What do you think?
Rate this book
How to be an Intellectually Fulfilled Athiest
"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin," writes Richard Dawkins, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." This little book shows that Dawkins is wrong. Life's origin poses insuperable difficulties to unguided material processes, so intellectual fulfillment remains for atheism but an elusive dream. The atheist must seek intellectual fulfillment elsewhere. Decisively demonstrating the need for intelligence in explaining life's origin, this is the best overview of why traditional origin-of-life research has crashed and burned and why intelligent design is necessary to explain the high-tech engineering inside the cell.
- GenresBiology
131 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 28, 2008
1 person is currently reading
60 people want to read
About the author
William A. Dembski
51 books118 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 - 2 of 2 reviews
June 15, 2024
TWO “INTELLIGENT DESIGN” THEORISTS CRITIQUE ORIGIN-OF-LIFE THEORIES
Authors William Dembski and Jonathan Wells wrote in the Introduction to this book (originally published in 2008; the revised third edition reviewed here was published in 2015), “Richard Dawkins [wrote], “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Certainly, many people look to Darwin to underwrite atheism… But the question … is whether based on a careful examination of available evidence, Darwin’s theory underwrites an intellectually fulfilled form of atheism. This little book shows that atheism must seek intellectual fulfillment elsewhere. The central claim of Darwin’s theory is that unguided material processes… account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity ONCE LIFE ALREADY EXISTS. Darwin’s theory presupposes life. But in that case, the theory does not provide a complete self-contained materialist explanation of life… the theory remains open at one end until an adequate materialist explanation of life’s origin is found.” (Pg. 5)
They continue, “Darwin did not fully appreciate the challenge that life’s origin posed to his theory. In his day, most scientists regarded the problem of life’s origins as simple and straightforward. The basis of life itself---the cell---was regarded as … essentially a blob of jelly enclosed by a membrane. Darwin took the spontaneous generation of first life from nonliving materials for granted… This book shows that Dawkins is wrong. Life’s origin poses insuperable difficulties to unguided material processes, so intellectual fulfillment remains for atheism but an elusive dream. This book is drawn from a larger work entitled ‘The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems… We offer it as a refutation of atheism, as a defense of intelligent design… With the help of Jonathan McLatchie, we have updated this book. Much new research bearing on the origin of life has been done between the original publication date and … the present.” (Pg. 6, 8-9)
They note that in the 1950s, “Experimental evidence … seemed to support the first stage in [Alexander] Oparin’s hypothesis. In consequence, Oparin’s views on chemical evolution gained new credibility and new adherents. But when scientists sought to go beyond the simplest building blocks of life, they were quickly frustrated. The step from simple compounds to the complex molecules of life … has proved exceedingly difficult… The reason for this failure is that the needed chemical reactions do not occur… these biomacromolecules haven’t been produced in any simulation experiment to date. In addition, the assumptions underlying primitive atmosphere simulation experiments have proven problematic.” (Pg. 43)
They explain, “the standard story of chemical evolution assumes that there was no oxygen present in the Earth’s atmosphere at the origin of life. Yet scientists now have strong geological evidence that significant amounts of oxygen were present in the Earth’s atmosphere from the earliest ages … If oxygen had been present in the Earth’s early atmosphere, organic compounds could not have formed and accumulated the way they did in the Miller-Urey experiment… Oxygen would have prevented the accumulation of organic compounds on the early Earth. Yet without oxygen… organic compounds may not have accumulated either. Significant levels of oxygen would have been necessary to produce ozone. Ozone shields the Earth from levels of ultraviolet radiation lethal to biological life.” (Pg. 49-50)
They summarize, “Origin-of-life researchers have proposed speculative scenarios in which mechanisms of chemical evolution supposedly create biologically significant polymers … But these scenarios don’t even begin to address the true complexities of life. Moreover, origin-of-life researchers have failed to test and confirm these scenarios experimentally. Oparin boldly assumed the chemical pathways he needed to account for the origin of life, but then left the crucial demonstration of these pathways to others. Not only are we still waiting for such a demonstration, but… the chemical pathways we do know conspire against the formation of functional polymers such as proteins and DNA.” (Pg. 70-71)
They observe, “In short, the RNA world … offers no explanation for how … a ‘viable first biomolecule’ might have arisen…. What would this molecule look like? And what would it be capable of evolving into? Would it be a single self-replicating RNA?... Would more and more RNAs accumulate to form a coordinated system of self-replicating RNAs? And how would such a system evolve into the DNA-protein machinery that is standard issue for life as we know it? The RNA world leaves all such questions unanswered. Indeed, origin-of-life researchers have no clue about how to answer them.” (Pg. 93-94)
They argue, “A detailed account of how purely material forces could, under plausible prebiotic conditions, organize those precursors into a living organism needs to be specified as well. Such accounts don’t exist.” (Pg. 104) They point out, “For molecular Darwinism to succeed as an explanation of life’s origin, it must explain why evolution proceeds in a COMPLEXITY-INCREASING direction. Starting with a simple replicator that could have emerged … molecular Darwinism needs to account for its evolution toward increasing complexity. Yet ironically, molecular Darwinism suggests that evolution should proceed as a complexity-DECREASING direction.” (Pg. 108)
They reject the notion of ‘directed panspermia’: “there simply is no evidence that life on Earth was seeded from outer space. Viable spores hitching a ride on asteroids and the like have not been found. Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that intelligent aliens exist, much less that they came to Earth to seed it with life… both undirected and directed panspermia theories explain only the appearance of life on Earth, but not how life originated in the first place… they pass the buck.” (Pg. 114)
They suggest, “Ironically, the history of science suggests that design explanations of life’s origin may be LESS problematic than materialist explanations… Darwin and his … disciples, in ignorance of the cell’s true complexities, mistook it for a simple structure and, as a consequence, mistook it for a simple structure and, as a consequence, attributed it to purely material factors, thereby eliminating design from the scientific discussion of life’s origin… uncritical acceptance of materialist explanations over design explanations can itself constitute an argument from ignorance. In fact, we might say that it commits an evolution-of-the-gaps fallacy!” (Pg. 127)
They summarize, “We therefore have no evidence that these systems are within the scope of materialist processes. On the other hand, we do know… that intelligence is able to produce irreducibly complex systems. Accordingly, we have here a good positive reason for thinking that these systems are actually designed.” (Pg. 134-135)
They conclude, “Scientists are pragmatists and therefore loathe to give up effective tools that help them in their research. Design, ironically, is one such tool. Yet, conditioned by a materialist outlook that denies design, many scientists find it difficult to acknowledge design even when they are using it, imagining that it is merely an illusion.” (Pg. 150-151) They continue, “If intellectual fulfillment depends on scientific validation, atheism… has now become a speculative faith. Atheism is a belief with scientific pretensions but no scientific backing. It promises freedom from superstition but is itself the slave to superstition. It is an ideology even more intolerant and demeaning than anything Dawkins attacks in ‘The God Delusion.” (Pg. 153-154)
This book will be of great interest to anyone looking for critiques of origin-of-life theories and research.
Authors William Dembski and Jonathan Wells wrote in the Introduction to this book (originally published in 2008; the revised third edition reviewed here was published in 2015), “Richard Dawkins [wrote], “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Certainly, many people look to Darwin to underwrite atheism… But the question … is whether based on a careful examination of available evidence, Darwin’s theory underwrites an intellectually fulfilled form of atheism. This little book shows that atheism must seek intellectual fulfillment elsewhere. The central claim of Darwin’s theory is that unguided material processes… account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity ONCE LIFE ALREADY EXISTS. Darwin’s theory presupposes life. But in that case, the theory does not provide a complete self-contained materialist explanation of life… the theory remains open at one end until an adequate materialist explanation of life’s origin is found.” (Pg. 5)
They continue, “Darwin did not fully appreciate the challenge that life’s origin posed to his theory. In his day, most scientists regarded the problem of life’s origins as simple and straightforward. The basis of life itself---the cell---was regarded as … essentially a blob of jelly enclosed by a membrane. Darwin took the spontaneous generation of first life from nonliving materials for granted… This book shows that Dawkins is wrong. Life’s origin poses insuperable difficulties to unguided material processes, so intellectual fulfillment remains for atheism but an elusive dream. This book is drawn from a larger work entitled ‘The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems… We offer it as a refutation of atheism, as a defense of intelligent design… With the help of Jonathan McLatchie, we have updated this book. Much new research bearing on the origin of life has been done between the original publication date and … the present.” (Pg. 6, 8-9)
They note that in the 1950s, “Experimental evidence … seemed to support the first stage in [Alexander] Oparin’s hypothesis. In consequence, Oparin’s views on chemical evolution gained new credibility and new adherents. But when scientists sought to go beyond the simplest building blocks of life, they were quickly frustrated. The step from simple compounds to the complex molecules of life … has proved exceedingly difficult… The reason for this failure is that the needed chemical reactions do not occur… these biomacromolecules haven’t been produced in any simulation experiment to date. In addition, the assumptions underlying primitive atmosphere simulation experiments have proven problematic.” (Pg. 43)
