width. So their Universe is ours but in a higher reality. Thus the Universe you arogantly percieve as empty could be vibrant, healthy and full of life. Or perhaps there is more to be sensed than can be sensed by our five senses. A whole different Universe could exist, that we are unaware of that is full of life. See these emotional, subjective, objections, are answerable. So please stick to the empirical evidence. If there is something to be refuted do it in the scientific, and not the philisophical. I am all ears to real scientific objections. I just haven't heard any in all the reviews of Intelligent Design Theorists, I have read.

Rating:
Summary: Where does the buck stop?
Review: What's seeing what? How can structures be conscious? We know everything about neuroscience that we need to know--the brain is physical. Maybe Denton has really just not thought about this question. But that's ok--books don't have to be true, just sophisticated. As far as sophistication goes, _Nature's Destiny_ is the full deal. Biology is complex physics. Denton gives us a detailed exploration of the machines that we are, and the machine-cosmos in which we live. It may not be surprising, but at least I didn't tend to think of the fact that what we have here, in this reality, is the ultimate. This isn't the only possible cosmos, it's the best as well. Due to the physics/biology of our situation, humans are pretty much as intelligent as it's possible for lifeforms to be. But that's OK. Intelligence isn't our problem--we don't need better atomic bombs. We have all the artistic beauty we could ask for--DeLillo novels, Zappa guitar--name your ultimate art. Here I won't go into what our actual problem is, but that's fine since some of you don't believe we have a problem.

_Nature's Destiny_ is entertaining for those of us who have trouble believing there is an independent external reality. Can you imagine how the soul is connected to the body? What's the number of neurons at which point a brain becomes a mind? Because of questions like these, it's best to believe that life is a dream of god's--there's no physics but imagined physics. Do you actually believe in ontogeny? That a hundred-billion-neuron brain can emerge because of the information in a simple, not very long, linear sequence of genes? Do you believe in Law itself? That matter attracts matter? Absurd. But as Denton's previous book showed, the ultimate absurdity is Darwinian evolution. Life is a gift from god, but it's wrapped in giftwrap, which consists of theories like orthodox evolution theory, science's religion, that they like to program into us when we're young.

Denton's whole directed evolution thoughts are new to me, so I don't quite know what to think of them. That organisms naturally evolve through changes in DNA designed to move them to a next step away in genetic evolutionary space...