Mere Creation: Science, Faith Intelligent Design

It can no longer be argued that the only detractors to evolution are fundamentalists practicing pseudo-science. The range of subjects offered by numerous professional scientists, doctorates in various fields shows on just how many levels evidence can be seen against Evolution. Now if we can evaluate this hypothesis on it's own merits rather than as the current best guess (and therefore only acceptable solution)...

A stout collection of essays by an eclectic array of scientists -- Dembski (PhD Chicago in Math, Ph.D. Illinois in Phil. of Science), Berlinski (PhD Princeton), Walter Bradley (Ph>D. Texas, prof. Texas A & M), etc. High powered sharp guys who are all willing to stand up against the Darwinian establishment and ask the questions everyone is afraid of -- why are so many folks eager to defend Darwinism dogmatically and fideistically? Why is scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer of the Universe dismissed?<p>Dembski et al have firmly planted this wedge of truth into the side of a scientific establishment dogmatically committed to error. Pray that this crowd of Intelligent Design theorists will have the courage to continue pressing for real science in the face of stiff opposition.<p>I'd highly recommend other books by these contributors -- especially Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Hugh Ross, and WIlliam Dembski.

_Mere Creation_ (MC) is an advanced-level volume that should only be approached by serious readers who have previously been introduced to Intelligent Design (ID); one should at least read _Darwin's Black Box_ (DBB) before tackling MC. I think that the best way to explain what this book is about is to explain what it is not about, and I therefore think it is necessary to first correct misrepresentations created by some other reviewers. (So read the other reviews first to make more sense of mine.) Most of the contributors are Old Earth (OE) or Progressive creationists, but none of the contributors are deists (i.e., they don't reject the notion that God might break the laws governing the universe). This does not mean that it is assumed in the book that evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive concepts. Ratzsch's contribution, "Design, Chance & Theistic Evolution," is a study of whether chance could be a method of design. He concludes, "Theistic evolutionists can even take specific features of the cosmos, of organisms, as empirical evidence of design - design built into the founding of the cosmos" (p.309). This does not mean that any of the contributors (not even Ratzsch) believe in theistic evolution. Rather, he concludes, "although the gap between design theory and theistic evolution is thus not as broad as generally believed, ... design theory has available to it resources beyond the reach of theistic evolution" (p.309) (i.e., ID involves arguments of postcreation design and intervention).At first glance, once might come away with the impression that ID is essentially the same as the OE view. But in reality, at least four of the contributors do believe in the Young Earth (YE) view - so if one enjoys this book, one should be made aware that some contributors might be offended by labeling YE, "irrational" or "untenable." In particular, I speak of philosophers Nelson and Reynolds, who defend the YE view in _Three Views on Creation and Evolution_, edited by Reynolds and Moreland. Nelson and Reynolds list two other contributors to MC in the YE camp: anthropologist Hartwig-Scherer and her biologist husband, Scherer. (It should also be noted that at least two contributors to another ID book, _The Creation Hypothesis_, edited by Moreland, are also YE theorists: paleontologist Wise and linguist Oller.) Why can't one tell which contributors believe in what? Because it has always been held by YE creationists that Darwinism can be destroyed apart from age questions - so why not concede billions of years? As Dembski says in the Introduction, ID is "a theory of creation that puts Christians in the strongest possible position to defeat the common enemy of creation, to wit, naturalism. Throughout history common enemies have been invaluable for suspending in-house squabbles and uniting people" (pp.13-14). OE and YE are specified subdivisions of ID.The two essays concerning the Big Bang should not discourage Y

If you're like me, you've resolved by now to accept certain basic understandings about life without question. You have to tell your kids about Santa because it's fun, you don't have to fire your President when he has an affair, you should pay your taxes without thinking too hard about where it's going, and so forth. It's always earth shattering when someone undermines one of these fundamental beliefs, because it makes you realize that some arena of your life was governed more by habit than clear reason. "My goodness!" you would say after such a revelation, "I guess a cup of coffee isn't really worth $3.50 after all!" And you would stop going to Starbucks. Now a team of scientists, philosophers, and a stray lawyer are after one of the most fundamental presumptions of the modern mind: naturalism. After Phil Johnson cracked the Darwinian tyranny with Darwin on Trial, word spread that you could, in his words, sink the battleship. After a 1996 consortium to discuss the crumbling edifice, Bill Dembski put together a collection of their work. It's called Mere Creation, and it's destined to be remembered as one of the key stepping stones to undermining modern scientific arrogance. Thomas Kuhn exposed the secret. Dembski is giving us the first real case study. Watch what happens. The book offers eighteen essays arguing the case for the intelligent design of the universe. Their sources are varied: biology, cosmology, biochemistry, philosophy, astronomy, and history. But their goal is the same, and it is NOT to defend Genesis like an archaic, "Inherit the Wind" kind of stereotype. The goal is a refined, intellectual critique of a religiously held paradigm: Darwinian naturalism. We've been taught (and lazily acquiesced to) the doctrine that humanity evolved from different species in the soup of time, chance, and natural selection. If we have a theological bent, we may have rationalized God into the picture as a silent but present agent. But what happens when 150 years after the fact, hard scientific data has still not closed a convincing case (I thought the O.J. trial went long!)? The book is fascinating for it's analysis, courageous for its vision, respectable for its calliber, and deadly for its force. While the uninitiated may be lost in some of the detail, the thoughtful participant in the debates over intelligent design and human origins will find in this data a heavy sword with which to march back into the scientific arena. And chances are, the tides really are turning. The establishment, having failed to produce an airtight defense, is now resorting to name-calling to avoid the present danger. While I remain unthreatened by the possibility that life has evolved, this book made me doubt that our family photo album will really read that way.

Despite it's lingering popularity evolutionary naturalism is a dead horse. The origins wars of the 21st century will be primarily fought between the Intelligent Design (ID) movement and the Biblical Creationist movement.The battle lines between the two have not yet been clearly drawn, and many within the ID movement today are biblical creationists. Christians and other traditional theists will find this volume worthy reading, but should be forewarned that not all the authors are interested in developing a Bible-based or biblically consistent theory of origins.The book is largely derived from the 1996 Mere Creation conference.