Rating: 
Summary: once again, a failed arguement
Review: This book takes a much more objective approach to presenting a theory of Intelligent Design yet fails to deliver and ends up failing in the same way every other pro ID book fails: bad science, logic, and premise. The major benefit of this book is a somewhat rigorous attempt to examine current and past problems with Evolution. In fact, the book is really better viewed as yet another examination of Evolution and its problems with no alternate hypothosis provided. The idea of Intelligent Design is constantly presented but never backed up with evidence, only assertions and hand waving.I had hoped that this was the book that would finally present Intellgient Design in the true scientific light as Evolution has been shown
Rating:
Summary: once again, a failed arguement
Review: This book takes a much more objective approach to presenting a theory of Intelligent Design yet fails to deliver and ends up failing in the same way every other pro ID book fails: bad science, logic, and premise. The major benefit of this book is a somewhat rigorous attempt to examine current and past problems with Evolution. In fact, the book is really better viewed as yet another examination of Evolution and its problems with no alternate hypothosis provided. The idea of Intelligent Design is constantly presented but never backed up with evidence, only assertions and hand waving. I had hoped that this was the book that would finally present Intellgient Design in the true scientific light as Evolution has been shown
Rating: 
Summary: To be enjoyed by anyone interested in the concept of ID
Review: _Mere Creation_ (MC) is an advanced-level volume that should only be approached by serious readers who have previously been introduced to Intelligent Design (ID); one should at least read _Darwin's Black Box_ (DBB) before tackling MC. I think that the best way to explain what this book is about is to explain what it is not about, and I therefore think it is necessary to first correct misrepresentations created by some other reviewers. (So read the other reviews first to make more sense of mine.) Most of the contributors are Old Earth (OE) or Progressive creationists, but none of the contributors are deists (i.e., they don't reject the notion that God might break the laws governing the universe). This does not mean that it is assumed in the book that evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive concepts. Ratzsch's contribution, "Design, Chance & Theistic Evolution," is a study of whether chance could be a method of design. He concludes, "Theistic evolutionists can even take specific features of the cosmos, of organisms, as empirical evidence of design - design built into the founding of the cosmos" (p.309). This does not mean that any of the contributors (not even Ratzsch) believe in theistic evolution. Rather, he concludes, "although the gap between design theory and theistic evolution is thus not as broad as generally believed, ... design theory has available to it resources beyond the reach of theistic evolution" (p.309) (i.e., ID involves arguments of postcreation design and intervention). At first glance, once might come away with the impression that ID is essentially the same as the OE view. But in reality, at least four of the contributors do believe in the Young Earth (YE) view - so if one enjoys this book, one should be made aware that some contributors might be offended by labeling YE, "irrational" or "untenable." In particular, I speak of philosophers Nelson and Reynolds, who defend the YE view in _Three Views on Creation and Evolution_, edited by Reynolds and Moreland. Nelson and Reynolds list two other contributors to MC in the YE camp: anthropologist Hartwig-Scherer and her biologist husband, Scherer. (It should also be noted that at least two contributors to another ID book, _The Creation Hypothesis_, edited by Moreland, are also YE theorists: paleontologist Wise and linguist Oller.) Why can't one tell which contributors believe in what? Because it has always been held by YE creationists that Darwinism can be destroyed apart from age questions - so why not concede billions of years? As Dembski says in the Introduction, ID is "a theory of creation that puts Christians in the strongest possible position to defeat the common enemy of creation, to wit, naturalism. Throughout history common enemies have been invaluable for suspending in-house squabbles and uniting people" (pp.13-14). OE and YE are specified subdivisions of ID. The two essays concerning the Big Bang should not discourage YE theorists. Craig concludes, in "Design & the Cosmological Argument," "the cause of the universe must be a transcendent Personal Agent" as opposed to being caused by abstract objects (p.354). I think all ID theorists can agree with that. Ross's essay, "Big Bang Model Refined by Fire," does give a brief defense of the big bang model, but is mostly about the fine-tuning of the universe, with three tables of evidence, including an estimate of the probability for attaining the necessary parameters for life support. Strangely, Ross starts his chapter with what seems to be an advertisement for his books. More surprisingly, he claims in Table 15.2, without empirical support, that "intelligent physical life is [only] possible" in a universe that is 10 to 24 billion years old. This claim appears impossible to prove, especially since an Intelligent Designer could bypass any rules that Ross imposes on creation. If there is to be a truce between OE and YE creationists, then both sides will have to give up making vague, unsubstantiated assertions, and rather concentrate on the unity that Dembski described. You don't need to know much about this book or its contributors to know that the mutation/ natural selection mechanism has been rejected. For example, Johnson doesn't hold natural selection in high regard in chapter 2 of his _Darwin on Trial_. Or take Behe, whose DBB sought to be a formal disproof of the idea that mutation and natural selection can create molecular machines. Contrary to what one reviewer wrote, ID is not an assumption; it's a deduction from the evidence - an inference to the best explanation. Design can only be inferred when law and chance have been eliminated. The authors certainly have no plans of following "in Charles Darwin's footsteps." Darwin's mission was to explain how to get designed products without invoking a Designer. To follow in Darwin's footsteps would mean to set up and destroy straw men and to hold to materialistic philosophy no matter what the evidence reveals. (Read Pearcey's contribution for more on this point - it's the lightest of the 18 chapters.) Of course, many of the authors have dedicated over two decades individually to the meticulous study of the physical evidence; and combined, the authors have dedicated over two centuries. It has been over three years since the Mere Creation Conference, and participants are making great strides. ID theorists are continuing their research and will continue to get their books published by university presses: Dembski's _The Design Inference_ (Cambridge University Press, 1998) and Nelson's _On Common Descent_ (University of Chicago Press, 1999) are just the beginning. Also, look for future works by Meyer and Wells. And although the future looks bright, I'm not so sure I'm as optimistic as Johnson is in the Afterword: he foresees a celebration marking "the demise of the Darwinist ideology," perhaps as early as 10 or 20 years from now (p.448). If Darwinism were just a scientific theory, then perhaps Johnson's dream could come true. But as the foundation of a philosophy - materialism - defeating Darwinism might be difficult. Evidence by itself cannot change hearts or open minds.
| 
