
We checked; it’s Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (Harper One, 2016). But these sales don’t last.
Serving The Intelligent Design Community
We checked; it’s Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (Harper One, 2016). But these sales don’t last.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
As to the subtitle, “How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed
For humans to intuitively know something is designed just by looking at it is a very powerful piece of evidence that we are made in the image of God. i.e. Seeing design and/or purpose, (teleology), is not something we have to learn but is something innate that we are born with.
I believe that Dr. Axe references the following study in his book to prove that the design inference is intuitive for us:
Moreover, this innate design inference is not so easily dismissed. Although atheists may publicly deny that they see design in nature, these following studies prove otherwise,
It is not that Atheists do not see purpose and/or Design in nature and biology, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves see in nature.
Perhaps the two most famous quotes of atheists suppressing their innate ‘design inference’ are the following two quotes:
Moreover, (besides the fact that the atheist’s very own ‘knee jerk’ reaction to see life and nature as designed puts the lie to their claim that they do not see design in nature), the very words that biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research also puts the lie to their claim that life is not designed.
In fact, Darwinian language itself is found to be superfluous, even an impediment, to biological research papers,
While being able to remove Darwinian language is certainly bad enough for Darwin’s theory, what is completely devastating for Darwin’s theory is what type of language, i.e. teleological language, that CANNOT possibly be removed from these scientific papers that purport to support Darwinian evolution without severely compromising the integrity of the papers,,
J. B. S. Haldane stated that,
And indeed teleology in biology, even according to wikipedia, (hardly an ID friendly source), is considered ‘problematic’
Teleological, (i.e. purpose, goal directed), explanations of any sort are simply self defeating to any Darwinian explanation that seeks to explain biological life as being purely the result of completely blind and purposeless processes (as Darwinists are supposedly ‘purposely intent’ on doing). Yet teleological language is rampant within Darwinian explanations.
In the following article, Stephen Talbott points out that it is impossible to describe the complexities of biological life without illegitimately using language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness (i.e. teleology). He even challenges readers to “take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness.”
Denis Noble also notes that “it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language”.
This working biologist agrees with Talbott and Noble’s assessment and states, “in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.”
Thus, we can apparently remove all the words that refer to Darwinian evolution in scientific papers and, not only have the papers remain unscathed, but have the papers turn out to be “healthier and more useful”. Yet what we cannot do is remove all the words that directly imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology, (i.e. imply teleology), from the scientific papers without severely compromising the integrity of the papers. As Talbott stated, “Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness.”
Bottom line, besides the atheist’s very own ‘knee jerk reaction’ to see purpose and design in nature betrays the atheist, the very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their biological research, and writing their papers, also falsifies Darwinian evolution and validates Intelligent Design.
Verse:
That words themselves would betray Darwinists in their desire to see life as not design should not be all that surprising, As C.S. Lewis noted,
In other words, for us to even be able to assign meaning to sounds and alphabetic letters in the first place, in order to create language, necessarily presupposes that meaning exists for the universe. i.e. To presuppose that meaning of any sort can arise from a completely meaninglessness universe is absurd,
One final note, Michael Egnor has a very insightful article explaining exactly why Darwinists are so “purposely intent” on trying to deny teleology in the first place, “It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts.”
Verse:
Amazon hasn’t heard yet. When I checked it was $16.99 (Au)
Certainly not $1.99 when I checked.
I have the hardback anyway.
@Aarceng : KIndle version is $1.99
For those interested there is a Facebook group called “Free and Discounted Kindle/E-Books for Christians and Bible Scholars” that lists these kind of deals everyday.
This recent paper explains evolution in easy to understand terms:
“The ecology, evolution, and genetics of plant reproductive systems“
https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nph.16222
Professor James Tour might want to read this too.