Rating: 
Summary: A response to fundamentalist Darwin true believers
Review: Needless to say, the Intelligent Design position has attracted much attention, and a large number of academics, both supporters and critics, in the last few years. Dembski can not respond to every critic in one book but in this 334 page work he does an excellent job responding to many of his critics. No doubt his next book will respond to yet another batch. Even if you disagree with ID, there is much useful information in this well written work. For example, he deals with the realization that DNA is a dynamic structure. The base pairs are always moving (actually vibrating) and holes are constantly opening and closing through the center of the DNA. Every femtosecond changes occur, yet the system is remarkably stable, partly because the cell's repair enzymes find, and repair, flaws along the cell's vast stretches of DNA. Research has now shown that DNA is part of a system that works as a unit, and certain basic parts, mostly complex proteins, must exist for it to function. This is what science research (of which I have been privileged to be a part of) tells us. Darwinism tells us a story based on conjecture and assumption. Dembski shows how and why ID is a superior explanation for what we see in the laboratory. Unfortunately, the Fundamentalist Darwin true believers will do their best to attack this book, but their rhetoric is now often so extreme that they often do not help their cause. Read the book and judge for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: answering critics effectively
Review: Some people collect coins, dolls, or cars. Dembski collects objections to ID. It must have been easy to collect objections. He has written several books, dozens of articles on paper and on the internet, and he has given probably hundreds of talks. Each of these venues attracts both supporters and opponents of ID. Most opponents have the full backing of academic institutions. In fact, some opposition comes in the form of official edicts from high above. And yet, support for ID continues to grow, even as its opponents grow more vocal.
No doubt, one reason for the great success of ID in recent years is Dembski's openness to dialogue with his most staunch opponents. Dembski and others in the ID movement are very open to receiving criticism and admitting where they might be mistaken. The academic community should pay close attention to how IDers handle criticism; they might have a thing or two to learn.
I think Dembski does a masterful job of answering objections to ID in "Design Revolutions". The opposition is back to square one. While it is hard to choose a "best" chapter of the 44, my personal favorite is "Peer Review". It contains some real horror stories.
Rating: 
Summary: The Design Counterrevolution
Review: The introduction by the noted miscreant of the Nixonian gang, Charles Colson, gives the game away with a remark on Kant and the 'fact versus faith' dichotomy. I wasn't aware of such a dichotomy (maybe he means the phenomenon/noumenon duality), and it would seem the ID proponents are worried about the Kantian challenge to the argument by design. Most who follow this wing of the Darwin debate are being treated to a deceptive pseudo-version of the 'argument by design'. But since the famous Kantian and other refutations of these proofs puts that out of the competition but are unknown to the crowd being 'reconditioned' if not brainwashed, it is touch and go, and the tactics of the now crystallized ID propaganda machine must proceed with caution lest anyone figure out the strategy (although I am sure Dembski is sincere, but wonder if he grasps how he is being used). I am not proponent of Darwinism or the Darwin propaganda machine, and can only look on disgruntled at the way the classic critiques of Darwin's theory of natural selection have been coopted by the religious right. Dembski's clever arguments matched with the likes of the Charles Colson's are not a trustworthy form of discourse and we now see the real cultural strategy of the right wing in action. This book is divided into piece pointman blurbs defending the new dogmas in a style that seems to court the boilerplate needs of the faithful.
Rating:
Summary: A Very Good Read; An Outstanding Resource
Review: This book is written for a general audience, and provides an interesting and informative read about the scientific theory of intelligent design (ID) and its importance to our understanding of biological systems in nature. The format is particularly interesting, as it is divided neatly into forty-four short question-and-answer sections. As a result, there is some overlap of content, but the repetition helps to reinforce key concepts and arguments without becoming redundant.Section two is quite interesting, for it is in the chapters contained therein that Dembski succinctly discusses the concept of a design inference, describes his explanatory filter for design, and deals with the related issues those concepts have given rise to. Particularly noteworthy is the section that follows (section three), which deals with information. I personally find issues pertaining to information-including its characteristics, generation and maintenance-to be downright fascinating. Expect several chapters of intriguing reading here. Section six is worth special mention because it contains important discussion about the promise of ID and what it will take for ID to become a fruitful program of scientific research. ID has some cultural and institutional barriers to overcome, but contains some intriguing possibilities that have only begun to be explored. As a non-scientist who is nonetheless familiar with most of the published literature in the contemporary Darwin vs. design debate, I found sections one and six particularly useful. (In the interest of disclosure I should point out that I am an attorney who works with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.) ID is frequently comes under scrutiny through the use of simplistic arguments that are really nothing more than the stuff of ad hominems, straw men, red herrings, genetic fallacies, etc. Dembski ably deals with these kinds of fallacious arguments while simultaneously building a strong, positive case for ID. It is all too often the case that skeptics of ID never bother to read the materials of ID proponents, instead relying upon the glosses of other ID skeptics. Should skeptics of ID wish to take their debate to a higher level of sophistication and nuance, they would do well to read this book before launching into their attacks. Persons who are interested in ID and its possibilities for explaining the information-rich, complex structures in biological systems will find this to be a useful resource. I recommend reading it through once and then keeping it as a handy reference for ID-related issues. This engaging book is highly recommended to anyone who is interested in ID and the Darwin vs. design debate.
Rating:
Summary: Stunning digest of a complicated movement
Review: This book really is a stunning accomplishment. Dembski is a real master at organizing a tremendous amount of material and getting straight to the point. The result can be slow going for the non-specialist like myself, but very rewarding. Despite all the desperate attempts to silence ID, they are not going away. Chapter 41 (Peer Review) alone is worth the cover price -- it shows the lengths to which the neo-Darwinian establishment will go to belittle and marginalize any creative attempts to question them. Whatever you think of ID and the debates, this chapter will interest anyone who cares about free speech and about the growing illiberal nature of the academy. Dembski, like several others in the ID movement (see Jonathan Wells, or some of the contributors to Mere Creation), is one of the great intellectual athletes of this generation: a Ph.D. in math from Chicago, another Ph.D. in philosophy; graduate and post doc degrees in theology (Princeton Seminary), computers, biology, etc. from places like Princeton U. and MIT, with a huge corpus of writings. He's a renaissance man who really is able to master several disciplines and show connections between them. That makes his books so fun and engaging even for people without special interest in science. Of all his books, I found this one probably the most engaging, and most able to help me see how ID ties into a larger framework of worldview issues.
Rating:
Summary: Another fine Dembski offering
Review: This book will be enjoyable and informative to anyone interested in the issue of intelligent design. Dembski covers a broad range of issues and objections related to his specialty in a question and answer format that makes it reasonably easy to follow, even for the lay reader. One reviewer below apparently felt that Dembski did not cover all the territory he needed to. Can it be that this individual does not understand the significance of the information question that is the focus of Dembski's work? Perhaps he expected a greater focus on nuts-and-bolts biology? At any rate, since the reviewer seemed to accuse the author of intellectual cowardice, he should have been more specific about Dembski's alleged problem areas at least. In my opinion, this book does a fine job of confronting the toughest objections to design head on. Buy and enjoy!
Rating: 
Summary: Evading Both the Toughest and the Easiest Questions
Review: This new book by William Dembski is of course what could be expected - a muddled and unsubstantiated attempt to bolster a conceptual set overwhelmingly rejected by scientists. Since I cannot provide here a detailed rebuttal of all the inconsistencies and plain errors which abound in Dembski's new opus, I will only point out that the subtitle of that book should more properly be replaced by "Evading Questions About Intelligent Design." To illustrate my assertion, note, for example, the following fact: Dembski's previous book was titled "No Free Lunch." This title referred to the "No Free Lunch theorems" proven by David Wolpert and Willian Macready. David Wolpert, who certainly is the foremost authority on his theorems, published a review of Dembski's book tellingly titled "Wlliam Dembski's Treatment of No Free Lunch Theorems Is Written in Jello." Dembski never responded to Wolpert's critique. Neither did he so in this new book, thus evading a question posited by Wolpert. The strong critique of Dembski's ideas by Thomas Schneider merited in the reviewed book the following passage: "Evolutionary biologists regularly claim to obtain specified complexity for free or from scratch. (Richard Dawkins and Thomas Schneider are some of the worst offenders in this regard)" If this statement is an "answer to a tough question" it is news to me. There are many other critics of intelligent design and/or of Dembski's ideas who asked questions, both tough and easy, but their names do not even appear in the Index of Dembski's book. Here is an incomplete list of such names: Eli Chiprout, Taner Edis, Ellery Eels, Branden Fitelson, Philip Kitcher, Mark Perakh, Massimo Pigliucci, Del Ratzsch, Jason Rosenhouse, Jeffrey Shallit, Niall Shanks, Christopher Stephenson, Erik Tellgren, Richard Wein, and Matt Young. (I apologize for also including myself - I have no reason to omit myself, and I am in good company on that list). This list could be continued. Therefore those readers who may be attracted by the rave editorial reviews and accolades heaped on Dembski's book by his cohorts must be warned: the subtitle of Dembski's book is deceptive - it better be replaced with "Evading Questions About Intelligent Design." As to the alleged Design Revolution promised by Dembski, let us wait and see. To my mind Intelligent Design theory, rather than generating a revolution in science, will land in the same place where the theory of phlogiston, the Blondlot's N-rays, and Velikovsky's great discoveries already reside.
Rating:
Summary: Answering the Right Questions about Intelligent Design
Review: This new book by William Dembski is what could be expected from the leader of the intelligent design movement - a clear and cogent justification of an intellectual program that is now captivating an increasing number of scientists. Since I cannot review here the detailed rebuttals of all the inconsistencies and plain errors which abound in the objections that Dembski takes on in this book, I will only point out that the subtitle of that book is quite appropriately titled as "Answering the Tougest Questions about Intelligent Design." To illustrate my point, note, for example, the following fact: Dembski's previous book was titled "No Free Lunch." This title referred to the "No Free Lunch theorems" proven by David Wolpert and Willian Macready. Terry Rickard, a machine intelligence expert who used to employ Bill Macready, and who certainly is an authority on these theorems, endorsed this book as follows: "Using impeccable information- and computation-theoretic arguments, Professor Dembski demonstrates that complex specified information cannot originate solely through the actions of natural laws, chance, or any combination of the two. This book does not question the many successes enjoyed by evolutionary algorithms in numerous fields of science and engineering. Rather, it illustrates the role of intelligent agency in the problem formulations that enables their convergence to useful solutions, and calls for a renewed recognition of design as a primary, not a derivative, aspect of our world." Dembski in this book has addressed all his most important critics. Those not mentioned in the index are likely not there because their critiques were weak, unsightful, or inconsequential. Therefore, those readers who may be attracted by the rave editorial reviews and accolades heaped on Dembski's book by should take them seriously. As to the Design Revolution promised by Dembski, it will be interesting to see whether those adopting a wait-and-see policy will not shortly be like those in 1989 just prior to the collapse of the Berlin Wall. To my mind the evolutionary alternative to Intelligent Design theory, is soon destined to land in the same place where the theory of phlogiston, the Blondlot's N-rays, and Velikovsky's great discoveries already reside.
Rating:
Summary: ID Should Be Based On Science
Review: While I do not reject creationist theology, I think ID must be based on science. Dembski's book is poor reading because it mixes the two. This is the same mistake the Darwinists make when they confuse their ID opponents with creationists. While the ID position shares much common ground with creationism, that position is strongest when it relies on it's scientific strengths, as with Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box: The Bio-Chemical Challenge To Evolution". If the argument for Intelligent Design is ever proven, then the question of whom the designer is can be addressed, until then the emotion-laden issue of God's existence should be put aside. Science and religion may one day come together but that day is not here yet.
Rating:
Summary: Avoiding the toughest questions about intelligent design
Review: While initially hopeful that this book would finally address scientific criticisms raised, it seems that Dembski has chosen to avoid dealing with the toughest questions.
For instance, Wesley Elsberry has presented the challenge of the 'algorithm room'. Inside a black box there is either a computer or a human who is going to solve the traveling salesman problem. After suitable time, the answer is presented. Since evolutionary computing can be used to find the solution, this example is to show that algorithms can in fact create 'complex specified information', contrary to Dembski's claims. If the observer however cannot distinguish between the apparant 'complex specified information' generated by the algorithm versus the 'real' 'complex specified information' generated by the intelligent designer then Dembski's approach to inferring design is fundamentally flawed.
Or the devastating critique by fellow intelligent design proponent Del Ratsch which remains to this date unaddressed
Del Ratzsch wrote in his book "Nature, Design and Science"
"So typically, patterns that are likely candidates for design are first identified as such by some unspecified ("mysterious") means, then with the pattern in hand S picks out side information identified (by unspecified means) as releavant to the particular pattern, then sees whether the pattern in question is among the various patterns that could have been constructed from that side information. What this means, of course, is that Dembski's design inference will not be particularly useful either in initial recognition or identification of design."
Other shortcomings, and they are not trivial, include avoiding to explain why when calculating probabilities of events, Dembski uses two different methods depending on whether the event was human caused or not. When it is known that a human has caused the event, Dembski ignores the history of the events and assumes that the events are equiprobable and independent thus inflating the probabilities leading to a 'successful' design inference. But when calculating the probabilities for non-intelligent events, Dembski uses the causal history thus deflating the probabilities. In other words, the outcome is determined by the method chosen.
In other words, the 'toughest questions' are avoided. And for good reason because the real tough questions show that Dembski's Design inference is fundamentally flawed and useless.
For instance: "no false positive". Dembski argues that his approach does not generate "false positives", in other words whenever it detects design it does so 100% reliably. Dembski has to argue this since his approach is one of elimination, or appeal to ignorance and thus any possibility of a false positive would render his method useless.
Dembski's opinion on "false positives" seems to have evolved over time. From an initial claim of reliability and "no false positives" via an admission that if the filter erroneously attributes design, it is useless to acceptance of "false positives", the "Explanatory Filter" evolved from reliable to useless.
In 1996 Dembski argued:
"I argue that the explanatory filter is a reliable criterion for detecting design. Alternatively, I argue that the Explanatory Filter successfully avoids false positives. Thus whenever the Explanatory Filter attributes design, it does so correctly."
From: The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design. An excerpt from a paper presented at the 1996 Mere Creation conference, originally titled "Redesigning Science."
In 1999 he states "On the other hand, if things end up in the net that are not designed, the criterion will be useless." From: Dembski, William, 1999. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology. P 141.
and in 2001 "Now it can happen that we may not know enough to determine all the relevant chance hypotheses. Alternatively, we might think we know the relevant chance hypotheses, but later discover that we missed a crucial one. In the one case a design inference could not even get going; in the other, it would be mistaken. But these are the risks of empirical inquiry, which of its nature is fallible. Worse by far is to impose as an a priori requirement that all gaps in our knowledge must ultimately be filled by non-intelligent causes."
From: Dembski, William, 2001. No Free Lunch, Rowman & Littlefield, p 123
Seems that Dembski's argument evolved from 'no false positives' to 'false positives are inevitable' but if that is the case then the design inference is useless per Dembski's own words.
Or Dembski's initial reliance of the No Free Lunch theorems which he used to claim that evolutionary processes cannot generate complex specified information. Dembski's appeal to these theorems was ill founded and erroneous.
In 1999:
"It follows that the vast majority of fitness functions on the phase space that coincide with our original fitness function on the target but reshuffle the function on the partition elements outside the target will not land the evolutionary algorithm in the target (this result is essentially a corollary of the No Free Lunch theorems by Wolpert and Macready). Simply put, the vast majority of fitness functions will not guide E into the target even if they coincide with our original fitness function on the target (see Appendix 8)."
Why Evolutionary Algorithms Cannot Generate Specified Complexity, Metanews, Nov 1999
In 2001:
"The title of this book, No Free Lunch, refers to a collection of mathematical theorems proved in the past five years about evolutionary algorithms. The upshot of these theorems is that evolutionary algorithms, far from being universal problem solvers, are in fact quite limited problem solvers that depend crucially on additional information not inherent in the algorithms before they are able to solve any interesting problems. This additional information needs to be carefully specified and fine-tuned, and such specification and fine-tuning is always thoroughly teleological. Consequently, evolutionary algorithms are incapable of providing a computational justification for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation as the primary creative force in biology. The subtitle, Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, refers to that form of information, known as specified complexity or complex specified information, that is increasingly coming to be regarded as a reliable empirical marker of purpose, intelligence, and design."
From: Introduction to No Free Lunch 10-01-2001
and
The Design Inference laid the groundwork. This book demonstrates the inadequacy of the Darwinian mechanism to generate specified complexity. Darwinists themselves have made possible such a refutation. By assimilating the Darwinian mechanism to evolutionary algorithms, they have invited a mathematical assessment of the power of the Darwinian mechanism to generate life's diversity. Such an assessment, begun with the No Free Lunch theorems of David Wolpert and William Macready (see section 4.6), will in this book be taken to its logical conclusion. The conclusion is that Darwinian mechanisms of any kind, whether in nature or in silico, are in principle incapable of generating specified complexity. Coupled with the growing evidence in cosmology and biology that nature is chock-full of specified complexity (cf. the fine-tuning of cosmological constants and the irreducible complexity of biochemical systems), this conclusion implies that naturalistic explanations are incomplete and that design constitutes a legitimate and fundamental mode of scientific explanation.
And Dembski's reversal: Given my title, it's not surprising that critics see my book No Free Lunch as depending crucially on the No Free Lunch theorems of Wolpert and Macready. But in fact, my key point concerns displacement, and the NFL theorems merely exemplify one instance (not the general case). The basic idea behind displacement is this: Suppose you need to search a space of possibilities. The space is so large and the possibilities individually so improbable that an exhaustive search is not feasible and a random search is highly unlikely to conclude the search successfully. As a consequence, you need some constraints on the search - some information to help guide the search to a solution (think of an Easter egg hunt where you either have to go it cold or where someone guides you by saying "warm" and "warmer"). All such information that assists your search, however, resides in a search space of its own - an informational space. So the search of the original space gets displaced to a search of an informational space in which the crucial information that constrains the search of the original space resides. I then argue that this higher-order informational space ("higher" with respect to the original search space) is always at least as big and hard to search as the original space.
|
