Home » The Design of Life » Publisher braces for controversy as definitive book on intelligent design hits market

13 Responses to Publisher braces for controversy as definitive book on intelligent design hits market

1. 1

   bornagain77November 19, 2007 at 4:45 pm

   Mine is already on order.
2. 2

   AcquiesceNovember 19, 2007 at 8:01 pm

   Ok, so you’ve covered some of the main issues in this book.

   My problem (and we had a great discussion about this a few months back) is that natural selection seems immune from criticism. By not criticizing natural selection IDers mistakenly give the impression that NS could (given a steady source of information building mutations) direct these changes through the traditional evolutionary sequence (to mankind).

   The problem occurs when one considers the robustness, fecundity (general survivability) of the first organism on our planet. It was already the most evolutionarily advanced organism (at least as NS would see it). With only the ability to further enhance robustness and fecundity (general survivability), NS could never evolve organisms through the traditional sequence (to mankind).

   This, I believe, is a powerful argument against gradualism as a whole – sorry I do such a lame job of explaining it. By the way, Amazon [co.uk] doesn’t stock the book (yet).
3. 3

   EmkayNovember 19, 2007 at 9:57 pm

   The one thing that distinguishes ID theory from Darwinian speculations on life’s origins is the recognition that precise information systems initiate, direct and control function and process at the cellular level.

   This indisputable fact of the presence of genomic information in living organism’s is the scientific axe, the silver bullet, poised at the very root of Darwinism’s presumed randomness.

   Unfortunately, in most of the public discourses on ID vs Darwinian evolution, this potent weapon is never adequately unleashed, if at all.
4. 4

   HedgeNovember 20, 2007 at 1:32 am

   With this new textbook, the full power of Intelligent Design Theory will finally be made known to the scientific world at large. If the Darwinists knew up from down, they’d be shaking in their silk slippers!
5. 5

   dacookNovember 20, 2007 at 11:23 am

   Vestigiality at best documents a degenerative form of evolution in which preexisting functional structures change and lose their function.”

   This is consistent with the concept of genetic entropy.

   I would add in some cases that apparent vestigiality may also represent something the function of which has not yet been discovered.
   I suspect that we may eventually find that at least some are not actually vestigial.
   In the case of the vermiform appendix, for example, it now appears plausible that it serves as a reservoir of normal GI bacteria to “reboot” the system when infection destroys the normal flora of the intestinal tract.
   This is analogous to some pseudogenes and ERVs being lately found to in fact have function.
   I’d pay extra for a signed copy of the book: any chance of selling such through this site?
6. 6

   BorneNovember 20, 2007 at 12:17 pm

   There’s no such thing as the “definitive” book on ID.

   There will always be room for more evidence, more arguments, more information…

   We’re “have not yet begun to fight”!
7. 7

   bFastNovember 20, 2007 at 12:31 pm

   Borne, “There’s no such thing as the “definitive” book on ID.” I think that this depends on what “definitive” means.

   Mirriam Webster says:
   1: Decisive, conclusive
   2: Authoritative and apparently exhaustive.
   3: Serving to define or specify precisely.

   I would agree with you that ID is a dynamic and growing field of study. To produce something that is “apparently exhaustive” when the field has not yet begun to run, let alone be exhausted, is a bit much. I would agree that this book cannot be “difinitive” by definition 2. I recognize that this is the common understanding of “definitive” as used in this context.

   By definition 3, however, we do recognize that we live in a world that is quite determined to mis-define ID. For instance, recently some scientists wrote that they had proof that ID was in error, yet their understanding of ID was a young-earth model. I have not yet had opportunity to read this book, but I would hope that it provides a rich definition of what ID is and is not. As such, one could say that it is definitive.
8. 8

   PeterNovember 20, 2007 at 2:10 pm

   Don’t expect any quick conversions. According to a study published by Edward Larson in Nature (#394, 1998), only 7.0% of NAS scientist believe in God. These same scientist are the ones that are pushing evolution, claiming that science is neutral. These scientists will no doubt try everything they can to resist ID because of their aetheistic faith. ID scholars are to be commended for their willingness to stand up for the truth, regardless of risk it means to their own professional career. I appreciate the good science I learn at UD that is in complete harmony with my faith.
9. 9

   Toolbox_TimNovember 20, 2007 at 2:21 pm

   The publisher states this is a college level textbook. Any word of what colleges are picking it up yet?

   There are thousands of Christian colleges out there and I’d like to see the numbers that adopt it when those numbers are available.

   You would think they would be eager to use this as the cornerstone of their science programs/classes.

   I wonder if Lehigh will allow Dr Behe to use it as a science text in one of his classes.

   Tim
10. 10

    cdesignproponentsistsNovember 20, 2007 at 9:21 pm

    Is anybody willing to buy me a copy, or perhaps donate one to the McGill University library?
11. 11

    Toolbox_TimNovember 21, 2007 at 10:41 am

    cdesignproponentsists, why don’t you just order a copy from your local public library?

    Or save your spare change each day in a jar until you have enough to buy your own copy.

    Not everything worthwhile in life is free. Some things you have to lift a finger to get.

    Tim
12. 12

    JosephNovember 21, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    OoL is key because if living organisms didn’t arise from non-living matter via purely stochastic processes then there wouldn’t be any reason to infer any subsequent evolution was due solely to those types of processes.

    Once you are at the cell stage and DNA is fully established then I believe the argument is that information is added to the system via gene duplication and retro viruses, etc.

    Yes I have heard that also. A few points on gene duplication:

    1- Duplicating something does not increase information. 2 copies of a M-W dictionary contains the same amount of information as one copy.

    2- Gene dupication could very well be a non-random event, ie programmed to occur.

    3- It could be irrelevant unless someone ties “form” in with DNA.

    On point 3 that is the book that is missing- what provides the form.

    My point follows from Denton who told us that although genes may influence every aspect of development they do not determine it. (see his entry in “Uncommon Dissent”)

    It also follows from geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti who told us:

    The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.- chapter 6 of “Why is a Fly Not a Horse?”
13. 13

    WesternJoeNovember 21, 2007 at 2:48 pm

    I look forward to purchasing this book….is it in stores yet?