The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer

This early volume exploring some of the current intelligent design arguments contains essays by numerous Discovery Fellows. Philosopher J.P. Moreland explains that a philosophical view called "scientism" has become prevalent in academia. Scientism, in its various forms, holds that only scientifically verifiable truth has any real value. Following Moreland's introduction, Stephen C. Meyer argues that the theories of intelligent design and common descent are "methodologically equivalent" theories which should both be considered as legitimate fields of historical science. William Dembski explains how observations which cannot be accounted for using known probabilistic resources imply that some intelligence might be at work. Hugh Ross lists a large number of physical laws and finely-tuned parameters which imply that some intelligence designed the universe to be hospitable for advanced, intelligent life. Charles Thaxton and Walter Bradley explain that the fundamental challenge facing origin of life researchers lies in the origin of information. These assembly instructions for life are not specified by natural laws. The volume also tackles the fossil record. Kurt Wise explains that transitional forms are rare or completely absent from the fossil record. But Wise also explains that an intelligent agent could account for the nested hierarchy of the organization of life's major groups. Finally, John Oller and John Omdahl explain that there is a distinct break between the cognitive capabilities of apes and humans. Apes cannot bridge "Einstein's gulf," the ability to use abstract representations, nor do they display the ability nor desire to ask deep questions. This volume provides an early look at many of the leading arguments for intelligent design.

A well written and thought provoking book that is detailed and scientifically valid. Those who state otherwise either have not read the book, or do not know how to conduct philosophic and scientific inquiry.J. P. Moreland and a panel of experts consider philosophical arguments about whether it is possible for us to know if an intelligent Designer had a role in creation. Then they evaluate the creation hypothesis against scientific evidence in four different areas: the origin and formation of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of major groups of organisms, and the origin of human language.The team of experts assembled for this work includes a philosopher, a mathemetician, a physicist, a linguist, a theologian, a biophysicist, an astronomer, a chemist, and a paleontologist.The contributors include Stephen C. Meyer, William A. Dembski, Hugh Ross, Walter L. Bradley, Charles B. Thaxton, Kurt P. Wise, John W. Oller, John L. Omdahl, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon.Their data and their conclusions challenge the assumptions of many and offer the foundation for a new paradigm of scientific thinking.

I will make a few remarks about the question of the "scientific"status of the Intelligent Design Theory, which is the issue most discussed in the book (which is not about religion, contrary to what some reviewers claim, and of whom I doubt that they ever even had the book in their hands.) The first chapters of the books deal with the philosophy of the natural sciences. Among others, the authors review all the leading philosophers of the natural sciences and show that it is impossible to define what "science" is (and I would argue that this is due the current use of the word "science" in the Anglo-Saxon world, which is an inheritance of positivism.) Also using all the criteria that have been advanced to demarcate "science" from "non-science" they show that Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) has to be considered as science. BTW, also specially interesting is William Dembski's (a thinker who seems to have a very promising academic career) essay where he shows that it is possible to empirically detect intelligence in nature. Dembski's computational model does not consider quantum physics, but moving to the quantum scale would not change anything to the idea of his argument, given that there are mathematical computation that would exhaust the possible numbers of quantum states. The authors are successful in their argumentation for the scientific status of design. I have followed the angry books & articles that have since then attacked design, and I am still awaiting a succesful rebutal (and not a dishonest strawman attack or name-calling IDT theology or creationism) of their arguments. The absence of honest and valid rebuttals confirm the success of their arguments, and this is no wonder since they were in line with the leading philosophers of Science, such as Larrry Laudan, etc. However I have a critic: the authors could have been much stronger in their argumentation. They have accepted the current use of the word "science" in the Anglo-saxon world, not seeing that this use results from the influence of positivism and pragmatism. They could have been much stronger by refuting this positivist use, and even simply rejecting it. The word "science" comes from the Latin "scientia" which means knowledge, and was used to designate organized, systematized knowledge (that is academic disciplines uncovering knowledge.) In most European countries, in languages like French, German, Dutch, (I am a French who works in the Netherlands, and part of my academic education was in Germany), the word "science" ("science" also in French, "Wissenschaft" in German and "wetenschap" in Dutch) is applicable for all academic disciplines. For example we speak in French (and the same is true with Dutch and German) of the "sciences religieuses" (religious sciences", which include theological disciplines for example) and the "sciences humaines" ("human sciences", which include for example history, psychology, sociologie, etc.) The same used

Genuine Scientists ARE NOT Threatened by Opposing Views and Welcome New Scientificly Based Perspectives. (Its Called Open Mindedness)However, Darwinian Mainstreamers Continuously SUPRESS The Cross-Examining of Evolutionary "suppositions" From Creation Scientists.There Are Numerous Conflicts With the MODEL of Macro-Evolution And NO Scientific Journal Offers Even A Simple Explaination of "Molecular Evolution" Let Alone Evolution of The Human Eye And Immune System.Irresponsible DARWINIAN Bias Is Under Serious Fire! The Evolutionary Ban-Wagoners Cannot Seem to Reverse Public Concern And Dreadfully FEAR The Exposing of Counter-Scientific Arguments.Please Read DARWIN'S BLACK BOX: Michael J. Behe

This is what a teleological argument should look like. Moreland is concise and logical as always. Dhembski's philosophical spadework is GREAT. But Meyer's contribution seems a bit irrelevent. In terms of the actual evidence: Hugh Ross does a pretty good job in physics, cosmology, and astronomy. Bradly and Thraxton are EXCELLENT in analyzing the origin of life! Geologist Kurt P. Wise has some very clever arguments on the fossil record. The language guys are inferior, though. I am majoring in both philosophy and biology and enjoyed the combination of both science and philosophy. Usually books on evolution and such overkill on evidence without ever putting it in the form of a valid argument. And I am talking about both theists and non-theists. The book is written professionally so those who wish to do more research will find the endnotes and bibliography very helpful. esp Yockey's book.