What do you think?
Rate this book
Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA
William Dembski, Michael Ruse, and other prominent philosophers provide here a comprehensive balanced overview of the debate concerning biological origins--a controversial dialectic since Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859. Invariably, the source of controversy has been "design." Is the appearance of design in organisms (as exhibited in their functional complexity) the result of purely natural forces acting without prevision or teleology? Or, does the appearance of design signify genuine prevision and teleology, and, if so, is that design empirically detectable and thus open to scientific inquiry? Four main positions have emerged in response to these questions: *Darwinism* *self-organization* *theistic evolution* *intelligent design*. The contributors to this volume define their respective positions in an accessible style, inviting readers to draw their own conclusions. Two introductory essays furnish a historical overview of the debate. William A. Dembski is an associate research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University as well as a senior fellow with Seattle's Discovery Institute. His most important books are The Design Inference Cambridge, 1998) and No Free Lunch (Rowman and Littleton, 2002). Michael Ruse is Lucyle T. Wekmeister Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University. He is the author of many books, including Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?: The Relationship Between Science and Religion (Cambridge, 2000).
Hardcover
First published July 1, 2004
9 people are currently reading
255 people want to read
About the author
William A. Dembski
51 books119 followersA 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
March 22, 2009
An excellent book on the topic, as the book offers 4 different perspectives on intelligent design are discussed: Pro-evolution/anti-ID, self-organization, theistic evolution, and anti-evolution/pro-ID.
If you really want to know the different players in the field in a fair and balanced overview, this is an excellent overview.
After reading this book, I myself went from being anti-evolution/pro-ID to being both anti-evolution and anti-ID. Self-organization probably is on to something, but it is too new of a field to have yielded any real insights.
If you really want to know the different players in the field in a fair and balanced overview, this is an excellent overview.
After reading this book, I myself went from being anti-evolution/pro-ID to being both anti-evolution and anti-ID. Self-organization probably is on to something, but it is too new of a field to have yielded any real insights.
August 18, 2024
A MARVELOUS COLLECTION OF BOTH "PRO" AND "CON" ARTICLES ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN,
Editor William Albert Dembski (born 1960) is a key figure in the "Intelligent Design" movement, who is a professor at the Southern Evangelical Seminary and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute. He has written/edited many other books, such as'The Design Inference,' 'Intelligent Design,' 'The Design Revolution,' 'Uncommon Dissent,' etc. Michael Ruse (born 1940) is a philosopher of science who teaches at Florida State University, and has written books such as he Darwinian Revolution,' 'The Evolution-Creation Struggle,' 'Darwinism and its Discontents,' 'Mystery of Mysteries,' etc.
The General Introduction to this 2004 collection states, "There are of course already books that deal with Intelligent Design and with the arguments of the critics... We believe, however, that there is virtue in producing one volume, containing arguments from both sides, in which each side puts forward its strongest case... The reader then can quickly and readily start to grasp the fundamental claims and counterclaims being made." (Pg. 4) Besides Dembski and Ruse, contributors include Francisco Ayala, Kenneth Miller ['Finding Darwin's God'], Robert Pennock ['Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics'], Stuart Kauffman, Paul Davies, John Polkinghorne, Keith Ward, Richard Swinburne, Michael Behe, etc.
One essayist notes, "critics press the case that ID has not generated significant scientific journal articles or data... If what counts as science depends on the verdict of peer review, then, it is claimed, ID has yet to establish a track record. In response, proponents of ID have made a number of points. First, they argue that it is not so much new data as the interpretation of existing data that matters. The scientists within the ID movement... have published articles in scientific journals (which do not mention ID); and they have published peer-reviewed work (which does mention ID) outside of scientific journals." (Pg. 44-45)
Pennock points out, "Kenneth Miller asked Dembski and Behe ... during a debate... and neither was willing to take a stand on even one specific point in time at which ["insertion of design"] supposedly occurred. The pattern of vagueness and evasion regarding the specific theoretical commitments or possible tests of ID is pervasive... If ID is to have even a shot at being a real scientific alternative, one should expect to see some precise, testable... hypotheses that answer the obvious questions: what was designed and what wasn't; and when, where, how, and by whom was design information supposedly inserted?" (Pg. 133)
Behe observes, "A common misconception is that designed systems would have to be created from scratch in a puff of smoke. But that isn't necessarily so. The design process may have been much more subtle. In fact, it may have contravened no natural laws at all... If quantum events such as radioactive decay are not governed by causal laws, then it breaks no law of nature to influence such events. As a theist like [Kenneth] Miller, that seems perfectly possible to me." (Pg. 357-358)
This book should be considered "must reading" for anyone seriously studying the Intelligent Design movement.
Editor William Albert Dembski (born 1960) is a key figure in the "Intelligent Design" movement, who is a professor at the Southern Evangelical Seminary and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute. He has written/edited many other books, such as'The Design Inference,' 'Intelligent Design,' 'The Design Revolution,' 'Uncommon Dissent,' etc. Michael Ruse (born 1940) is a philosopher of science who teaches at Florida State University, and has written books such as he Darwinian Revolution,' 'The Evolution-Creation Struggle,' 'Darwinism and its Discontents,' 'Mystery of Mysteries,' etc.
The General Introduction to this 2004 collection states, "There are of course already books that deal with Intelligent Design and with the arguments of the critics... We believe, however, that there is virtue in producing one volume, containing arguments from both sides, in which each side puts forward its strongest case... The reader then can quickly and readily start to grasp the fundamental claims and counterclaims being made." (Pg. 4) Besides Dembski and Ruse, contributors include Francisco Ayala, Kenneth Miller ['Finding Darwin's God'], Robert Pennock ['Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics'], Stuart Kauffman, Paul Davies, John Polkinghorne, Keith Ward, Richard Swinburne, Michael Behe, etc.
One essayist notes, "critics press the case that ID has not generated significant scientific journal articles or data... If what counts as science depends on the verdict of peer review, then, it is claimed, ID has yet to establish a track record. In response, proponents of ID have made a number of points. First, they argue that it is not so much new data as the interpretation of existing data that matters. The scientists within the ID movement... have published articles in scientific journals (which do not mention ID); and they have published peer-reviewed work (which does mention ID) outside of scientific journals." (Pg. 44-45)
Pennock points out, "Kenneth Miller asked Dembski and Behe ... during a debate... and neither was willing to take a stand on even one specific point in time at which ["insertion of design"] supposedly occurred. The pattern of vagueness and evasion regarding the specific theoretical commitments or possible tests of ID is pervasive... If ID is to have even a shot at being a real scientific alternative, one should expect to see some precise, testable... hypotheses that answer the obvious questions: what was designed and what wasn't; and when, where, how, and by whom was design information supposedly inserted?" (Pg. 133)
Behe observes, "A common misconception is that designed systems would have to be created from scratch in a puff of smoke. But that isn't necessarily so. The design process may have been much more subtle. In fact, it may have contravened no natural laws at all... If quantum events such as radioactive decay are not governed by causal laws, then it breaks no law of nature to influence such events. As a theist like [Kenneth] Miller, that seems perfectly possible to me." (Pg. 357-358)
This book should be considered "must reading" for anyone seriously studying the Intelligent Design movement.
March 25, 2024
I liked Parts of this book. But there were many chapters mostly by confused Darwinian Evolution Proponents who felt arbitrary attacks on ID were required... and using language and examples which might throw off the reader was acceptable if they finally could scream the ID people are trying again to sell Biblical Creationism... And no matter how they yelled that message, they didn't make a salient point. Behe and Meyers at the end of the book wrap up with Evidence of Complexity which can't be computed by a random enumeration Before the Universe Ended. We all know things take time; we know different algorithms take different (efficiency) of time; and we know how to manipulate those numbers with arithmetic. All of the fence sitters and spiritualists and atheists who still believe in a Blind Watchmaker creating a modern smartphone computer Are Stupid... and Yes, I'm now certain that our biology is much more intelligently designed than any of our current digital technology... and yes, I know the biochemistry involved. That's another unfortunate part of a book like this... I wanted Science/Biology/Biochemistry... of course there is No Demonstration of or even theory for How Evolution produces cell morphology and numerous other biochem... It's nowhere on Abiogenesis as that occurs Prior to biology evolving; it's chemistry. I think the reason Why these Darwin/Evolution/Atheists attack ID vehemently is, they have almost Nothing except random chance producing change in systems which can accept it... and billions of years... and it's Not Enough.
November 22, 2022
Good overview of arguments for and against Intelligent Design. The editors have selected authors that bring a diversity of viewpoints to the discussion. Sections focus on materialist arguments, theistic views, and various design arguments.
I feel as if much of the ID arguments are redundant focusing on a few examples like the mousetrap and bacterial flagellum. They do not seem to have diversified or developed many more extensive examples. Many of the ID arguments seem to not really overlap with modern biology and they do not attempt to explain modern biology in terms of ID. Rather the ID arguments tend to develop new terminology and theoretical explanations that range far from what modern biology is. It is almost as if they are speaking another language.
I feel as if much of the ID arguments are redundant focusing on a few examples like the mousetrap and bacterial flagellum. They do not seem to have diversified or developed many more extensive examples. Many of the ID arguments seem to not really overlap with modern biology and they do not attempt to explain modern biology in terms of ID. Rather the ID arguments tend to develop new terminology and theoretical explanations that range far from what modern biology is. It is almost as if they are speaking another language.
December 12, 2008
By far the best book to-date on the design/origin debate...what I really appreciate is four of the top views on origins covered via essays from the leading proponents. I would have liked to see cosmic ancestory (panspermia) included as well.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews