God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory

Why do those professors who front the Intelligent Design debate argue like school-boys either it concerns those pro et contra?

In this book Shanks reveals how naive the conservative ID movement are and how wrong it is for them to deny the naturalistic science that they in fact are dependent on. But that is the best thing to say about the book.

Mr. Shanks shows that he himself is just as fundamentalistic in his blind belief in Darwin as his God and Richard Dawkins as his Messiah, as those conservative Christian he attacks for believing in God and ID. Shanks is very nasty to those who doesn't believe the same as he does. The ID movement and it's folks are described as parasites crawling on the body of science, and he suggest that God must have been drunk or stupid or both when he created the world. This is not good language if ypu want to build a bridge, but though, this is a well known behaviour of those attacking the ID movement. Richard Dawkins is maybe one of the most respectless to his ID opponents, and he shows his sarcastic hate to Christian also in this book in the preface he has written.

One thing that Shanks criticise the ID movement for doing, is to use bad analogies. Why can't Shanks then try to be better? He tries to prove that ID is wrong by comparing it with the communism. Communism in USSR was intelligent designed and it failed, therefore is ID also a failure. Is this really a professor's way of arguing? He demands exceptional proof from his "enemies" to believe them, but his own proofs for his own concerns are very light. One example is the experiment in the book showing that those people in hospital who are prayed for live longer than those who are not prayed for. Shanks simply doesn't want to believe the results of this scientific experiment and his "argument" to prove this, is that there must have been something wrong with the experiment. What a proof!

Another example of unscientific behaviour of a professor, who through this book tries to show us that he belong to the enlightenment tradition, is that he denies any intelligent design of cosmos because there are no proof good enough for him, and that's OK, but when he is confronted with the fine tuning of all the parameters in the universe, he instead of accepting intelligent design as one possible solution, proposes the highly metaphysic theory that there must exist many parallel universes and therefore one of them must be like ours. He is just as metaphysic as those he criticise for being so, and he choses his arguments from his own bias.

There are some good points in this book, but for the most it is a disappointment. Why can't anybody rise the ID debate to a scientific level?

I think, in the end, that either those attacking or those promoting ID never can make any proof which the other part can accept. It turns out to be a matter of belief.

Great for philosophy - pretty bad if you like hard science (18/41 people found this helpful)

I waited a month to get a copy of this book and was very keen to read it. Frankly, I wish I hadn’t bothered. I have had a long standing interest in the theory of evolution and the alternatives. Thus, I have read a number of books on the topic on both sides of the argument. Unfortunately, this has to rate as one of the worst books I have personally read for a long while. Whatever you might think about the anti-evolutionary bunch some of the books like “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” and “Darwin’s Black Box” are good solid science books, well written, well thought out and make a clear well argued point. Many of the books are long on hard facts and detailed technical descriptions while still remaining readable. Even if you don’t accept the arguments you can see that they are reasonable positions to take. As a hard nosed science type I was very interested in this book as it seemed to promise to take on the anti-evolution arguments head-on. In short, it simply didn’t. It waffled and prattled around the edges. Although it would be unreasonable to call it ‘fact free’ it certainly seemed avoid ‘hard facts’ and detailed technical examples and descriptions. It tried to refute a number of points made by various other authors but to my way of thinking failed badly and (more importantly to me) didn’t even try to take on the main substantive points. All the rebuttals seemed mainly philosophical in nature and hollow with references to other publications. As an example, instead of giving hard-nosed examples of how things (did or could of) evolved the author seemed to prefer to pick minor faults in other authors books. In short, I personally found it very unconvincing from a scientific point of view and see it more as scientific philosophy than hard science.

Here we go again - preaching to the converted (22/71 people found this helpful)

Richard Dawkins has been the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University for quite a few years now. And he regularly lectures on evolution in the USA.
Yet that same period of time has seen a decline in the number of UK students wanting to study the sciences at university, and a significant rise in various forms of opposition to evolutionist ideas, particularly so-called Intelligent Design.

Whilst I DON'T want to make a direct link between these two facts it does appear that we can learn a lesson here - and one which the authors of this book have noticeably failed to grasp:

However good the case for evolution may be, and however flawed the opposing arguments may be, the "war of words" is NOT being won by the defenders of evolution theory.

Hey, guys, wake up and smell the coffee - YOU AREN'T MAKING CONTACT! And this book, written in a manner that is virtually guaranteed to re-inforce every reader's existing viewpoint, be it pro or anti, is nothing but a waste of perfectly good trees.

Like so many other books on the subject, the authors depend on allegedly "rational/factual" arguments to make their case. But what they overlook is a simple fact known to every psychologist - people don't make decisions based on reason, they make them on the basis of "gut instinct", for want of a better expression, then they rationalize their choice later - if necessary.

So, if you already believe what the authors believe, then you'll believe what's in this book. If you don't, you won't. And like it or hate it, THAT is a genuine "fact".

God, the Devil, and Darwin (35/48 people found this helpful)

An exceptionally thorough rebuttal of 'stealth creationism'. Shanks tackles 'Intelligent Design' arguments in physics, biochemistry, and cosmology. He exposes them as attempts to smuggle in an interventionist God by the backdoor. At times perhaps a little too caught up in an academic debate with old ID foes, the author nevertheless manages to engage the general reader's attention throughout. It might not interest a reader wanting purely to explore cosmological issues, such as the fine-tuned universe, but there is enough such material for those prepared to wait for the later sections of the book. And Richard Dawkins writes the introduction, if that makes any difference either way.

Countering the crusaders (84/102 people found this helpful)

It is a strange paradox that the nation producing the most Nobel Prize winners also has spawned the loudest voices denouncing science and its revelations. Unlike those who object to weapons research or who claim science doesn't address life's daily problems, the objections are even more fundamental. The disaffection is a reaction to science's exposure of humanity being an integral part of Nature - "Darwinism". The active American crusaders in this assault can be counted on the fingers of one hand, but they have been prolific and boisterous in their assertions. And they are declaring war on education. They want changes based on religious grounds. Shanks' counterattack on these destructive forces carefully examines and dissects the arguments asserting life has supernatural origins.

The campaign, which has gone through several aliases - "Christian creationism" and "creation science" are but two - has settled on the bizarre cognomen of "Intelligent Design". This concept rests on a view of today's life. It is then projected back in time and found too difficult to explain. According to ID, we can't get there from here. Life is too complex to have built up from simple beginnings and must be the work of an anonymous "designer", which, of course, means something spiritual. Shanks is direct in his condemnation of this notion. Quite apart from the vapid logic of ID's idea is the failure of its adherents to provide a shred of evidence for their thesis. It is a shambles of inconsistent views, he demonstrates, often contradictory and its adherents often at cross-purposes. Shanks' granting it the status of a "theory" is the one shortcoming in this book.

After a brief outline of ID's ancient roots and its proponents in the Muslim world - a novel point overlooked by most scholars - Shanks outlines his themes. He divides his topics into the realms of biological and cosmological ID views. The biological is, of course, ID's challenge to Darwin's natural selection concept. It's difficult to comprehend how anyone could reject the mass of evidence supporting Darwin's idea that have accumulated since "Origin" was published, but Shanks demonstrates how ID publicists attempt to refute or ignore it. ID has used the laws of thermodynamics as a bludgeon against natural selection, but Shanks explains the flaws in its arguments. He deftly exposes the inconsistencies and self-contradictions that ID spokesmen have produced. Michael Behe's circular debates with Shanks and his colleague Karl Joplin are revealed to be as mistaken as they were in his sadly best selling book. The works of Behe's cohorts Phillip Johnson and William Dembski are carefully dissected and their mistakes exposed in raw vividness. They engage in much special pleading, but Shanks counters with gifted eloquence.

Perhaps the most far-reaching attempt to project ID is what has become known as the "anthropic principle". This idea has caught the imagination of those who recognise evolution has produced the human species. However, as any cognitive scientist will concede, humans have a unique place in nature. Our level of consciousness and linguistic abilities lead us to view ourselves in ways different from other animals. Frank Tipler and John Barrow have proposed that human evolution, unlike any other species, isn't destined to go extinct. Instead we will continue to evolve indefinitely. Shanks, who describes this idea as a "grotesque science fantasy", is understandably dismissive of something so counter to biological reality.

The main thrust of ID has always been the introduction of the supernatural as the driving force of life. Shanks repeated theme is the failure to provide supportive evidence for this claim. While there are those who contend deities aren't discernible, Shanks nods to their concerns, but demonstates lucidly that the processes of the universe and life are measureable. It is these very topics which the ID clique is attempting to overthrow in American public schools, a tactic Shanks seeks to block. ID's thesis that "materialism" erodes "moral values" are exposed in Shanks' conclusion. This device is no more than a scare tactic that characterises Darwin and all evolutionary biologists, paleoanthropologists, cosmologists and other researchers as "agents of Satan" in Henry Morris' terms. It is hoped that this book will provide an effective counter to such depictions. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory

Niall Shanks

Reader Reviews:

Unscientific argumentation (15/43 people found this helpful)

Great for philosophy - pretty bad if you like hard science (18/41 people found this helpful)

Here we go again - preaching to the converted (22/71 people found this helpful)

God, the Devil, and Darwin (35/48 people found this helpful)

Countering the crusaders (84/102 people found this helpful)

Similar Products

Categories