Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives [Paperback]

This is an interesting collection of articles that deserves some general comments. It surely isn't meant to discuss flat earth theories. Intelligent design should be seen most of all as a legitimate conclusion derived from the application to nature of generally accepted means to detect design everywhere else. ~

One should notice the deliberate attempt to link the intelligent design movement with creationism. This attempt is misguided at least for three reasons:

1) it ignores that for many theistic evolutionists, evolutionism is also a form of creationism, since they believe that God created matter and life and then put the evolutionary process in motion. So why not speak also of evolutionistic creationism? Evolutionists have not yet provided a convincing case of spontaneus generation of matter and life, from nothing and non-life respectively;

2) it ignores the fact that the intelligent design movement is very different from biblical creationism, since it doesn't start from the biblical model of creation / fall / curse / flood / Babel / etc., but merely attempts to detect design when it sees irreducible complexity or complex specified information, by means of generally accepted ways (v.g explanatory filters) of detecting and measuring design in multiple fields of life. If matter shows indeed signs of design, it is unscientific not to account for those signs. There is no truly scientific a priori requirement to keep turning our heads pretending we just don't see design in nature.

3) it assumes that biblical creationism is all about religion and not about science. One has only to read Gish, Morris, Humpreys, Ham, Safarti, among many others, to realize that this assumption is false. The biblical model starts with clear religious assumptions, states them openly (many evolutionists have for decades tried to hide their anti-religious naturalistic agenda, without success, builds a model that interpretes the facts consistently, makes predictions and draws on the various internal contradictions of evolutionary theory (v.g. molecules v. fossils; arboreal v. cursorial; regional v. out of Africa). In fact, it must be said that after books from non creationist authors such as Werner Gitt, William Dembski, Michael Denton, Michael Behe and Lee Spetner, just to quote a few, biblical creationism has been much reinforced.

Pennocks' book shows articles by authors such as Philip Johnson, Michael Behe and William Dembski. Richard Dawkins insists on his bluff of an "intelectually fulfilling atheism" (autism?), without resolving his dead end debate with Steven Jay Gould. At the same time, some articles discuss the alleged shortcommings of biblical creationism, by focusing on the "manipulative" debating technics of Duane Gish and the ICR, a convenient charge when one is not able to respond to Gish. To the authors of this criticism I just say: please just try to answer convincingly the various creationists' true arguments, and not some "straw man" versions of them. Scientific debate would much benefit from that attempt.

The alleged difficulties of the Flood (v.g. dispersion; rapid speciation), pointed out in the book, have been answered persuasively by creationists, much earlier then this book, even using arguments of Ernst Mayr and some experiences made by Darwin himself on snails and seeds. Before discounting the Flood, modern science should humbly remember that if we were only to trust its explanatory models and predictions the Pyramids would be an historical impossibility. But there they are, for all to see, still driving evolutionary scientists crazy after all these years. So are the evidences of creation, curse and flood. They just won't go away. That's why creationism will always remain with us. In fact, I'm glad it will, in the name of science, because most ot the most daring challgenges to evolutionary theories have come from creationists, and so far, science has only proved them right.

This rather large book consists of a series of essays detailing the perspective of Intelligent Design Theory from the Christian point of view and a series of contrasting essays from Darwinian orthodoxy opposing this theory. One unfortunate aspect of this book, which consists otherwise of some rather interesting essays, is that the essays are selected in such a manner so as to make the ID perspective look ridiculous at every point. Thus, after every issue is dealt with from the perspective of ID two subsequent essays appear which are supposed to refute the ID perspective from the Darwinian. In practice, this amounts to little more than overkill which makes one wonder, what is the point of having a debate if you are going to stack the cards beforehand. Also, many of these so- called "objective" scientists and philosophers seem to be engaging in little more than name calling and credential comparing. One example of this is the essay of the popularizer Richard Dawkins who appears to be interested very little in the actual content of an essay by Philip Johnson and more interested in the fact that this individual happens to be a lawyer, cashing in on the near universal animosity felt towards lawyers among the populist masses. This isn't to say that Johnson's essay is particularly good or rings true, but the fact that Dawkins cannot control his juvenile tendencies here is really a good indication of the knee jerk reactionism of the Darwinian Left. Of course, the issue of Intelligent Design is a complicated one, one that is not fully worked out here. In addition, the compiler Pennock seems to be under the impression that "creationism" is strictly a Protestant phenomenon. This may be the case for "liberal Catholicism" however many traditionalists within the Catholic church have offered an alternative interpretation of Creation. In fact, the writings of Jesuit priest and evolutionist Teilhard de Chardin were placed on the Index and can hardly be taken to constitute orthodoxy within the church. Also the "process theologies" proposed by certain clergymen within this volume can hardly be taken for Christian orthodoxy either. The issues involving Darwinism include a conspicuous absence of intermediate evolutionary forms within the fossil record, a problem concerning the probabilities involved (being miniscule, making it difficult to reconcile Darwinism with reality, at least in one interpretation), and other issues dealing with absent data regarding (supposed) speciation. Intelligent Design Theory differs from classical Creationism in that it is not "young Earth" and that it does not take the actual Genesis account overliterally, merely arguing for an intelligent designer. Also, it should be noted that Creationism proper need not be solely Christian; for example, there exist Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist "creationists" who challenge the Darwinist hegemony. Thus, the issues involved are rather complex and really it requires a careful reading to fully understand. Certainly they cannot be passed over in the manner they are in the naïve Darwinism taught for example in public schools. Even within the scientific community of evolutionary biologists different evolutionary theories exist - contrast the (standard) Darwinist theory of Mayr with the punctuated equilibrium proposal of Gould. These issues in fact may touch on the very nature of the scientific endeavor, and the contrast that exists between materialism (today called "physicalism", given the interchangeability of matter-energy) and theistic realism. This book is decent in that it presents many essays from a wide variety of points of view even though one must sort through the compiler's own bias in his presentation of them. It is to be recommended to both the scientist and philosopher as well as the theologian and layman.

Rob Pennock has done a great job with this book. Apart from presenting his own philosophical arguments he has brought many scientists into the debate over evolution. Actually the term debate is inaccurate. This is not a squaring off of two schools of thought or opinion; both of whom have done a comparable amount of work on the topic. On the one hand you have the entire corpus of scientific endeavour of most of humankind's recorded history. On the other you have a bunch of naysayers who too lazy to investigate their own claims have taken to brandishing their academis qualifications and belive that that alone is sufficient to establish their flimsy arguments. It is more a case of mudslingers trying to besmirch the moon. The target is too far away; massive (though apparently small); and will result only in their getting besmirched! The pompous Dembski complains that his work has not been given prominence. Unfortunately Dembski has little to say as Ken Miller conclusively demonstrated at the AMNH last year; when Miller left Dembski speechless with his arguments and questions. Plantinga is a big disappointment. I have heard much about this philosopher and was disappointed to see that the best he has to offer is a stubborn "it is wrongheaded theory" etc. The ID Creationists' movement looks like it is ready to draft anyone even one who is utterly incapable of understanding even the basics of biology. Plantinga should return to religious philosophy and arcane debates about how many angels can dance on a pinhead!!