Book Description
Clear, concise, and persuasive, Atheist Universe details exactly why God is unnecessary to explain the universe and life's diversity, organization, and beauty. The author thoroughly rebuts every argument that claims to "prove" God's existence — arguments based on logic, common sense, philosophy, ethics, history and science.
Atheist Universe avoids the esoteric language and logic used by philosophers and presents its scientific evidence in simple lay terms, making it a richly entertaining and easy-to-read introduction to atheism. A comprehensive primer, it addresses all the historical and scientific questions, including: Is there proof that God does not exist? What evidence is there of Jesus's resurrection? Can creation science reconcile scripture with the latest scientific discoveries?
Atheist Universe also answers ethical issues such as: What is the meaning of life without God? It's a spellbinding inquiry that ultimately arrives at a controversial and well-documented conclusion.
Customer Reviews:
Not terribly interesting or informative..........2007-10-12
I picked this book up as a christian who is interested in maintaining a well-rounded viewpoint. I was hoping to encounter some interesting arguments or data to challenge specific points of the christian religion, but I can't say I really did. Ultimately, I feel like the author spent a lot of time dismissing Intelligent Design, which I can understand since it isn't hard science, but also ended up doing a lot of handwaving over his points of contention in general. Maybe I expected too much, I don't know. I think it's a worthwhile read since it's one of the highest ranking books on the subject, but that doesn't speak too well of the genre in general it seems. I appreciate the author's civil style and friendly tone, but ultimately I just wasn't persuaded to even reconsider anything, and that may make his attempt a failure.
Don't Waste Time, Read Dawkins.......2007-10-04
Don't waste your time reading this drivel. This book is so centered on the "dramatic" life of the author. None of his arguments are new or that well presented. Dawkins is more comprehensive, Dennett has more interesting insights and compelling arguments (belief in belief), and Hitchens will make you laugh and remind you that being an atheist doesn't mean you hitch your wagon to the crazy nuts on the left!
Very informational.......2007-10-03
I thought the information was so important I ordered a second copy for a friend who lives in the bible belt. Just the reference to the Treaty of Tripoli makes the purchase well worth the money.
Great overview.......2007-09-26
Mills has written a terrific and nearly comprehensive overview of why atheism makes more sense than religiosity. He builds his case -- argument by argument, point by point -- in a casual, conversant style of writing that anyone should be able to follow and appreciate. Highly recommended.
Buy IT Now! .......2007-09-18
Mills has done an exceptional job of comprising a multitude of philosophical and scientific perspectives as to why a god does not exist. While some would retort that I am biased, for being atheist myself, I would rebut that it does not affect it either way. If I were a Fundamentalist it would be very hard to deny the truth of what he has gathered.
He uses perfect analogies to explain what he is trying to get across to you right when you feel lost and confused.
I would recommend this book to anyone, especially Fundamentalists.
He has sparked an interest in me to research further astrology, the impeding of technology by Christians, the inquisitions, evolution, religion and its evolution and philosophy.
BUY IT NOW!
Book Description
What is the ultimate destiny of our universe? That is the striking question addressed by James Gardner in The Intelligent Universe.
Traditionally, scientists (and Robert Frost) have offered two bleak answers to this profound issue: fire or ice.
The cosmos might end in fire—a cataclysmic Big Crunch in which galaxies, planets, and life forms are consumed in a raging inferno as the universe contracts in a kind of Big Bang in reverse.
Or the universe might end in ice—a ceaseless expansion of the fabric of space-time in which matter and energy are eternally diluted and cooled; stars wither and die, , and the cosmos simply fades into quiet and endless oblivion.
In The Intelligent Universe, James Gardner envisions a third dramatic alternative—a final state of the cosmos in which a highly evolved form of group intelligence engineers a cosmic renewal, the birth of a new universe.
Gardner's vision is that life and intelligence are at the very heart of the elegant machinery of the universe. It is a viewpoint that has won outspoken praise from an array of leading scientists, including Sir Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal, and Templeton Prize winner Paul Davies.
The Intelligent Universe is both a look into the past and a road map for the future of the universe. It explores the mysteries of the universe and of consciousness, and provides a frank and fascinating look at where our minds are taking us.
Customer Reviews:
Evolution debacle.......2007-08-10
The cosmos seems to be intelligent and friendly to life. Intelligent in the sense there exists many biological patterns that are self-similar. Friendly, in the sense of the existence of the elements of carbon, hydrogen, gravity, water, super novas, the organization of universes, and the diversity of DNA. Evolution fails to explain this intelligence in life. All evidence points to God, as the creator. The cosmo self-organizing algorithms seem to be low order simple programs with highly condensed information. Intelligence seems to be everywhere in time, space, and matter.
Richard Dawkins work seems exciting. Dawkins looks to overthrow the Drawin doctrines that have kept science in the dark for hundreds of years. Dawkins biological algorithms suggest intelligent design rather than random mutation as the process of organization.
Celluar Automata Genius, Wolfram, author of "A New Kind of Science" is search for "The Algorithm of Everything", a sort of genius program, once started would generate all patterns in the universe, says, Wolfram, "the entire cosmos, from quantum particles to the formation of galaxies, was a perpetual runtime flowing from simple rules. Complexity arises from simple rules. The universe can be understood by running computer simulations of these rules. The algorithm is more powerful than fragmentational stitching of equations. Extraterrestial might be communicating with us in messages we can't perceive. Drawian natural selection is overrated. Maximum levels of complexity are equivalent from human thought to rain hitting pavement, "Wolfram's Law". The only way to discover the consequences of complex processes is too let things proceed naturally. Computational equivalence means that computer programs can do all the stuff that happens in nature. Does this mean "Thinking Machines"? The Kurzeil prediction, "Singularity", 2050.
"Yet despite all our learning, human beings have missed the point of it all, because of the elusive nature of complexity." Considering the big bang theory, as singularity, almost instantly, matter begin to form, in an amazing dimension of plasma, high energy particles, and light. Considering the emense region of the cosmos, 13 billion light years of increasingly expanding matter and homogeneous distribution, the event seems intelligent by design.
The authors deduce that there must be other worlds that support life. The authors also theorize that life on those planets would not differ too much from life on earth. Similar patterns for plants, animals, and humans would exist on those planets. The intelligence of the cosmos would not create structures that were nonfunctional.
I found Kauffman discoveries interesting, but he spends too much time attributing life diversity to "evolution". Kauffman did not demostrate evolution could create the tree of life in his book, "Self-Organization and Complex System". However, Kauffman does support the idea that intelligent design can be discovery by applying physics equations to biology. Kauffman in his book, "At Home in the Universe" does not demonstrate adequately 1. how life emerged from the elements 2. how protein strains emerged into multi-cell life 3. the lineage links too a single original parent celluar structure.
The author conclude that the universe is becoming more intelligent. Life is become better adapted, more resourceful, and the universe will serve the purpose of man. Man himself is thought to be the source from which the new emerging reality is being created. Science can not explain all truth.
There are two truthes evolution does not explain: why does man need God? What does God want for man? The purpose of man is too find joy, an emotion. Emotion is required to act and without emotion man becomes a "flesh and bones machine". Man is moves contrary to the second law of thermodynamics because he exercises free will.
stimulating speculation about the underlying nature of the cosmos.......2007-05-11
Having read Gardner's earlier work Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life Is the Architect of the Universe, I was prepared for "The Intelligent Universe" to be the work of a visionary thinker who is not afraid to speculate about the cosmological principles underlying our universe. I cherish the work of authors who are not afraid to think big. Gardner does not disappoint in the grandeur of his vision. If you think there is nothing new under the sun, I encourage you to read "The Intelligent Universe". One can't help but find enlightening material in the book. Oliver Wendell Holmes said "Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions." This sentiment certainly applies to my reading of Gardner's book.
Gardner's book is, however, not without flaws. One criticism I won't make of the book is that the ideas are hopelessly speculative. The book employs the kind of theoretical flights of fancy that John Horgan dismisses as "ironic science" in his book The End of Science (Helix Books), a book which says that science is asymptotically approaching a point at which there won't be any major new scientific theories, not because of science's failures but because science has been so successful. I mention Horgan because the scope of Gardner's vision encourages me to believe that we haven't even begun to exhaust our potential to develop breathtaking scientific theories of the cosmos. I came away from The Intelligent Universe with an excitement about the power of large-scale thinking about the universe.
Having said that, while Gardner presents an original "story", weaving together the work of numerous cosmologists and other scientists, perhaps paradoxically, the book often reads as a rehashing of the ideas of numerous big-picture thinkers. Maybe both perspectives can be accurate: Gardner summarizes the work of many while putting together the pieces in a unique way. There is nothing wrong with synthesizing the views of one's peers. However, the book too often lapses into a series of synopses of the big ideas of other scientific thinkers, brilliant though these thinkers may be.
To give you an idea of Gardner's method I reproduce the train of thought found in a few early chapters. Gardner uses extended paragraph-long quotations to run through the following thinkers (not all of which Gardner ultimately endorses):
Fred Hoyle on the fine-tunedness of physical constants, Francis Crick on directed pansperma (the idea that extraterrestrials seeded the biosphere with the first life forms on Earth), Stephen Wolfram and Ed Fredkin on cellular automata principles underlying physics, Seth Lloyd on the cosmos as quantum computer, Erwin Schrodinger on quantum physics underlying life, John Wheeler's on the "participatory anthropic principle" (the idea that only with conscious life does the universe summon itself into being), John Koza on genetic programming, Roger Penrose on the quantum physical underpinnings of consciousness, (leading to a gloss on the implications of combining quantum computing and genetic programming). Then Gardner begins the next chapter with Mark Bedau on artificial life, with an interlude about the perils of nanotechnology run amok, alluding to Michael Crichton's techno-thriller Prey. After that, we move on to topic of the technological singularity, where Ray Kurzweil plays a prominent role, both for his vision of smarter-than-human artificial intelligence and his optimism about the prospects for immortality. In the same chapter Gardner describes how Vernor Vinge forsees the arrival of super-human intelligence as more likely to result from intelligence amplification (at least at first) than from artificial intelligence.
Many of the later chapters work in a similar fashion, cycling through the big ideas of major thinkers. If a book is going to run through thinkers as this one does I guess what I would wish for is a book with the kind of comprehensiveness of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford Paperbacks). Instead, too often there is only a superficial treatment of one thinker before we move on to another superficial treatment of the big idea of the next thinker. Such a technique is particularly unsatisfying for someone who is already familiar with many of the thinkers presented. I would relish a deeper engagement with the work of many of the thinkers treated. So one problem that I have with the book is simply that it is not in-depth enough. The body of the text takes up 196 pages, with an additional 46 pages comprising reprints of three articles from the International Journal of Astrobiology and Complexity magazine (2 articles).
I don't mean to dismiss Gardner's writing style. The value of his approach was demonstrated to me by his discussion of Beatriz Gato-Rivera's proposed solution to the Fermi Paradox. I had never heard of Gato-Rivera but Gardner's treatment of her position in The Intelligent Universe provided a nice jumping off point to her work. It is easy to see how the book could function as a window into a lot of other scientific topics. I was wondering how Gardner would reconcile the Fermi Paradox with Gardner's view that the universe is "hard-wired" to produce intelligent life, and Gato-Rivera's work figures prominently in his proposed resolution to the conundrum, although, characteristically, there is no attempt made to contradict this hypothesis or to pronounce on the merits of any alternative explanations.
"The Intelligent Universe" ultimately attempts to answer what Brian Greene has called the biggest of the big questions: Why is the universe life-friendly? Gardner, bold and original thinker that he is, thinks he knows the answer. His solution is the Selfish-Biocosm Hypothesis. The central claim of his Selfish-Biocosm Hypothesis is "that the ongoing process of biological and technological emergence, governed by still largely unknown laws of complexity, could function as a von Neumann controller, and that a cosmologically extended biosphere could serve as a von Neumann duplicating machine in a conjectured process of cosmological replication." In other words, the universe comes to life and then reproduces itself through the creation of other universes. This comes right out of Gardner's first book Biocosm. In this picture, human beings (or other intelligent life forms) might be thought of as the mitochondria of the cells that make up the universe as organism. The Intelligent Universe can be seen as the exploration of this basic storyline, and this includes dealing with the religious implications of the radically new perspective afforded by the Selfish-Biocosm Hypothesis. All in all, the story is well worth reading.
Interesting, but speculative.......2007-03-24
I read this as a follow-up to Kurzweil's "The Singularity Is Near" and found it interesting. However, it seems a bit overly speculative on the ultimate origin of the universe(s) (which I suppose is the point). I found the use of closed timelike curves to imply that the universe created itself too much of a stretch. Ultimately the question of what started it all was never answered to my satisfaction.
Excellent Read.......2007-03-22
Anyone with a slight interest in cosmology will find this a wonderful reading experience. With my programming background I found the chapter on The Software of Everything particularly inviting but it is written for readers with no programming experience. Obviously Mr. Gardner has close contact with some very intelligent people at prestigious universities and he develops their complex ideas and efforts into something the everyday reader can appreciate and enjoy. He has spent a great deal of effort making cosmology a very interesting subject. I personally believe the concept of Biocosm will shortly be proven to be on the right track.
Life, the Universe and Everything.......2007-03-03
This book takes you through the thinking of the foremost scientists about the universe and the development of intelligence. The theory of the universe growing in intelligence, backed by the numerous quotes and examples, is apt to rock the common paradigm for all time. The author in his book "Biocosm" lays a firm foundation for his argument and in this book explores the idea further. As proposed in his books "the purpose of the universe" is startling. Two things, in particular, I liked about this book: The summation of the current thinking in Cosmology and the mind-blowing conclusion of the purpose and origin of the universe. The author is very brave to tackle these subjects and he does so masterfully
Customer Reviews:
Sagan's first book a real treasure..........2006-11-15
I was very happy to find this book on a visit to a local used book store (where interestingly enough I also found a copy of the first book published under John F. Kennedy's name being "Why England Slept").
Though I've been a big Carl Sagan fan since reading Cosmos, Dragons of Eden, Broca's Brain, Contact and his other eighties works back during my college days I was always curious to see if he was just as good when he first started writing.
And the answer of course was...duh, of course yes.
Though admittedly one third of the book (relating to cosmic origins) is dated because it was written over forty years ago, the remaining two thirds -- relating to the origins of life generally and speculations on the possibilities of life elsewhere -- actually hold up amazingly well.
Sadly, as it relates to the later topic, being the search for intelligent life elsewhere, part of the reason why Sagan's book still holds up is because of the paucity of research that has actually been done.
In this way, this wonderful book becomes both a commentary on Sagan's abounding foresight and the lack of foresight so obvious in those academicians who've failed to follow in his able footsteps.
The single best scientific book on intelligent life in the universe.......2005-12-07
I used this book as an undergrad in a 400 level Astronomy class. At the time, the book was a real challenge for me in that I wanted to understand the mathematical and physical foundations of intelligent life. By the end of the course, and the book, I was, and have remained, absolutely convinced that intelligent life is plentiful in the universe, at least as can be "proved" mathematically using our physical laws. I was also convinced that human type life is in fact highly unlikely to be duplicated elsewhere in the universe. Finally, it is likely that many of this other intelligent life is perhaps vastly superior to our own. No, I'm not a nut, and I'm not a scientist, but I am convinced, even in the absence of physical evidence. Read this book, you'll make your own mind up. One warning, this is not "light reading". It is a college level textbook, that if you stay with it, will reward you in the end. What a shame we have lost such a great mind as Carl Sagan. To date, no one has stepped up to replace him.
Great Read.......2003-06-26
If you are interested in this issue, I highly recommend the book. This book is extremely thorough, so thorough it could be used as a textbook on an astrobiology class. It was written in the sixties so yes its out of date here and there, but much of the information is surprisingly current. You also get a great early taste of Sagan's writing style.
An Absolutely Essential Read.......2003-01-17
I first read this book in the early 1970s, and have read many
since then, and it pained me somewhat to find that the book is now out of print. I can honestly say this is still, without any doubt
in my mind, the *best* starting place for the study of astronomy,
cosmology, astrobiology/xenobiology (call it what you will) and
all things extraterrestrial. The book gives you all the background information available at the time of its publication to understand
problems that are still profound to this day, in a step by step
method that is both an absorbing read and and a good bit of education in itself. Invaluable for both its conclusions and for the historical background it gives to current issues, well illustrated and beautifully far reaching, I most highly recommend this rare and wonderful book.
This is the first rational book to address the probability.........1998-02-09
of life elsewhere inthe universe.
I read it first sometime in the late Sixties or early Seventies as an undergrad in engineering/physics/math. Carl Sagan created a wonderful book which has stayed with me over the course of almost 30 years now.
Tim Niles
Book Description
As progress in science continues to reveal unimagined complexities, three scientists revisit the difficult and compelling question of the origin of our universe. As mathematician, biochemist, and philosopher of science, they explore the possibility of developing a reliable method for detecting an intelligent cause and evidence for design at the origin of life. In the process, they present a strong case for opening and pursuing a fruitful exchange between science and theology.
Mathematician William Dembski, author of The Design Inference, first argues that new developments in the information sciences make intelligent design objectively and scientifically detectable—he identifies the signs of design. Next, philosopher of science, Stephen Meyer, and biochemist Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, argue that these signs are now clearly evident in both the architecture of the universe and the features of living systems. Other essays by the authors defend the scientific status of the theory of intelligent design and show how that theory supports traditional religious belief without necessarily "proving" the existence of God. In a concluding essay, Michael Behe responds to critics of his best selling book, Darwin's Black Box, thus bringing readers up-to-date on the status of the contemporary design argument in biology.
Customer Reviews:
Finally, a scholarly yet accesible counterpoint.......2006-11-10
Taken together, Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe and Darwin's Black Box make up the best challenge to currently accepted theories I've read. It is about time we stop protecting theories, and start exploring the vast new evidence being uncovered by the expanding frontiers of science. That is what these books do. They point out the new discoveries in several areas of science, which challenge the long-held Darwinian explanation for the beginnings of life. Shouldn't we be willing to see where the evidence takes us? Frankly, Christian faith has nothing to do with evolution vs. creation - as I recall the first few verses of Genesis talk about the earth existing as "chaos" before creation, how do we know what that means? Evidently, challenging the theories of Darwin is rather threatening to many of the very scientists who should be eager to see where this new evidence leads us.
Get the book, read it - it is not an "easy" read, but it IS accesible to anyone who did well in general education science - and then read it again.
Behe whipped by 'the flagellum'.......2006-10-27
In Behe's chapter he states that the bacterial flagellum contains 40 protein parts and that this structure is irreducibly complex. However, a recent paper in Nature Reviews Microbiology by Pallen and Matzke show that Behe made a sweeping generalization by saying "the flagellum" (there are literally thousands of flagellar structures; not one)and many of the flagellar structures require far less than 40 proteins!!!! So much for irreducible complexity. The DI apparently did not do their research. An accesible critique of this is at the Panda's Thumb by Nick Matzke, or the ID to the future podcast comments.
A Pathetic Attempt at Trying to Demonstrate Intelligent Design's Validity as a Scientific Theory.......2006-08-16
Defenders of Intelligent Design will undoubtedly point to "Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute)" as a sterling example of excellent research done in Intelligent Design published in a scientific volume. However, don't be so easily misled folks, since the publisher, Ignatius Press, publishes predominantly religious literature only. Furthermore, none of the papers published was subjected to rigorous scientific peer review of the kind one would expect in symposia volumes and journals published by and for a reputable scientific community (If you truly think that these articles were subjected to such peer review, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn, NY which I would love to sell to you.). Instead, what is presented herein is idle speculation not supported by factual scientific evidence in each of these articles. Instead, each author is guilty of relying only upon philosophical statements, without demonstrating how Intelligent Design is scientifically testable. Hence, this volume is merely a poor example of science fiction pretending to be genuine science.
Intelligent Design is not scientific since it does not adhere to any of the long-established tenets about science itself (Intelligent Design has been judged correctly as the latest flavor of creationism enjoying some popularity amongst fundamentalist Protestant Christians; one notable biologist has referred to it as "reborn creationism".). It can not be tested, simply because it does not generate any testable hypotheses. Moreover, despite claims to the contrary, I have yet to see any peer-reviewed articles testing Intelligent Design; instead, every single book and article published in praise of this idea is merely an attack on the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution; this evolutionary theory is itself the central underlying theory for contemporary biology as much as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are for contemporary physics (Any current scientific controversies about the Modern Synthesis are related to understanding the tempo and mode of evolution as seen from the fossil record and the relative importance of random genetic drift as the primary means of causing evolutionary change; they, themselves, do not mean that the Modern Synthesis is in trouble as the successful unifying theory it has been for nearly a century in explaining biological phenomena.). And Intelligent Design is not a new idea at odds with mainstream science, but rather the latest incarnation of an idea dating from the 17th Century regarding a "Great Chain of Being" which was subsequently tested - and rejected - by Enlightenment and later scientists, most notably naturalists, leading up to of course Darwin and Wallace, who almost simultaneously came up with the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection (The Modern Synthesis Theory is its direct descendant, and includes its principles, as well as evidence from biological sciences as diverse as genetics, molecular biology and developmental biology, which were unknown to both Darwin and Wallace.).
There are other, more important - and intellectually sound - books available on the so-called "creation vs. evolution" controversy (Intelligent Design has been judged correctly as the latest flavor of creationism enjoying some popularity amongst fundamentalist Protestant Christians; one notable biologist has referred to it as "reborn creationism".), which I regard as more worthy than any of Dembski's self-serving defenses of Intelligent Design. Philosopher Robert Pennock's "Tower of Babel" is a splendid historical overview and philosophical deconstruction of creationism, including the best written rebuke of "Intelligent Design" which I've come across. Philip Kitcher, another philosopher, published "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism" back in the early 1980s, but his arguments are still quite valid today. My friend Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" has an eloquent critique of Intelligent Design, focusing on Michael Behe's mousetrap model of irreducible complexity which claims to bestow validity on Intelligent Design. Distinguished American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) invertebrate paleobiologist Niles Eldredge offers yet another brilliant critique of Intelligent Design in his book "Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life", the elegant companion volume to the AMNH Darwin exhibition which he curated, soon to embark on a tour taking it to many of North America's and Great Britain's finest science museums. And last, but not least, Eugenie Scott, Executive Director, National Center for Science Education (www.ncseweb.org), has written a fine textbook on this issue, "Evolution vs. Creationism". All of these books are more desirable than this pretentious book which claims to report genuine scientific research. Otherwise, if you insist on purchasing this book, then perhaps you might choose to acquire instead a splendid text devoted to Klingon cosmology (Neither Klingon cosmology nor "Intelligent Design" can be regarded as scientific, since both depend on faith, not reason, to validate their principles.).
Does the Universe Show Signs of Intelligent Design?.......2006-06-22
Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe provides a collection of invaluable, in-depth papers by leading design theorists Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyer from a conference sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute in 1999.
William Dembksi opens the book by explaining how design can be detected in the natural world. An explanatory filter can be used to determine if a given event is best explained by chance, law (necessity), or intelligent design. Dembski explains that a variety of disciplines, such as forensic science, psychology, or the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project already employ this sort of reasoning. It is then suggested that this scheme might be applied to detect design in the natural sciences.
Stephen Meyer takes up Dembski's challenge by finding that the laws of the universe are highly specified to allow for advanced life. According to Meyer, this implies design at the cosmic level. Meyer also finds design in biology, finding that the sequence specificity inherent in DNA and the specified complexity found in microbiological machines indicate that they were designed. Finally, Meyer critiques various naturalistic models for the origin of life and concludes that design is the best explanation. This is not an argument from ignorance because of our experience with design satisfying the vera causa principle--the recognition that historical sciences should postulate only causes which are sufficient to produce the effect in question. Meyer thus argues that we cannot make a uniformitarian argument to a supernatural deity to explain the specified complexity in life, because we have no observational experience with such, but we can invoke the general category of intelligence, for our uniform experience tells us that intelligence alone is the cause of complex, specified information.
Finally Michael Behe explains that the many irreducibly complex systems in the cell meet Dembski's criteria for design. Behe recounts how critics postulate evolutionary explanations for the origin of such systems and describe Behe's case for design as an argument from ignorance. Behe responds by observing that these Darwinian explanations are highly speculative and unlikely, and that Darwinists have placed their theory in an unfalsifiable position. Behe says design theorists should have no shame in inferring design when Darwinists cannot produce realistic scenarios for the origin of irreducible complexity.
The universal as witness; evidence and the universal probabilities.......2006-04-06
For those who are philosophically opposed to the notion that the universe may have been designed, the root of objection is not based on scientific evidence. It has become a mantra, a dogma, an article of faith to declare loudly that "evolution is a proven fact", but the statement needs to demonstrate that it asserts something true. If evolution is a proven fact, the scientific community that believes in evolution does not need to be shy. The evidence doesn't need to be hidden. Bring it out; let all seekers after truth and reality observe it. I may say that I have not come across any such evidence, and my fields are biochemistry and physics with a strong interest in mathematics. It's certainly possible there is information I haven't examined. I would love to know about it... but so far, evidence itself does not support a universe in which life came about by chance, necessity or a combination thereof.
This book explicates the problems that the Theory of Evolution has in its broadest sense as well as in a more explicit mechanistic sense. The articles comprising it are for the most part extremely well written. I should mention that the second article, the first of those written by Stephen Meyer, I found a little tedious but only because the author used therein a style that I consider rather heavy, repeating one concept and restating it in different words without adding anything in the restatement. I felt that the article could have been condensed by at least half without losing any sense. Yet WHAT Stephen Meyer was saying was interesting... and the second article written by him in the book had no such internal repetition and was highly readable. I have had to conclude that Stephen Meyer has experienced readers or audience who have failed to follow his philosophy-of-science and implications-of-probability-bounds arguments before... and he's taking no chances (pun intended) of the meaning of his writing being misunderstood. That he is a highly intelligent man with a great deal to impart on the very meaning of science and the implications of data is undeniable.
On the basis of his second article, I will be happy to read further writings of his.
Michael Behe is always a pleasure to read. His writing is clear, and his examples are apt. His article will be familiar in most aspects to readers of his ground-breaking "Darwin's Black Box", but the follow-up article, in which he responds to criticisms of the examples and arguments used in that book, is interesting and unambiguous. What comes through clearly is that criticisms were either a) science-based or b) philosophy-based. The science-based criticisms are remarkable for their failure to challenge the biochemical irreducible complexity argument and to find real examples that contradict the evidence presented by Behe. In fact, every example presented with the intent to break down Behe's argument and specific examples not only fails to do so, but inadvertently supplies evidence that SUPPORTS Behe's argument. To go into detail here would be inappropriate and far too lengthy - but Behe's rebuttal is on the basis of biochemical evidence. Let those reading this review be challenged to read the book themselves and judge on the basis of what Michael Behe has written - not opinion, not selective examples, but real and soundly scientific examination of evidence. You need not purchase the book if you're opposed to its concepts - but why not borrow it from your local library? If you are not a biochemist, have next to you while you read it a biological science or biochemistry textbook. Make sure it's an advanced level textbook so that the incredible and complex reality of the systems Behe is discussing can be checked by you in terms of the details. Better still, those who are not biochemists might find enormous pleasure in studying this field just as laymen - the complexity of life is a rewarding and fascinating study, particularly (for me) on the chemical level where complexity is unmistakable.
William Dembski's writing concerning specified complexity is highly informative, and I was drawn to his style of writing, which is clear and has a nice quality that combines information with accessibility. This was the first piece of writing I'd read by Dembski, and it led me to read with great pleasure his other books - books which impress by the scope and detail that he includes. Do not mistake - readers may disagree with William Dembski's viewpoint, but if they are intellectually honest, they have no business stating that his writing is scientifically flawed, intellectually incapable, or riddled with unproven assumptions. Au contraire. His work, on the basis of his published writings, is honest and demonstrative of a high degree of original and intelligent thought with a strong commitment to the evidence.
I should mention several things that might worry potential readers: all three writers are convinced by the raw data of the universe that the universe exhibits unmistakable evidence of design. Intelligent Design is a theory that states design can be detected, not by waving around a Bible, but by the evidence of the universe - the universal bound, probability theory, biochemistry, biology, these are the fields which yield information on this. Intelligent Design makes no claim about who this designer might be, what the purpose of this designer might be, etc. Critics of Intelligent Design who believe they are inflicting a killing blow by saying, "But there's no redundant pathway for this or that, so how intelligent is that?" are, I'm afraid, revealing that they have not read this book. Intelligent Design is so clearly delineated that a reader could scarcely miss it without wilfully deciding to close their eyes - and if a reader still remains confused, he is referred to Dembski's "The Design Revolution" where questions and answers are presented with the purpose of enlightening those who have become confused because they've assumed a meaning for Intelligent Design that comes from their own opinion or what has been said OF the Intelligent Design theory.
Secondly, I note that some reviewers have explicitly rejected Intelligent Design because they say it has philosophical or religious implications. That's irrelevant in assessing a theory and evidence, though. Neo-Darwinism has philosophical or religious implications, and that doesn't affect whether or not it is TRUE. The EVIDENCE ALONE ought to be that which is examined, and explicitly Darwinism has redefined the meaning of science since the propagation of the theory, upon the assumption that common descent is a fact. I contend that it's not up to scientists to redefine words - it's up to those who are experts in semantics. And particularly it is highly suspect to redefine a word so as to exclude competing theories a priori from examination of evidence. To force a particular filter for examination of data, and to force fields of research, based upon a faulty definition of science (by assuming natural mechanics are sufficient to describe the origin of life and those systems in nature exhibiting specified complexity) is a logical error of such magnitude that it creates a blinding supernova of unthinking assumption, and is already creating frustration and dead ends in scientific research.
To make it clear: whether a scientist believes in God or not is irrelevant to an examination of data. Examination of data is the first responsibility of that type of science which seeks to establish observable laws and phenomena, because without data confirming predictions, the various fields of science become nothing more than an enjoyable free-wheeling exercise in imagination. Theories are NECESSARY, though, in order to create predictions (often based on conditional arguments arising from a particular theory) which can then be tested. Historical science is, however, a different kettle of fossil fish. It is non-verifiable in the sense that the past cannot be recreated. But studies of origins are either equally unfalsifiable or equally falsifiable.
It is almost ludicrous that this book has garnered so many reviewers, in the sense that many excellent titles on Amazon have not even a tenth of the number of reviews. Are so many people reading this book? Having read through the reviews here, I cannot conclude that. At least half of the reviews are scathingly attacking the idea, not the book. I venture to say that the majority of the reviewers who have given low ratings for this book have done so without reading it. Perhaps some have read reviews of it. Perhaps some have read a carefully chosen extract from it on a website, together with anti-extract rhetoric designed to show the many "errors" the book has. But to have actually read the book would reveal a common dishonesty with out-of-context quotations when quoted by someone whose philosophical stance is diametrically opposed to that espoused by his opponent.
That is why I say simply... read the book. Judge its scientific credibility on the basis of what it says, not on the basis of what someone says it says. Do not be like those who read books such as "How to Learn Kafka In Ten Minutes" or "Easy Plato For Busy People" or "Einstein Made Simple!" or "Feynman for Dummies". If you want to know what Plato wrote, you read Plato, not someone's hashed-up interpretation of his writing. If you want to understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity, read his published papers - they're not out of print, and the man was a genius. If you want to read about the oft-quoted (tediously over-quoted) idea that the world believed in a flat earth at certain points in history and in certain cultures, it might just be a good idea for you to read the published primary sources rather than quote a frankly ludicrous modern retelling of history. You are guaranteed to be astonished by the cartographic and underlying geographical knowledge and assumptions of the ancient world, and the astonishing misinformation disseminated by people who have taken on board as fact modern myths that have no supporting data.
I have read most of the neo-Darwin literature - much of it was required reading. During my university studies, my questions and requests for data were shunted aside as irrelevant, and I was expected to "believe" in neo-Darwinism as an article of faith, on pains of being considered unscientific if I did not. I still preferred to make up my own mind on the basis of evidence... and to this day, I have the same approach. It is important to read Dawkins, Gould, etc., plus the published literature and published experiments in the journals - or at least, I found it important, because I wished to see (and continue to wish to see) what real evidence such an important theory has. I liked Dawkins' clear style, but his lack of substance and substitution of assumption for fact often frustrated me. Gould's ideas were always interesting, even though I felt they belonged more in science fiction than hard science. I would be fascinated and surprised to learn that those who believe tooth-and-nail in the Theory of Evolution as the explanation for life on earth have actually read all the books on the subject of Intelligent Design which they certainly imply they have. Why? Because Intelligent Design makes sense ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE, and ON THE BASIS OF SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE. This book, to be specific, has certain arguments and a clear, unambiguous presentation of why neo-Darwinism, relying on naturalistic mechanisms of chance and necessity, actually does not provide a plausible explanation for the evidence. I would be bemused and pleased were my review to be instrumental in convincing anyone who thinks they know about Intelligent Design but haven't actually investigated it other than as a theory to shoot down by reading counter-arguments against it... to actually... read this book. I would that all human beings would think clearly and examine information without allowing bias to prevent an honest assessment. That's my hope. Honest assessment. Not brainwashing, not fine but empty rhetoric. Just honest assessment. By ALL MEANS read the counter-arguments. But don't do that without reading the arguments countered first... and not out of context. Read the book, then criticise. That's fair. If readers end up disagreeing, at least they would then do so on the basis of awareness and knowledge of what they criticise.
To the three authors of this book: thank you. Ultimately I enjoyed your writing, and I have found my interest in probability theory rekindled. I will continue to enjoy researching the complex systems in biological organisms, and I will always look for the universe to provide evidence, not my own wishes.
To sum up: it's no crime to have a philosophical, religious or metaphysical belief amounting to certainty. But that philosophical, religious or metaphysical belief MUST NOT filter out theories arising from the evidence. In other words, an intelligent appraisal of data should not include straitjacketing the data. One can PREFER a particular interpretation. One can BELIEVE in a particular interpretation. One can allow other factors (philosophy, metaphysics, religion, etc.) to impact upon one's belief of which interpretation or theory is correct. But that's got nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with real assessment of raw data. True science is not about commitment to a particular belief. It is about the great search for what is, because what is leaves unmistakable signs in the very complexity that specifies it - this we know without doubt. The human race did not know that a hundred years ago, before the strides in knowledge that encompass biochemistry and physics. A genuine search for truth in the universe's physical nature ought to be bounded by NO presuppositions. If the universe arose by chance, it won't be "proved" by disqualifying any other theory before the evidence is examined. If the universe arose by design, it won't be "proved" by assuming it is so. Assumption is a hindrance to honest assessment of the physical data - and a scientist ought not to put his assumptions in place BEFORE his assessment of data.
Let the evidence itself speak for itself.
Book Description
Jane Wagner's masterpiece--The first play in
more than 20 years to become a national
bestseller--is now a motion picture!
Customer Reviews:
really good play and a great source of monologues.......2005-08-23
This play is just what my title says....very entertaining and if you are in the theatre world, guys, but especially girls, should look into a purchase of this play for potential monologues for auditions.
A play full of human insight, wit and wisdom.......2003-12-05
Trudy the Bag Lady has made a life for herself on the streets, offering her own bits of wit and wisdom to the passers-by. Before she wound up on the streets, she was in and out of hospitals, receiving so much electro-shock therapy that she believes her nervous system has been re-wired and now tunes into the bio-rhythms of people around her.
Trudy takes us, along with her two alien companions, on a discovery trip to find out what it means to be human and imparting her own impressions on life. She tunes in a wide array of people, ranging from Agnus Angst, a 15-year-old punk performance artist; Agnus' grandparents Lud and Marie; Chrissy, a recently unemployed workout enthusiast; Lily, an actress currently performing a one-woman show; and many others, both men and women, gay and straight.
This play is full of marvelous insight into the human condition and life in the 1980's. This is very apparent in the incredible second act, in which we follow Lyn from the consciousness-raising times of the 1970's through her rise and fall in the business ranks of the 1980's and her turbulent family life. Also, all the characters, in one form or another, have some influence on the life of the other characters in the play, whether or not they actually meet: Lyn has an affair with Agnus's mother; Kate, a rich trendsetter, finds a suicide note left by Chrissy lying in the street; Trudy takes the aliens to see Lily's play in order to show them goosebumps.
The book also includes still images, from the stage production, of Lily Tomlin, many of which were shot by Annie Leibowitz. Jane Wagner also created some montages of Lily as the many characters in the play.
Full of wit, insight and tenderness, this play stands as a perfect glimpse into understanding society.
Done it and loved it.......2000-01-02
I'm in an arts/high school program, PCCA. I came in after all of the other students had already been there for over a year. This was the first piece I ever performed there. I did a section of it where Trudy is Trudy, in the beginning.
The character was so rich. So many different quirks. The audience loved it, so did the other performers who did the same piece. This is one funny script.
I wasn't nervous when i performed it at all. I just kept thinking how funny the script was, and that, not matter how terrible the acting, the audience would still enjoy the performing.
This book/script is ....... there are no words!!!.......1998-12-18
This one woman plays many characters, and will take you on a journey of laughter, and much more, and leave you smiling for long after you put it down...
Putting reality on a back burner.......1997-10-18
As she tries to explain human beings to extraterrestrials who are searching for signs of intelligent life in the universe, Trudy, the bag lady, channels among others: Agnus Angst, a throwaway teenage punk; Chrissy, an unemployed young woman who doesn't know what to do with herself; Kate -- a rich socialite bored with everything. It's a tough job, but Trudy is up to it -- she refuses to be intimidated by reality.
Wagner weaves together the stories of these separate lives with speculations about time, space, reality, art, and human nature. From Trudy's skewed perspective a vision forms of the interconnectedness of human life -- maybe of all intelligent life in the universe. Filled with laugh-out-loud one-liners and characters whose words and feelings ring true, this one-woman play is masterful writing from a deep and generous heart. If you didn't see Lily Tomlin's performance on Broadway, don't miss reading the book. It's more than a story; it's an experience.
Average customer rating:
- Well-organized and easy to read
- Impressive, though technical and mathematical
- a complete picture of astrobiology
|
Intelligent Life in the Universe: Principles and Requirements Behind Its Emergence (Advances in Astrobiology and Biogeophysics)
P. Ulmschneider
Manufacturer: Springer
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 Astronomy
| Astronomy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Astrophysics & Space Science
| Astronomy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Cosmology
| Astronomy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Biology
| Biological Sciences
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Microbiology
| Biology
| Biological Sciences
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Extraterrestrial
| Biology
| Biological Sciences
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Evolution
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Physics
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Natural History
| Nature & Ecology
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Astronomy
| Astronomy
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Astrophysics & Space Science
| Astronomy
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Biology
| Biological Sciences
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Evolution
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Physics
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
All Amazon Upgrade
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Professional & Technical
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Science
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Professional
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Science
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
Astrobiology: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach
-
Are We Alone?: Philosophical Implications of the Discover of Extraterrestrial Life
ASIN: 3540439889 |
Book Description
This book addresses all scientists and others interested in the origins, development and fate of intelligent species in the observable part of our universe. In particular, the author scrutinizes what kind of information about extraterrestrial intelligent life can be inferred from our own biological, cultural and scientific evolution and the likely future of mankind. The first part of the book provides the necessary background information from space and life sciences, thus making the book also accessible to students and the scientifically educated public.
Customer Reviews:
Well-organized and easy to read.......2004-10-08
I truly enjoyed reading this book. It is carefully written, has an enormous amount of up-to-date information, and covers the subject reasonably well. Astrobiology is a relatively new subject, and this is one of the best books about it. I was very impressed by the amount of material Ulmschneider was able to cover in only 250 pages and how clearly he explained everything. He went through the origin of the chemical elements, planet formation, the threat of planetary migration, the search for extrasolar planets, planetary atmospheric instabilities, theories on the origin of life on Earth, the evolution of life, the threats to the Earth's environment from the existence of life (such as the Huronic glaciation), the search for extraterrestrial life, and much more. That included some speculative material, some of which I found dubious. But that does not detract from the overall value of this book.
Impressive, though technical and mathematical.......2003-11-04
In this densely written book, Heidelberg University professor Peter Ulmschneider covers a remarkably wide range of questions related to extraterrestrial life and intelligence, and does so with convincing authority. His work, part of Springer's Physics and Astronomy series, has the flavor of a university textbook, with numerous graphs, tables, and diagrams, and a few equations. Readers will need either a basic knowledge of science or a willingness to learn while reading.
Part I, about planets, discusses the origin of chemical elements, planet formation, the search for extrasolar planets, and planets suitable for life. Part II, about life, begins at the most basic level of organic chemistry, then moves on to a condensed discussion of biological evolution on Earth. A much briefer chapter provides a quick overview of the search for extraterrestrial life. Part III, on intelligence, takes an unusual approach by beginning with the future of Humankind, emphasizing human expansion into the solar system and possible threats to our survival. Ulmschneider argues that, by thinking about our own future development, we can gain insights into the nature of extraterrestrial intelligence. He concludes his book with a discussion of extraterrestrial intelligent life, briefly noting some of the proposed explanations for the Fermi Paradox.
This book is not for casual readers. Because it covers so much territory, the discussions are highly condensed. Nonetheless, Ulmschneider has done an impressvie job. The book includes some small but well-reproduced colored pictures.
a complete picture of astrobiology.......2003-06-04
This book was so dense with information and so elegantly organized that I found it easier than most recreational reading I do these days. The author explains how one might answer what I consider to be the ultimate question: Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? The author refrains from pontificating his own opinion, but rather provides the background information necessary for the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. The basics of planetary science, astrophysics, and biology are presented in the first section, followed by a description of the conditions in which life has evolved, and where elsewhere in the universe we might find such conditons. Part three (the section that I found to be the most fascinating) described the nature of intelligent life and the fate of humanity. As a student studying astrobiology, I found that this book did an amazing job of unifying many of the classes I have taken, and painted a very good picture of Astrobiology as a sigle subject. I would recommend the book to anyone intersted in astrobiology, space exploration, or the future of mankind. The material presented was sufficiently detailed for a student to gain insight, yet presented in such a simple manner that even the casual reader would walk away with and understanding of the contents.
Amazon.com
For many years, traditional cosmologists and proponents of faith-based "intelligent design" have fought over the origin of the universe. One side maintains that pure chance can explain everything; the other that there must be a God. In Biocosm, James Gardner examines the evidence and finds a third hypothesis, one that has the approval of a number of noted skeptics and scientists. He calls it the "Selfish Biocosm," in a nod to Richard Dawkins, and outlines it in this homage to Charles Darwin. Gardner states his hypothesis:
The basic idea is that the anthropic, or life-friendly, qualities that our universe exhibits are logical and predictable consequences of a cosmic reproduction cycle in which a cosmologically extended biosphere, developed and evolved over billions of years to unimaginable levels of sophistication, serves as the device by which our cosmos duplicates itself and propagates one or more "baby universes."
Like many of the sentences in Biocosm, this one requires multiple readings before its meaning and ramifications sink in. This is not an easygoing, blow-your-mind look at the universe. Gardner is meticulous in outlining his ideas, explaining their falsifiability and scientific rigor, and offering deep chaos theory to support them. Did our universe create intelligent life in order to ensure its own reproduction? Gardner thinks so, though he knows his position will irk many cosmologists exhausted from battling pseudoscientists and creationists. His impressive list of scientific supporters includes Sir Martin Rees (Britain's Astronomer Royal), Michael Shermer (publisher of Skeptic magazine), and John Casti (Santa Fe Institute honcho). Biocosm synthesizes many disciplines and theories in its conclusions, offering much food for cosmological thought. --Therese Littleton
Book Description
Biocosm challenges both sides of the controversy over evolution and creationism. This carefully reasoned book proposes that life and intelligence have not emerged as a series of random accidents, as Darwinists like Stephen Jay Gould have maintained, but are hardwired into the cycle of cosmic creation, evolution, death, and rebirth. Gardner's theory of an exponential coevolution of biological and electronic intelligence, designed and directed, offers an extraordinary vision of a universe of point and purpose. Stunning color photos are included.
Customer Reviews:
An alternative to ID and Landscape Random Cosmos.......2006-03-21
Since the greeks, two contrasting ideas are the main players in the discussion of the Cosmos origin. Today, Inteligent Design postulates an inteligent creator for our Universe (with the hidden agenda that "He" is possibly the Christian or Islamic onipotent God). Another view postulates an infinite Landscape of possible Universes, from those, by pure chance, a tiny fraction enables complexity and life to emerge (and we, of course, inhabit one of these lucky universes). The authors discuss a Third Way, a vision that fuses both ideas: the universes evolve by Darwinian or even Genetic Engineering mechanisms where galactic biospheres play a catalizing role in the creation of baby universes. In contrast to some naive reviews done here, apparently writen by ID supporters, it is indeed an intriging and non-trivial alternative. The idea does not involves an infinite regress because at each generation the universe parameters (akin to genes) are selected as to produce more easily the next inteligent biospheres. This means that the biophylic character of the universes pool is increasing along time, it is not an stationary process. So, what it is need is a proto-evolutionary model for the first biophilic universe. Perhaps the Smolin model of baby universes catalized by black holes is such protoevolutionary mechanism. This means that the Inteligent Designer is not omnipotent or omniscient, but evolves along time by a Darwinian mechanism: a true synthesis between the ID and standard science. This means that any argument or "evidence" for ID is also favourable to the Biocosmo Hypotesis(BH), and BH should be discussed in schools where ID is taught. So, the final question is: the Designer is onipotent? If so, why the Cosmos is full of "problems" and "evil", from the point of view of Life. The Selfish Biocosmo accounts this, Christian or Islamic ID, not.
Infinite Regress of Intelligent Designers.......2004-11-24
The fatal flaw of the 'Biocosm' hypothesis is that of infinite regress: Each designed universe had a designer, which in turn had to have a super-designer, and so on. Ultimately, to avoid such a regress of designers, we must begin with a universe capable of producing designers that was not itself designed. But the possibility of an undesigned universe capable of producing intelligent designers undermines the whole purpose of proposing the Biocosm hypothesis in the first place. So ultimately 'Biocosm' doesn't solve the fundamental problem it sets out to solve, it merely postpones it. Note that the theistic argument from design fails for a similar reason: If organized complexity (e.g., life) requires a designer, then so does an intelligent living God (who must be organized and complex if he is to be intelligent and alive). This God, in turn, would require a super-intelligent designer, ad infinitum. It's time we all bravely faced reality, and let go of our anthropocentric hubris.
Bio-Blah.......2004-10-06
Initially intrigued with this book, I quickly lost interest. It starts out well but then degenerates into a bunch of random points which the author tries to use to argue his hypothesis that the universe was designed to give rise to intelligent life as a final outcome. The blurbs along the margin were major distractions & made it hard to stay focused on the actual material in the book. The book just kind of wanders around the various fields of science trying to find evidence to support the author's premise and then ends with the pronouncement that we're the peak of creation (very Genesis-like). I'd have to pronounce this book mildly interesting if you can wade through the claptrap and the biased agenda.
Cosmic Biocomics.......2004-03-07
This collage of theoretical explorations is as fascinating as it is (apparently) incoherent and gives a progress report on the current state of evolutionary speculation, driven by the unadmitted breakdown of the Darwinian viewpoint, a reality that can't be acknowledged in public. And that's the problem here. You can't have it both ways. It seems the ID people have Darwinists spooked and on the run, and while the elements of a new approach to evolution are certainly appearing over the horizon noone can summon up the presence of mind to ditch natural selection. Contradictory hybrids come into existence in a sort of frolic of wild notions. Now we have cosmic selection theories and Dawkins' selfish gene projected onto cosmology. Far be it from me to throw cold water on all these shenigans, especially since I find it all luridly fascinating and the book entertaining. One thing the author has done is to place the pieces of the puzzle, au courant, onto the table. Perhaps one can somehow fit them together, Darwin, selectionism, ID, anthropics, baby universes, exobilogical exhuberance, and finally a bit of Kant. I was alarmed to see the author confused by Robert Wright's directionality thesis from Non Zero with its total confusion and cooptation of Kant's essay on history. For, whatever we make of the cosmological foundations of biological theory the question of history remains inscrutable as far as current Darwinism is concerned, and Kant's essay points the way to the right question, and provides elements of the right methodology.(Cf. the reviewer's material on this issue of Kant) Current science simply cannot handle any of that,it seems. You can't hybridize Kant and Darwin. As long as the delusion persists that the descent of man was the result of natural selection the basic incoherence will persist. In fact, human history is completely beyond the reach of current science. It's not even in the right ball park and has degenerated from the insights of the Enlightenment. The result is a lot of confused physicists who are too smart to realize they are acting stupidly.
All this said, I enjoyed the somewhat disordered collation of theoretical ideas. The bits and pieces keep flying out of nowhere and I couldn't quite keep track of it all, and the standard appearance of the nonsense about sociobiological ethics mars the result. The overall picture however is highly intriguing, as an idea for the revision of current views around a theme/theory of cosmic life processes. But it is difficult to proceed without a theory of the evolution of consciousness, and there current science hasn't a clue.
Guess what! Modern science doesn't have a coherent theory of evolution. The author unwittingly lets the cat out of the bag. No wonder they have peer review.
Ockham's Razor cuts this book off my list........2003-10-06
Recognizing that an intelligent designer of our universe is needed to plausibly account for the fine-tuning required for it's existence, this books author tries to avoid using anything like the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God of Christianity as that designer. Instead he relies on a very powerful being that's more like a super-mom or super-scientist of a prior universe to do the birthing. Our infant universe--as it's mother before--has a built-in purpose to develop more "complexity" and eventually evolve to the point when it can give birth to another similar infant universe just like it's mother did to it before. This is repeated over and over again, hopefully without going astray, producing "kid universes" that provide enough "complexity" so the chain is never permanently broken. Here no prior universe exists in eternal quiescence.
But how did all this start? Whatever _begins_ to exist has a cause, how did that beginning arise? One way to avoid the regress, which then brings back what _some_ atheists want to avoid, is an eternal, uncaused intelligent designer that is timeless before creation and omnitemporal at once with creation. The author doesn't want any of that. A closed causal chain that's not self-defeating makes the "future" cause the "past" in one big loop so there never is any real beginning to time and this big cycle just always is.
One still wonders whether this infinitely birthing cycle of universes cause even more problems than a universe with a beginning. Most don't think that an infinite number of things is real because this leads to all sorts of self-contradictions and seems to provide no basis for rational thought. Consider that subtracting all odd numbers from all natural numbers gives an infinite number. So infinity minus infinity is infinity. However, subtracting all numbers greater than 2 leaves 3. So infinity minus infinity is 3! If actual infinites cannot exist in reality, an actual infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite and therefore an actual infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. Another way of looking at it is through successions of events. Since an actual infinite cannot be reached by successive addition, and a temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition, then the series of temporal events cannot be infinite. It seems that time and the universe must have had a beginning a finite time ago.
Besides this book being pure speculation and propaganda, it has many specious arguments and one may want to look at other works on these topics. This may also help in deciding if the authors theory is really "falsifiable." Actually, the whole notion of "falsifiability" deserves study.
Anyway, one suggestion is to have a look at the book "GOD? A Debate Between A Christian And An Atheist" by William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnot Armstrong for better arguments.
I side with the "atheist" that believes in an intelligent designer that was atemporal and maybe "supernatural" but not one that has all the characteristics of the Christian God. This is mainly because the defense given by theists to the "problem of evil" just doesn't cut it for me, but these defenses may for others.
Book Description
Writing in an accessible journalistic style, Denyse O'Leary guides the reader on a fascinating journey through the world of Intelligent Design and Darwinian evolution. The author approached this subject at the beginning ''with no clear convictions about it, nor any desire to enter a controversy.'' What emerged on these pages is a well-organized and clear introduction to the basic question of life's origins: What is life, and how did it come about? Did the universe arise by chance, or was it designed?
By Design or by Chance is a fresh intellectual breeze that clears away much of the smog and dust obscuring core issues surrounding the origin of life. From cosmology to theology, from the philosophy of science to the text of Genesis, O'Leary addresses all with refreshing clarity.
Customer Reviews:
Interesting views from a leading stand-up.......2006-06-22
Dennis O'Leary is known to most folks as a funny, sarcastic, and irreverent comedian but few seem to know much about his more serious side, along with his impressive array of academic credentials. That he is also a leading authority on the evolution vs. creationism controversy came as a total surprise to even this well-informed reader (I did already know about his PhD work at Stanford, and of the numerous awards he's received for his work in genetics).
Proceeding along at a rapid clip and carefully setting the trade-mark quips and bon mots aside, O'Leary lunges pell-mell straight into the hot fulminating core of this increasingly important pair or two of challenges to conventional notions of logic, common sense, and classic Western religio/scientific method. In a series of discourses over the course of this series of paragraphs, he first broadly outlines the history of the Creationist Creation that mandates the pro-active "contracting" of a higher intelligence, or "Intelligent Designer" to do the important set-up, and then he covers the evolution of the history of the creation of the origin of the theories of Charles Darwin--a man who may or may not have been ascended from an ape-like creature that he one day realized he superficially resembled (his Eureka Moment or possibly his father). Moving beyond this initial rendering, the author then enumerates the problems with the Theory of Continental Drift (one unresolved one being that if all the continents were once part of a single massive continent clumped on just one side of the planet--as is alleged--why didn't the Earth tip over sideways?)and other so-called "scientific" theories that run counter to native, two-bare-feet-solidly-on-the-ground, good sense.
Using famed industrial designer Raymond Loewy and Native American origin myths as suitable metaphors for a sort of sublime "Tinkertoy Universe," O'Leary succeeds in bridging an irreconcilable conceptual gap with a life-line that has so-far posed as an impassable barrier (and a rope for hanging oneself on!) to commentators on this challenging yet pressing topic--perhaps the single most important controversy facing the world today*. By interpolating the two seemingly contrasting traditions in a radical yet highly effective manner (using an almost Rabbinical dialectical style and rhetorical welding tongs) O'Leary then "makes the leap of faith," cuts the Gordian Knot, overturns presumption and applecart, and convincingly shows that, for starters (and beginners), Charles Darwin--his thoughts, his theories--may be viewed (metaphorically, if not spiritually) as an Earthly manifestation of the divine. Those who have worked closely with tenured professors in an academic setting will find this conclusion wholly plausible if not outright worthy of blind worship.
Resolving the two-edged dualistic dilemma at the finely sharpened point at either locus of this particularly linear stick, O'Leary notes (citing countless examples taken from scientific journals, trade magazines, and Jesuitical writings of the 12th and 13th Centuries) that since the beginning of the Christian Era (0 A.D.), the primary argument of Intelligent Design boosters is this: If we don't understand how something works, it must be irrefutable proof of the existence of God. (He tops off this observation by noting that Bertrand Russell frequently used this common sense "law" in the chapter on Godel's Theorem in the Principia Mathematica; and not being mechanically inclined he also had a superstitious fear of clocks) This, he then continues, is a natural step forward from Paleolithic (meaning "before the Creation") notions about the divine origins of species of various "natural" (or are they?) phenomenon/punishments like lightning, darkness, loud sudden noises and the ever-frightening fire. Here he presents the equally controversial and fairly new notion of Intelligent Redesign--essentially the Politics of the Deluge--and explains its all-important economics.
The difficulty for the sharp reader who retains a facsimile of an open mind on this confusing subject, wherever he or she or He may be hiding, is that the endless words and threats hurled--like hot chunks of brimstone--from below by advocates of Intelligent Design, coupled with those slower-appearing and more plodding bookish-isms scribed by Supporters of Evolution, are each so utterly convincing in their taut arguments and smack-in-the-head conclusions that open-mindedness is all but impossible to any but the foolhardy or those feverish with the Black Death. For the average seeker-of-answers, it see-saws back and forth thusly: one month--usually just before the Christmas Holiday shopping season--a controversial pamphlet (or book, if enough loose words are available in mid-winter) will be intelligently designed-and-published that effectively proves the presence of God's Hand in Creation beyond all reasonable or even unreasonable doubt; the next month--often just seconds before the first Fourth of July firecrackers are lit--some immense tome will groaningly and spontaneously self-manifest itself atop the uncomprehending public--one that conclusively settles the tiniest niggling smidgen of doubt about the Theory of Evolution (anyone who worked their way through Steven Jay Gould's ironclad 3000 page proof-of-pudding will agree here and we hope he will follow this last word on the subject with an equally convincing sequel). With so much rock-hard and incontestable evidence for two polar-opposite realities what can any sensible or patriotic person do?
BUY THIS BOOK! O'Leary offers a clear-cut way out of this dark and confusing briar patch. Read it, believe it, stop thinking, and relax.
*The supreme importance of resolution here is missed by many. These days drugged-out, over-medicated students with ADD and dyslexia all across America are being taught (and are almost immediately forgetting) Darwin's theories to the exclusion of the opportunity to forget and ignore any other possibilities about the nature of their prized pets. Official acceptance of the idea of "Intelligent Design" means that forgotten curriculums will need to be reordered and unread textbooks rewritten for the near-illiterate whose briefly flickering attentions are almost always elsewhere--it will be a major and costly restructing of our nation's progressively worsening educational system!
A Quagmire of Viewpoints.......2006-01-13
I received this as a gift due to my interest in intelligent design as a response to the theoretical shortcomings of Darwinism. But I'm not looking at ID to confirm religious or philosophical beliefs. Unfortunately, the author spends most of her time trying to sort out those beliefs.
She does touch on whether ID is science and the evidentiary and theoretical problems with natural selection as the be-all and end-all explanation of life. But those subjects are not treated in any kind of depth. I was disappointed she didn't explore the mathematical models making it highly improbable that natural selection (chance) can explain the complexity of many life forms, particularly at the molecular level.
I'm a layman but I'm inclined to believe that ID does have scientific implications and that the scientific establishment is overly defensive. It will not do to dismiss all ID proponents as closet creationists.
I did find some useful information, but did not come out of it feeling any more confident of my grasp of of the subject matter than I did going in.
Very biased. Make that EXTREMELY biased........2005-10-27
Though this book pretends to show all sides fairly, it's extremely biased against evolution (and poorly researched on that side too). A quick look at the positive reviews here will show you that they are from people who are on the ID/Creation side. It's a waste of time and paper, unless you just want to make yourself feel good about believing in ID/Creation.
Clear, Concise Entry Into the Discussion.......2005-08-10
This is a well done entry point into the question of origins of life in the universe.
O'Leary as journalist provides welcome toned down insights into the many camps which slug this issue out in the public: the young earth creationists, the old earth creationists, the ID, the evolutionists, the Christian evolutionists, etc.
I like these words from her beginning: "We peer into space, fire off spacecraft in every direction, land on the moon and on Mars, always looking for signs of life. We peer thkrough electron microscopes, below the wavelength of visible light, trying to understand life. Life ... what is it? How does it come about? What does it mean? Where did the universe come from?"
These were supposedly answered (and continue to be answered with constant shifting modification by some) by Darwinism. This is now being challenged by scientists of all religious positions (including atheism, which is a religious position) by Intelligent Design among other models of origins.
O'Leary explores this increasingly debated topic with great clarity and charity. Especially useful are her sidebar discussions which include helpful definitions and background examples of the points expressed.
What this reviewer found has best of this work were the two chapters respectively on "Is ID Good Science? Is ID Good Theology?" The former I think is yes, while the latter is debatable. Clearly, ID can be thought of as an apologetic to begin the dialogue with those who are opposed in everyway to any discussion with theology over science. However, the stated opposition to ID by some creationists are withstanding in their merit. Theology correctly done proclaims that God has given conclusive, judicial type evidence to every human that He alone is the Creator by evidence of His creation, even though it too has been corrupted by the fall into sin. This natural knowledge of God however does not deliver the answers to where this creation is going, nor what this Creator God thinks of us. To that, He has given supernatural revelation in His Word.
What impresses this reviewer is the lack of integrity by many of the Darwinist persuasion who continue to resist their persistent spewing forth of the five evolutionist proofs exposed by such as Jonathan Wells in his Icons of Evolution materials. Scientists need to be more open and honest.
This permits many who have not heard the sides and wish to, or to have a nice compendium summary to use and recommend to others. Most worthwhile volume.
Some will want to check out Henry Schaefer III's salient essay "Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence" in the book "Reading God's World: The Scientific Vocation" and Alister McGrath's fine volume "Nature".
Burying the real issues in a pile of chaff.......2005-06-08
The question in the title of the book is an important one well worth a serious philosophical and theological analysis in light of modern science. Unfortunately, the reader will have to look elsewhere for that discussion. Ms. O'Leary's book is a rehash of Intelligent Design (ID) propaganda which promotes shoddy science, shallow theology and incompetent journalistic research.
The basic problematic of the book begins in the preface where Ms. O'Leary states: "I began to see clearly that Darwinism is a theory of evolution that explicitly denies design in biology in order to leave God out to of the picture." Although, in the body of the text, she does make some effort to discriminate between the scientific theory of evolution and a philosophy which she, following the ID lead, calls Darwinism, this is so muted that the average reader must be forgiven if they equate the diatribes against Darwinism as an attack on the science of evolution.
The first example of shoddy science shows up in the introduction where a side-bar defines the Big Bang as an explosion. The next page labels a highly improbable event as "impossible" even though it is part of probability that improbable, even highly improbable events can happen. There is the usual ID/creationist confusion of the theory of evolution with theories about the origin of life leading to inappropriate commentary on the Urey-Miller experiments. There is the usual ID/creationist quote-mining of Gould's defence of Punctuated Equilibrium and misrepresentation of what that thesis entails. And this merely scratches the surface.
A shallow theology also runs right through the book. It begins by equating evolution with chance, chance with nature and nature with athiesm. No supporter of modern evolutionary theory would agree that evolution is a matter of chance. Indeed a side-bar on page 172 quotes "arch-villain" Richard Dawkin' statement from Climbing Mount Improbable to the effect that designoid objects are not accidental but the product of a non-random process.
But the more significant theological error is to assume that a deity cannot or will not use natural, random processes to achieve its goals. There is nothing inherently atheistic about chance processes or natural processes. But the ID and creationist movements have convinced millions of sincere believers that there is. The effect of this theological error is that Christian organizations spend millions on combatting the wrong target: setting their sights on the science of evolution itself, rather than on the philosophies of materialism, naturalism and scientism which mistakenly claim to be the logically necessary conclusions of evolution.
Finally, there is the matter of journalism. Here I can offer some kudoes. Ms. O'Leary does a fine job of recounting the social history of Darwin's theory--of how it came to be associated with materialism, and of the key role played by the evolution=atheism propagandists such as Huxley and Mencken, Dawkins and Sagan. Her analysis of the film Inherit the Wind in comparison to the actual event of the Scopes trial is superb. Her brief history of the rise of creationism is also excellent.
But in contrast to these virtues, her recounting of evolution and science is appallingly bad. For example, the only mention of dinosaur-bird transitional forms is Archeoraptor, the hoax which embarrassed National Geographic. There is not a single mention of the dozens of legitimate finds of feathered dinosaur fossils. In this context, such an omission amounts to the very suppression of evidence which she alleges against supporters of evolutionary theory. She has uncritically accepted a perversion of Gould's punctuated equilibrium thesis when correct information is readily available. Twice she quotes, and once alludes to, Gould's comment on lack of transitional fossils, when a simple reading of the primary literature would indicate that Gould was speaking of transitional fossils at the species level, not transitional fossils in general.
One of the most striking features of the book is that it nowhere deals with the actual science of evolution. The focus is rather on the conflicting philosophies that have gathered around the science. Unfortunately, the implication is that the philosophies establish the truth of the science. This is simply not the case, and, ironically, it is a creationist scientist, Kurt Wise, who points this out. Unfortunately, while Ms. O'Leary is willing to accept that a creationist can still do good science, she does not accept the corollary that "Darwinists" can also do good science, in spite of their belief system.
There are many important matters that do need to be discussed in scientific, philosophical and theological circles around design and chance. Now and again Ms. O'Leary touches on them. But the serious weaknesses of this book preclude it as a significant contributor to this important discussion.
Books:
- Basics of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Technology
- Bioinformatics for Dummies (For Dummies Series)
- By Dawn's Early Light
- Catch a Wave: The Rise, Fall, and Redemption of the Beach Boys' Brian Wilson
- Catfish and Mandala: A Two-Wheeled Voyage Through the Landscape and Memory of Vietnam
- Chesapeake Bay: Nature of the Estuary : A Field Guide
- Contemporary Human Behavior Theory: A Critical Perspective for Social Work (2nd Edition)
- Cookies: Bite-Size Life Lessons
- Dark Harbor (Stone Barrington Novels)
- Dark Harbor (Stone Barrington Novels)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Been There, Should've Done That II : More Tips for Making the Most of College
- 100 Butterflies and Moths: Portraits from the Tropical Forests of Costa Rica
- The Sorrow of Belgium
- Thunderstruck
- There's No Business Like Soul Business: A Spiritual Path to Enlightened Screenwriting, Filmmaking, a
- 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
- Who Moved My Cheese
- Labour Costs/Arbeitskosten/Couts De LA Main D'Ceuvre 1992: Principal Results/Wichtige Ergebnisse/Res
- Who Packed My Baggage
- First Lady: The Life of Lucy Webb Hayes
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
The God Delusion
Letter to a Christian Nation
The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
