Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Naked Emperor: Darwinism Exposed

arroba Email

The Naked Emperor: Darwinism Exposed
Dr Antony Latham
Janus Publishing, London
2005, ISBN 1 85756 635 1

This is the first British book-length critique of Darwinism which has substantial interaction with the work of proponents of Intelligent Design by someone who is not a young earth creationist. Writing in an informal and personal style, Dr Anthony Latham outlines a broad range of scientific problems for Darwinism, and the idea that life and the universe could be due to purposeless natural processes. This book is “for anyone who genuinely wants another scientific view on nature.” The preface is explicitly Christian. Simon Conway Morris went through the whole manuscript, and Denis Alexander helped with the early chapters.

1. A Fine-tuned Universe
Draws on Our Cosmic Habitat by Martin Rees.
2. The First Life on Earth
Occurred very soon after right conditions were formed. Stanley Miller’s
3. An Explosion of Life
Cambrian explosion. Stephen J. Gould.
4. The Fossil Record of Invertebrates
With technical section on Echinoderms.
5. The Fossil Record of the Vertebrates
Including bird and horse evolution
6. Human Origins
Molecular and fossil evidence etc.
7. The Genetics of Darwinism
Distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. Against junk DNA. Hox genes.
8. Irreducible Complexity
Of mouse trap, bacterial flagellum, and vision.
9. The Impotence of Natural Selection
It only selects
10. Human Nature and Darwinism
Altruism, appreciation of beauty
11. Darwinian Myths
Darwin’s Finches, Peppered Moths, Wilberforce v Huxley debate.
12. The Puzzle of Homology
Genetics, Embryology, Saltations
13. Convergence
Based on Life’s Solution by Simon Conway Morris
14. Darwin and His Time
Influences on Darwin’s thought
15. The Watchmaker
Chapter by chapter critique of The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins
16. Conclusions
Darwinism has failed.


God of the gaps?

I am well aware of arguments that many will line up against this reasoning.
One of the principal ones is the ‘God of the gaps’ idea. In this argument it
is stated that when there are gaps in our knowledge then Christians and
others will simply put God in there and say he did it – which is fine until
further knowledge reduces the gaps and God is gradually eased out

I get quite annoyed at this oft-repeated accusation because it is in fact
intellectually rather lazy. It is often put out by Christian scientists who
believe in ‘theistic evolution’. They accept all of Darwinism but say that
God sustains and works through the natural laws that drive evolution. No
Christian could disagree that he sustains all of nature but to say that he
has left no evidence whatever of his involvement in the process (as they
insist) does not seem to worry them or seem contradictory. Are they saying
that God deliberately made evolution appear accidental when it is not? They
rule out the supernatural in biology and are wedded, as much as any atheist,
to an absolutely, and exclusively, natural mechanism for the appearance of
life. As such they are very’ critical of the growing ‘intelligent design’
movement that is arising from increasing numbers of academic scientists and
philosophers. It would be dangerous to label the intelligent design movement
purely as a cranky movement from the United States.

Our knowledge about molecular biology and the first organisms is growing all
the time – and is vastly greater than when Darwin lived. This greater
knowledge has done the very opposite of easing God out. The more we know and
understand, the greater are the mysteries and unexplained facts. The gaps do
not, in fact, go away but become more mysterious and the problems seem
insoluble on a purely random materialistic basis.

Dave, I responded to Perakh here: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/index.php/archives/325#comments. Are you sure that specificity implies a function? What about Dembski's famous arrow in the bullseye example? The specification is "center of the target", and there need not be any purpose beyond hitting the center of the target to conclude design. In general, many things are designed which are ends in themselves - the Mona Lisa, for example. What is the purpose of a great work of art? This is a long-standing philosophical question (see Plato's Ion) and not easy to answer, but I'm not sure we have to have an answer to detect design in such artifacts. taciturnus
In the same thread Lenny Flank asks: How, exactly, does one do that? How, exactly, does one rule out not only all currently existing possible explanations that invoke either chance or “natural conditions”, but *all possible future explanations that have not even been thought of yet*?" The simple answer is that one cannot rule out undiscovered explanatory mechanisms. Never. That's why every scientific explanation is tentative. Some are just less tentative than others. Welcome to science, Lenny. DaveScot
This brings up a closely related dialog with someone here who was repeatedly asking Dembski to use design detection formula to discriminate between "junk DNA" that has no function and DNA that has no *known* function. I kept telling the guy it doesn't work that way. Before something is a candidate for design detection it must first have specificity. Junk DNA, by definition, has no known function. It is thus unspecified and not a candidate for making a design inference. DaveScot
I can't respond on Panda's Thumb but "dave" and "taciturnus" remarks are being discussed on PT thread http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/a_brief_look_at.html#comments In particular is an argument about specificity. Perakh isn't getting it at all and somehow thinks a triangular snowflake will be detected as design by the explanatory filter. There's also talk about Sagan's fictional SETI message consisting of sequential primes modulated in binary beats on a radio carrier wave. Dave is getting it wrong too. Specificity, the way I interpret it in design inference context (and I could be in disagreement with WmAD here) means that something is, well, specified. It's "spec'ed out" in engineering slang. Something that's spec'ed out performs a function. In other words, it has a discernable purpose. It solves a problem. A triangular snowflake has no discernable purpose. It fails a design inference right from the start as it has no known specificity. A flagellum on the other hand has a well known purpose - it propels bacteria (performs a function, solves a problem). It's really very simple. This method of defining specificity of course has weaknesses - it only works when something has a recognizable purpose and thus, because something might have a purpose that isn't recognized, it may generate false negatives. For example, a triangular snowflake might have some larger purpose I'm unaware of, and in that case throwing it out as non-design on basis of non-specificity would be a false negative. But for our purposes what we really care about is methodology that does not generate false *positives* - detecting design where no design exists. The other thing they're discussing is the prime number sequence used by the fictional ET in Sagan's book "Contact". Prime numbers are not designed, per se, or at least they have no specified function (no purpose) as far as I know. However, there IS specificity in a radio signal pulse code modulated with a sequence of primes. The signal has a purpose - communication between sentient beings that understand the abstract mathematical concept of prime numbers. There is no known unintelligent process (law) that would generate such a radio signal (law WILL generate triangular snowflakes, by the way). The probability of some random radio source beating out the primes is about nil so we have complexity. Neither chance nor law can acccount for it so it's specified complexity. DaveScot
Mr. Fox, I see Prof. Perakh has responded over at Panda's Thumb. What do you think? Did he get the better of me? taciturnus
Mr. Fox, I am sure we all make the best judgements we can. My education is in physics and engineering, which is why I write very little about biochemistry or biology per se. I leave that to the experts. I look forward to the link, and especially your comments - using your best judgement - about which argument is better and why. Cheers till then. taciturnus
Taciturnus I forwarded your post (and Dave's).Professor Perakh responded by saying he would prefer to reply to you direct but for reasons you may understand, he will not post here. He says he will post at TalkReason and PT within the next day or two. I will look out for it and link to it. As I'm not a mathematician, I will have to make the best judgement I can. As I said, my background is biochemistry, and I would be more convinced by biological examples, rather than analogies. Mathematical modelling seems a very crude tool when looking at biological systems. There's no need to hurry truth, it will stare us in the face eventually. Alan Fox
Mr. Fox, I await the professor's response. In the meantime, what do you think of the argument? To paraphrase an earlier comment, the point is not who answers the question, but that it gets answered. Which brings up a puzzle... you have said earlier (#45) you do not claim ability to judge my example. If so, then how will you judge Prof. Perakh's response to it? Will you believe he gets the better of me simply because he says so? Or will you make a judgement concerning his arguments and mine, and decide which is the better on the merits of the arguments themselves? How will you do the latter if you are not qualified to judge my example? If you are in fact able to judge the strength and weakness of our respective arguments, why not engage my argument directly instead of deferring to the good Professor? The point I make in #40 is simple, and if it is wrong, then it is simply wrong. Dave in #41 states the point in an alternative but equally simple manner. taciturnus
Taciturnus Apologies, have only just noticed your comment. Will email Prof. Perakh and let you know when and if I get a reply. Alan Fox
Mr Fox, It would not bother me. Like you, I am interested in light, not heat. taciturnus
Mr Cordova I have made the effort to read through some of the vast amount of material you have posted. I congratulate you on the quantity. It seems I have overlooked Wesley Elsberry's critiques. Much food for thought. Alan Fox
Mr Cordova (i'm sure a doctorate is in the offing) I am a curious layman (Mr not Dr), my background being biochemistry. I have questions, not answers. The problem is most exchanges of view between proponents and opponents of ID produce more heat than light, with many posters happy not to allow accuracy to spoil a good argument, especially when out of their field of expertise. Reading everything that has been suggested would involve more time than I can spare. I have read through the thread you link to above. One comment by you and I quote "So if one is giving Bill’s work a charitable reading" I would hope could apply generally. Alan Fox
The article by E. Wigner was very interesting. Thanks. However, I think his ideas seem closer to Theistic Evolution (Intelligent Design on steroids). He was, after all, a physicist. For him, it seems the cause of wonder is that group theory would find application in physics. I also thought his note on how useful wrong theories can be was interesting. Ptolemaic epicycles were used for a long time because they worked well enough. Looks to me like good news for the anti-Darwinist, although around here even a marginal effectivness of Darwinism is denied. The tired, predictable anti-Darwinist arguement goes "you've got no real theory at all, so there." Instead, I would prefer, "we've got a more effective theory to replace all your epicycles." hlwarren
Dr. Fox. I'm not a PhD, but I do have 3 degrees in science (Computer Science, Electrical Engineering with minor in music, Mathematics with minor in Physics) so far. Apparprently you did not follow through with the links I presented because, the links to my Pandas thumb posts show Perakh was incapable of accurately representing Dembski's claims. Perakh was absolutely fumbling and mangling channel entropy. And he really did a very poor job of even restating Dembki's definition, but rather provided strawman misrepresentations. I'm not insisting Bill is right (though I believe he is), but I am saying Perakh and friends seem pathologically incapable of representing Bill work accurately, fairly and charitably, much less do I consider his statments worthy of Bill's time. And I'm rather disappointed you only "perused" the thread I linked to, dismissed it, and then referred to the very article I took apart as some sort of proof that I exaggerated. You could rather show where I was wrong in my appraisal of Perakh. For example, what do you think of this which I did link to: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/the_skeptic_pap.html#c43883 You can compare that to my discussion with professor Christopher D. Beling, http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000562-p-6.html#000083 Chris and I are discussing the same topics. You can see our attempts to make friendly criticisms of Bill Dembski's work, unlike Perakh who is mangling it beyond recognition. You can read the way Perakh mangles the meaning of Dembski's literature and then compare that to the way I represent Bill's work. After you give what I write a fair reading, tell me whether you feel Perakh is representing Bill's work accurately. And please be specific. Salvador scordova
Taciturnus The point is not who puts the question, rather that it is answered. It is then a matter of record and if asked again the answer is "I refer you to my previous answer". Only one answer is needed (or a FAQ list as as already been suggested). I don't claim ability to judge your example, but if it simple to rebut Perakh, what is the problem for Dr Dembskiin doing so. You said: If my analysis of Perakh is incorrect, I would gladly be corrected. I'm sure we could ask Professor Perakh. Would you mind if I copy your post and email him? Alan Fox
Mr. Fox, The current Darwinist strategy might be called the carpet-bombing approach. Keep repeating the same objections to ID over and over even though have been adequately answered. If person X makes objection B, and Dembski answers him satisfactorily, then have person Y make the same objection B and say "But Dembski hasn't answered Y!" I think I have shown one example where Perakh obviously misunderstands the intent of ID. Is my analysis of Perakh's point sound? If it is, then Perakh has not posed a serious challenge to Dembski and Dembski doesn't need to waste his time refuting him. Even if he did, someone else would pop up with the same objections reworded and say "But Dembski hasn't answered me!" so the conversation would not be advanced. There is some responsibility on the critic's part to be familiar with the history of the conversation. If my analysis of Perakh is incorrect, I would gladly be corrected. If it is correct, shouldn't we move on to more serious critics? taciturnus
Taciturnus I am an immigrant (from England to France) so have learned to tread softly in unfamiliar territory. I suspect Mark Perakh's Engish is better than Dr Dembski's Russian. I reiterate that if Mark Perakh has misunderstood or misinterpreted something then a response to that effect from Dr Dembski could resolve it. With all due respect to Dr Cordova, his postings on the internet are a poor substitute. Alan Fox
Dr. D has also asked whether Perakh understands the relevant english. FYI. JaredL
The snowflake example also fails because the triangular design isn't specified beforehand. This is just another version of the arrow and the barn example. All points on the barn are equally unlikely to be hit. A particular point on the barn is only interesting if it has been specified before the event -- for instance by a bullseye. The triangular snowflake is no more interesting than a four-leaf clover, ball lightning, or the aurora borealis. All are rare, complex natural events, but none of them are specified before the event. Their patterns are reducible to being a function of the natural conditions that produced them, rare or otherwise. All of them are surprising and remarkable, but from them no reasonble person could ever infer design. The idea of specificity is so fundamental to design inferences, it's astonishing that Perakh considers this example applicable. Bill has asked if Perakh understands the relevant math. After reading this, I'm wondering if Perakh understands the relevant English. If Bill or any other ID proponent had to correct every published essay that exhibited a basic misunderstanding of the argument, they'd spend all their time chasing down op-eds and blog blather. dave
Mr. Fox, Your polite comments on this blog are a refreshing change from the incivility that is typical of the internet. I've read your link to Mark Perakh (Dream_Dem), and I now see what the ID defenders mean when they imply that Mr. Perakh seems to go out of his way to misunderstand Intelligent Design. Consider some of his remarks about specified complexity: "I believe that the very concept of complexity as disguised improbability is contrary to facts and logic. For example, under certain (rare) weather conditions, an unusual triangular shape of snowflakes can be observed.26 Unlike more common forms of snowflakes with their intricately complex structure, these rare snowflakes have a simple structure. As Dembski asserted,27 snow crystals’ shapes are due to necessity—the laws of physics predetermine their appearance. However, triangular snowflakes, while indeed predetermined by laws of physics, occur only under certain weather conditions, which are very rare and unpredictable. Therefore we have to conclude that the emergence of the triangular snowflakes is a random event. This is another example where at least two causal antecedents—chance and law—are in play simultaneously. Since the appropriate weather conditions occur very rarely, the probability of the chance emergence of the triangular snowflakes is very small; also, they have a uniquely specific shape. Hence, according to the EF, these snowflakes were deliberately designed. " But complexity as improbability is obviously meant as conditional improbability. Given conditions A, the probability that B will occur is so low that we can infer design. Given whatever unusual whether conditions you prefer, the probability that wind and rain will carve the faces of Presidents on Mt. Rushmore is tiny. We can infer design. However, given the right weather conditions, the probability that triangular snowflakes will occur is high. We cannot infer design, especially since the only time we see these snowflakes is during the unusual weather conditions that make them highly probable. This does not seem a difficult point. taciturnus
Mark Perakh is a joke. An insecure little girly man with delusions of grandeur. DaveScot
Nothing has been "fully reduced". The origin of time, space, matter, and energy is still a mystery thus anything composed of matter and energy existing in time and space is utlimately a mystery. How's that for a gap? DaveScot
Excuse typo; should be somewhat Alan Fox
Dr Cordova I think your claim of demolishing is somewhhat exaggerated. Mark Perakh has a different view. see http://members.cox.net/perakm/Dream_Dem.htm Alan Fox
Reference has been made to the flagella in this discussion. How can one get a "feel" for the flagellar motor? Here is one web site with a discussion of the motor, its assembly and some insight into mechanisms involved when the tail assembly swiches from a left handed to to a right handed spin. http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/011a.html There is a 34 minute video available at the site discussing a long term project to reverse engineer the motor. http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/files/011a.wmv RussellBelding
Dr. Cordova Thank you for the link. I will run over the thread again but a brief perusal of the contents hardly squares with its title. Alan Fox
HL Warren commented on a question: "Has there ever been a phenomenon for which God was credited as the originator which subsequently yielded to a fully materialist-reductionist explanation?” Maybe gravity? Or maybe the strong force? " Gravity nor any of the laws of nature have not had an ultimate explanation in terms of natural law. In fact, Nobel Laureate, grandfather of ID, Eugene Wigner said, natural laws themselves are a miracle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences#The_Miracle_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences scordova
"Mark Perakh’s criticisms of Dr Dembski’s work have never been directly addressed," Mark Perakh couldn't even represent Dembski's claims accurately, much less were they worth a rebuttal by Bill. http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/001542.html scordova
Oh, I’d say ID is getting promoted very well, even without responding to Perakh. Well, as I'm a continent away from you where ID has had no impact on the collective consciousness, I'm happy to wait and see what happens. Alan Fox
Clear and consistent definition of mathematical terms is a prerequisite for allowing others to follow your argument. Should not this be an area where responding to criticism would advance others' understanding? Ignoring or ridiculing genuine skepticism will not advance acceptance of any good idea. Alan Fox
Oh, I'd say ID is getting promoted very well, even without responding to Perakh. JaredL
To preemptively answer a surefire objection: I have myself seen Perakh equivocate on a key term in Dembski's arguments, proceed to criticize Debmski's arguments as though the definition Perakh attached to the key term was what Dembski's argument relied on, then claimed victory. Dembski's work is not without flaws. However, I do not percieve any flaws in his work on the design inference proper. A criticism I have of Dembski's work is that he did not baby-step an analysis of the bacterial flagellum according to his strengthened version of irreducible complexity as described in NFL (chapter 5, I believe), giving credence to one critic's claim that Dembski has not shown that any system is, in fact, irreducibly complex. Oh well. JaredL
But no time has yet been wasted, has it? And why is it a waste of time to attempt to correct lack of understanding of ID? If you have a good idea, surely it is worth promoting. Alan Fox
Depends, as does all logic, on your starting postulates. For example, I might start with the postulate that "I find addressing arrogant and pedantic sophistry in response to technical arguments to be an utter waste of time." To this we might further add "I shall not willingly engage in utter wastes of time." A rationally compelling conclusion leaps to mind: "I will not bother responding to Mark Perakh's work." Hence, it would be quite illogical to correct Perakh's lack of understanding, which he does not scruple to hide. JaredL
I looked up some stuff about Perakh. Here is a review of his book "Unintelligent Design" http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1309 If this review is correct, there isn't much substance to his criticisms. Here is Peraks's homepage. http://www.nctimes.net/~mark/bibl_science/ Not much of intrest there but I was able to confirm some of the claims about his beliefs found in the review.Compare this: "On pages 125 and 126 Mark Perakh uses a carefully crafted example (as a setup) to conclude that the more complex a system is “be it mechanical or biochemical”, the more that points to an unintelligent origin and the simpler the system is, the more that points to an intelligent origin." from the review to this: http://www.nctimes.net/~mark/bibl_science/behe2.htm "EXCESSIVE COMPLEXITY" Absolutely absurd. By the way, his comments about knocking out components from the blood clotting cascade have been shown to be false here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=442 Finally, here is what Perakh has to say about Dembski: http://www.nctimes.net/~mark/bibl_science/dembski.htm I believe the graphic at the top of the page says all that needs saying. MGD
JaredL Wouldn't it be more logical to correct lack of understanding with a response? Alan Fox
When it becomes clear that Perakh understands Dembski's work, only then do I believe Dembski will respond. Such hasn't happened yet. JaredL
Maybe I'm in the weeds here, but didn't physics go through that process? Newtonian physics was a real milestone and a gap was shrunk or even closed. But further work opened up new gaps that were closed by Einstein. And hasn't this process continued? This suggests to me that the presence of a gap or of a growing gap is not a reason to quit but a reason to persevere. Or if not that, then switch to another area of research. hlwarren
jonnyb Mark Perakh's criticisms of Dr Dembski's work have never been directly addressed, as far as I am aware. If I have missed something which you could point me to I should be most grateful. It is stretching things a bit to claim Darwinists (do you mean all scientists who do not reject evolution?) are preventing ID theories from being analysed. How do they do this? Alan Fox
hlwarren: "One man’s gap is another man’s research program." This is true, but what I'm pointing out is that when every research program consistently makes a gap _bigger_ instead of smaller, then its likely that a naturalistic explanation is not appropriate. Alan Fox: ID is confronting science on the science. In what way is it not? It's nice to make accusations like that but perhaps you could include specifics. Dr. Dembski is proposing mathematical criticisms of evolutionary theory, and the best criticism of Dr. Dembski is saying "why should we assume that evolutionary theory is subject to mathematical analysis?" Which is being scientific? Dr. Dembski is pushing the science, while the Darwinists are trying to prevent their theories from being analyzed on that basis. johnnyb
One man's gap is another man's research program. hlwarren
Mr. Fox, I recommend reading TDI and NFL. Frankly, one's affirmative answer to the question "can design be detected?" cannot be rationally labelled "faith." JaredL
I see the debate between ID and mainstream science as between faith and reason (I'm using neither term pejoratively). This is why debate invariably becomes a dialogue of the deaf. Unless ID can confront science on the science it is doomed to remain a religious and political movement. Alan Fox
God does not operate in gaps. His operation produces gaps in _naturalistic explanations_ (The point of issue is: Gaps in relation to what....?). Every designer or creator (inculding human intelligence) produces "gaps" in pure naturalistic explanations. The question is: What gaps in such kind of explanation are due to the lack of knowledge and understanding and what "gaps" are due to the intervention of intelligence (here we need a theory for design-detection in biology). The "God of the gaps"-argument is not really an rational argument but primary an expression of personal opinion. In fact there are also "naturalistic-explanations of the gaps" in form of "just so"-storys: Based on inadequate knowledge and simplifying postulates they are only waiting for "knock-down" ;-) That's my feeling... Markus Rammerstorfer
jimbo: That so makes me think of T.O's idiotic Creation Claims index. The index itself makes some really stupid claims, but of course, because T.O has a page on something, that means the argument is REBUTTED, and any further argument must be from someone who is stooopid. hlwarren: I think the point is that God does operate in gaps, the question is, which ones? If God is actively involved in the world, that means necessarily that there is a gap which cannot be explained materialistically. Therefore, a God who is actively involved in creation must necessarily be a "God of the gaps". The question is, "which gaps?" It is silly to presume that any gap of knowledge which we have should be filled by "God did it". However, if you have record of God doing something (by scripture, prophecy, theology, etc.), then the following test makes sense: If by further, extended, and thorough study, the gap gets smaller, it is not a good candidate for a place that God has been directly intervening. If, however, by further, extended, and thorough study, the gap gets larger, then it is a good candidate for a place that God has been directly intervening. With the origin of life and the diversity of the taxa, the more knowledge we have, the larger the gap grows. This gap grew astronomically with the advent of biochemistry. Then, even roughly similar morphologies are being shown to have very specific yet very different chemistries. Dr. Dembski - I've always wondered why it is that ID'ers try to distance themselves so much from young-earth creationists. Could you care to comment? It seems that they are only saying that the same kind of bad, materialist assumptions that ID'ers point out that are operating in biology have been operating alongside in geology. johnnyb
You obviously don't understand, Bombadil - it's been rebutted! Everyone knows it. So we know that no one, ever again, needs to take up any of their precious time with Behe's rebutted work, because it has been so utterly rebutted (as everyone knows). So whenever anyone brings up the rebutted work in question, all you need to do is stick your fingers in your ears and yell "Rebutted! Rebutted! Rebutted!" as loud as you can. After all, that's how REAL scientists do it. jimbo
I'm not aware of any rebuttals of Behe's view of the flagellum that didn't turn out to be misunderstandings of his position (and which he has effectively answered). Bombadill
As a medical practioner and very committed Christian, I'm sure Dr Latham is eminently qualified to write a criticism of evolutionary biology. I note he also recommends Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" but neglects to mention recent work rebutting Behe's view on the flagellum. Alan Fox
“Has there ever been a phenomenon for which God was credited as the originator which subsequently yielded to a fully materialist-reductionist explanation?” Lightning! Alan Fox
"Has there ever been a phenomenon for which God was credited as the originator which subsequently yielded to a fully materialist-reductionist explanation?" Maybe gravity? Or maybe the strong force? And what about Creationism? It took a couple of hundred years, but finally the majority rejected creationism. Maybe I misunderstand your question. hlwarren
Maybe someone can help me. Has there ever been a phenomenon for which God was credited as the originator which subsequently yielded to a fully materialist-reductionist explanation? JaredL
Hi Bill, Doesn't David Swift's Evolution under the microscope (Leighton Academic Press, 2002) hold the record as "first British book-length critique of Darwinism"? AFAIK, Swift isn't a YEC, and although he may not have worked directly with any members of the ID movement, his arguments look very similar to those used by Michael Behe and Paul Nelson (especially his discussion of biochemistry gave me a DBB déjà vu). [I was going with my sources in the UK on this. I'll do some checking. --WmAD] Krauze
I am now reading "The Naked Emperor". It is very easy to read and written in a clear style. Although I think that this book is containing nothing essential new for me, it is interesting to follow Latham's research and development. As far as I can see at the moment I think that Latham makes a good job in the sense of an introduction in the origins-controversy (I think most readers of his book will acknowledge that there IS indeed a substantial controversy after reading his book). David Swift's "Evolution under the microscope" (Leighton Academic Press, 2002) is a much more technical evolution-critic book but also published in the UK, as far as I remember. Markus Rammerstorfer
I don't get the last paragraph quoted. Even with all the work done and being done the gaps still remain? So is "the God of the Gaps" approach good for you? Is it good theology? And why does he single out theistic evolutionists (or as some of them prefer, fully gifted creationists)? Certainly Christian theistic evolutionists are not the only ones who think the "God of the Gaps" approach makes for bad science, or are they? I look forward to reading this book. hlwarren
It's good to see a critique coming from Britain. Does anyone know about a US publication date? Conspirator
Thanks! By the way, I recently finished "The Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel. Although it doesn't get very technical, it was an excellent book which reads like a fast-pased novel. Bombadill
"The Naked Emperor: Darwinism Exposed" Antony Latham; Paperback; £9.95 Full title and price. Dr. Dembski made a typo in the title. [[Thanks. I've corrected it. --WmAD]] Srdjan
Bombadill check www.amazon.co.uk it is available now. Srdjan
Wow! Looks very thorough. Seems to cover all bases. When and where will it be available? Bombadill

Leave a Reply