Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop All Amazon Fashion Summer Savings Up to 25% Off Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Oasis Learn more Shop now Learn more

Customer Reviews

2.0 out of 5 stars3
2.0 out of 5 stars
5 star
0
4 star
1
3 star
0
2 star
0
1 star
2

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item
Share your thoughts with other customers

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 20 December 2012
One of the earlier reviewers admitted he had only read the 'Look Inside', and then criticised 'the author'. Even a glance at the contents page would have told him that this is a collection of essays by various authors, some in favour of 'intelligent design' and some against.

Perhaps it is unfortunate that the publishers chose to highlight Dembski and Ruse's names on the cover, as Dembski's contribution to this volume is hardly the strongest. Far better is William Lane Craig's careful discussion of the different kinds of naturalism; and the always excellent Nancey Murphy gives a lucid account of the instability of the two main models for divine action in the world, and how they might yet be related to current science. I was less persuaded by Hal Ostrander's attempt to derive a theory of causation from the Anthropic Principle; and JP Moreland's slightly torturous essay on 'Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Psychology' managed to be both too detailed in its characterisation of the two models, and too broad-brush in its contrast between them.

Most of the essays are philosophical or theological in nature. There is little here about the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) for intelligent design. As such, it will mainly be of interest to those who want to know more about the relationship between science and religion. Two of the essays concern the US legal issues raised by attempts to teach ID in schools. As a British reader, I know little about the US Constitution. Elsberry and Matzke are surely right, though, to insist that ID's advocates would have to gain some credibility in scientific journals before they can even think about getting their views into school textbooks.

This particular reader is unconvinced by the case for Intelligent Design. I don't think it's persuasive science or particularly good theology. But that doesn't mean that evidence for design couldn't possibly enter into scientific consideration, and it's worth asking whether it could. The debate about ID raises interesting issues about the philosophy of science, and the relationship between methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism. If that sort of thing interests you, then this is well worth a read.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 14 August 2008
Kept reading about Intelligent Design till my eyes were paralyzed.
Thought Bill Dembski's comments were most strange.
Recognizing that his defense of explanatory filter and
specified complexity were so queer.
Gratified to be reading the real truth from Nick Matzke.
Reading the science truth from Wes Elsberry too.

So, where to now, Bill Dembski?
If it's true, I'm in your hands.
I may not be a Christian,
but I've done all one man can.
I understand I am on a road
where all that was is gone...
So where to now, Bill Dembski?
Show me which road I am on.

Recognize that Intelligent Design is
pathetic Klingon Cosmology
Recognize why it's just queer
mendacious intellectual pornography.
Understanding why you're so wrong Bill Dembski
Your mind paralyzed by your Christian God.

Specified Complexity, Irreducible Complexity,
Just all the same to me.
Mendacious religious nonsense,
Pretending to be scientific theory.

So, where to now, Bill Dembski?
If it's true, I'm in your hands.
I may not be a Christian,
but I've done all one man can.
I understand I am on a road
where all that was is gone...
So where to now, Bill Dembski?
Show me which road I am on.

(with apologies to the person formerly known as Reg Dwight and his long-time partner Bernie Taupin)
44 comments|10 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 12 May 2008
Thank you very much for the search inside section. In those few pages I was able to realize that the author knows a little about science but seems to understand even less. Additionally. the author uses poor analogies and kindergarden philosophy.
One to add to your collection if you want to irrationally 'prove' that evolution needs a god. One to avoid if you are a scientist because it will simply annoy the hell out of you as it misuses the gas laws (spot the mistake in the joke?), the word 'theory', applies the word 'evolution' in at least 3 contexts without sufficient differentiation, uses 'spontaneous generation' in both ancient and modern contexts without the historical perspective and respouts Behe's tenditious irreducible complexity of the flagellum.
Then again, you might like to buy two copies and use it as a "spot the weasle" words competition with a friend. Sadly, another 'bestseller' with not much intelligence behind the intelligent design!
88 comments|8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.