[.ca] Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design (ISBN 0801065216)

No doubt about "Doubts":
Having closely followed Intelligent Design for the past eleven years, I expect any new books in this genre to simply add to my ID knowledge base. THATS NOT WHAT THIS BOOK IS ABOUT! The "big picture" is critical to an in-depth understanding of any complex endeavor. Since I am by nature a detail person, I must work extra hard to "see" it. However, even hard work won't help you if you lack the analytical tools needed to "step back". This book has provided me a framework with which to understand the ID movement. I'm actually going to re-read some of the key works that were highlighted with the new vantage point that I have. "Doubts about Darwin" practically turned its own pages! I could not set it down. Not only is the author good at rhetorical analysis, he is an excellent rhetor. (I didn't know the word 'rhetor' before I read Doubts). I especially enjoyed the book within a book. I felt that I was learning on two levels. As he provided rhetorical analysis, he was explaining the process to us. And the footnotes were quite informative. I had to stop and read most of them as I was zipping along. That probably kept me from getting literary indigestion, I was reading so fast! This is a good read and I heartily recommend it.

A solid and worthwhile read!:
This book makes two important contributions to the contemporary Darwin vs. design controversy: 1) it chronicles the history of the growing acknowledgment of the scientific deficiencies of neo-Darwinian evolution and the rise of intelligent design theory, and 2) it also provides a unique, rhetorical analysis of the works of Michael Denton, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe and William Dembski. Whereas Larry Witham's recent book "By Design" takes a more neutral tone and extends his narrative to include debates over cosmic design, Dr. Thomas Woodward is clearly sympathetic with the arguments and ideas of the proponents of intelligent design, and his book focuses more narrowly upon the issue of biological evolution. His views in no way detract from the book's credibility and effectiveness. Rather, Woodward's work has much to its credit and any serious reader should evaluate the history and analysis he provides on the merits. One need not have read the works of Denton, Johnson, Behe and Dembski to be able to follow Woodward's analysis, but a familiarity with the primary design proponents' books and arguments will enhance one's appreciation for the analysis he provides. Woodward also points out the importance of Charles Thaxton and his ideas for the development of intelligent design theory, and likewise provides readers with a concise introduction to rhetoric of science as an important intellectual field. If I had to be picky, I would say that this book is not entirely clear about the fact that there are critics of neo-Darwinian evolution, such as David Berlinski, whom one may not necessarily consider to be a proponent of intelligent design theory. Such a skeptic of Darwin might be more properly considered to be outside of the "Intelligent Design Movement." While not a criticism, I am curious as to why the 1999 Kansas State Board of Education battle features so prominently in the early part of the book. It is true that this episode helped to give intelligent design theory and its main proponents much early publicity, but the main design proponents were not deeply involved in matters there. Leading proponents of design were much more active in the Ohio controversy of 2001-2002, which involved a more clear and careful approach to the teaching of Darwin's theory and a much more favorable result was ultimately obtained: while merely permitting local schools to include discussion of intelligent design theory, the State Board of Education adopted a benchmark requiring students to know why scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. In any case, this book is quite enjoyable and is recommended to readers. At this point, I can only hope that Woodward will write a sequel, analyzing the history and main arguments presented by the anti-design crowd.

A multifaceted look at this important debate:
I was fully prepared to be underwhelmed by this book, after seeing that it was primarily a re-work of the author's Ph.D. work. I've seen how such books tend to be informative but often not a very compelling read. I was happily surprised to find that Doubts about Darwin has that unique combination of intrigue and education that made it hard to put down. I see this as (at least) a 4-in-1 book: (1) A thorough history of the Intelligent Design movement, (2) a broad review of much of the key literature in the field - you'll figure out which authors or books you'll want to read next, (3) a light and interesting on-going lesson in rhetoric and how it plays a key role in this issue, (4) a good introductory education on the ID topic itself that gives enough understanding to appreciate the debate. The description of the initial encounter between Phillip Johnson and SJ Gould may be worth the price of the book, and is a microcosm of the larger ID debate. Woodward gives unique, up-close views like that as he tracks the goings-on over the years. If I had to make a criticism, I'd say that Woodward spent quite a bit of time on Johnson's Darwin on Trial book. I could have been satisfied with a bit quicker pace in that section, but he obviously felt it was a cornerstone work in this engagement and worth a closer look, which I can understand. Generally he strikes a good balance, with 40 pages of small print notes in the back to keep the main story flowing. (But I found myself frequently drawn to the notes for more details anyway.) If you have any interest in getting a handle on this debate, or just like seeing what happens when the ideas of one group of smart people collides with the ideas of another, I don't expect you'll be at all disappointed with the Doubts book.

Excellent Look at ID history and methods:
In Thomas Woodard's excellent new book, "Doubts about Darwin," he recounts the history of the modern intelligent design (ID) movement. He focuses on pivotal people such as Michael Denton, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe and William Dembski and some of their ground-breaking books such as Denton's "Evolution: A theory in Crisis" and Johnson's "Darwin on Trial." The book focuses mainly on these individuals' methodology and development of arguments, the establishing of the movement and the reactions of evolutionists. The actual science of either theory is only cursorily reviewed. From the beginning, ID has tried to distance itself from other forms of creationism in order to avoid the historic "science vs. religion" stigma. In particular it has tried to stay away from young-earthism (also known as scientific creationism or creation science). Even though many if not most of the ID theorists accept the validity of an ancient Earth ("...the fact \ois\c that the vast majority of design advocates are open to a universe that is billions of years old. \o27\c" ), they still haven't addressed the young-earth theory head on. Under a "big tent" policy, they let all design theorists in. But this is introducing the difficulties they were trying to avoid. Consider the following statements about ID and from ID supporters: "Another mark \oof ID\c is the avoidance of ...any details that come from a literal reading of Genesis. \o27\c" "The modern phenomenon known as 'scientific creationism' did not even exist in 1959. It was not until 1962 that theologian John Whitcomb and hydraulic engineer Henry Morris gave birth to that movement when they published their "Genesis Flood." \o35\c" "...regarding the age of the earth...I have no desire to quarrel with the generally accepted estimate of four or five billion years...nor do I assume that the literalists are reading the Bible correctly... \o81\c" "I assume that creation-scientists are biased by their precommitment to Biblical fundamentalism...I want to investigate whether Darwinism is based upon a fair assessment of the scientific evidence, or whether or not it is another kind of fundamentalism. \o93\c" With such statements which are apparently very strongly against young-earthism, why are skeptics still successful at painting ID as "disguised creationism" or keeping discussions of ID out of schools? One, notice that ID often refers to young-earthers and their "literal" interpretation of the Bible. The problem here is that their interpretation is not literal. If it were literal, then resulting contradictions and problems would render the Bible wrong. Skeptics see this and are essentially saying, "These ID people believe in God, yet Genesis is wrong, so ID must be fundamentally wrong as well." So no matter how much ID supporters say ID only generically points to a designer, skeptics will see what they believe is faulty Christianity (i.e. young-earthism) as a basis as ID (since most ID theorists are Christians). So as long as ID says "young-earth is wrong" and does not detail why it is wrong and not literal Biblical interpretation, they will be unable to obtain the level of scholarly acceptance they are seeking. This young-earth problem enhances the ID fallacy that science, "...is ill-equipped to identify God as the creator. \o27\c" ID spends so much time promoting solid scientific method and showing naturalism is not scientific at all, yet they themselves stop short. They are deciding a priori that science cannot give specifics about who or what this designer is, only that there is a designer. This is a result of trying to avoid being labeled as creationists or as trying to teach religion in schools. But they artificially telling science what it may conclude, just as the young-earthers and naturalists are doing. If science leads to God of the Bible, then it does so. One way to show that ID's designer is God of the Bible, one must show that the Bible and science agree and that the literal translation supports what real science as found. The fact is that Genesis and science do agree. In fact, people like Hugh Ross have detailed this in books such as "The Genesis Question" with the same quality of scholarship as other ID books - in effect he has solved the problems of ID discussed here, but they have thus far refused to use the solution. (I also noticed that no reference of Hugh Ross is made in Woodard's book, even though he has been cataloging design evidences for years - consider that Denton and Dembski refer/defer to him on these subjects in some of their books - and he was a featured scholar in the book "Mere Creation" which Woodard writes about, not mentioning Ross and some other participants.) ID has grown much in recent years, yet many still know little about it. Many oppose it because they see it - however wrongly - related to flawed young-earthism. Removing this creationist stigma fully and totally will allow ID to prosper and supplant flawed Darwinism as the primary and most reasonable theory on origins. These issues are detailed in the book "Is the Truth Out There?."

A History of the Same Tired Stuff:
Intelligent Design is, ultimately, an intellectually dead end. This is the large elephant in the living room of Mr. Woodward and Mr. Johnson. What is the practical use of a theory such as this? In what ways does it lead to expanding humankind's knowledge? To simply avoid answering this adds nothing to the "argument" for intelligent design. What great predictions will I.D. give us in the end? I find this history lacking in that it provides no real reason to use I.D. as a productive approach to science.