They explain, “the standard story of chemical evolution assumes that there was no oxygen present in the Earth’s atmosphere at the origin of life. Yet scientists now have strong geological evidence that significant amounts of oxygen were present in the Earth’s atmosphere from the earliest ages … If oxygen had been present in the Earth’s early atmosphere, organic compounds could not have formed and accumulated the way they did in the Miller-Urey experiment… Oxygen would have prevented the accumulation of organic compounds on the early Earth. Yet without oxygen… organic compounds may not have accumulated either. Significant levels of oxygen would have been necessary to produce ozone. Ozone shields the Earth from levels of ultraviolet radiation lethal to biological life.” (Pg. 49-50)
They summarize, “Origin-of-life researchers have proposed speculative scenarios in which mechanisms of chemical evolution supposedly create biologically significant polymers … But these scenarios don’t even begin to address the true complexities of life. Moreover, origin-of-life researchers have failed to test and confirm these scenarios experimentally. Oparin boldly assumed the chemical pathways he needed to account for the origin of life, but then left the crucial demonstration of these pathways to others. Not only are we still waiting for such a demonstration, but… the chemical pathways we do know conspire against the formation of functional polymers such as proteins and DNA.” (Pg. 70-71)
They observe, “In short, the RNA world … offers no explanation for how … a ‘viable first biomolecule’ might have arisen…. What would this molecule look like? And what would it be capable of evolving into? Would it be a single self-replicating RNA?... Would more and more RNAs accumulate to form a coordinated system of self-replicating RNAs? And how would such a system evolve into the DNA-protein machinery that is standard issue for life as we know it? The RNA world leaves all such questions unanswered. Indeed, origin-of-life researchers have no clue about how to answer them.” (Pg. 93-94)
They argue, “A detailed account of how purely material forces could, under plausible prebiotic conditions, organize those precursors into a living organism needs to be specified as well. Such accounts don’t exist.” (Pg. 104) They point out, “For molecular Darwinism to succeed as an explanation of life’s origin, it must explain why evolution proceeds in a COMPLEXITY-INCREASING direction. Starting with a simple replicator that could have emerged … molecular Darwinism needs to account for its evolution toward increasing complexity. Yet ironically, molecular Darwinism suggests that evolution should proceed as a complexity-DECREASING direction.” (Pg. 108)
They reject the notion of ‘directed panspermia’: “there simply is no evidence that life on Earth was seeded from outer space. Viable spores hitching a ride on asteroids and the like have not been found. Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that intelligent aliens exist, much less that they came to Earth to seed it with life… both undirected and directed panspermia theories explain only the appearance of life on Earth, but not how life originated in the first place… they pass the buck.” (Pg. 114)
They suggest, “Ironically, the history of science suggests that design explanations of life’s origin may be LESS problematic than materialist explanations… Darwin and his … disciples, in ignorance of the cell’s true complexities, mistook it for a simple structure and, as a consequence, mistook it for a simple structure and, as a consequence, attributed it to purely material factors, thereby eliminating design from the scientific discussion of life’s origin… uncritical acceptance of materialist explanations over design explanations can itself constitute an argument from ignorance. In fact, we might say that it commits an evolution-of-the-gaps fallacy!” (Pg. 127)
They summarize, “We therefore have no evidence that these systems are within the scope of materialist processes. On the other hand, we do know… that intelligence is able to produce irreducibly complex systems. Accordingly, we have here a good positive reason for thinking that these systems are actually designed.” (Pg. 134-135)
They conclude, “Scientists are pragmatists and therefore loathe to give up effective tools that help them in their research. Design, ironically, is one such tool. Yet, conditioned by a materialist outlook that denies design, many scientists find it difficult to acknowledge design even when they are using it, imagining that it is merely an illusion.” (Pg. 150-151) They continue, “If intellectual fulfillment depends on scientific validation, atheism… has now become a speculative faith. Atheism is a belief with scientific pretensions but no scientific backing. It promises freedom from superstition but is itself the slave to superstition. It is an ideology even more intolerant and demeaning than anything Dawkins attacks in ‘The God Delusion.” (Pg. 153-154)
This book will be of great interest to anyone looking for critiques of origin-of-life theories and research.
Read
April 13, 2009This small book is meant to be a compendium to Expelled. It is taken from Dembski and Wells' Design of Life. Recommended for those who want to discuss chemical origins
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews