Ten (or so) Anti-Intelligent Design Books You Should Read

_{Joshua Gidney

June 27, 2021

Biology, Books of interest, Cell biology, Christian Darwinism, Courts, Creationism, Darwinism, Evolution, Evolutionary biology, Food for thought, Intelligent Design, Media, Naturalism, Philosophy, rhetoric, Science, theistic evolution, Video}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have posted the second video in my two part book recommendation series on the YouTube channel. In the previous video I highlighted many books that argue for intelligent design. My view is that proponents of design should face the strongest criticisms possible, and not be afraid of doing so. In line with this philosophy, in this video I talk about just a handful of the many books that attempt to refute ID. Again, I would be interested to know what others think are the best books that attempt to show ID is wrong.

Ten (or so) Anti-Intelligent Design Books You Should Read

Comments

F/N: I find a translation of an excerpt from Loennig's 1971 thesis highly instructive:
b) When we arrive at a place where we may temporarily be unable to progress and in this place insert God, we hinder the progress of science. This objection is in principle valid. As church history shows, one has often enough inserted God into places where one did not know how to continue…places, however, that later proved only to be gaps in knowledge. In such situations scientific progress had to fight against the belief in God, at least with those who believed in a direct intervention of the Creator. In order to avoid this forever, one should never assume the direct intervention of God, and even in the case of phenomena we can’t understand [even if their organization points to an intelligent cause] we must never assume such an intervention, as even these phenomena may only be “not yet” understandable. Although seemingly reasonable, this last conclusion is, as the following example shows, false. Let us suppose an indigenous tribe, who has never come into contact with an advanced civilization, has previously always used “supernatural powers” as an explanation for all events, but upon closer study has now regularly discovered that an “entirely natural” explanation has always been found for such events. Let us further suppose this tribe finally formalizes this discovery and asserts that “everything” must have a natural explanation, that is, an explanation consistent with their newly discovered laws of Nature. For the sake of argument, let’s insert some representatives of our advanced civilization into their region, let’s say landing with two or three helicopters, not in their immediate vicinity and unnoticed by the natives. Suppose the reason for the landing is a technical defect in one of the helicopters, whose crew is for safety transferred to another of the helicopters; the defective machine is left behind. The story now gets interesting: our native tribe soon discovers this strange craft and now stands before the biggest puzzle of their history. At this point their demand that “everything” must be explained using their known laws of Nature must lead to comical miscalculations. Our entire tribe begins to ponder which natural laws could have caused this strange apparatus to come into existence. At this point, we can imagine to what clever ideas the tribesmen may resort. Some specialists among them have, for example, discovered that some of the metals which they have found in the helicopter are also to be found in some surrounding mountainous regions, and sometimes even in refined form, especially in the vicinity of volcanos. Thus the “volcano creation” theory evolves. To be sure, even after hundreds of years of intensive research they still don’t know how to explain in all detail how the development of the helicopter could have happened through forces of nature, for example, volcano eruptions. But they argue, based on their previous experience, that one must not allow anything other than natural powers to be considered; because “it is methodologically impossible to consider non-mechanistical factors as explanations for the origins of an apparatus.” We need not carry this example further. It shows, I hope clearly, that requiring adherence to a fixed method of research can lead to great errors. The justification, that earlier we have misinterpreted a large number of entirely natural phenomena by ascribing them to “non-mechanistical” factors, does not change this. When one confronts things that in our experience always point to consciousness, intelligence, and mind, that require planning and goal-oriented ordering of material to highly integrated systems — when these things furthermore not only cannot be explained through known laws of nature but even defy known laws (such as the principle of increasing entropy), and when attempts to clarify them “naturally” raise thousands of other difficulties, then there is no longer any justification for ruling out “non-mechanistical” factors in discussions of origins! With regard to the dangers of interpreting mechanistical phenomena as non-mechanistically: this is a two-edged sword. The danger of interpreting non-mechanistical phenomena mechanistically is equally great. We should be on guard in both directions. In both directions we can hinder the progress of knowledge.
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/intelligent-design-ahead-of-its-time-more-on-w-e-lonnigs-1971-thesis/ Food for thought. (Including, on the significance of language barriers.) KFkairosfocus_{June 30, 2021
June
06
Jun
30
30
2021
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT}

MW, sadly, you are quite correct. KFkairosfocus_{June 30, 2021
June
06
Jun
30
30
2021
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

JG, thanks. I am not familiar with the full list, but note that Ms Forrest and others have long since come across as manipulative, irresponsible and too often outright deceitful. The very use of terms such as "Intelligent Design Creationism" speaks for itself, and not to commend such works or their authors, publishers, promoters and enablers. The same for slanders such as "trojan horse." Such culture war agit prop that has fed lawfare is dishonest, shoddy scholarship and indoctrination under colours of education. Kindly note the UD weak argument correctives under the Resources tab. KFkairosfocus_{June 30, 2021
June
06
Jun
30
30
2021
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

AC, present in an historical context is suggestive of half truth. To begin with, from outset, the drawings were distorted and manipulative, constituting educational fraud used to manipulate public perceptions of embryology and its relationship to alleged evolutionary history: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. If the discussion was anything less than an expose of Haeckel, his fraud and how cases like this have been too common in this area -- see, Piltdown man's 50-year run as a second capital example -- it is at best half-truth driven revisionism. For sure my HS bio textbook did NOT -- repeat, NOT -- do so. Likewise, I recall public education "science" documentaries at that time that used it as a matter of fact. Indeed, IIRC, a suggestion was that the human embryo was climbing the evolutionary ladder until it reached a culminating stage; I believe, this has been used in abortion promotion, to denigrate the humanity of the unborn child. I am of course open to being shown wrong, i.e. that from well before Wells wrote, the overwhelming majority of references to the drawings in textbooks and the like were as say text boxes exposing and correcting that sort of stunt. Something, however, tells me such is not the case. KF PS: Kindly see ENV https://evolutionnews.org/2007/05/a_reply_to_carl_zimmer_on_embr/kairosfocus_{June 30, 2021
June
06
Jun
30
30
2021
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

#10 is a complete joke. The authors don't seem to understand ID.ET_{June 29, 2021
June
06
Jun
29
29
2021
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

Joshua G @ 22: One common stratagem of Darwinists is to ignore the responses that Behe and other ID proponents give to their Darwinist critics, and then claim that ID proponents like Behe never respond to their critics. That’s why Behe wrote “A Mousetrap for Darwin”, which is a collection of some of his responses to critics that he’s given in his websites and in articles he’s written, in order to make it harder for Darwinists to continue to make that claim. Of course, now the Darwinists simply ignore that book as well. I hope that’s not what you’re doing when you say that you’re unaware of any specific responses to an anti-ID book.MikeW_{June 29, 2021
June
06
Jun
29
29
2021
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

Joshua G @ 22: If “10) Why Intelligent Design Fails” is the strongest critique of ID that is out there, then the case for Darwinism is even weaker than I thought. For example, that book criticizes Michael Behe’s arguments for Irreducible Complexity, which Behe responds to strongly on his website, and in his book “A Mousetrap for Darwin”. Behe’s data and logic completely demolish his Darwinist critics. For example, Behe shows conclusively that the Darwinian process is completely incapable of creating the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum or the blood clotting cascade. And Behe patiently explains the mistakes made by the critics in their arguments, some of which would be embarrassing, even for a layman. Are there any other specific critiques in that book that you consider especially strong?MikeW_{June 29, 2021
June
06
Jun
29
29
2021
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Anti ID books. The Origen of Species - Darwin Darwin and Design - Ruse Finding Darwin’s God - Miller Only a Theory - Miller Tower of Babel - Pennock Creationism’s Trojan Horse - Forrest and Gross Greatest Show on Earth - Dawkins Evolution and Belief - Asher Intelligent Design, Creationism and Its Critics - Pennock Why Intelligent Design Fails - Ellis and Young Some are anthologies. He includes a couple other anthologies that include Dembski as one of the authors. My guess is that the author of the OP does not understand the logic of ID. It can be summed up in one or two sentences and doesn’t need books to understand. It would be interesting to see the faulty logic of each anti ID book exposed in one or two sentences. For example, Dawkins’ Greatest Show on Earth only deals with proof for micro-evolution, something ID agrees with. Some extremely interesting things can happen likely from micro-evolution or modern day genetics. However, it is no substitute for a mechanism that can explain macro-evolution. There is the obvious Begging the Question fallacy used by those citing a God of the Gaps argument. There is also the Stawman fallacy by associating ID with Young Earth Creationism or some other form of religion. This last rhetorical technique seems seems fairly prevalent. Looks like I duplicated the OP author.jerry_{June 29, 2021
June
06
Jun
29
29
2021
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus (17): Sure. The books I mention are: 1) Origin of Species (Darwin) 2) Darwin & Design (Michael Ruse) 3) Finding Darwin’s God (Ken Miller) 4) Only a Theory (Ken Miller) 5) Tower of Babel (Robert Pennock) 6) Creationism’s Trojan Horse (Barbara Forrest/Paul Gross) 7) The Greatest Show on Earth (Richard Dawkins) 8) Evolution & Belief (Robert Asher) 9) Intelligent Design Creationism & It’s Critics (edited by Pennock) 10) Why Intelligent Design Fails (edited by Taner Edis & Matt Young) I mention that number 10 is the strongest critique I’ve come across. I’m unaware of any specific responses to that book.Joshua G_{June 29, 2021
June
06
Jun
29
29
2021
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

@kairosfocus:
AC, in the thread above, I respond to the suggestion that the objections page tries to discredit the Wells expose of the Haeckel fiasco. KF
On the page you've mentioned Wiki states:
"In response, the National Center for Science Education notes that none of the textbooks reviewed by Wells makes the claimed error, as Haeckel's drawings are shown in a historical context with discussion about why they are wrong, and the accurate modern drawings and photos used in the textbooks are misrepresented by Wells."
Where's the rewriting of history ?AndyClue_{June 29, 2021
June
06
Jun
29
29
2021
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Querius @ 14: In the cases of foxes and wolves evolving into dogs, fortunately these days we don’t need speculative “what if” questions or Darwinian “just-so” stories. As Michael Behe explains in "Darwin Devolves", we have the data. From detailed genetic analysis, we know that wild wolves and foxes contain all of the genetic information needed to create any of the domestic dog breeds, and that the dog breeds are created by breaking and blunting existing wolf and/or fox genes. So dogs are essentially broken wolves and foxes. Their wildness has been blunted, to make them manageable, and their hunting and food gathering skills have been blunted to make them dependent on humans. All plant and animal breeding follows this pattern. Wheat breeds are broken wild grasses, farm pigs are broken wild boars, purebred race horses are broken wild horses, etc. Almost all cases of Darwinian “evolution” actually devolve. For example, all antibiotic-resistant bacteria are broken from existing wild strains. There are very few examples where the Darwinian process is known to create a new biological feature. (Fish blood antifreeze may be one.) So it’s actually a stretch to extrapolate the Darwinian process from breeding even to simple micro-evolution. Stretching it to macro-evolution is laughable.MikeW_{June 29, 2021
June
06
Jun
29
29
2021
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

AC, in the thread above, I respond to the suggestion that the objections page tries to discredit the Wells expose of the Haeckel fiasco. KFkairosfocus_{June 29, 2021
June
06
Jun
29
29
2021
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

@kairosfocus:
PS: My High School Biology textbook used Haeckel’s diagrams in the ’70’s. Wiki et al are trying to rewrite history to erase an utterly indefensible case of manipulation under colours of education, sustained in the teeth of correction for over 100 years.
What's the Wiki-site you are talking about? On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawing we can see a reference to the usage of the drawings in textbooks:
Late 20th and early 21st century critic Stephen Jay Gould[3] has objected to the continued use of Haeckel's embryo drawings in textbooks.
AndyClue_{June 29, 2021
June
06
Jun
29
29
2021
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

JG, for convenience, could you list the books? KFkairosfocus_{June 29, 2021
June
06
Jun
29
29
2021
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT}

God of the gaps claims, as applied to the design inference on tested, reliable signs -- such as functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information [--> FSCO/I] -- are fallacious. That is, strawman fallacies loaded with accusations of theocratic hidden agendas. That, a decade after we took time to lay out weak argument correctives [see the resources tab above] they are still being resorted to is telling on the poverty and dishonesty of the evolutionary materialistic straight jacket imposed on origins sciences. For me, that cells use complex string based, 4-state digitally coded -- so, linguistic -- algorithmic -- so, goal-directed -- information systems with associated molecular nanotech execution machinery is decisive. There is no responsible, adequate blind chance and mechanical necessity explanation for that order of phenomenon, nor -- given the islands of configuration-specific function in vast spaces of possible config dominated by gibberish -- is there any plausible prospective blind search mechanism to account for such. KF PS: My High School Biology textbook used Haeckel's diagrams in the '70's. Wiki et al are trying to rewrite history to erase an utterly indefensible case of manipulation under colours of education, sustained in the teeth of correction for over 100 years.kairosfocus_{June 29, 2021
June
06
Jun
29
29
2021
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

The "God of the gaps" accusation assumes that God is only to be found in the gaps, which is not true. God's love and creativity fill our universe. Finding out how God designed things provides an amazing sense of delight. In contrast, Darwinism is full of gaps that are filled with words like musta and coulda, and phrases in research papers such as "not completely understood" (which means we're baffled) or even "poorly understood" (which means we're so clueless that it seems like it was designed). -QQuerius_{June 28, 2021
June
06
Jun
28
28
2021
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

MikeW, What if there once was a smooth genetic continuum that encompassed dogs, wolves, and foxes, and then many of the in-between species became extinct due to to failure to adapt or perhaps some world-wide cataclysm? In any case, are you familiar with the fox domestication breeding experiments done by the Russians? If not, this ten-minute video might be interesting to you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dwjS_eI-lQ -QQuerius_{June 28, 2021
June
06
Jun
28
28
2021
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Jerry said: "All God of the gaps arguments." If ID was a "God of the gaps" argument, it just so happens to be one that is so useful to science that its language cannot be avoided in discussion of biology. Even if you were to dismiss all the arguments for ID as an attempt to argue for a "Gap filler" (I mean you do want to fill gaps with something well evidenced right? But let's ignore that.) there simply are not forthcoming explanations for things like the information necessary for the origin of functional proteins or highly complex structures in biology not to mention other aspects of the finely-tuned universe. So there is immense utility in this "gap filler" that gives us the necessary language and philosophical ground to discuss the mechanistic aspects of biology intelligibly. There's no point in whining about it.Yarrgonaut_{June 28, 2021
June
06
Jun
28
28
2021
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978 @ 11, All of the arguments on the wiki article you cite are easily refutable. A good first step is use precise terminology. For example, ID argues against “Darwinism”, not against “Evolution”. Everyone knows that evolution occurs, e.g. wolves evolving into dogs. ID argues that the Darwinian process of random change and natural selection cannot generate the information necessary for macro-evolution. There is a lot of evidence for ID on this point, and not a shred of evidence for Darwinism. A good exercise is to study the arguments made by ID experts on a specific point until you understand it well enough to refute the Darwinist arguments on your own. After you do this a few times, you’ll notice that the Darwinists don’t have that many arguments. Instead they fill up space with lots of repetitions of a few old and discredited arguments, which they simply restate as if they aren’t listening. In fact, that’s all they have, since all new data and observations on origins and evolution of life support ID and not Darwinism. (Some good resources are the COMMENT POLICY / “Put A Sock In It” section on this site, and the evolutionews.org site.)MikeW_{June 28, 2021
June
06
Jun
28
28
2021
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

I have decided to abandon ID and theism and go full on evolution and will now attack you all with this obviously declared refutation for all you creationists with this infallible wiki article that crushes your points of view!!! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution Now go and try to refute it because according to everyone else you all don’t understand evolution or use fallacies to argue against it Such as evolution is just a theory is a fallacy you levy. If the definition of evolution is a change is population genetics it’s an obvious fact Or thermodynamics doesn’t refute evolution you just lack imagination Or we have a observed speciation multiple times Or there are tons of transitions fossils for human evolution! Prove me wrong just don’t say there isn’t And arguments for the Ramifications of evolution involving the mind is not an argument against evolution because it does nothing to disprove it’s true Now go disprove this wiki or we are all fools By the way I have not abandoned ID, I’m being sarcastic But without resorting to the Wikipedia as just a bunch of biased assholes, can we dissect this wiki and shred some of the counter arguments that they post They make claims that Jonathan Wells misrepresented the pictures fetuses saying that books aren’t saying this is how evolution works but are using the pictures to show that it’s historically wrongAaronS1978_{June 28, 2021
June
06
Jun
28
28
2021
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Put me in the camp of "I've been bombarded with Evolutionist propaganda since I was a young lad, do I really need more?" Ultimately, the show of a Fair and Balanced Approach is wasted on closed minds. An objective survey of arguments does nothing to restrain the Warriors from Beating The Drums. Andrewasauber_{June 28, 2021
June
06
Jun
28
28
2021
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Seversky(4), one example is the "Bad Design Means No Design" argument, which begs at least two questions: 1. Why do you assume that design must be perfect design or even good design? 2. Why do you assume that the astronomically complex trade-offs in the design of life can be effectively analyzed by the weak mind of a Darwinist? (See COMMENT POLICY / "Put A Sock In It" for more on the "Bad Design Means No Design" argument.)MikeW_{June 28, 2021
June
06
Jun
28
28
2021
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

I would be interested to know what others think are the best books that attempt to show ID is wrong.
There is no book that challenges ID. All these books are full with just so stories: probably, possibly, could have , maybe -not to mention having all range of logical fallacies .Sandy_{June 28, 2021
June
06
Jun
28
28
2021
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

I read Ken Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God" shortly after it came out. I made extensive notes in the margins but then got an idea. I bought a new copy and made notes but used two different colors of ink. In one I made notes on how the text related to ID - in the other how it related to common descent. Studying this way can be highly illuminating and avoid a lot of confusion - at least for me. I may buy several of these old books and do the same thing.hnorman42_{June 27, 2021
June
06
Jun
27
27
2021
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

The ONLY argument against ID requires EVIDENCE that nature can do it. Yet to reach the design inference we have already eliminated that option, for a reason. The Design Inference is based on our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships in accordance with Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning.ET_{June 27, 2021
June
06
Jun
27
27
2021
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

which argument against ID commits the question-begging fallacy?
All God of the gaps arguments.jerry_{June 27, 2021
June
06
Jun
27
27
2021
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Setting aside the question of the burden of proof, which argument against ID commits the question-begging fallacy?Seversky_{June 27, 2021
June
06
Jun
27
27
2021
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

The argument for ID can be done in two or three sentences. No need for books except as evidence for the acceptance of complexity. Don’t get me wrong, the books are essential but just for the findings. The logic/conclusions to the findings are short. All the arguments against it are based on logical fallacies. The most common one is begging the question. Each book should be evaluated on which logical fallacies they use. Discussion over.jerry_{June 27, 2021
June
06
Jun
27
27
2021
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

That was a very lightweight list. It has all been thoroughly debunked.ET_{June 27, 2021
June
06
Jun
27
27
2021
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Discussion doesn't persuade. Experience persuades.polistra_{June 27, 2021
June
06
Jun
27
27
2021
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Ten (or so) Anti-Intelligent Design Books You Should Read

Leave a Reply