Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language (ConversantLife.com)

As wh@ I suppose people would call a specialist in this subject ; I was DELIGHTED by thins book. Bill Dembski manages to put across his arguments without endless technical jargon but managed to give us the detail that we need to understand him. A superb book written by one of the best brains around these days. Not to be missed if you are interested in the subject and are prepared to learn the facts.

love this book

Excellent primer to intelligent design

Thank you William Dembski and Sean McDowell for taking a complex subject and putting it into terms a layperson can understand. For the longest time I thought Darwinian Evolution was it because this is what I was taught growing up. As a student of apologetics this was an area I struggled with the most trying to bridge the gap between philosophy and science. This book is a great intro into intelligent design which will allow you to tackle more in depth books by Dembski/McDowell and their peers.

The authors provide a very respectable case for why they believe what they do. Though I should note that a text that examines both sides with acuity and fairness has yet to come.

Although I find Intelligent-Design (ID) arguments inadequate (but not nearly as much as Darwinian ones), I would be unjustified in denying the book 5 stars, for its earnest pursuit of truth in the subjects, notwithstanding abusive attacks by opponents.Let me first get off the chest my main dissatisfaction with the book. It needlessly mixes in Christian dogma while its other arguments may be persuasive to many non-Christians, and disturbing me most is (p.183) the quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia that man "has himself brought about the evil from which he suffers by transgressing the law of God...". Did the Holocaust victims transgress that law, or did their persecutors, following the law of Darwin?Since speaking of Darwin, I might focus on a chief issue doubly discrediting him, the "slight modifications" he contends occur randomly in, and lead to survival of, organisms. Such slight modification compared to the lack of it hardly effects the survival of one group and not the other. There must obviously be a substantial enough difference to lead to that result. But more to the point is his allegation that an organism's form is functional in both stages of the modification. Often quoted (p.138) is his: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."This is one instance where ID falls short. Its "irreducible complexity" (p.140) makes a strong case that such slight modification is insufficient for an organ to be functional in both stages. This is, however, not conclusively demonstrated, Darwinists continually arguing, though equally not demonstrating, that an organ can have a function in each stage. The trouble is concentration on an organ, like the eye, or other part of the whole, as if that part belonged at some stage to another whole. The slight modification is to occur to the organism considered as whole; so whereas it may be conceivable that before such modification the eye for one functioned appropriately in another organism, it evidently did not in the same one. It is clear without more research that absence of a functioning component of an organ in the same organism causes some disability.ID's also introduced "specified complexity" (p.104) likewise lacks reliability. By it "Complexity...ensures that the object in question is not so simple that it can be readily explained by chance", and "Specificity...ensures that the object exhibits the type of pattern that could signal intelligence". "Pattern" is vague here. It is exemplified (p.106) by "ice crystals, but such a design would be embedded in the laws of nature". It may be asked whether ID would not belong to laws of nature as well; regardless, as an example of a qualifying pattern is given the combination that opens a lock and "is therefore both complex and specified, and thus exhibits design" (p.107). The combination, however, could be said to display a purpose rather than pattern.Purpose, or goal, is indeed what ID looks for in the formation of organs spoken of above by Darwin, as noted by the authors regarding computer programs (p.109): "The specified complexity was there all along, having been inserted by the programmer to achieve the program's goal". Whether the formation of organisms is "directed", "guided", "purposeful", or not is what the great dispute is about. From purpose is then made something of a leap to intelligence, and God.It has been my effort in reviews here and in other work ( On Proof for the Existence of God, and Other Reflective Inquiries ) to show that the search for purpose in the organism's form overlooks a much simpler observation, of a phenomenon too familiar to be thought of, namely the behavior itself that distinguishes all live organisms: its "directedness" toward the "goal" of preservation. This purpose controls all of life, including the living's formation and adaptation, requiring no further searches in this respect.

5 stars

This book is written as a quick introductory survey of issues involved in Intelligent Design movement and I think it accomplishes its goal. It is written primarily (it seems) for teenagers, but anyone interested in ID will benefit from reading this book.The most memorable part, I personally liked is on pp. 108-109. It deals with Dawkins's highly praised evolutionary algorithm. When I first encountered Dawkins's example, I had similar thoughts: "Obviously, Dawkins cheated by specifying his target in advance. The computer program did not, without intelligence, produce specified complexity. The specified complexity was there all along, having been inserted by the programmer to achieve the program's goal. But Darwinian evolution is by definition blind, and therefore it cannot aim for any intended goal." [109]Book covers key terms in ID: the explanatory filter, irreducible complexity, and specified complexity. Explains main misconceptions about ID and provides responses to most often heard criticisms.This book was easy to read. It reads fast and worth reading for those interested in the topic.

4 stars for this because it's a bit difficult to follow some of the material on the first reading because it's some years since I was @ university and biology has discovered so much more since I was learning it full-time. HAving said that; on the rare occasions when I had ot read material twice ; it became clear and I became equipped to understand the arguments for irreducible complexity and for the need to a Designer / s to explain what we observe as scientists. IT looks very strongly as if the Designer is in the details ... Not the devil ! An informative read. If you're interested in finding out for yourself what is at the root of the current schism in the biological sciences ... You would do well to start here.

Intelligent design has its merits and is indeed ultimately the only explanation for everything that's here in existence. People like Dembski and McDowell, however - people who mix up all the absurd fables and impossible beliefs of their cult while supposedly defending I.D. - such people are counterproductive to the eventual emergence of a truth explanation for the universe. It's a badly written book at about the intellectual level of a seven year old and is the worst thing that could happen to I.D.