Rating: 
Summary: Dr. sarfati's refuting evolution....
Review: - is perhaps a more satisfying read.
to quote an above review:
[phlogiston theory, Flat Earth, Intelligent Design, January 1, [2005
[Reviewer: Noman "0000" (Seattle, WA USA)
[A lot of very smart people have had some nutty ideas. (Newton [was a devoted alchemist for instance) Intelligent Design is
[another example trying to make reality fit dogma.
[Perhaps there is/was a designer. BUT,
[Q: Who designed GOD? (and then, who designed that [designer . . .ad infinitum.)
_______________________________________________
Easily answered! So glad you asked that VERY question.
THE two choices, as simple as can be stated:
a.) Poof! The universe just appeared all by itself.
Which still leaves you with the problem of *energy's* origin, ad infinitum!
Unless.... you propose particles that didn't exist *until they exploded*, exploded, thus causing this mess we see before us. Which is of course paradox. (and ridiculous).
b.) God has always existed and created it. (I won't say God just appeared because that's NOT what Christians or Jews believe)
An Interesting Fact;
The First Law of Thermodynamics:
Energy can be changed from one form
to another, but it cannot be created
or destroyed.
The total amount of energy and
matter in the Universe remains
constant, merely changing from
one form to another...(etc)
Exodus 3:14 - "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM"
God claims to have never poofed into existence! Which,
as we can see from the First law of Thermodynamics,
would be scientifically "impossible".
If you can prove that that is somehow inconsistent with science I implore you to do so.
There are many may brilliant people in the world who *know* God, and equally as many who don't. This indicates the key is not brilliance alone. So what is the key? "Seek and you will find", and "You will find me when you seek me with all your heart."
It's painfully easy and impossible all at once. Very, very difficult for people of pride, arrogance, and intelligence, still difficult for those of humility, meekness, and intelligence.
The real question is not "How did this occur" but rather "Who is God?". Logically, if you wish to know the operational substance and mechanics of a device the designer is a *good* source of schematic data. Not that He would just give us ALL the answers....that would be rather boring.
There is obviously so much more to this issue that can be rationalized or intellectualized into resolution.
Good luck.
[If you want to find God, ask a four year old for directions.]
+montana.
Rating: 
Summary: phlogiston theory, Flat Earth, Intelligent Design
Review: A lot of very smart people have had some nutty ideas. (Newton was a devoted alchemist for instance) Intelligent Design is another example trying to make reality fit dogma.
Perhaps there is/was a designer. BUT,
Q: Who designed GOD? (and then, who designed that designer . . .ad infinitum.)
Rating: 
Summary: Someone/thing has chosen wisely: Uncanny Selection
Review: As a professional in the scientific research field, I find this book challenging intellectually and stimulating to myself and my colleagues. The main question for those rejecting ID and embracing its alternative DD (Dumb Determinism, or Deterministic Developmentalism) is: which postulation administers the most satisfactory answer to why of necessity there has been an unbroken, uninterrupted sequential, cumulative increase (Quality and Quality) in useful information in our universe? We deride the notion of Spontaneous Generation (in no-time or like time-lapse photography or fast-forwarding an accelerated video), but have no problem with the identical concept in magnified astronomical time-delay or decelerated super-slo-mo trillions of frames over billions of years? Instantaneous or Spontaneous or Extemporaneous or 'spur of the moment',nope. Extenuaneous, Superannuated, 'spur of the megatemporal', yep.
Both ID and DD deal with information creation, identification, evaluation and decisioned opting in or out as functional or non-functional. Both deal with sorting. Both deal with selectivity of data. The other question for DD (that ID answers) is: how does the universe get from a-Necessity to Necessity? How does it get from No-Chance to Chance? Needlessness to Need? Neither Random nor non-Random to either or both??
ID deals with Big Beginning; DD deals with Big Banging. Question for DD: at Absolute Zero pre matter/energy/space-time, what triggered a non-existent 'Bigness' to 'Bangness' status? Before anything was, theoretically there was no chance, no need, no will, no intent, no necessity, no random, no concept of anything, no choices, no options for natural selection to operate from, no nature, no selectionability. All of a sudden DD has us take on faith that all this and more came to be 'just because'?
DD is all about Progressive Process from nothing to everything, Advantageous Adaptation from simple to complex; extemporaneous evolving from Lesser to Greater; from 'no end in mind' to 'mind in the end'. Is this what we observe in 1st Law of Thermodynamics (nothing of itself can be created or destroyed) and 2nd Law (nothing of itself upgrades its complexity or functionality, but greater degradation the longer the time-devolution- is the fixed rule) as well as the law of diminishing returns (xerox of a xerox of a xerox ad seq.)?
If there could be no 'Artificial Intelligence' without superior Human ID, how could there be Human Intelligence without a higher Superiority Order of Intelligization? Can the universe really get the Greater from the Lesser? If AI can't create itself through DD (Natural Selection), how can we hold the creed that DD created itself and its own I.Q. equal or superior who in turn creates AI?
Ultimately it all comes down to faith in presented data as personal Control Beliefs dictate should be admitted into one's court: experimentation, observation, experience, intuition, historical inquiry, firsthand eyewitness Exhibit A,B,C,etc. Both ID and DD present their cases. After a preponderance of the evidence, which is the most compelling?
This book settles with: ID - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The other side makes their Intellectual Selection: DD - Doubt a Reasonable Beyond.
Rating:
Summary: Let the Revolution Begin
Review: by Donald McLaughlinWhen Charles Darwin penned his "Origin of Species" 150 years ago, he knew that there would be controversy over his assigning to purely natural causes what up until that time most people had credited to the work of a designer. Indeed, most academics and scientists of that era would have credited the origin of biological life to the work of a supernatural Designer. Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection changed all that. And here we are 150 years later, and the debate is still ongoing in spite of statements from within Darwinian circles that the debate ended 150 years ago. To co-opt a quip from Mark Twain, rumors of the death of design in biology are greatly exaggerated. Plain evidence for the interest in design and design arguments can be found in the wealth of books and websites dedicated to explaining design concepts, exposing weaknesses in evolutionary theory, and conceptualizing means of detecting design in biological systems. These books and articles are, for the most part, written by legitimate scientists who see scientific problems with the theory of evolution and see scientific promise in intelligent design. For those familiar with this ongoing debate, the name of William Dembski will not be unfamiliar. He has been on the forefront of the public debate and his several books and articles are often referenced, both favorably and unfavorably, depending on one's point of view on the issue. His latest entry, "The Design Revolution" presents in one volume all the major concepts of Intelligent Design and the objections raised against them by critics, and argues for their inclusion as bona fide science. He succeeds admirably on all fronts. Readers of Dembski's other works will recognize many of the arguments presented in this volume. But this book is not merely a selected anthology of Dembski's other works. Rather, TDR brings together all of the major arguments for and against ID in one easy to follow volume, neatly laid out in 44 short chapters which are grouped into six topical sections. Each section deals with an overall theme of the ID arguments and each chapter deals with a specific question drawn mostly from actual criticisms that ID skeptics have leveled against ID. While Dembski's draws a number of his arguments from his other books and articles, they are not just lifted wholesale and dropped into this volume. In many instances he elaborates or elucidates those arguments and makes them more accessible to a general reader. For those unfamiliar with the debate, TDR provides a clear and concise introduction to the major arguments and their implications for evolution, design and science. For fair-minded readers, this book should, but likely won't, put an end to the debate over the scientific status of ID. Every major argument used by those opposed to including ID within science and science curriculum is presented and refuted in this volume. The conclusion to be drawn from reading this book is that there is no good argument or scientific reason to keep ID from attaining full scientific status. That, of course, doesn't guarantee ID's success as a scientific endeavor, but it does mean that, as Dembski effectively argues in this book, there are no good scientific or philosophical reasons to restrict ID from science and science curriculum. While ID skeptics and critics will no doubt continue to voice opposition to including ID within science, this book makes it far more difficult for them to rehash the same tired arguments they've used in the past. Dembski has done a masterful job of sweeping the decks clear of those objections. Let the revolution begin.
Rating:
Summary: When actually read, this book answers questions.
Review: I am simply disheartened by the dearth of actual consideration displayed by many reviewers of this book. One cannot use this book review as a chance to rant about Dembski's past work and call it a book review. The reason of The Design Revolution is to handle the same criticisms that are cited in many of the Amazon reviews of this book. While I will give some of my opinions on the book, I first find it important to address some issues.
For instance, do not review this book if you have not read it. Just because one does not feel that intelligent design (ID) satisfies his/her a priori dogmatisms does not mean that he/she has the right to reject this book, or even intelligent design for that matter. Doing so would be a prime example of apriorism, a logical fallacy. It is surely ironic that virtually all of those here who pass off this book as drivel, without even considering the content of it, do so while practically proclaiming Charles Darwin -- who said that "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question" -- is correct. Ah, but the critic may reply with some silly "objections."
The easiest way for the fundamentalist Darwinist to evade this attack is to say that there are no facts or arguments behind intelligent design. They use the fact that Dembski is a Christian to constitute their decision to impulsively reject the book as creationist propaganda. This action is not only illogical, it is also intrinsically unscientific, since the act refuses to weigh the evidence supporting their claim that it is creationist propaganda. Once again, this is quite ironic.
In fact, if the critic claiming that ID is biblical/scientific creationism in a tux, a theological enterprise, part of a political agenda, etc., would actually read the book (or even Part 1 of the book), then he/she might find answers quite easily. Of course, honest objections to the book are welcomed by Dembski, since he takes time to respond to many of the objections. However, saying that this book is written for the choir, calling Dembski a religious fundamentalist, declaring the book "thinly disguised Christian blather," and asserting that the book is invalid by saying that Charles Colson, the Watergate felon and the author of the Foreword, is not a scientist are not honest objections. They are logical fallacies (apriorism, argumentum ad lapidem, argumentum ad hominem, and the red herring, to name a few). They display no sign of willingness to search for an answer. Those ignorant objections simply show prior, dogmatic commitments to other ideas, and no amount of books could shake that critic's faith; this person has closed his/her mind.
With all of that said, I will focus on the book. I believe that The Design Revolution definitely achieved Dembski's goal to compile all of the common objections to ID and answer them as completely, yet as briefly, as possible. These answers needed to be somewhat brief in order for Dembski to address as many as possible. I've found that the more complicated questions did require more space, and that was important.
I honestly cannot think of any question about intelligent design that Dembski "evaded," as declared by an earlier reviewer. Perhaps Dembski didn't address every critic of his own work, but he was never under any obligation to answer every critic. Some of the critics here have used the subtitle of the book against Dembski by saying that it should have been "Evading the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design."
However, one particular person favoring such a title change followed his point by saying that Dembski hasn't published a response to many ID critics. Notice that the subtitle does not say, "Answering All of the Critics of William Dembski." Dembski wrote this book so he could publish objections to the theory, not so he could argue with his critics. If you are actually searching for Dembski's replies to specific objections made my specific people, go to his website (www.designinference.com/) to find some of them.
If you are a strict Bible fundamentalist, then this book might not be for you. While someone may say that this book is disguised biblical fundamentalism, Dembski does not even talk about his biblical beliefs. All I know is that he is a Christian. Therefore, for all I know, he could reject much of the Bible. It's not my place, nor is it this book's place, to elaborate on such a thing. However, I do know that Dembski rejects six-day creationism, so strict fundamentalists might reject this book, along with ID, as heresy. However, this act is not supported by logic, and it is very narrow-minded. Fundamentalists should only read this if they are willing to consider ID.
Furthermore, the statement above also applies to fundamentalist Darwinists. Such people cannot be expected to get anything from this book, since they will probably read it while doodling along the margins, merely looking at the pretty words, and cheerfully turning the pages just to say that they read the book. They can then triumphantly drop the book and say that they are still atheist Darwinists after reading the book. This, also, defies reason and is purely unscientific, by any definition.
Therefore, this book is for the honest questioner. If you wonder whether ID is disguised theology, if you think that the religious motivation of ID proponents might render ID unsubstantiated, if you think that the impossibility of optimal design is a true threat to ID, if you have questions about Dembski's acclaimed Explanatory Filter, if you find it strange that science heartily welcomes the search for extraterrestrial intelligence yet vehemently rejects the search for a designer of biological systems, if you ponder the problem of the origin of information (DNA), if you wonder how ID is compatible with naturalism, if you think that the design inference is an argument from ignorance (and are willing to listen to answers), if you think that David Hume concluded all logical talk of a possible designer, or if you just wonder what in the world all of this talk about intelligent design is for, then this is your book. If your mind is open, and if you will read, study, and reflect on the thoughts presented by Dembski -- without any silly, a priori commitments -- then read this book. You will enjoy it.
Rating:
Summary: Such a disappointment
Review: I began this book with an open mind, hoping to encounter some persuasive arguments for the point of view that Darwinian evolution is incomplete. Unfortunately, Dembski assumes what he purports to demonstrate, that living things are so complicated and well-suited to their environment that they simply must have been designed. He argues that since we cannot detail the evolutionary processes that produced life and its complexity, we must admit the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that a Designer created key elements through direct innovation, bypassing gradual processes.
It really is a question of faith. Given that life is wonderfully complex, and that complexity is presently unexplained, do you have faith in the power of natural processes, or faith in the intervention of a Designer? That is a matter of personal choice. The problem is, Dembski wants to re-define science so that it includes non-natural processes. Intelligent design "regards natural laws that characterize natural causes as fundamentally incomplete." (pg 148) But science is all about investigating natural laws and natural causes, and it hasn't nearly run its course. It is perfectly reasonable to hold intelligent design in reserve as an explanation should science prove inadequate, and a person might choose to favor intelligent design where the science is incomplete, being skeptical that all causes are natural. But design takes over where science ends. To put intelligent design into science short-circuits scientific inquiry. Explaining life is a hard problem; Dembski asserts that it is insoluble. I was hoping for more than an assertion.
Rating:
Summary: There is something going on here...
Review: I believe this will end up being an important book in the ID movement...but not because it offers any new insights or ID defenses. It doesn't. It also doesn't necessarily discredit naturalistic processes. What this book does is thoroughly catalogs the ID position and demonstrates the "reasonability" of the ID argument when compared to undirected "macro-adaptation" (neo-Darwinism, I guess) as an explanstion for the rise and diversification of life on Earth. "Thinking people" with doubts about naturalism fear not---you will WANT to be on this side of the debate after reading this book. The arguments are presented clearly and fairly---your world view will determine if an event is either "obvious" or "mind-numbingly improbable". I got the strong sense reading the book that Dembski feels ID (as a science...not a philosophy) needs a breakthru (decisive confirmation) in order to progress. This is a high-bar considering how little we really know about the universe (sort of like flatlanders trying to "prove" spheres exist)...but at least it's POSSIBLE (unlike neo-Darwinism which is utterly un-provable). Today I read that an ounce of dried DNA has the information storage capacity of 1 Trillion CDs. Now, a CD is pretty cool, and I'm glad that someone WAY smarter than me invented them. Yet the materialist happily acknowledges that "nature" has randomly produced a substance a mere fraction of the size of a CD with...ummm...a TRILLION times more processing capability. There is something going on here...
Rating:
Summary: Good money after bad
Review: I have not had the fortune of hearing Dembski in person, but have seen a video that featured him debating his 'theory' with a humanist -Eugene Schott, and a theologian (reverend I am sorry to have forgotten your name). Dembski comes across as a superficial pamphleteer who hasn't bothered to keep himself up-to-date on either science or religion. Dembski's scientific output hasn't travelled past his math dissertation. I thought that the man would have something to say on religion. But the reverend put paid to my hopes, leaving Dembski at a loss for words. Dembski has done enough to misrepresent scientists and should do stop rendering the same unto priests and pastors of the Church. Instead of compiling "lists' of scientists who 'doubt' evolution, Dembski should draw up lists of priests and pastors who have no time for his pseudoscience. I am glad I ddidn't buy this book - I wouldn't even if someone paid me to. It ignores (probably because it has no answers to) the many questions that have been raised about Dembski's unfounded assertions. The scientific literature is vast - way beyond what Demsbki can even imagine. If there are still people who would rather read his pamphlets, well it is theri decision.
Rating:
Summary: ID: "Intelligent (?) Drivel"
Review: I recently saw a portion of the author's discussion about ID (and this book) on CSPAN, and thought I would see what it was about ... might be interesting ... it wasn't!!! The book was a total struggle to get through. "Disappointed" doesn't even come close to my reaction. Long before I finished the book I couldn't help but draw many many conclusions, some of which I found the author trying to refute as I read later chapters. I have never read any critiques, or otherwise, about ID or the author, so my response is soley from his own words.
Nothing the author discussed justified anything that could remotely be construed as "science" or intellectual. Eventually I concluded that this guy is already a lobbyist, or wants to create a lobby for those who don't like Darwinism taught in the public schools. By getting ID to be a "respectable science" or research project, it can then "compete in the market-place of ideas", as he states. Public funding would be nice Mr. Dembski ... wouldn't it?
There were so many suppositions, misstatements about science, unsupported contentions, ad nauseum that I started having fun annotating the margins in order to get through the book ... Discussions of "reality" as a sophmore in college far exceeded anything this book had to offer.
I was kind of intrigued however about those "unembodied designers" in ID. I guess I am having difficulty visualizing, conceptualizing or sensing them? Do I have to take them on "faith" ... Mr Dembski? I am amazed at the diversity found in nature ... and I am amazed at this author actually expending so much time and effort on this drivel.
The book is not written for the general reader or a serious scientific reader (religious or not) ... it is written for the choir.
Rating:
Summary: THIS IS RELIGION, NOT SCIENCE - DON'T CONFUSE THEM!
Review: If you are an intelligent reader with an open mind, please be advised that this is a religious tract without basis in scientific thinking. Virtually every "problem" the author raises with regard to evolutionary theory ("Darwinism") has already been refuted - over and over again, in fact. Indeed, in the "marketplace of ideas" that the author claims to wish for, the 'intelligent design' movement has already lost. Its ideas remain viable only in the minds of fundamentalists with an agenda - and that agenda does not include an honest, scientific appraisal of observable and testable facts. If you are a fundamentalist and are inclined to believe this stuff anyway and are looking to feel good, then this book is for you. But if you are intelligent and rational, then recognize this book for what it is - the worst sort of propaganda that seeks to undermine our constitutional laws requiring the separation of church and state. If you want a good book that refutes these ideas in one place, see "Denying Evolution" by Massimo Pigliucci, Sinauer Press (2003).
|
