What do you think?
Rate this book
Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement
Evolutionary science lies at the heart of a modern understanding of the natural world. Darwin’s theory has withstood 150 years of scientific scrutiny, and today it not only explains the origin and design of living things, but highlights the importance of a scientific understanding in our culture and in our lives.
Recently the movement known as “Intelligent Design” has attracted the attention of journalists, educators, and legislators. The scientific community is puzzled and saddened by this trend–not only because it distorts modern biology, but also because it diverts people from the truly fascinating ideas emerging from the real science of evolution. Here, join fifteen of our preeminent thinkers whose clear, accessible, and passionate essays reveal the fact and power of Darwin’s theory, and the beauty of the scientific quest to understand our world.
Recently the movement known as “Intelligent Design” has attracted the attention of journalists, educators, and legislators. The scientific community is puzzled and saddened by this trend–not only because it distorts modern biology, but also because it diverts people from the truly fascinating ideas emerging from the real science of evolution. Here, join fifteen of our preeminent thinkers whose clear, accessible, and passionate essays reveal the fact and power of Darwin’s theory, and the beauty of the scientific quest to understand our world.
272 pages, Paperback
First published May 9, 2006
11 people are currently reading
371 people want to read
About the author
John Brockman
68 books615 followersJohn Brockman is an American literary agent and author specializing in scientific literature. He established the Edge Foundation, an organization that brings together leading edge thinkers across a broad range of scientific and technical fields.
He is author and editor of several books, including: The Third Culture (1995); The Greatest Inventions of the Past 2000 Years (2000); The Next Fifty Years (2002) and The New Humanists (2003).
He has the distinction of being the only person to have been profiled on Page One of the "Science Times" (1997) and the "Arts & Leisure" (1966), both supplements of The New York Times.
He is author and editor of several books, including: The Third Culture (1995); The Greatest Inventions of the Past 2000 Years (2000); The Next Fifty Years (2002) and The New Humanists (2003).
He has the distinction of being the only person to have been profiled on Page One of the "Science Times" (1997) and the "Arts & Leisure" (1966), both supplements of The New York Times.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
January 10, 2019
What is the reason for the recent upsurge of antiscientific passion? My own view is that it is, in part, a result of the anger, fear, frustration and humiliation suffered over the years by the losers in the culture wars: Those who would have kept women in the kitchen, blacks in the back of the bus, and gays in the closet. It is also a consequence of the deep and terrible universal fear of old age and death. But I don't believe these emotions, by themselves, could have created the antiscientific backlash of recent years. The fault may well lie in the ease with which these emotions can be cynically manipulated. It is pretty clear that the battle was engineered by provocateurs who may not even have wanted to win the battles they provoked. What seems much more likely, in view of the gingerly way that politicians have skirted such issues as Roe Vs Wade, is that the provocateurs want to lose the battles and in that way keep the anger and humiliation at fever pitch.
How should scientists respond to this strategy? I have to admit that I'm conflicted about this question. One response that might be effective is to simply ignore the battle. The usual derisive treatment of the "Know Nothings" tends to whip up the fury and thus play into the hands of the cynical political forces who know so well how to use it. Both sides, it seems, are being manipulated. So, then, what if we scientists refuse to play the game? After all, what great harm would come from teaching intelligent design in Kansas? Most likely, within a couple of years, parents worried about their children's ability to get into good universities would be petitioning their school boards for better biology classes.
Unfortunately, I suspect there is more at stake than biology textbooks in Kansas. As a longtime observer of the science-government-politics triangle, it looks to me as if there is another hidden agenda: to discredit the legitimate scientific community. A well-respected scientific community can be a major inconvenience if one is trying to ignore global warming, or build unworkable missile-defense systems, or construct multi-billion dollar lasers in the unlikely hope of initiating practicable nuclear fusion.* (...) Today we have the ridiculous comedy of a Yale- and Harvard-educated president who plays to his antiscience audience by (deliberately?) mispronouncing the word "nuclear."**
- Leonard Susskind, 2006
* Or insist that it's even physically, let alone practically, possible to build a wall that will keep migrants out and magically solve all problems, I guess.
** Those were the days, eh?
How should scientists respond to this strategy? I have to admit that I'm conflicted about this question. One response that might be effective is to simply ignore the battle. The usual derisive treatment of the "Know Nothings" tends to whip up the fury and thus play into the hands of the cynical political forces who know so well how to use it. Both sides, it seems, are being manipulated. So, then, what if we scientists refuse to play the game? After all, what great harm would come from teaching intelligent design in Kansas? Most likely, within a couple of years, parents worried about their children's ability to get into good universities would be petitioning their school boards for better biology classes.
Unfortunately, I suspect there is more at stake than biology textbooks in Kansas. As a longtime observer of the science-government-politics triangle, it looks to me as if there is another hidden agenda: to discredit the legitimate scientific community. A well-respected scientific community can be a major inconvenience if one is trying to ignore global warming, or build unworkable missile-defense systems, or construct multi-billion dollar lasers in the unlikely hope of initiating practicable nuclear fusion.* (...) Today we have the ridiculous comedy of a Yale- and Harvard-educated president who plays to his antiscience audience by (deliberately?) mispronouncing the word "nuclear."**
- Leonard Susskind, 2006
* Or insist that it's even physically, let alone practically, possible to build a wall that will keep migrants out and magically solve all problems, I guess.
** Those were the days, eh?
October 13, 2014
I could read books about what a great scientific theory evolution for the rest of my life, and I probably will. The narrative of life is so rich and interesting, with so many side-stories and anecdotes, that I feel it is a real shame that it is not taught more loudly in high school biology classes. This volume is a collection of essays by a wide field of leading thinkers about why Intelligent Design is a poor alternative to the theory of evolution by natural selection, why ID is not science, and why ID should not be taught as an alternative theory in science classes. The usual suspects make their appearance here, including Dawkins, Dennett, and Pinker. Each essay is short and easily digested, and different flavors of appeals to the beauty of evolution and the paucity of ID are presented, including just how stupid our "design" is in many aspects, how the eye evolved, various refutations of the watchmaker analogy, the information content of the universe, just how weird consciousness actually is and how it might have arisen, our collective educational goals, the entwining fields of ecology and evolution.
The hand of the editor here feels light, as many arguments are presented in roughly the same manner, and the early parts of the book make it seem like a "Murder on the Orient Express" treatment of Michael Behe and William Dembski, two of IDs most visible public proponents, as each essayist in turn drives their stiletto of logic into the corpus of Behe and Dembski's statements on ID.
There are two essays that stood out for me. Steven Pinker gives one of the clearest, most cogent, and beautifully written summaries of moral behavior as adaptive behavior that I've ever read. And the appendix of the book contains judge John Jones's opinion in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case involving the teaching of ID in public school science classes. I had heard that Jones's ruling was excellent in its analysis of whether ID was a scientific theory, but actually reading it is a real pleasure, as it is a fantastic and logical take down of the clownish defense of ID that was presented in the Dover case. By the end, I needed a metaphorical cigarette, and that it was written not by an expert in the field but rather by a sharp judicial mind makes it even more satisfying.
The hand of the editor here feels light, as many arguments are presented in roughly the same manner, and the early parts of the book make it seem like a "Murder on the Orient Express" treatment of Michael Behe and William Dembski, two of IDs most visible public proponents, as each essayist in turn drives their stiletto of logic into the corpus of Behe and Dembski's statements on ID.
There are two essays that stood out for me. Steven Pinker gives one of the clearest, most cogent, and beautifully written summaries of moral behavior as adaptive behavior that I've ever read. And the appendix of the book contains judge John Jones's opinion in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case involving the teaching of ID in public school science classes. I had heard that Jones's ruling was excellent in its analysis of whether ID was a scientific theory, but actually reading it is a real pleasure, as it is a fantastic and logical take down of the clownish defense of ID that was presented in the Dover case. By the end, I needed a metaphorical cigarette, and that it was written not by an expert in the field but rather by a sharp judicial mind makes it even more satisfying.
July 14, 2019
Amounts to a destruction of Intelligent Design
As Editor John Brockman writes in his introduction, this book, a collection of 16 essays by eminent scientists, "is a thoughtful response to the bizarre claims made by the ID movement's advocates, whose only interest in science appears to be to replace it with beliefs consistent with those of the Middle Ages." (p. x)
What the ID people are about is a power grab, an attempt to install themselves as The Authority on who we are and how we got that way. God is the puppet for whom they speak. As Brockman further notes, theirs "is a duplicitous public-relations campaign funded by Christian fundamentalist interests." (p. x)
Following the original and very interesting essays by Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Lee Smolin, Stuart Kauffman and eleven others is an incisive excerpt from the "Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania" in the case of Kitzmiller v. the Dover Area School District, dated December 20, 2005. Judge John E. Jones III, in ruling for the Plaintiffs, makes it abundantly clear that ID is not science and has no business being taught in science classes. He chastised some members of the Dover School Board (who have since been voted out of office), noting that "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." (p. 254)
Dawkins, whose essay is entitled, "Intelligent Aliens" has warned us before about the dishonesty of creationists and ID proponents. One might ask, why are they so dishonest? Why do they bully and misrepresent? One suspects they think they have license since theirs is the work of God. At least, if you tell yourself that, as suicide bombers do, and you believe it, then whatever means you use are justified. Which is the reason that it is a waste of time to argue with ID people. They already have the truth and any argument is totally beside the point. They pretend to some spurious debate only for propaganda purposes.
Brockman knows all of this and instead of getting involved in a phony "debate" with the "intelligent design cabal" (Dawkins' designation) what he has done is persuade these sixteen distinguished scientists to explain from various disciplines (philosophy, psychology, biology, paleontology, ecology, even physics) just why, as Theodonsius Dobzhansky so succinctly put it, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." And they do a great job of that. Additionally, the essays offer insight into the evidence for evolution and further our understanding. Some excerpts:
"A denial of evolution--however motivated--is a denial of evidence, a retreat from reason to ignorance." (p. 80) --paleontologist Tim D. White
"An understanding of morality is to be found through secular moral reasoning and lies in fundamental facts about the human condition, not in the dictates of a supernatural deity." (p. 143) --cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker
This is the point of Pinker's essay, a refutation of the religious idea that human beings cannot be moral without the fear of retribution from God, or that religion is what teaches morality. His striking and very persuasive argument includes the idea that, "an evolutionary understanding of the human condition, far from being incompatible with a moral sense, can explain why we have one." (p. 152)
One of the delusive ideas of the ID people is the notion of "irreducible complexity." The problem with that, as Dawkins has observed, is, how can we be sure that something is irreducibly complex? Physicist Seth Lloyd's essay "How Smart Is the Universe?" demonstrates that the universe is plenty smart enough to handle any sort of "irreducible complexity" on its own without any help from supernatural beings. He notes, "Because of the universe's information-processing power and diversity, it was virtually certain to hit upon life sooner or later." (p. 187)
If you haven't encountered this line of reasoning before--the universe as an information processing computer--(and I hadn't) reading this essay should be most interesting. Lloyd estimates that the universe has performed around 10 to the 122th operations in its 13.8 billion years of existence. (p. 180) Add this computing power (call it the ability to perform trial and error experiments at random) to the self-organizing aspects of matter and energy (as presented in Stuart A. Kauffman's essay, "Intelligent Design, Science or Not?") and the appearance of life in the universe seems well nigh inevitable--which I believe is the majority opinion of scientists today. Kauffman believes it would contribute to a better understanding if evolution were "recast as a marriage of self-organization and selection." (p. 177) I think this is already being done.
By the way, Kauffman shows how the ID people could make a testable prediction (although, of course, they dare not). He writes, "The intelligent-design advocate must predict that in NO CASE will...intermediate forms [of life] with diverse functionalities be found." His point is that intermediate forms are "evidence against irreducible complexity demanding a Designer." (p. 173) His conclusion is that such forms exist and "count as disconfirming evidence" not pleasing to ID "scientists."
