Strefa dla członków PTKr
Bob Stockburger, "Review: By Design or by Chance? by freelance writer Denyse O'Leary" (2005)
Zapomniałeś hasła?
Kody genetyczne wyższego rzędu
Bob Stockburger, "Review: By Design or by Chance? by freelance writer Denyse O'Leary" (2005)
By Design or by Chance? by freelance writer Denyse O'Leary
> <strong>Review by Doctor Bob Stockburger
> <br> PREFACE. Author describes self as freelance journalist from Toronto who had no desire to enter a controversy however now sees Darwinism as a theory of evolution that denies design when universe screams design; however she states the reader must judge for himself. the general stated goal/topic is the effort (and resistance to the effort) to reorganize science (all) around the theory of design. COMMENT The author fairly describes her stance and makes no pretense at being balanced which is fair considering who publishes and who reads her books. I suspect the reader already has an opinion which this book will likely reinforce.
> <br> INTRODUCTION. This topic is described as THE issue of our time and Darwin is linked to Marx (Communism) and Freud (sex). The evidence of science according to author does not support a meaningless atheistic universe but does support one busting with design. Has the Universe existed forever or did it begin with the big bang as it obviously takes more time to microwave a meal than create the universe? The basic assumptions of modernism are false and do we really live in a "casino universe". The author will describe the conflict between those who think ID belongs in biology and cosmology and those who don't. COMMENT I don't accept the idea that modern science believes in a "casino" universe and is meaningless and Godless though this book is not about my opinions. If this were a book discussion group I would ask the following questions:
> 1. For what audience is this book intended?<br> 2. Do we expect it to be completely balanced?
> 3. Is the author repeating opinions of others or presenting original data or ideas?<br> 4. If not intended to meet strict scientific accuracy does the interesting journalistic style ensure it will be read by the intended audience?
> <br> CHAPTER ONE, Part One: A description of the steady-state and big-bang models. Astronomy is a science as is theoretical physics. Cosmology seems to add metaphysics and is a wider and more heterogeneous field. A discussion of religion and faith ensues.
> <br> CHAPTER TWO: The arguments for chance. Begins with quotes from Poe and one about Elvis. It seems that chance will fare poorly in this chapter. A description of parallel universes and Gambler's Follies if followed with a box question"Why do scientists leave God out of the picture?"Ends with faith or reason. either/or
> <br> CHAPTER THREE: Arguments for design. Arranging a tornado in a junkyard into a Boeing 747 is not likely by chance some design would be necessary. The flagellum is discussed as a favorite topic .NOTE there are more than one type of flagellum and the proto structures have been around for awhile. I was surprised at this misinformation.
> <br> CHAPTER FOUR, Part Two: Moving to the main ideas of book a discussion of WHY chance or ID matters. By this point Darwinism is distinguished from evolution and seems to be vile and evil. Modernists are mentioned as they are all Darwinists. The human genome is mentioned as proof of ID.
> <br> CHAPTER FIVE: Is painful for a biologist to read. Just recall the rhetoric about Devil Darwin and his irreligious life. An analogy of a swayback horse and fine stallion is erroneous and the Cambrian explosion is again recalled (it was only an explosion of fossil formation). C S Lewis is mentioned last.
> <br> CHAPTER SIX: The Coelacanth proves something. Mainstream religions are slammed as Darwinism is accommodated meaning the denomination must be worthless if not as strict as others feel it should be.
> <br> CHAPTER SEVEN: What REALLY happened at the Scopes trial? FYI my biology class 9th grade repeated the debate in 1967 and the CREATIONISTS won the debate. I did not agree with their vote, but did respect their line of thought and gave all A's. They loved it. It is not necessary to rewrite history and everyone knows about the ACLU and outcome. It was a sideshow. If three time presidential candidate Bryan had not been so pompous the fundamental side would not have seemed so silly. BTW the pro-life demonstrators, Bryan, and the Colorado college religious showoff are fulfilling their own agenda that does not help the advance of Christianity.
> <br> CHAPTER NINE: Dawkins vs Gould both write for the public more than science and have refused to debate creationists. They reason that even engaging in dialog creates some concept of legitimacy to Creationism.
> <br> CHAPTER 10, Part Three: Initial sentence from famous Charles Spurgeon (I assume the Baptist preacher in London who would draw audiences of 6,000 on Sunday) in 1883 that if God's word be true then evolution is a lie (the footnote points to an interview in 2003..an admirable life span). A general history of the development of Creationism which has been the ultimate result of the conflict of the church (bible) with findings of science since the Renaissance. Poor Galileo.
> <br> An accommodation was reached until 19th century when fact after scientific fact was revealed.The biologic principle of evolution and the concept of geologic time created a line in the sand between literal genesis account(s) and science. Pages 122-123 are from Genesis. What is a creationist is defined and this author comes out in favor of young earth creation and rejection of scientific Christians who accept evolution.
> <br> CHAPTER 11: Describes the divide between science and creationism. The list on page 134 is fairly accurate regarding science views(sadly) and the author leaves out a list of what creationists think of science (mainly Darwinism)..generally Godless or something close. Then follows bird-dinosaur and the American Scientific affiliation. A split within the creationist movement is touched on last. Also it is not wise to make over 50k yearly as that increases the rate of agnosticism.
> <br> CHAPTER 12: Creationism is growing as per the time-line on pages 156-157 and the internet has helped creationists to communicate. I witnessed Norbert hold his tongue as a graduate student as he formed networks outside of the department with other like minded people but mail was time consuming and expensive. Maintaining contact and sharing ideas has helped the creationist movement. Page 160 gives a list of creationist organizations.
> <br> CHAPTER 13, Part Four: Intelligent Design - - why the controversy? Taking Dembski out of context the second paragraph states that Design is NOT CREATIONISM. He also goes on to explain that the ideas are compatible with each other. The general idea is readily grasped by any reader however taken to the following double talk aperiodic and unspecified complexity, periodic and specified order, irreducible complexity Also phrases that are to the tune of...if you are a ----evolutionist then you believe ----, and if you are ID advocate you believe--------,All of these statements are arguable. Behe and Dembski are not saying evolution did occur nor Noah's flood explains the geology we see today. Christian evolutionists are" Just Theistic Naturalists" I think this is a put down.
> <br> CHAPTER 14: Is ID good science or even science at all? Darwinism is a faith belief whereas ID is scientific ?
> <br> CHAPTER 15: Is ID good theology? It seems that ID is compatible with many beliefs and most theologies It is NOT compatible with a Godless universe.
> <br> CHAPTER 16: Of concern to everyone...The future of ID. Place a wedge of doubt in evolution. Keep the idea out there. Mere involvement in the debate implies some legitimacy to ID. It may be a bitter pill for a young earth advocate to espouse lukewarm causes in order to advance the cause of Creationism...Why not be up front with the agenda instead of stealth creationism. This tactic is working.
> <br> OVERALL COMMENTS: This book should be read by creationists who wish to generally be familiar with the position he is advocating. Evolutionists will not read this book nor will scientists. If one wishes to convince any scientist of any scientific point being wrong this is not to be used as there are so many misleading oversimplifications it would mark one quickly as one of the generalizations on page 134. It may be best to stick to theological points if that is your strong suit. The reason science totally rejects the Dembski theories is that the convoluted math and vocabulary complexity to the point of absurdity don't hold up to scrutiny to anyone who can cut through to what the real meat of his argument is. There is design ..just say it. The hostile reception from science will never stop unless the reasoning meets standards . If ID were true as Dembski describes why are advocates only concentrating on evolution? The sciences are not fooled as to the agenda. So, I leave this text with a smile as it does help some Christians to resolve their strict faith and science with a belief system that works for them. The debate should not be taken to the point that a Creationist loses his/her faith...that would be too harmful. I would hope the rhetoric would not include insults that belittle other people's belief. A Creationist does not enjoy being labeled and being made fun of and a Christian evolutionist resent being labeled Godless. Over the last decades creationism was repeatedly kept out of public schools however the new ID twist brings up the same issues "watered down" but the idea is discussed and maybe more people will be stimulated to think and even read the Bible.
> <strong>Review by Doctor Bob Stockburger
> <br> PREFACE. Author describes self as freelance journalist from Toronto who had no desire to enter a controversy however now sees Darwinism as a theory of evolution that denies design when universe screams design; however she states the reader must judge for himself. the general stated goal/topic is the effort (and resistance to the effort) to reorganize science (all) around the theory of design. COMMENT The author fairly describes her stance and makes no pretense at being balanced which is fair considering who publishes and who reads her books. I suspect the reader already has an opinion which this book will likely reinforce.
> <br> INTRODUCTION. This topic is described as THE issue of our time and Darwin is linked to Marx (Communism) and Freud (sex). The evidence of science according to author does not support a meaningless atheistic universe but does support one busting with design. Has the Universe existed forever or did it begin with the big bang as it obviously takes more time to microwave a meal than create the universe? The basic assumptions of modernism are false and do we really live in a "casino universe". The author will describe the conflict between those who think ID belongs in biology and cosmology and those who don't. COMMENT I don't accept the idea that modern science believes in a "casino" universe and is meaningless and Godless though this book is not about my opinions. If this were a book discussion group I would ask the following questions:
> 1. For what audience is this book intended?<br> 2. Do we expect it to be completely balanced?
> 3. Is the author repeating opinions of others or presenting original data or ideas?<br> 4. If not intended to meet strict scientific accuracy does the interesting journalistic style ensure it will be read by the intended audience?
> <br> CHAPTER ONE, Part One: A description of the steady-state and big-bang models. Astronomy is a science as is theoretical physics. Cosmology seems to add metaphysics and is a wider and more heterogeneous field. A discussion of religion and faith ensues.
> <br> CHAPTER TWO: The arguments for chance. Begins with quotes from Poe and one about Elvis. It seems that chance will fare poorly in this chapter. A description of parallel universes and Gambler's Follies if followed with a box question"Why do scientists leave God out of the picture?"Ends with faith or reason. either/or
> <br> CHAPTER THREE: Arguments for design. Arranging a tornado in a junkyard into a Boeing 747 is not likely by chance some design would be necessary. The flagellum is discussed as a favorite topic .NOTE there are more than one type of flagellum and the proto structures have been around for awhile. I was surprised at this misinformation.
> <br> CHAPTER FOUR, Part Two: Moving to the main ideas of book a discussion of WHY chance or ID matters. By this point Darwinism is distinguished from evolution and seems to be vile and evil. Modernists are mentioned as they are all Darwinists. The human genome is mentioned as proof of ID.
> <br> CHAPTER FIVE: Is painful for a biologist to read. Just recall the rhetoric about Devil Darwin and his irreligious life. An analogy of a swayback horse and fine stallion is erroneous and the Cambrian explosion is again recalled (it was only an explosion of fossil formation). C S Lewis is mentioned last.
> <br> CHAPTER SIX: The Coelacanth proves something. Mainstream religions are slammed as Darwinism is accommodated meaning the denomination must be worthless if not as strict as others feel it should be.
> <br> CHAPTER SEVEN: What REALLY happened at the Scopes trial? FYI my biology class 9th grade repeated the debate in 1967 and the CREATIONISTS won the debate. I did not agree with their vote, but did respect their line of thought and gave all A's. They loved it. It is not necessary to rewrite history and everyone knows about the ACLU and outcome. It was a sideshow. If three time presidential candidate Bryan had not been so pompous the fundamental side would not have seemed so silly. BTW the pro-life demonstrators, Bryan, and the Colorado college religious showoff are fulfilling their own agenda that does not help the advance of Christianity.
> <br> CHAPTER NINE: Dawkins vs Gould both write for the public more than science and have refused to debate creationists. They reason that even engaging in dialog creates some concept of legitimacy to Creationism.
> <br> CHAPTER 10, Part Three: Initial sentence from famous Charles Spurgeon (I assume the Baptist preacher in London who would draw audiences of 6,000 on Sunday) in 1883 that if God's word be true then evolution is a lie (the footnote points to an interview in 2003..an admirable life span). A general history of the development of Creationism which has been the ultimate result of the conflict of the church (bible) with findings of science since the Renaissance. Poor Galileo.
> <br> An accommodation was reached until 19th century when fact after scientific fact was revealed.The biologic principle of evolution and the concept of geologic time created a line in the sand between literal genesis account(s) and science. Pages 122-123 are from Genesis. What is a creationist is defined and this author comes out in favor of young earth creation and rejection of scientific Christians who accept evolution.
> <br> CHAPTER 11: Describes the divide between science and creationism. The list on page 134 is fairly accurate regarding science views(sadly) and the author leaves out a list of what creationists think of science (mainly Darwinism)..generally Godless or something close. Then follows bird-dinosaur and the American Scientific affiliation. A split within the creationist movement is touched on last. Also it is not wise to make over 50k yearly as that increases the rate of agnosticism.
> <br> CHAPTER 12: Creationism is growing as per the time-line on pages 156-157 and the internet has helped creationists to communicate. I witnessed Norbert hold his tongue as a graduate student as he formed networks outside of the department with other like minded people but mail was time consuming and expensive. Maintaining contact and sharing ideas has helped the creationist movement. Page 160 gives a list of creationist organizations.
> <br> CHAPTER 13, Part Four: Intelligent Design - - why the controversy? Taking Dembski out of context the second paragraph states that Design is NOT CREATIONISM. He also goes on to explain that the ideas are compatible with each other. The general idea is readily grasped by any reader however taken to the following double talk aperiodic and unspecified complexity, periodic and specified order, irreducible complexity Also phrases that are to the tune of...if you are a ----evolutionist then you believe ----, and if you are ID advocate you believe--------,All of these statements are arguable. Behe and Dembski are not saying evolution did occur nor Noah's flood explains the geology we see today. Christian evolutionists are" Just Theistic Naturalists" I think this is a put down.
> <br> CHAPTER 14: Is ID good science or even science at all? Darwinism is a faith belief whereas ID is scientific ?
> <br> CHAPTER 15: Is ID good theology? It seems that ID is compatible with many beliefs and most theologies It is NOT compatible with a Godless universe.
> <br> CHAPTER 16: Of concern to everyone...The future of ID. Place a wedge of doubt in evolution. Keep the idea out there. Mere involvement in the debate implies some legitimacy to ID. It may be a bitter pill for a young earth advocate to espouse lukewarm causes in order to advance the cause of Creationism...Why not be up front with the agenda instead of stealth creationism. This tactic is working.
> <br> OVERALL COMMENTS: This book should be read by creationists who wish to generally be familiar with the position he is advocating. Evolutionists will not read this book nor will scientists. If one wishes to convince any scientist of any scientific point being wrong this is not to be used as there are so many misleading oversimplifications it would mark one quickly as one of the generalizations on page 134. It may be best to stick to theological points if that is your strong suit. The reason science totally rejects the Dembski theories is that the convoluted math and vocabulary complexity to the point of absurdity don't hold up to scrutiny to anyone who can cut through to what the real meat of his argument is. There is design ..just say it. The hostile reception from science will never stop unless the reasoning meets standards . If ID were true as Dembski describes why are advocates only concentrating on evolution? The sciences are not fooled as to the agenda. So, I leave this text with a smile as it does help some Christians to resolve their strict faith and science with a belief system that works for them. The debate should not be taken to the point that a Creationist loses his/her faith...that would be too harmful. I would hope the rhetoric would not include insults that belittle other people's belief. A Creationist does not enjoy being labeled and being made fun of and a Christian evolutionist resent being labeled Godless. Over the last decades creationism was repeatedly kept out of public schools however the new ID twist brings up the same issues "watered down" but the idea is discussed and maybe more people will be stimulated to think and even read the Bible.
