by Michael Denton
A leading evolutionary thinker, biologist, and medical researcher asks the question: "Could life elsewhere be substantially different from life on Earth?" - and builds a step-by-step argument for human inevitability. 65 illustrations & photos. Over the past twenty years, such physicists as Freeman Dyson, Fred Hoyle, Martin Rees, and Paul Davies have argued that the universe is fine-tuned for carbon-based life. Now, Michael Denton extends their argument all the way from the carbon atom to advanced and complex life forms closely resembling ourselves, showing that our biosphere is central to nature's destiny. Though we may have six-fingered cousins elsewhere, the laws of nature are tuned to reach an endpoint in mankind. The publisher, The Free Press, June 29,
1998
Publisher's Weekly: "New Zealand biologist Denton continues the assault on Darwinian science, especially the theories of evolution and natural selection, that he began in EVOLUTION: A THEORY IN CRISIS... his prose is engaging and his insights are accessible to readers who lack a deep scientific background. In the growing debate over Darwin's theories, Denton's voice remains one of the most notable and compelling." David Berlinski, author of A TOUR OF THE CALCULUS: "This is a book of extraordinary scientific interest: both original and far reaching. It is, in fact, speculative natural philosophy of the highest order. Philosophers will wish to read it because it is so interesting, and biologists, because chances are they have never seen anything like it; but ordinary readers will cherish this book for the better reason that it does what a book about life should do and so rarely does, and that is to restore to them the sense of wonder they thought hopelessly lost." John Polkinghorne, F.R.S., author of THE FAITH OF A PHYSICIST: "This book should inaugurate a new phase in the discussion of the presence of inherent potentiality in nature. It does for biological science what the previous physics-based discussions concerning the anthropic principle and questions of design had done for cosmology. Fascinating and important." Michael Behe, author of DARWIN'S BLACK BOX: "In this exciting book, Michael Denton details science's relentless progress toward an unexpected conclusion - that the universe was intentionally designed for human beings. From the laws of physics to chemistry and biology, from the properties of water to the characteristics of fire, he shows the goal of the cosmos to be human life. The scientific and theological consequences of this study are immense." Customer Comments Scott Ryan (SandGRyan@worldnet.att.net)
from Cuyahoga Falls OH, September 4, 1999
csoon@erols.com from MD,
USA, March 10, 1999
The attacks are characteristic of fanaticism: claiming that Denton's book is a religious tract and supposing that settles the matter. This is similar to Dawkins' personal attacks on Richard Milton's highly recommended Shattering the Myths of Evolution, where Dawkins froths at the mouth labeling Milton as a "creationist in disguise." But are Fred Hoyle, Paul Davies, etc. religious creationists? Why such tactics in response to scientific observations? The answer is clear from Denton's book. Fundamentalist Darwinians have a deep-seated psychological need to see the universe as a mere product of chance, devoid of supernaturalism. Not understanding the implications of quantum physics, they believe that science will someday support their view. All opposing viewpoints and data must therefore be wrong. However, since the opposing views are based on factual data, ad hominem attacks and misinformation are the only available defenses left (see Milton's discussion of the "howler monkeys" of the current dogma). Denton's book, while flawed, overwhelmingly exposes the narrow-mindedness of this view, by showing us how improbable it is. For all the rantings of Darwinists, it is interesting that his factual points that show this are just ignored. Has Denton converted to evolutionism, a faith he showed defunct in his previous book? An objective reading shows that this is not the case. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis underlined the ludicrousness of believing that evolution happened by chance, and called for a new theory that explained such developments as the avian lung. Such a theory would incorporate some notion of design, since Darwinism had proved irrelevant. His second book, while not providing that theory, ups the ante, providing more evidence of the "Galileo Effect." Since his field is molecular biology, Nature's Destiny assumes many things about scientific knowledge, many of which are in dispute, such as the geological time scale. (For an excellent nontheist discussion of this problem, and many others, see Milton's book.) But the thrust of his argument is that, even assuming evolution occurs, it must have been directed. He believes, however, that the direction was inevitable given the designed initial conditions; therein lies the flaw. There would, in actuality, have been many points in our alleged history where intelligent intervention was needed: abiogenesis, for one; the origin of species, but another. However, this does not detract from the rest of the argument; it merely confuses those who are "true believers" in Darwinism, and therefore not disposed to consider his views and points more carefully. Why is the universe so hospitable to us, even though the chances of finding a planet like ours is virtually zero (Hugh Ross)? This question is studiously ignored, but that is the heart of the book. If you would be a champion of evolutionism, that is the dragon to be slain. If you already believe that dinosaurs can be buried at the alleged soil deposition rate of 0.1 mm a year, you could believe in such chances, too, I suppose. But I do not have that much faith. kenari109a@netscape.net
from California, September 30, 1999
If the existence of God cannot be proven by scientific means, does this mean that God does not exist? Of course not. It simply means that FAITH - not scientific objectivity - is the source of metaphysical knowledge, and the backbone of religion. Science requires that hypotheses be testable, and if test results do not support the hypothesis then the hypothesis is incorrect. If the scientific theories Denton relies upon as "proof" of God were revised in the light of new concepts, new observations, and new interpretations (this happens all the time in science), what would this mean about God? The obvious scientific answer would be that Denton's hypothesis was wrong. Because the existence of God as a scientific hypothesis relies upon the correctness of certain theories about the physical universe, if those theories are discredited all theories that rely upon them are instantly discredited as well. Denton's theory, that God exists BECAUSE the universe is structured in a certain way, would fall as well, and would leave those without faith reeling - perhaps God didn't exist after all. Such problems lie at the root of conflicts between fundamentalists and scientists like Galileo and Darwin; if faith is linked to a particular view of the physical world, any scientific theory that does a better job of explaining the natural world challenges core beliefs. But this is more than is needed to demonstrate the absurdity of Denton's claim. To turn the question around, what "evidence" could Denton muster to "disprove" the existence of God? I can think of none. And that is the fundamental flaw with Denton's book, and all others in this genre. It need not be so - scientific objectivity and religious faith can coexist quite happily. But knowledge of God cannot be sought in an objective study of the physical world. Only those lacking faith search there, and they will ultimately search in vain every time.
|