It is interesting to note how the essays and their arguments from diverse fields support one another and amount to unified support for the fact of evolution. This is the strength of the book, brilliantly conceived and nicely put together by John Brockman who is a science editor par excellence.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
As Editor John Brockman writes in his introduction, this book, a collection of 16 essays by eminent scientists, "is a thoughtful response to the bizarre claims made by the ID movement's advocates, whose only interest in science appears to be to replace it with beliefs consistent with those of the Middle Ages." (p. x)
What the ID people are about is a power grab, an attempt to install themselves as The Authority on who we are and how we got that way. God is the puppet for whom they speak. As Brockman further notes, theirs "is a duplicitous public-relations campaign funded by Christian fundamentalist interests." (p. x)
Following the original and very interesting essays by Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Lee Smolin, Stuart Kauffman and eleven others is an incisive excerpt from the "Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania" in the case of Kitzmiller v. the Dover Area School District, dated December 20, 2005. Judge John E. Jones III, in ruling for the Plaintiffs, makes it abundantly clear that ID is not science and has no business being taught in science classes. He chastised some members of the Dover School Board (who have since been voted out of office), noting that "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." (p. 254)
Dawkins, whose essay is entitled, "Intelligent Aliens" has warned us before about the dishonesty of creationists and ID proponents. One might ask, why are they so dishonest? Why do they bully and misrepresent? One suspects they think they have license since theirs is the work of God. At least, if you tell yourself that, as suicide bombers do, and you believe it, then whatever means you use are justified. Which is the reason that it is a waste of time to argue with ID people. They already have the truth and any argument is totally beside the point. They pretend to some spurious debate only for propaganda purposes.
Brockman knows all of this and instead of getting involved in a phony "debate" with the "intelligent design cabal" (Dawkins' designation) what he has done is persuade these sixteen distinguished scientists to explain from various disciplines (philosophy, psychology, biology, paleontology, ecology, even physics) just why, as Theodonsius Dobzhansky so succinctly put it, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." And they do a great job of that. Additionally, the essays offer insight into the evidence for evolution and further our understanding. Some excerpts:
"A denial of evolution--however motivated--is a denial of evidence, a retreat from reason to ignorance." (p. 80) --paleontologist Tim D. White
"An understanding of morality is to be found through secular moral reasoning and lies in fundamental facts about the human condition, not in the dictates of a supernatural deity." (p. 143) --cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker
This is the point of Pinker's essay, a refutation of the religious idea that human beings cannot be moral without the fear of retribution from God, or that religion is what teaches morality. His striking and very persuasive argument includes the idea that, "an evolutionary understanding of the human condition, far from being incompatible with a moral sense, can explain why we have one." (p. 152)
One of the delusive ideas of the ID people is the notion of "irreducible complexity." The problem with that, as Dawkins has observed, is, how can we be sure that something is irreducibly complex? Physicist Seth Lloyd's essay "How Smart Is the Universe?" demonstrates that the universe is plenty smart enough to handle any sort of "irreducible complexity" on its own without any help from supernatural beings. He notes, "Because of the universe's information-processing power and diversity, it was virtually certain to hit upon life sooner or later." (p. 187)
If you haven't encountered this line of reasoning before--the universe as an information processing computer--(and I hadn't) reading this essay should be most interesting. Lloyd estimates that the universe has performed around 10 to the 122th operations in its 13.8 billion years of existence. (p. 180) Add this computing power (call it the ability to perform trial and error experiments at random) to the self-organizing aspects of matter and energy (as presented in Stuart A. Kauffman's essay, "Intelligent Design, Science or Not?") and the appearance of life in the universe seems well nigh inevitable--which I believe is the majority opinion of scientists today. Kauffman believes it would contribute to a better understanding if evolution were "recast as a marriage of self-organization and selection." (p. 177) I think this is already being done.
By the way, Kauffman shows how the ID people could make a testable prediction (although, of course, they dare not). He writes, "The intelligent-design advocate must predict that in NO CASE will...intermediate forms [of life] with diverse functionalities be found." His point is that intermediate forms are "evidence against irreducible complexity demanding a Designer." (p. 173) His conclusion is that such forms exist and "count as disconfirming evidence" not pleasing to ID "scientists."
It is interesting to note how the essays and their arguments from diverse fields support one another and amount to unified support for the fact of evolution. This is the strength of the book, brilliantly conceived and nicely put together by John Brockman who is a science editor par excellence.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
September 13, 2013
I found this book to be a very interesting look at the way scientists who want to ignore the fact that God exists argue against His hand in the creation of the universe. The people who contributed to this work often seemed to use the very tactics that they were slamming those in the camp of Intelligent Design for using. It was very defensively written and seemed to just try to make a mockery of those who don't agree with the kind of evolution they are teaching. They say there is no supporting evidence whatsoever for Intelligent Design, and yet much of their evidence is complete guess work. I had to read this book for a class and in this class we watched a video about how evolutionists finally found the proof they were looking for concerning a missing link. They were able to form a complete skeleton of a missing link they were looking for, based on a single bone found in the ear. I'm not convinced you can actually do that...
Also, my observation about evolution is that the evolutionist's "bible" is the fossil record. Much of the evidence for the evolutionary process cannot even actually be found in the fossil record, so they can't say everything about evolution is proven. Right?
Also, my observation about evolution is that the evolutionist's "bible" is the fossil record. Much of the evidence for the evolutionary process cannot even actually be found in the fossil record, so they can't say everything about evolution is proven. Right?
September 7, 2011
A very fine set of essays covering all kinds of territory around the Evolution versus Intelligent Design (ID) debate. The essays soundly thrash ID's supposedly "scientific" stance. However, with one or two exceptions there is no anti-religious sentiment expressed. In fact, there are several essays that appear to be written by individuals who are religious believers themselves. However, ID does not fare well, and it does not deserve to. I find the so called ID "theory" an insult to both scientists and Christians.
January 4, 2020
20.12.2005 roku sąd w Pensylwanii w swym orzeczeniu, stwierdził (str. 277):
"Należyte rozpatrzenie faktów w tej sprawie w świetle testu aprobaty* i testu papierka lakmusowego** wykazuje aż nazbyt jasno, że decyzja Rady (Szkolnej z Dover) dotycząca ID*** stanowi pogwałcenie Pierwszej Poprawki do Konstytucji. Dokonując tych ustaleń, zadaliśmy równocześnie doniosłe pytanie, czy ID jest teoria naukową. Doszliśmy do wniosku, że nie i że ponadto ID nie może odłączyć się od swoich kreacjonistycznych, a więc religijnych poprzedników."
