Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing

I don't know why some reviewers here would tag this book as stemming from a creationist source, especially when chapter 14 is a dead giveaway. That only tells you that some here have not really read the book. David Berlinski is a mathematician and philosopher with a Ph.D. from Princeton University. He is also an agnostisc. I just wonder how such a person would help the cause of creationism even in the shadow of some Christians ascribing the first chapters of Genesis to allegory. This makes this book that more interesting because it does not try to parlay a bias, which one could immediately sense from the outset. Not holding steadfastly to the rudiments and rigid conventionalist doctrines of religion, Berlinski is aptly positioned to offer his critique without regard to, or an invested interest in, any theistic-based paradigm. This comes as a refreshing introduction of the now ever so growing controversy over biological origins. Berlinski decries the suggestion that Darwin's theory of evolution is like theories in the serious sciences (e.g., quantum electrodynamics). Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to 13 unyielding decimal places. Darwin's theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all. And this is just from one chapter alone. Then you have the late Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger (chapter 3), another agnostic and a former attendee of the 1967 Wistar Institute conference. He is by no means amenable to the creationist plot, for he is in the business of quantifying the probabilistic outcomes of empirical data, which is what he did to the Darwinian model. So why are we seeing some reviews here saying this is a creationist book? As if these were the only non-theistic objectors, then you have agnostic Michael John Denton contributing a masterful piece in chapter 9 detailing the inadequacy of explaining the origins of natural order in terms of mechanistic processes. From what I have read so far, the book is packed with information that is not tied at all to any favorite religious propaganda, but with bonafide doubts and uncertainties borne out by strict scientific and philosophical thinking.

I recently picked this book up and was extremely impressed by it. As someone who has frequently been frustrated in getting supporters of naturalistic evolution to lay out their case and intelligently respond to the obstacles obstructing its path, this book did a fantastic job of getting to the crux of the matter and discussing not only the evidence that evolutionists conveniently ignore, but the underlying philosophy behind evolutionary theory and how it is gone from a valid explanation of the diversity of life to an indefensible theory stretched beyond reason to explain how life spontaneously generated itself and accidentally came to it's breath-takingly complex form. One quick note that should give you an idea on how well-informed this book was - the two negative reviews of Uncommon Dissent on this site as of the date of this post are quite amusing because they are both jam-packed with arguments that fall in line with the tired rhetoric that is actually discussed in-depth several times in the book. This rhetoric includes such classics as "Creationists are stupid", "Most scientists believe, and so should you", and then the classic straw men that evolutionists love to build of anyone who questions their precious theory as an uninformed religious zealot. God forbid anyone ever question evolution, and if they do, you are well within your rights to dismiss them instead of actually listening to their arguments. This line of reasoning (namely that disagreement isn't allowed) and defending a position is simply stunning and has no place in the world of academia. One of the reviews even takes Johnson's quote about science studying the purpose of the universe completely out of context and deceptively changes the meaning of it to make his quote seem mindless when it clearly wasn't. I don't say any of that to be mean-spirited, but it should be very telling to anyone who is considering buying this book that the critics who come out of the woodwork on these sorts of things can't help but to use the same empty arguments, even when criticizing a book that predicts exactly what those empty arguments will be. The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of intellectuals who are skeptical of evolutionary claims and aren't hampered by religious fanaticism, even though the Richard Dawkins' of the world don't want to believe it. Naturalists need evolution to be true much more than religioius zealots need for it to be untrue, and this book explains that and many other concepts in a very clear and concise manner. As someone who is unconvinced of evolution as a means of explaining the creation of life on this planet not because of pre-conceived religious ideas or wishful thinking, but because of the inability of the evolutionist camp to defend it's ideas and come out from behind the curtain, I would highly recommend Uncommon Dissent.

This book is better than I could have hoped for. There are a variety of different topics relating to Intelligent Design (ID) covered here and the depth of thought is impressive. It is really impossible, in the space of a short review, to cover the richness and breadth of everything in this book. Particularly enjoyable for me were the essays that don't deal with ID or Darwinism as such, but with the related issues, such as argumentation tactics and intellectual culture. Edward Sisson analyses the rhetoric and argumentation tactics of the anti-ID/pro-Darwin crowd and shows how they are often invalid and unfair. Frank Tippler takes on the peer review system (which is often used as club to beat on ID), and shows how it is both historically anomalous and is used to enforce ideological correctness. Dembski does a nice job of showing how, often, supposed scientific refutations of ID cited by its opponents amount to little more than intellectual bluffing. When the bluff is called there is nothing behind it. Rob Koons has an excellent essay on why the burden of proof should lie with those who wish to deny the basic human intuition towards accepting design. He also lays out nicely how the Darwinian crowd has actually done very little in terms of meeting this burden of proof, whatever their claims may be. Also very interesting and encouraging is the fact that, contrary to the (bogus) claims regularly made by Darwinists, the contributors to this book do not display a uniformity concerning religious beliefs. They run the spectrum from evangelical Christians like William Dembski and Nancy Pearcey to completely irreligious folks like David Berlinski and Christopher Michael Lanagan, who proposes the idea of a non-supernatural, teleological universe. Also of particular interest in this regard is the section of the book in which Michael Behe, Michael Denton, and James Barham tell their personal stories regarding how they came to question the truth of Darwinism. Of these three, only Behe seems to hold to any kind of serious tradititional religious belief.This spectrum of varying beliefs gives the lie to claims often made by the anti-ID crowd that ID is nothing but religious creationism is disguise, and that IDers are nothing but rabid fundamentalists who wish to overthrow America and establish a theocracy. Such claims reveal more about the anti-religious fervor of many Darwinists than they do about intelligent design. The interview with Marcel Schulzenberger, and Berlinski's "The Deniable Darwin" are both fun reads, and particularly fun are the critical responses to Berlinski's article by many in the mainstream scientific community and his responses to their criticisms. This part of the book also reveals Berlinski's sense of humour in contrast to the often humorless, mean spiritedness of many of the most prominent Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. In fact, for an excellent example of the difference in substance and tone between the output of

In any field marked by an endless proliferation of droning monographs and marred by polemical debates, a collection of honest and well-thought essays written by various authors is always refreshing. Each contributor has a unique perspective, and because the essay format allows each one only limited space in which to express his or her views, the writing tends to be clear and punchy. And if the collection is skilfully compiled, it can reveal a broad spectrum of viewpoints while baring the cutting edge of the field in full gleam. Uncommon Dissent realizes all of these advantages. Uncommon Dissent is divided into four sections: (1) A Crisis of Confidence, (2) Darwinism's Cultural Inroads, (3) Leaving the Darwinian Fold, and (4) Auditing the Books. The oddly-numbered sections contain three essays each; the even ones contain four each. Section 1 deals with the question of why an increasing number of people question Darwinian premises and conclusions. Section 2 deals with the effect that these premises and conclusions have had and are having on society and culture, largely through the offices of public and higher education. Section 3 deals with the intellectual transformations of three contributors (Behe, Denton and Barham) who have embraced and rejected Darwinism at different times in their lives. Finally, Section 4 - in my opinion, the section of greatest scientific and philosophical interest - deals with the internal and external consistency of Darwinism, offering more detailed analyses of the profoundly circular relationship between Darwinian premises, models, and conclusions.The highlights of the book will be different for everyone. For me, they are too numerous to list here. A few of my favorites: an interview with world-class mathematician Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger, whose intelligence positively glitters off the page as he succinctly explains the mathematical failings of Darwinism vis-a-vis the critical dependence of biological science on various branches of applied mathematics (Section 1); an eye-opening expose on the failings and inequities of peer review by physicist Frank Tipler (Section 2); the wars fought between religious faith and scientific orthodoxy in the minds and careers of Michael "irreducible complexity" Behe and Michael Denton (Section 3); and every one of the essays in Section 4. Of particular interest to me in Section 4 were Roland Hirsch's evaluation of findings from the Human Genome Project, and an uncommonly penetrating discussion in Chapter 13 (Christopher Langan) of problems and potential solutions in the modeling of causal processes.Finally, I think it appropriate to caution potential readers against overly pejorative, polemical or dismissive reviews. The kind of person who could write that kind of review regarding this kind of book is the kind least likely to have given it a fair reading, or having read it, to have fairly evaluated its contents. Accordingly, the complaints and motives of anyone impugning the contributo

"Uncommon Dissent" is a great read. The contributors to the volume provide critiques of the neo-Darwinian synthesis from a variety of angles. Accordingly, the best way to read the book is to look at the table of contents, flip to the back to read about the contributors, and then choose the chapter that seems the most compelling. This is the way I've read it and have found it entertaining and rewarding. Besides the great look, feel, and organization of this volume from ISI, readers will get a bracing charge from the sheer controversy inside. Challenges to Darwin have long been stock material in religious bookstores, but since the publication of "Darwin on Trial" well over a decade ago, the critiques have become increasingly sophisticated. "Uncommon Dissent" captures much of the best critical material.Although many of the chapters are worth special mention, the best is the last, which is a reprint of a famous Commentary essay by David Berlinski. His arguments are rhetorically devasting and come from a non-religious point of view. As much fun as his piece is to read, the letters written in response to it and his responses to them constitute a spectacular battle of the brainiacs with Berlinski returning fire magnificently.If you are interested in the "evolving" controversy over biological origins, "Uncommon Dissent" is an indispensable addition to your collection.