Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Naked Emperor: Darwinism Exposed

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
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.

Contents
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
experiment.
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.

Extract:

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
altogether.

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.

Comments
Oh, I'd say ID is getting promoted very well, even without responding to Perakh.JaredL
September 8, 2005
September
09
Sep
8
08
2005
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
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
September 8, 2005
September
09
Sep
8
08
2005
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
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
September 8, 2005
September
09
Sep
8
08
2005
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
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
September 8, 2005
September
09
Sep
8
08
2005
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
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
September 8, 2005
September
09
Sep
8
08
2005
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
JaredL Wouldn't it be more logical to correct lack of understanding with a response?Alan Fox
September 8, 2005
September
09
Sep
8
08
2005
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
When it becomes clear that Perakh understands Dembski's work, only then do I believe Dembski will respond. Such hasn't happened yet.JaredL
September 8, 2005
September
09
Sep
8
08
2005
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
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
September 8, 2005
September
09
Sep
8
08
2005
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
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
September 8, 2005
September
09
Sep
8
08
2005
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
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
September 8, 2005
September
09
Sep
8
08
2005
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
One man's gap is another man's research program.hlwarren
September 8, 2005
September
09
Sep
8
08
2005
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
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
September 8, 2005
September
09
Sep
8
08
2005
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
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
September 8, 2005
September
09
Sep
8
08
2005
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT
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
September 8, 2005
September
09
Sep
8
08
2005
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT
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
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
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
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
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
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
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
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
“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
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
"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
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
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
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
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
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
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
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
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
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
It's good to see a critique coming from Britain. Does anyone know about a US publication date?Conspirator
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
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
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
"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
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
Bombadill check www.amazon.co.uk it is available now.Srdjan
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Wow! Looks very thorough. Seems to cover all bases. When and where will it be available?Bombadill
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply