This compact guide lays out the basics of Intelligent Design, popularly known as ID. William Dembski, the dean of the intelligent-design movement, and Sean McDowell especially target readers whose understanding may have been confused by educational bias and one-sided arguments and attacks. Commonsense and no-nonsense, with pointed examples, the authors explain Clarifying crucial issues, this key resource gives nonspecialists a solid grasp of one of today's foundational religious-scientific-cultural concepts.
A mathematician and philosopher, Dr. William Dembski has taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. He is the recipient of a $100,000 Templeton research grant. In 2005 he received Texas A&M’s Trotter Prize.
Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, engineering, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of over twenty books.
His most comprehensive treatment of intelligent design to date, co-authored with Jonathan Wells, is titled The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems.
As interest in intelligent design has grown in the wider culture, Dr. Dembski has assumed the role of public intellectual. In addition to lecturing around the world at colleges and universities, he is frequently interviewed on the radio and television. His work has been cited in numerous newspaper and magazine articles, including three front page stories in the New York Times as well as the August 15, 2005 Time magazine cover story on intelligent design. He has appeared on the BBC, NPR (Diane Rehm, etc.), PBS (Inside the Law with Jack Ford; Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson), CSPAN2, CNN, Fox News, ABC Nightline, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
Great primer on the subject of intelligent design. William Dembski coined the term "Intelligent Design" some years ago but it is just now really getting some momemtum. If it can be "proven" that organic life has intelligent design then there must be a designer.
In short, this book won't be of any use to you unless you have a pre-established belief in creationism/ID. It’s not for moderates or agnostics, it’s Christian centered. That’s not a stab at the book per se, but if you’re reading for an unbiased scientific perspective on design, find another book. The authors would be quick to point out that the motive of scientific speculation shouldn’t matter, but it might to you as a reader.
With a few exceptions, I don’t review books on religion/agnosticism/atheism because for that type of high-stress dialogue, you can pay me, or feed me dinner and meet me by a fireplace with a mug of coffee, honestly. It’s too big for star-based book reviews that don’t even allow for decimals.
I decided to review this book to highlight what value there was to be found for me. Here are the interesting concepts brought to light.
● Many creationists site the Cambrian explosion as a refute for Darwinism, and whether or not you agree, the Cambrian explosion is a fascinating event to look in to.
● The File Drawer Effect (positive result bias) is real, and horrifying.
● Challenging the status quo and consensus science is difficult, even with compelling evidence, never mind a speculative, underdeveloped concept that requires more research. (I found this interesting simply because the scientific community is always seen as having no agenda) The difficulty for such a challenge is good (because if something is true, it can’t be undone. You can’t break a law, you can only break yourself against the law) and bad (because truth can be hard to distinguish. No one wanted to let go of ‘Earth-As-The-Center' when Copernicus hit the scene. How do we know when a new Copernicus-radical concept is on the rise with positive result bias in the way?).
● Specified complexity (also called irreducibly complex) is the main philosophy surrounding ID, and if you enjoy critical thinking, it’s worth examining. Youtube has masses of online debate on it.
Those were the high points for me. This book has some value, but definitely isn't for everyone. It certainly didn’t detail good evidence for creationism. Put next to a book like Your Inner Fish, downright sad.
If I ever teach a course in introductory logic I will use this book to demonstrate logical fallacies, as it contains copious examples of nearly every type of bad logic of which I am aware. Though Intelligent Design is often called a revolution this book contains much the same polemics, apologetics, and arguments from ignorance characteristic of the young earth creationist movement, though often watered down. The familiar "evolution is a religion" and "Darwinism equals immorality" strawman rhetoric, extensive Bible quotes followed by assertions that "Intelligent Design is scientific," looms large in the first few chapters. The work ends with the hackneyed and admittedly disconcerting "Christians who accept evolution are wolves in sheep's clothing", "We are being persecuted by those awful godless scientists", and the obligatory "onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war" pap.
Admittedly, however, between these unpalatable layers this book contains a great deal more actual scientific data than its creationist antecedents, tortured though it has been to serve the purposes of this work. It did have its moments. Dembski is clearly a bright guy, and there is some thoughtful stuff in here. At least the Big Bang and 13.8 billion year-old universe are explicitly accepted. There are many interesting modern questions raised here that cry out for answers.
I can't help but wonder when the two sides of this philosophical (notably NOT scientific) debate: "I don't know, therefore God" and "I don't know, but anything other than God" will drop the smug and misplaced sense of certainty and simply state "I don't know."
It serves its purpose well as a general introduction, not sparing the heavier implications and deductions of ID out of the book. I recommend it for just about anyone beginning their foray into this most stimulating of subjects and fields of research.