Powyższy wniosek sądu amerykańskiego w bezprecedensowym procesie rozstrzygającym kwestie czysto naukowe, stał się przyczyną powstania książki "Nauka a kreacjonizm. O naukowych uroszczeniach teorii inteligentnego projektu"**** pod redakcją Johna Brockmana. Książka (jak większość projektów tego wydawcy) jest zbiorem esejów prominentnych naukowców na zadany im temat. Pośród 16-tu badaczy, większość to przyrodnicy z nauk biologicznych. Są te�� fizycy, psycholog, popularyzator nauki i filozof. Wszyscy odnieśli się bądź wprost do wyroku sądu, bądź szarzej - przedyskutowali darwinizm, rolę nauki, edukacji i pseudonaukowe rozważania kreacjonistów czy zwolenników ID.
Praca, co oczywiste, jest nierówna na kilku poziomach. Każdy autor z tematu wydobywa inne elementy, akcentuje wagę różnych zjawisk, technik pracy naukowej czy błędów poznawczych pokutujących społecznie. Wszyscy jednak z ulgą przyjęli wyrok i jednoznacznie potępili próby wprowadzania nienaukowych elementów do nauczania na dowolnym poziomie.
Piękne w tej książce jest to, że każdy z naukowców, w dobrej wierze i na podstawie konsekwentnie przepracowanego własnym umysłem darwinizmu, zaprezentował najbardziej wartościowy dla siebie ciąg wnioskowania, który prowadzi do jednoznacznych wniosków. Stąd chyba każdy czytelnik odnajdzie swój ulubiony model podejścia do tematu. Pinker analizował molarność i pułapki życzeniowego myślenia, Dennett argumentował logicznie o sednie nieporozumienia, Coyne prezentował luki formalne u zwolenników ID, White opowiedział o ewolucji przodków, Hauser skupił się na konsekwencjach błędów w systemie edukacji, a Susskind przedyskutował pułapki czekające na naukowca w rozmowach z fanatykami. Każdy esej jest więc dramatycznie inny.
Jedna kwestia polemiczna. Nie mogę się zgodzić z pewnymi tezami paleontologa S.D. Sampsona, który w ekologicznym i holistycznie uwarunkowanym ideologicznym uniesieniu, dopuścił się nadużycia, starając się wykazać upadek redukcjonizmu materialistycznego (str. 252-254). Sam chyba konfrontując genetyków z ekologami, stanął po stronie tych ostatnich, obnażając swą niechęć do rygorystycznego podejścia do metody naukowej, która nieuchronnie poszukuje faktów weryfikowalnych. Nauka nie kieruje się przy tym duchowymi tradycjami, jako wyznacznikami poprawności procesu badawczego (a które dla Sampsona są niepokojąco istotne w pracy zawodowej).
Z kolei esej antropologa Scotta Atrana uważam za najlepszy tekst zbioru. Jego autor w sposób niezwykle przemyślany, jednoznaczny i jasno wyłożony pokazał, jak nie należy uprawiać nauki i jak nie wolno społecznie jej odbierać. Skupiając się na istocie, obnażył wszystko, co jest sednem ID, a co jako szkodliwa idea, pozostawia człowieka w stanie zagubienia pośród nadprzyrodzonych światów.
"Nauka a kreacjonizm" to fascynująca przygoda, którą należy czasem odbyć wraz z naukowymi umysłami, bo one wątpiąc pokazują nam jak badać świat - bez uprzedzeń czy wstępnych założeń, ale z otwartością na czekające nas nowe odkrycia. Dodatkowo tłumacze na końcu publikacji umieścili 'polski watek', którym były kuriozalne wypowiedzi profesora dendrologii Macieja Giertycha i wiceministra edukacji Mirosława Orzechowskiego (w 2006), którzy zaapelowali o odrzucenie ewolucji biologicznej. Na szczęście całość kończy seria listów polskich gremiów naukowych, które potępiły jednoznacznie te osobliwości.
Gorąco zachęcam - do przemyśleń o tym, co jest, czego nie ma, co być może, a co między bajki warto włożyć.
=======
Cytaty, które powinny być 'mantrycznie' wtłaczane do każdej 'wątpiącej głowy':
"Jesteśmy w posiadaniu tysięcy skamieniałości, które pod względem anatomicznym i chronologicznym są formami pośrednimi pomiędzy zwierzętami współczesnymi a ich dawnymi przodkami." (paleontolog T.D White)
"Dobór naturalny jest procesem nielosowym, który oddziałuje na zmiany wytworzone losowo." (paleontolog S.D. Sampson)
"W miarę postępów cytobiologii i biologii molekularnej dowiadujemy się coraz więcej na temat procesów wyznaczających przebieg ewolucji. Tyle że przedmiotem nieustannych badań są mechanizmy, natomiast sam fakt został ustalony niemal nieodwołalnie." (fizyczka L. Randall)
"W istocie dużą część ludzkiej kultury (w jej złych i dobrych aspektach) można zapewne przypisać stymulacjom i manipulacjom wrodzonymi skłonnościami naszego gatunku. Takie manipulacje mogą służyć celom kulturowym dalece odbiegającym od dawnych celów adaptacyjnych, dla których realizacji wyewoluowały nasze zdolności poznawcze i emocjonalne." (antropolog S. Atran)
=======
* Test stosowany w systemie prawnym USA wykazujący, czy strona kierowała się przekonaniami religijnymi.
** Test sprawdzający intencje aktywności stron procesu, które muszą respektować I Poprawkę do Konstytucji USA (o wolności w sferze religijnej).
*** Intelligent Design (inteligentny projekt)
**** Tłumacze nieco udramatycznili podtytuł, który w oryginale brzmi "Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement". Nie popieram w ogólności takich zabiegów, ale tym razem rozumiem decyzję Szwajcera.
BARDZO DOBRE - 7.5/10
"Należyte rozpatrzenie faktów w tej sprawie w świetle testu aprobaty* i testu papierka lakmusowego** wykazuje aż nazbyt jasno, że decyzja Rady (Szkolnej z Dover) dotycząca ID*** stanowi pogwałcenie Pierwszej Poprawki do Konstytucji. Dokonując tych ustaleń, zadaliśmy równocześnie doniosłe pytanie, czy ID jest teoria naukową. Doszliśmy do wniosku, że nie i że ponadto ID nie może odłączyć się od swoich kreacjonistycznych, a więc religijnych poprzedników."
Powyższy wniosek sądu amerykańskiego w bezprecedensowym procesie rozstrzygającym kwestie czysto naukowe, stał się przyczyną powstania książki "Nauka a kreacjonizm. O naukowych uroszczeniach teorii inteligentnego projektu"**** pod redakcją Johna Brockmana. Książka (jak większość projektów tego wydawcy) jest zbiorem esejów prominentnych naukowców na zadany im temat. Pośród 16-tu badaczy, większość to przyrodnicy z nauk biologicznych. Są te�� fizycy, psycholog, popularyzator nauki i filozof. Wszyscy odnieśli się bądź wprost do wyroku sądu, bądź szarzej - przedyskutowali darwinizm, rolę nauki, edukacji i pseudonaukowe rozważania kreacjonistów czy zwolenników ID.
Praca, co oczywiste, jest nierówna na kilku poziomach. Każdy autor z tematu wydobywa inne elementy, akcentuje wagę różnych zjawisk, technik pracy naukowej czy błędów poznawczych pokutujących społecznie. Wszyscy jednak z ulgą przyjęli wyrok i jednoznacznie potępili próby wprowadzania nienaukowych elementów do nauczania na dowolnym poziomie.
Piękne w tej książce jest to, że każdy z naukowców, w dobrej wierze i na podstawie konsekwentnie przepracowanego własnym umysłem darwinizmu, zaprezentował najbardziej wartościowy dla siebie ciąg wnioskowania, który prowadzi do jednoznacznych wniosków. Stąd chyba każdy czytelnik odnajdzie swój ulubiony model podejścia do tematu. Pinker analizował molarność i pułapki życzeniowego myślenia, Dennett argumentował logicznie o sednie nieporozumienia, Coyne prezentował luki formalne u zwolenników ID, White opowiedział o ewolucji przodków, Hauser skupił się na konsekwencjach błędów w systemie edukacji, a Susskind przedyskutował pułapki czekające na naukowca w rozmowach z fanatykami. Każdy esej jest więc dramatycznie inny.
Jedna kwestia polemiczna. Nie mogę się zgodzić z pewnymi tezami paleontologa S.D. Sampsona, który w ekologicznym i holistycznie uwarunkowanym ideologicznym uniesieniu, dopuścił się nadużycia, starając się wykazać upadek redukcjonizmu materialistycznego (str. 252-254). Sam chyba konfrontując genetyków z ekologami, stanął po stronie tych ostatnich, obnażając swą niechęć do rygorystycznego podejścia do metody naukowej, która nieuchronnie poszukuje faktów weryfikowalnych. Nauka nie kieruje się przy tym duchowymi tradycjami, jako wyznacznikami poprawności procesu badawczego (a które dla Sampsona są niepokojąco istotne w pracy zawodowej).
Z kolei esej antropologa Scotta Atrana uważam za najlepszy tekst zbioru. Jego autor w sposób niezwykle przemyślany, jednoznaczny i jasno wyłożony pokazał, jak nie należy uprawiać nauki i jak nie wolno społecznie jej odbierać. Skupiając się na istocie, obnażył wszystko, co jest sednem ID, a co jako szkodliwa idea, pozostawia człowieka w stanie zagubienia pośród nadprzyrodzonych światów.
"Nauka a kreacjonizm" to fascynująca przygoda, którą należy czasem odbyć wraz z naukowymi umysłami, bo one wątpiąc pokazują nam jak badać świat - bez uprzedzeń czy wstępnych założeń, ale z otwartością na czekające nas nowe odkrycia. Dodatkowo tłumacze na końcu publikacji umieścili 'polski watek', którym były kuriozalne wypowiedzi profesora dendrologii Macieja Giertycha i wiceministra edukacji Mirosława Orzechowskiego (w 2006), którzy zaapelowali o odrzucenie ewolucji biologicznej. Na szczęście całość kończy seria listów polskich gremiów naukowych, które potępiły jednoznacznie te osobliwości.
Gorąco zachęcam - do przemyśleń o tym, co jest, czego nie ma, co być może, a co między bajki warto włożyć.
=======
Cytaty, które powinny być 'mantrycznie' wtłaczane do każdej 'wątpiącej głowy':
"Jesteśmy w posiadaniu tysięcy skamieniałości, które pod względem anatomicznym i chronologicznym są formami pośrednimi pomiędzy zwierzętami współczesnymi a ich dawnymi przodkami." (paleontolog T.D White)
"Dobór naturalny jest procesem nielosowym, który oddziałuje na zmiany wytworzone losowo." (paleontolog S.D. Sampson)
"W miarę postępów cytobiologii i biologii molekularnej dowiadujemy się coraz więcej na temat procesów wyznaczających przebieg ewolucji. Tyle że przedmiotem nieustannych badań są mechanizmy, natomiast sam fakt został ustalony niemal nieodwołalnie." (fizyczka L. Randall)
"W istocie dużą część ludzkiej kultury (w jej złych i dobrych aspektach) można zapewne przypisać stymulacjom i manipulacjom wrodzonymi skłonnościami naszego gatunku. Takie manipulacje mogą służyć celom kulturowym dalece odbiegającym od dawnych celów adaptacyjnych, dla których realizacji wyewoluowały nasze zdolności poznawcze i emocjonalne." (antropolog S. Atran)
=======
* Test stosowany w systemie prawnym USA wykazujący, czy strona kierowała się przekonaniami religijnymi.
** Test sprawdzający intencje aktywności stron procesu, które muszą respektować I Poprawkę do Konstytucji USA (o wolności w sferze religijnej).
*** Intelligent Design (inteligentny projekt)
**** Tłumacze nieco udramatycznili podtytuł, który w oryginale brzmi "Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement". Nie popieram w ogólności takich zabiegów, ale tym razem rozumiem decyzję Szwajcera.
BARDZO DOBRE - 7.5/10
December 31, 2023
This book is a terrific set of essays by notables in science and rational thinking like Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, Lisa Randall, Scott Atran, Stuart Kaufman, and Neil Shubin – sixteen in all. Their varied scientific backgrounds provide different angles on a sector of the New Right’s irrationality movement: that of creationist Intelligent Design. While this book’s publication was stimulated by the 2005 Dover Pennsylvania case in which the local school board granted the teaching of religion as an equivalent to science in science class, the topic and arguments are just as relevant today as 12 states in the U.S. and D.C. teach religion as science in high school classrooms (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington D.C., Wisconsin). Like claims to science from “feminist science,” “queer science,” or “African American science” on the left, so too the creationist wing of Christian fundamentalists on the right have labeled their religious dogmas as “creation science,” “Critical Analysis,” and “Intelligent Design.” And that last one is most often applied to biological designs “made by God” that any college engineering student could design better, like a waste and reproductive system so close to one another they spread disease back and forth.
Some of the remarks made here are so well-written, concise, and encapsulating. I printed and framed three of them, then, out of frames, pinned another five to my bulletin board. But perhaps the most stunning section is the Appendix, which should have been Chapter 1, the Pennsylvania District Court opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a step-by-step examination of Intelligent Design. Some of the most incriminating testimony noted there came from ID pushers themselves, particularly Lehigh University BIOCHEMIST and senior fellow at the creationist headquarters of the Discovery Institute, Michael Behe, who all but admitted he regularly lies about the science he knows well, enslaved to his religious fanaticism. This is particularly remarkable given that Apostle Paul says in Ephesians, “We no longer lie to one another. We only tell the truth.” As the judge writes, “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy,” which happens to be religious indoctrination, politics, not science, and certainly not education. A really fine book.
Some of the remarks made here are so well-written, concise, and encapsulating. I printed and framed three of them, then, out of frames, pinned another five to my bulletin board. But perhaps the most stunning section is the Appendix, which should have been Chapter 1, the Pennsylvania District Court opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a step-by-step examination of Intelligent Design. Some of the most incriminating testimony noted there came from ID pushers themselves, particularly Lehigh University BIOCHEMIST and senior fellow at the creationist headquarters of the Discovery Institute, Michael Behe, who all but admitted he regularly lies about the science he knows well, enslaved to his religious fanaticism. This is particularly remarkable given that Apostle Paul says in Ephesians, “We no longer lie to one another. We only tell the truth.” As the judge writes, “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy,” which happens to be religious indoctrination, politics, not science, and certainly not education. A really fine book.
September 6, 2017
Most of these essays were OK. The most eloquent and organized argument against the scientific validity of ID theory came from Judge Jones' memorandum for the 2005 case, which was included at the end of the book, and everything else was mostly fluff. To be fair, not every essay was out to explicitly refute ID theory, but some certainly seemed unnecessary.
August 18, 2024
A COLLECTION OF ARTICLES CRITIQUING "INTELLIGENT DESIGN"
Editor John Brockman wrote in the Introduction to this 2006 book, "This book---sixteen essays by leading scientists from several disciplines---is a thoughtful response to the bizarre claims made by the ID movement's advocates, whose only interest in science appears to be to replace it with beliefs consistent with those of the Middle Ages... in actuality, there is no debate, no controversy. What there is, quite simply, is a duplicitious public-relations campaign funded by Christian fundamentalist interests." (Pg. x) Contributors to the volume include Daniel Dennett ['Darwin's Dangerous Idea']; Richard Dawkins ['The God Delusion']; Stuart Kauffman ['The Origins of Order'], etc.
The first essayist cites the infamous "Wedge Document" of the Discovery Institute [the main ID "think tank"], which was leaked to the Internet in 1999, and stated, "we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at the source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy... our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points... Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (Pg. 4)
The same essayist states, "can neo-Darwinism make predictions? And is it falsifiable? Yes, and yes again... [Darwin] predicted that if plants on oceanic islands were descended from those on continents, the seeds of continental plants should be able to survive prolonged immersion in seawater, and he confirmed this prediction with experiments described in the 'Origin.' Developments in biology after Darwin have served to confirm other predictions of evolutionary theory: For example... there must be plenty of heritable variation in wild populations of plants and animals." (Pg. 11) He also admits, "There are indeed some groups of animals, including rabbits and bats, that appear suddenly in the fossil record, but given the incompleteness of that record this is hardly evidence for creation. After all, in Darwin's day we had no transitional fossils at all." (Pg. 19)
In Dawkins' essay, he points out that Jonathan Wells "publicly admits to undertaking a scientific research degree not in order to discover something about the world but for the specific purpose of 'destroying' a scientific idea that his religious leader [Rev. Moon] opposed. Philip Johnson, the born-again Christian law professor generally regarded as the leader of the gang, openly admits that his motive for opposing evolution is its 'naturalism'..." (Pg. 93)
This collection will be of great interest to anyone studying the Intelligent Design movement.
Editor John Brockman wrote in the Introduction to this 2006 book, "This book---sixteen essays by leading scientists from several disciplines---is a thoughtful response to the bizarre claims made by the ID movement's advocates, whose only interest in science appears to be to replace it with beliefs consistent with those of the Middle Ages... in actuality, there is no debate, no controversy. What there is, quite simply, is a duplicitious public-relations campaign funded by Christian fundamentalist interests." (Pg. x) Contributors to the volume include Daniel Dennett ['Darwin's Dangerous Idea']; Richard Dawkins ['The God Delusion']; Stuart Kauffman ['The Origins of Order'], etc.
The first essayist cites the infamous "Wedge Document" of the Discovery Institute [the main ID "think tank"], which was leaked to the Internet in 1999, and stated, "we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at the source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy... our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points... Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (Pg. 4)
The same essayist states, "can neo-Darwinism make predictions? And is it falsifiable? Yes, and yes again... [Darwin] predicted that if plants on oceanic islands were descended from those on continents, the seeds of continental plants should be able to survive prolonged immersion in seawater, and he confirmed this prediction with experiments described in the 'Origin.' Developments in biology after Darwin have served to confirm other predictions of evolutionary theory: For example... there must be plenty of heritable variation in wild populations of plants and animals." (Pg. 11) He also admits, "There are indeed some groups of animals, including rabbits and bats, that appear suddenly in the fossil record, but given the incompleteness of that record this is hardly evidence for creation. After all, in Darwin's day we had no transitional fossils at all." (Pg. 19)
In Dawkins' essay, he points out that Jonathan Wells "publicly admits to undertaking a scientific research degree not in order to discover something about the world but for the specific purpose of 'destroying' a scientific idea that his religious leader [Rev. Moon] opposed. Philip Johnson, the born-again Christian law professor generally regarded as the leader of the gang, openly admits that his motive for opposing evolution is its 'naturalism'..." (Pg. 93)
This collection will be of great interest to anyone studying the Intelligent Design movement.
January 16, 2012
Terse, Well-Written Rebukes of Intelligent Design from Eminent Scientists and Philosophers
In "Intelligent Thought: Science Versus The Intelligent Design Movement" editor and literary agent John Brockman has assembled sixteen insightful, quite well-written, essays from leading scientists and philosophers regarding the so-called "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design creationism" debate. While most essays offer ample refutations of Intelligent Design, others explore other, related issues, ranging from the evolution of human consciousness and whether there is indeed evidence supporting the very idea of a "designed" universe. Noted evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne distinguishes between "soft" scientific Intelligent Design, and its harder "religious" version, in the opening essay, "Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name". Eminent philosopher David Dennett explains why Intelligent Design is a hoax in "The Hoax of Intelligent Design and How It Was Perpetrated", discussing at length, favorite Intelligent Design rhetorical techniques like "insisting" that a scientific controversy exists when one doesn't, simply by criticizing or misinterpreting valid published scientific research (One that is clearly a favorite pastime of Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer William Dembski.). Paleontologists Tim D. White and Neil H. Shubin weigh in with succinct essays on, respectively, the hominoid fossil record ("Human Evolution: The Evidence") and the evolutionary transition from fish to tetrapods ("The `Great" Transition"). Historian of science Frank J. Sulloway explains "Why Darwin Rejected Intelligent Design". Distinguished physicist Lisa Randall compares and contrasts evolutionary theory with Intelligent Design ("Designing Words"), discussing both the extensive evidence for evolution and the history of evolutionary thought, while also noting why Intelligent Design fails scientifically. These sixteen essays are an excellent overview of the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design; for this very reason alone, they deserve to be read by as wide a readership as possible.
(Reposted from my 2008 Amazon review)
In "Intelligent Thought: Science Versus The Intelligent Design Movement" editor and literary agent John Brockman has assembled sixteen insightful, quite well-written, essays from leading scientists and philosophers regarding the so-called "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design creationism" debate. While most essays offer ample refutations of Intelligent Design, others explore other, related issues, ranging from the evolution of human consciousness and whether there is indeed evidence supporting the very idea of a "designed" universe. Noted evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne distinguishes between "soft" scientific Intelligent Design, and its harder "religious" version, in the opening essay, "Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name". Eminent philosopher David Dennett explains why Intelligent Design is a hoax in "The Hoax of Intelligent Design and How It Was Perpetrated", discussing at length, favorite Intelligent Design rhetorical techniques like "insisting" that a scientific controversy exists when one doesn't, simply by criticizing or misinterpreting valid published scientific research (One that is clearly a favorite pastime of Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer William Dembski.). Paleontologists Tim D. White and Neil H. Shubin weigh in with succinct essays on, respectively, the hominoid fossil record ("Human Evolution: The Evidence") and the evolutionary transition from fish to tetrapods ("The `Great" Transition"). Historian of science Frank J. Sulloway explains "Why Darwin Rejected Intelligent Design". Distinguished physicist Lisa Randall compares and contrasts evolutionary theory with Intelligent Design ("Designing Words"), discussing both the extensive evidence for evolution and the history of evolutionary thought, while also noting why Intelligent Design fails scientifically. These sixteen essays are an excellent overview of the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design; for this very reason alone, they deserve to be read by as wide a readership as possible.
(Reposted from my 2008 Amazon review)
May 11, 2012
"The visigoths are at the gate, are we going to let them in?" John Brockman's last enduring words as he presents the many essays from many prominent scientists against Intelligent Design. I found the arguments repetitive but you can only expand on an argument in so many ways. However, I did find some interesting approaches, most notably the essay by Seth Lloyd which talked about binary systems and how this modality of expression relates to the philosophy of science vs. intelligent design. It was interesting solely because I have never thought of the world in this view. Most technological foundations can be viewed with two numbers and these two factors relate back with the way we not only make information and essentially relays how there are always two primary opposing views. I suppose being stuck in the world of physics I thought about how there is matter and anti-matter, but never in the world of computer engineering.
In the end, what I took most from these essays are that a)intelligent design does not make logical sense b) ID does not follow any scientific methodology c) Darwin rules!
Most importantly, the lesson I valued most about this collection is the point that one of the contributors made about the difference in the process and the product. As I am reading Freeman Dyson's The Scientist as Rebel, I am more at awe of this lesson. ID's primary outlook is of the product mainly how we are now, but never looks at the process of how things came to be. In the intro of Dyson's titular essay "The Scientist as Rebel" he discusses Hilbert's obsession with the overall unification of theories in mathematics while disregarding the applications of the axioms which they create and how this was his primary downfall. Not enveloping oneself in the process becomes a detriment perhaps not to the end result, but certainly the journey to it. As a result, ID can never come to be because it misses the point completely.
In the end, what I took most from these essays are that a)intelligent design does not make logical sense b) ID does not follow any scientific methodology c) Darwin rules!
Most importantly, the lesson I valued most about this collection is the point that one of the contributors made about the difference in the process and the product. As I am reading Freeman Dyson's The Scientist as Rebel, I am more at awe of this lesson. ID's primary outlook is of the product mainly how we are now, but never looks at the process of how things came to be. In the intro of Dyson's titular essay "The Scientist as Rebel" he discusses Hilbert's obsession with the overall unification of theories in mathematics while disregarding the applications of the axioms which they create and how this was his primary downfall. Not enveloping oneself in the process becomes a detriment perhaps not to the end result, but certainly the journey to it. As a result, ID can never come to be because it misses the point completely.
May 13, 2008
This is a great book for someone who needs a baseline for point-making in an argument with their least favorite uncle who opposes the teaching of evolution in high schools in favor of the "Intelligent Design" theory. Said unidentified individual can read this and turn said uncle's argument into ribbons. The book is comprised of essays by several leading professionals in couldn't-be-any-more-relevant fields: Pinker, Psych; Dennett, philosophy; Dawkins, evolutionary biology.
More improtant than flushing the ID theory like so many turds, this book emphasizes the broader issue: the need for more scientific understanding in young Americans. The popular justification of bunk science is a slippery slope, pretty soon you end up with the turds. Almost all the issues facing humanity today invlove overcoming problems related to science, without the understanding of evolution, the tenet of biology, how could one expect to proceed in a world governed by it?
Also, the editor, John Brockman, is the editor of the website www.edge.org. A great site that I would strongly recommend, dedicated to science and other modern rational thought.
More improtant than flushing the ID theory like so many turds, this book emphasizes the broader issue: the need for more scientific understanding in young Americans. The popular justification of bunk science is a slippery slope, pretty soon you end up with the turds. Almost all the issues facing humanity today invlove overcoming problems related to science, without the understanding of evolution, the tenet of biology, how could one expect to proceed in a world governed by it?
Also, the editor, John Brockman, is the editor of the website www.edge.org. A great site that I would strongly recommend, dedicated to science and other modern rational thought.
August 5, 2011
This is not the silver bullet that can be used to dispel IDers, nor is it anti-religion if you are looking for that. It is a collection of 16 essays from true scientists (evolutionary biologists, physicists, psychologists, philosophers, paleontologists, and more) who have joined to respond to the claims of Intelligent Design and the absurdity of calling it science. There are other, more detailed books on the matter, but some of the essays are from different perspectives than the normal refutations. In addition to those that explain why ID is not science, there are essays on why Darwin rejected design, evidence for evolution, and one describing why the product of evolution is more unintelligently "designed" leaving the believer of ID to try to explain why things such as the so called irreducibly complex human eye is such a poor design.
Recommended.
Recommended.
September 27, 2007
This is a collection of about two dozen essays presenting arguments against ID, mostly by using various aspects of evolutionary science to demonstrate why ID fails as anything but a thinly veiled Creationist variant.
I give it 3 stars mainly because I didn't find much new in the book, but that is because I follow this issue pretty closely. If you don't, then this is good book to start with as it has a broad spectrum of scientific, philosophical, philological and cultural arguments against recognizing ID as a science or allowing it to be taught as such in our schools.
It is also useful as an overview of some of the more recent trends in evolutionary biology. This can (should) lead to further, in depth research and self-education.
I give it 3 stars mainly because I didn't find much new in the book, but that is because I follow this issue pretty closely. If you don't, then this is good book to start with as it has a broad spectrum of scientific, philosophical, philological and cultural arguments against recognizing ID as a science or allowing it to be taught as such in our schools.
It is also useful as an overview of some of the more recent trends in evolutionary biology. This can (should) lead to further, in depth research and self-education.
September 13, 2011
This was a really interesting compilation of essays against the "Intelligent Design Movement." I always go into books that are formatted this way with some precaution, just hoping that all the essays don't say the exact same thing just with different authors. While there were a few tidbits that were repeated, i was pleasantly suprised at how many different aspects of Darwinisn were explained and covered in this. All the essays were great and chock full of their reasoning for thinking that ID just can't rationally be called science. And at the same time, they didn't say it couldn't be true; just that it has no place in science books until someone can prove what the ID'ers are saying. Certainly worth a read :D
August 14, 2019
While I agree with the central argument of this book, I found most of the essays to be repetitive and only convincing to someone who is already convinced.
Some essays are only vaguely related to ID being taught in classrooms and others merely shoehorn in a reference to ID in their closing paragraphs. Nevertheless, the essays are well written (for the most part) and cover several different arguments pushed by proponents of ID.
I wouldn’t recommend this book to someone already convinced of ID or creationism. This book would be better for anyone either on the fence or interested in understanding why ID is bunk.
Some essays are only vaguely related to ID being taught in classrooms and others merely shoehorn in a reference to ID in their closing paragraphs. Nevertheless, the essays are well written (for the most part) and cover several different arguments pushed by proponents of ID.
I wouldn’t recommend this book to someone already convinced of ID or creationism. This book would be better for anyone either on the fence or interested in understanding why ID is bunk.
January 31, 2008
A great collection of experts from diverse scientific areas commenting on the virtues and pitfalls of Intelligent Design. I've only given three stars because if you're familiar with the flaws of ID (most simply put - that it's a mislabeled scientific theory) there wasn't much new to offer. However, it offers a few interesting chapters that were interesting takes. Worth the read even if you consider yourself informed on the topic - definitely worth a read if you are scientifically-minded or religious and not close-minded.
November 3, 2008
Series of essays on the subject of Darwinism and how this is a better explanation for life on Earth than creationism. The arguement is on several levels from a robust defence of Darwin with detailed explanations of the oft cited arguements against it, to points that argue direnctly against intelligent design, to reasons that ID cannot be considered a science.
Some arguements are better put than others, but all are entirely convincing to me. THose that are harder to read tend to be esoteric and couched in highly scientific language.
Some arguements are better put than others, but all are entirely convincing to me. THose that are harder to read tend to be esoteric and couched in highly scientific language.
December 8, 2008
This book is a collection of reading in evolution, meant to counter "intelligent design" arguments. As is often the case with books like this, the readings vary in quality. Some are quite good; others were easy to ignore. I particularly liked the thoughtful piece by Frank J. Sulloway titled "Why Darwin Rejected Intelligent Design".
March 7, 2012
A nice wide view of science, evolution, and "intelligent" design from a wide variety of genuine scientists. Would be a great read for our "believers" who are pushing belief as science since it is so wide in it's application. For those scientists in our midst, it is a good review of current thinking on the subject.
July 16, 2007
It shouldn't be necessary for scientists to take time off to write a primer like this, but I'm glad they did. It's is a great summary of cosmic and biologic evolution in short readable chapters, all fascinating.
October 8, 2014
Essays by different authors defending evolution and the scientific method against the charges leveled by the Intelligent Design folks. Some good stuff, including a mind-blowing essay by Lee Smolin on the evolution of universes.
October 16, 2014
Solid collection of essays arguing against ID; nothing particularly new for readers that follow attempts to have ID taught as science, but a good starting point for someone interested in the various points of view and reasoning from well regarded scientists, philosophers, and psychologists.
October 26, 2009
arguements from various scientists as to why the idea of Intelligent Design is flawed.
June 13, 2008
I enjoyed this book, but I'm afraid that it merely preaches to the choir. ID proponents will not be likely to pick it up.
Read
October 28, 2008Makes Christian fundamentalists look even funnier!
October 23, 2009
Collection of works, some better than others obviously, but a few are amazing. As a whole great stuff.
August 20, 2012
I didn't finish this since it wasn't adding anything to my understanding of the science or ID claims.
October 31, 2012
A nice collection on why Intelligent design falls short as science from a fair number of heavy hitters
April 15, 2014
Some of the selections were good, but I didn't care for a lot of them.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews