Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing

by William A. Dembski (Editor)

Recent years have seen the rise to prominence of ever more sophisticated philosophical and scientific critiques of the ideas marketed under the name of Darwinism. In Uncommon Dissent, mathematician and philosopher William A. Dembski brings together essays by leading intellectuals who find one or more aspects of Darwinism unpersuasive. As Dembski explains, Darwinism has gathered around itself an aura of invincibility that is inhospitable to rational discussion—to say the "Darwinism, its proponents assure us, has been overwhelmingly vindicated. Any resistance to it is futile and indicates bad faith or worse." Indeed, those who question the Darwinian synthesis are supposed, in the famous formulation of Richard Dawkins, to be ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked. The hostility of dogmatic Darwinians like Dawkins has not, however, prevented the advent of a growing cadre of scholarly critics of metaphysical Darwinism. The measured, thought-provoking essays in Uncommon Dissent make it increasingly obvious that these critics are not the brainwashed fundamentalist buffoons that Darwinism’s defenders suggest they are, but rather serious, skeptical, open-minded inquirers whose challenges pose serious questions about the viability of Darwinist ideology. The intellectual power of their contributions to Uncommon Dissent is bracing.

Genres: Science, Evolution, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Intelligent Design

306 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 2004

About the author

A mathematician and philosopher, Dr. William Dembski has taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. He is the recipient of a $100,000 Templeton research grant. In 2005 he received Texas A&M’s Trotter Prize.

Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, engineering, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of over twenty books.

His most comprehensive treatment of intelligent design to date, co-authored with Jonathan Wells, is titled The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems.

As interest in intelligent design has grown in the wider culture, Dr. Dembski has assumed the role of public intellectual. In addition to lecturing around the world at colleges and universities, he is frequently interviewed on the radio and television. His work has been cited in numerous newspaper and magazine articles, including three front page stories in the New York Times as well as the August 15, 2005 Time magazine cover story on intelligent design. He has appeared on the BBC, NPR (Diane Rehm, etc.), PBS (Inside the Law with Jack Ford; Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson), CSPAN2, CNN, Fox News, ABC Nightline, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Reviews

[Neal · Rating 5 out of 5]

To do this book justice would be to review each chapter separately, as they are all written by different authors. The list is extensive and noteworthy, and it includes names like William Dembski (the editor), David Berlinski, Michael Behe, Michael Denton, Phillip Johnson, Frank Tipler, and others. You might recognize a few of those names from their own books on the topic(s) at hand. If not, you should certainly check them out. Berlinski in particular is highly intelligent, erudite, and acerbically witty. His book, "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions," is a wonderful read, insightful, hilarious, and above all iconoclastic.

This selection of writings is illuminative, taking a deep, thoughtful look at evolutionary theory. Many of the writings (not all, as there are some that are quite pointed in their criticism of specific aspects of evolution, scientism, etc.) have a very familiar refrain, one which is echoed in Michael Behe's "The Edge of Evolution," that is, simply: Evolution as it is currently understood may not be able to account for all of the complexity in nature. Moreover, that, of evolution's three tenets - common descent, natural selection, and random mutation - some have far greater explanatory power than others.

Specifically, a strong claim is that random mutation may not be not powerful enough (or have had the time) to account for all the complexity in nature. Secondly, according to some of the authors here, there is no good explanation for the Cambrian explosion to date. And thirdly, evolutionary theory is not impervious to criticism, which is perhaps the most pervasive of the ideas presented. These three claims are made very adamantly throughout the book, along with some other related critical essays.

Some people confuse intelligent design with creationists, for various reasons, not the least of which is the misnomer of a title. Intelligent Design harkens back to William Paley and his watch and his inference to God, but that's not what ID is. Creationists are typically religiously zealous theists whose disdain for science and rational discourse is appalling. Intelligent design advocates, at least of the stripe in this collection, are not creationists, and are in fact far from it. Many of the writers represented are self-described agnostics, a secular Jew (Berlinski), and, though some are certainly religiously minded, they are also biochemists, with no disdain for science. Some think ID is equivalent to kicking evolution out and ushering God in to take its place. This is also a misconception. Evolution is argued for vehemently in some places this book (especially common descent and natural selection), and then shown to be lacking in a number of places, most namely in random mutation's explanatory capability and the enigmatic Cambrian explosion.

They aren't claiming, at least not all of them, that evolution is wholly wrong; in fact, they claim it has gotten a lot right. They aren't (all) claiming that evolution should be shown the door (just that some of it needs to be modified or include other concepts). What they are saying is that evolution needs some modifying, some clarification, and some helpful criticism from within. If you are willing to read even one or two of these essays, I think you will find them insightful, whether you are amenable to ID's ideas or not.

Again, I cannot stress enough that ID is not creationism. It isn't even inherently religious. ID's central claim is that evolution as it is currently understood may not be able to account for all natural complexity. They don't have to posit God or throw evolution out with the bath water. ID is simply a critical appraisal of some of the explanatory capabilities of evolution. And this book is about as good as it gets in that regard.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS CRITIQUING "DARWINISM"

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: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities,' 'Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology,' 'The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design,' 'Mere Creation; Science, Faith & Intelligent Design, 'T'ough-Minded Christianity: Legacy of John Warwick Montgomery,' etc.

This 2004 collection contains essays by persons such as Philip Johnson (author of 'Darwin on Trial'), Frank Tipler (co-author of 'The Anthropic Cosmological Principle'), Michael Behe (author of 'Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution'), Michael Denton ('Evolution: A Theory In Crisis' and 'Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe'), and other (lesser-known) figures.

Dembski wrote in his Introduction, "The aim of this book is to expose and unseat the myths that have gathered around Darwinism. Of course, by itself this book will not accomplish that end---Darwinism's myths are simply too entrenched in our intellectual culture for a single book to overturn them... Think of this book, therefore, as ramping up the objections to Darwinism and its chapters as straws that, along with other straws, eventually will break Darwinism's back." (Pg. xxxii) He adds, "I wish to leave Darwinists with this closing thought: You've had it way too easy until now. It is no longer credible to conflate informed criticism of Darwinism with ignorance... or brainwashing. " (Pg. xxxvii)

Michael Denton stated in his essay, "My strategy in writing 'Evolution; A Theory in Crisis' was to restrict myself to arguing AGAINST Darwinism rather than attempting to defend an alternative hypothesis. This was not my preferred approach. It is always better in delivering a critique to have a well-developed alternative hypothesis in mind. However, I had at the time no alternative worldview or hypothesis with which to account for the development of life on earth. I have subsequently come to the view that the only feasible alternative to Darwinism... is by adopting some version of the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law... At the time, however, I had not the slightest idea of what an alternative explanatory evolutionary model might look like. So the strategy of restricting myself to a CRITIQUE was not a matter of choice." (Pg. 165) He adds later, "my philosophy of nature has moved even further away from the mechanistic 'superwatch' model toward a lawful conception of biological form." (Pg. 171)

This collection is of somewhat uneven quality; but the excellent parts are excellent, and the merely good parts are good, and are more than enough to make this excellent reading for anyone interested in Intelligent Design, the Creation/Evolution controversy, Darwinian (or other types of) evolution, etc.

[Phil · Rating 4 out of 5]

Uncommon Dissent presents fourteen essays by leading intellectuals in the Intelligent Design movement, each discussing one aspect of the intellectual case for doubting the neo-Darwinian model of undirected evolution in Earth's biosphere. Some of the essays explain personal journeys to skepticism, while others discuss current evidence in genetics, microbiology, natural law, or philosophy.

This is not a book for the casual reader. The authors are serious scholars and some of them become very technical. Roland Hirsch of the Office of Biological and Environmental Research at the US Department of Energy discusses technologically-driven findings in the field of genetics and microbiology in the last 40 years that raise difficult questions for evolutionary biologists; the findings he discusses are fascinating but not easy to grasp. Jay Budziszewski, a philosophy professor from Univ. of Texas, launches into a technical discussion of whether a theory of natural laws can be derived from the naturalistic world envisioned by Darwin's modern advocates; this is mostly interesting to philosophers, not to the layman.

At the same time, much of the information in this book is riveting. Frank Tipler raises an interesting challenge to the modern system of peer review; does it protect the scientific method or the reigning orthodoxy of thought? Robert Koons builds an historical model for how knowledge advances in a branch of science -- and then posits that neo-Darwinian evolution is still at the stage where Copernicus was when he first posited heliocentrism. I found Michael Denton's personal journey as a biologist most interesting, as his research into protein folds raises the possibility that biological systems conform to the laws of physics in more fundamental ways than anybody thought.

Perhaps most intriguing to observers of the ID debate, the book contains David Berlinski's 1996 Commentary article, "The Deniable Darwin," and then includes several of the more important responses to the article received by the editors of Commentary. This is crucial history of the discussion, and Berlinski's wit never fails to amuse.

For serious students of the ID debate, this single volume will provide you with a solid overview of the best challenges to the modern proponents of Darwin's legacy. It is useful, also, for anybody who wants to understand the thinking of ID's leading proponents.

[Kyle Jolly · Rating 5 out of 5]

A collection of essays by leading scientists and intellectuals that blows the myth of evolution to pieces!
With the exception of one or two essays, the book is written completely in layman's terms. A must read for those who refuse to buy into the dogmatic cult of evolutionists.

[Hanny · Rating 1 out of 5]

Catchy title to a good reference book on some criminally stupid ideas.

[Pete Foley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book which addresses some of the holes in Darwinian (macro) evolution. The volume is a series of chapters by different authors, and is very well written. Some of the topics / issues raised include:
- The bias against and suppression of anti-Darwinian scientific papers
- Irreducible complexity - particularly inside the cell
- The relative lack of DNA variability: if natural selection is the operating mechanism, why is there so little variability in both DNA content and the DNA replication process across species? Wouldn't natural selection also affect those as well?
- Cambrian explosion

Highly recommend this book!

[The Great Asπ e · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve gone back and forth on this issue for a long time. I was not raised Christian and I was blissfully unaware of such controversies until after I became a Christian at the age of 18. At first, I was told that the Bible taught that the Earth was only 6,000 years old and after my experience in conversion, I was prone to just believe that the Bible did indeed teach that.

However, as time went on I became very thirsty for knowledge. I have always been a voracious reader, when I converted, my taste in books shifted from sci-fi and horror to Christian books. (Though, I still love sci-fi and horror.) Because of my experiences, I have read a few books from various positions on this issue. I’ve read books defending evolution, old-earth creationism, young-earth creationism, and a bunch of models and such in between.

While searching for a new book to read, I came across this thick volume edited by William Dembski, a mathematician. Dembski was a big name in the Intelligent Design movement and I had read one of his books before, so I decided to pick this book up. The introduction starts by quoting Daniel Dennett and others showing the affection and overstating of just how much evolution encompasses.

In the first chapter, it is said that we are still waiting for Darwin’s Newton, that is, someone who could take what Darwin proposed and support it. There is a comparison made between germ theory and evolution, the former presenting many more stages of development in thought, judging by the many hypotheses and tests in that area. There is a contention that Darwin’s theory was not a theory when Darwin was alive, but instead just a hypothesis.

In chapter 2, Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, contributes his critique of Evolution as a dogma. Johnson argues that while Young-Earth Creationists may be wrong about side issues, their idea that educators are indoctrinating our children is true. Johnson challenges the assumption that Evolution is backed by empirical evidence and is instead riddled with philosophical presuppositions. Johnson brings up the problem of the Cambrian explosion and cites Dr. Richard Dawkins, who does seem puzzled by the fossils recovered there. This is because the fossils were in an advanced stage of evolution that would throw off the timeline of popular evolutionary models, but it would not necessarily prove evolution false. Dawkins's own answer is that he thinks that fossils simply can’t last past 600 million years or so. Johnson doesn’t buy this defense. He cites paleontologists of a more recent era stating that the missing links are still a problem to bolster his case that we are lacking the transitional fossils necessary to prove an evolutionary model.

In chapter 3, Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger has a chapter called “The Miracles of Darwinism.” In it, Schutzenberger starts with a 1996 interview with La Recherche, a French magazine. Shutzenberger was a mathematician and doctor of medicine. He was questioned about evolution and his responses were rather interesting. He was asked for his definition of Darwinism, in which Schutzenberger argues that evolution holds two contradictory ideas to be true. That is that of gradualism (small successive changes) and saltationism (changes that jump) on the other. He cites Richard Dawkins as a radical gradualist and Stephen Jay Gould as a radical saltationist.

When it was mentioned that Schutzenberger was not a biologist, he retorted that evolutionary biologists want mathematicians to participate. He claims Dawkins is “fatally attracted” to arguments that “hinge on concepts from mathematics.” (p.104) He goes on to say that Darwinism doesn’t actually explain that much and that the models presented aren’t worthwhile. On the one hand, Gradualism fails because it doesn’t align with paleontological evidence. On the other hand, saltationism requires a miracle to be true, argues Schutzenberger.

He continues by labeling evolution as “grossly insufficient” and cites the idea that horses were once as small as rabbits and only grew over time to escape from predators. He says while the idea that this could have happened is partially true and possible, it doesn’t account for the fact that gaining size also has negative consequences. So it would seem that finding an exact reason for such a drastic change would seem no more than speculation. (p.110)

In chapter 4, Nancy Pearcy seeks to address Evolution as a worldview. She takes issues with Dawkins and others ruling out other explanations for human origins on the notion that they aren’t naturalistic. (i.e. they reject all supernatural explanations.) She fights hard against the idea that morality is some sort of natural occurrence within our humanity. As she points out that several authors have argued that rape and other heinous things are natural occurrences that we have later made crimes. She disagrees with Dr. Steven Pinker, who argues in his book A Blank Slate that rape is an adaptive strategy pursued by low-status males who are alienated from their communities and unable to win the consent of women. Dr. Pinker concludes that this will lead to a gene or a discovering of a gene that predisposes men to rape. (p.126)

Next, she takes on Dr. Peter Singer, the Princeton professor who allegedly defended bestiality. She finds a weird disconnect in Singer who on the one hand argues for animal liberation but on the other supports human sex with animals. She blames evolution for this, as evolution classifies humans as animals, therefore, it is a species difference but not anything significant otherwise. (p.129)
She argues that evolutionary psychology is self-refuting and an “incoherent patchwork.” (p.132) and addresses Daniel Dennett’s trademark metaphor of Darwinism being a universal acid that eats through every traditional concept. She then briefly addresses theistic evolution. She states that only process theology could account and be compatible for a harmonious relationship between God and evolution. (p.138)

In the 5th chapter, Edward Sission seeks to point out the flaws in what he terms Neo-Darwinism. A lot of these flaws have to do with failed experiments and philosophical points that are disguised or hidden in the science of Evolution. (i.e. Evolutionists will make philosophical arguments with scientific claims and claim the whole thing as science.) In Chapter 6, J. Budziszewski, argues that naturalism is at odds with natural law. His reasoning goes as follows. He states that naturalism destroys any meaningful concept of morality. (p.190) He also states that it’s a disaster to ethics (p.196) and overall that Evolution cannot account for anything because it isn’t a predictive model/theory.

In chapter 7, Frank Tipler calls into question the honesty and integrity of scientific peer-reviewed journals. Tipler is a Christian physicist who took issue in particular with Howard Van Til, a theistic evolutionist, who had told him his work wasn’t worth considering because it wasn’t peer-reviewed. Tipler argues that many great scientific breakthroughs and achievements happened before peer-review was a thing so peer-review shouldn’t be the litmus test for correct information. (p.210) Tipler argues that the peer-review process is arbitrary and that Science journals should be more open to the idea that they could be wrong when presented counter-evidence. (p.229)

In chapter 8, Michael Behe urges us to not reject evolution outright because of our theological convictions but to thoroughly investigate it. (p.237) Behe repeats his famous irreducible complexity argument and addresses the history of the Catholic church gradually accepting Evolution as an orthodox position on human origins. (p.248)

In chapter 9, Michael John Denton tells us his personal story on his back-and-forth with evolution. Denton argues that scientists make a mistake when they assume animal organs work similar to ours or to man-made machines and thus make false inferences. (p.273) In chapter 10, James Barham tells us why he is not a Darwinist. He thinks that Darwinism is not empirical, makes sweeping philosophical claims, and pushes back against the idea that Darwinism is even the only naturalist explanation for human origins. (p.314)

In chapter 11, Cornelius Hunter argues that Evolution is not consistent with the scientific method. Therefore, it shouldn’t count as a science. The experiments don’t prove what they say they prove and the evidence is shoddy at best. (p.325) In chapter 12, Ronald F. Hirsch argues that bacterial genome sequences prove that Darwin’s conception of evolution is less likely than thought. (p.362) In chapter 13, Christopher Langan argues that naturalism lacks explanatory power and therefore should not be the main model in scientific inquiry. (p.378) In chapter 14, David Berlinski argues that the fossil record is incomplete, that evolution is defended with faulty reasoning and that it isn’t fit to survive in today’s intellectual climate. (p.425)

Conclusion


I tried to summarize each chapter to give you an idea of what kinds of claims were being made. To see their arguments in further detail, get the book yourself. It’s better to read, digest, and contemplate on your own without someone telling you what to think. My opinion is that some of these chapters are woefully insufficient, while others are thought-provoking. You can judge which you think is which. Come to your own conclusions. However, I think a balanced approach whether you deny evolution or accept it, is to read the for/against works on it. Tolle Lege.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is wild! And not some crackerjack defense of Noah getting two T-Rexes on the ark. Many of the authors here are not religious at all, though I found even the evangelicals (whom I would normally shy away from, because I'm a bigot) surprisingly refreshing and convincing.

The book is about much more than biological evolution, which is definitely an established fact. It's primarily about some of the public policy and academic spinoffs of Darwinian theory, many of which are downright barbaric and dangerous -- and certainly open to debate, regardless of what the goose-stepping establishment of professors and experts will tell you. Steven Pinker's defense of infanticide? Darwinists' not condemning rape? Peter Singer's cuddling up with bestiality? Darwin's own blowing off of female infanticide because, well, it's always been around in all cultures? No thanks and fuck y'all.

A spirited read. Regardless of your own religious, political or scientific views, this should be on any reading list on the history of science. Unless you prefer the cartoon version of history offered by the popularizers and their groupies, there's a lot of perfectly legitimate criticism of scientific antics here that has nothing to do with promoting a literal reading of the Book of Genesis. If you're coming here for an apology for Falwell, God help you.

[Bonnie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Deep, fascinating exploration of scientists and intellectuals who reject the "fact" of evolution

[Ben Garrard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lots of great stuff in here. I would’ve left out the Christopher Langan essay - it’s dense to the point of being unfathomable. But the rest is pretty accessible and thought provoking.

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating look at more reasons why so many people are rejecting Darwinism, and further evidence that such rejection isn't based solely on religious grounds. Some parts also points out the intellectual bankruptcy of the theory of evolution, such as David Berlinsky's essay, in which he describes Richard Dawkins' "monkeys at a keyboard' experiment. Apparently, even Darwinists themselves are more than happy to illustrate this bankruptcy, as illustrated by the responses to Mr. Berlinsky's essay; Richard Dawkins and Daniel C. Dennett somehow imagine that personnel insults and vulgarities substitute for facts and evidence.

However, several parts seem to actually support evolution, quibbling about the details of how it happened without actually proving that it happened. The essay by Michael John Denton is one such head-scratcher; he wrote about a "reconciliation between faith and reason", as if the two can possibly be in conflict. He also refers to some muscles in the human head as being "vestigial"; considering that the idea of "vestigial organs" has been totally busted, I have to wonder if this section is really accurate.

What is probably the biggest jaw-droping statement in book is by James Burham, "There is no question that we are animals". From the rest of his essay, I assume he believes that humans evolved from primates; yet he fails to prove this belief nor does he address the absolute lack of evidence for human evolution. In the same paragraph, he also states that humans have a "moral sense to strive for the good", without proving that morality could have "evolved" naturally or where it came from, since apparently no other animals have any moral sense.

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was heavier and more complicated than I expected (after reading Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science Theology by the same author a number of years ago). Several of the chapters were quite compelling and interesting, and others rolled my eyes into the back of my head, but I enjoyed the read.

[Wendy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great resource for those interested in the current scientific debate going on today. William Dembski is the leader of a new movement of scientists questioning the theory of evolution currently being taught as absolute truth.

[Jeffrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

The best part of this book, I think, is the introductory thoughts by Dembski. A collection of articles on intellectuals who doubt neo-darwinian theory.

[Emma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cool Bookss