Philosphical Answers to Scientific Questions

I will try to consider this book both from the point of view of its importance to the active controversy of Intelligent Design (ID) and Darwinism, and of its success in presenting a convincing point of view.

Dembski is one of the most important leaders in the ID movement at this time. As such, his books need to be read by anyone wanting to be knowledgable about the controversy. This is the fifth book on ID that I have read, and easily the most substantive. Compared to this, Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial is crude, although considerably more readable. Dembski's style is not excessively academic or jargon-laden; when reading philosophy, one must expect terms like "ontologically subjective." Dembski's style is still rather leaden: after struggling under the burden of it for 200 pages, I felt despair at realizing that there were still 125 pages of text to go.

Dembski presents an elaborate philosophic justification for ID, confronting the arguments of many critics and including the ideas of many supporters. He also lays out both stringent standards to which ID supporters should hold themselves if they are to be taken seriously, a program of projects and a promotional strategy. Many ID supporters discuss a demonized form of Darwinism that makes it a scapegoat for all the discontents of modernity and materialism as if these were the sole invention of Charles Darwin and will disappear if his theory does. Dembski is quite honest in recognizing that these ideas pervade modern thought. Although I think he exaggerates the importance of Darwinism as a linchpin, he argues that once it is destroyed, a project of purging materialism and naturalism from all sciences and humanities is needed.

The book consists of 44 questions about ID, organized into 6 parts. As such, there is a certain amount of repetition so that each discussion can mostly stand on its own; I did not find it excessive. Occasionally, for somewhat more complex issues, there are references to other chapters. Dembski is not always consistent: sometimes he recognizes the difference between an idea being not proven and proving that the idea is invalid. For example, he rightly argues that Darwinism cannot dismiss ID on the grounds that although they cannot explain something, they are confident that they can explain it in the future. On the other hand, he only intermittently concedes that this is not the same thing as proving that Darwinism will never be able to produce an explanation. At other points, he argues that he can positively prove that Darwinian explanations are impossible, without relying upon arguing from present failures. At some points, he concedes that ID must succeed on its positive merits, not merely by eliminating Darwinism, but in Chapter 36, "The only games in town", he seems to be asserting that it is one or the other, there are no other possibilities. In Chapter 29, he chides Howard Van Till for "playing the prophet" for predicting that materialism will be vindicated in the future, and then plays the prophet himself by predicting that it is ID that will triumph.

There is a bibliography, but no notes. Some citations are given within the text, but these are usually general references to another text. Statements of fact are not supported by much documentation. The index is disappointing in that it only includes proper names. The arrangement of chapters by questions is some help in relocating information, but I would have preferred a more detailed index.

ID makes its bid to be included in public school science curricula chiefly on two claims: first, that it is not tied to religious teachings, and secondly that it is in fact a science. I don't think that Dembski made good on either claim.

One might argue that the inclusion of an introduction by the Christian activist Charles W. Colson might be explained by a desire to appeal to all sides of the ID/Darwinism controversy, and even seen as conciliatory. That does not explain why text explaining ID contains discussions of Christian theology at several points. Most strikingly, in Chapter 22, Varieties of Naturalism, Dembski devotes the most text to "antisupernaturalism naturalism" as expounded by David Ray Griffen, continuing with its relationship to process theology, and then rebukes it for "deeply unsatisfying theological implications". He then comments that "pragmatic naturalism" is compatible with Christianity. He apparently doesn't care how any form of naturalism may be compatible with any other religion. He is also less than fully frank about "the Wedge", mentioning only Phillip Johnson's book, but ignoring the Discovery Institute document known by that name that has been cited to argue that ID is in fact religiously motivated. He can disavow it if he likes, but it's an important question left unanswered.

Dembski argues that ID can defeat Darwinism on scientic grounds, playing by the empirical rules of science. He argues that certain items in the universe possess an empirically detectable quality called "specified complexity". So where is the protocol for detecting it? He argues that the possession of specified complexity is a strong, even definitive argument for intelligent design. So who did this study, and where is its methodology published? Dembski seems to be claiming that these are currently available: does he mean that they are part of his program of aspirations?

Specified complexity depends in part upon probability and I am somewhat skeptical of our ability to produce meaningful numbers for many cases. One cannot simply assume that the number of possibilities that occur if every quality could vary independent is the correct number: qualities may be interdependent. Then one must know how many potential values there are for each quality. If/then speculations are fine, but I am very skeptical of anyone who attempts to argue definitively, for example, that there is/is not life on other planets based on the single example of our world and our limited knowledge of other stellar systems.

In sum, if one is interested in ID or the controversy, this is a significant book and should be considered. Personally, I'm impressed by his thoroughness and breadth of vision, but I'm not convinced either of ID's validity or its appropriateness to a public school SCIENCE classroom.

For readers wanting critiques of Dembski, his prominence in the ID movement guarantees that most recent books will discuss him. I call the reader's attention to Mark Perakh's somewhat vituperous Unintelligent Design, the first section of which considers Dembski from the perspective of mathematics and information theory, rather than the usual perspectives of biology and general science. ( )

DISCO D: BACKUP / TEOLOGIA
TEOLOGIA CRISTIANA / APOLOGETICA