William A. Dembski

This is a book for which I have been waiting since I first noticed Steve Dalkowski's stats in the 1962 edition pf the Sporting News Baseball Guide. Steve is one of those extraordinary individuals whose story becomes legend and about whom a constellation of myths revolves. There is also much of an inescapable Shakespearian doom about him, an erratic genius of unparalleled promise who comes close to touching the star but in the end falls away into the void.
Week written and well documented(with a few minor factual errors which have nothing to do with the protagonist), this book was both worth the wait and a must-read for any true baseball fan.… (altro)

DALKO, by William A. Dembski, Alex Thomas, Brian Vikander, is the biography of Steve Dalkowski, a career minor league pitcher who is remembered by anyone he met for his astounding fastball. What is almost as astounding is that he could never make it to the majors, partly from his own demons, partly unfortunate luck, and partly from no one understanding how to mold such a unique talent into a major league star.
The writers have done as excellent job of researching man who is hard to research. His interviews are sparse and minimal in content and there is little or no film of Dalkowski pitching ever. Even the managers and catchers he worked with have conflicting views on his pitching speed, his control, even his work ethic. The legendary stories of Dalkowski are captivatingly picked through and the writers attempt to divide truth from fiction. In the end, the writers clearly wish they had uncovered more concrete information, but that seems to be Steve Dalkowski in a nutshell; everyone has a story, but the true legend of the "fastest pitcher ever" will never be grounded in complete factuality.
A quick, fun baseball read for those of us that can never get enough great baseball history, DALKO is a book to embrace, enjoy, and charge the reader with finding their own true thoughts about the "fastest pitcher ever".
Thank you to Influence Publishers, William A. Dembski, Alex Thomas, Brian Vikander, and Netgalley for a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review!… (altro)

I’ve gone back and forth on this issue for a long time. I was not raised Christian and I was blissfully unaware of such controversies until after I became a Christian at the age of 18. At first I was told that the Bible taught that the Earth was only 6,000 years old and after my experience in conversion, I was prone to just believe that the Bible did indeed teach that.

However, as time went on I became very thirsty for knowledge. I have always been a voracious reader, when I converted, my taste in books shifted from sci-fi and horror to Christian books. (Though, I still love sci-fi and horror.) Because of my experiences, I have read a few books from various positions on this issue. I’ve read books defending evolution, old-earth creationism, young-earth creationism and a bunch of models and such in between.

While searching for a new book to read, I came across this thick volume edited by William Dembski, a mathematician. Dembski was a big name in the Intelligent Design movement and I had read one of his books before, so I decided to pick this book up. The introduction starts by quoting Daniel Dennett and others showing the affection and overstating of just how much evolution encompasses.

In the first chapter, it is said that we are still waiting for Darwin’s Newton, that is, someone who could take what Darwin proposed and support it. There is a comparison made between germ theory and evolution, the former presenting many more stages of development in thought, judging by the many hypotheses and tests in that area. There is a contention that Darwin’s theory was not a theory when Darwin was alive, but instead just a hypothesis.

In chapter 2, Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, contributes his critique of Evolution as a dogma. Johnson argues that while Young-Earth Creationists may be wrong about side issues, their idea that educators are indoctrinating our children is true. Johnson challenges the assumption that Evolution is backed by empirical evidence and is instead riddled with philosophical presuppositions. Johnson brings up the problem of the Cambrian explosion and cites Dr. Richard Dawkins, who does seem puzzled by the fossils recovered there. This is because the fossils were in an advance stage of evolution that would throw off the timeline of popular evolutionary models, but it would not necessarily prove evolution false. Dawkins own answer is that he thinks that fossils simply can’t last past 600 million years or so. Johnson doesn’t buy this defense. He cites paleontologists of a more recent era stating that the missing links are still a problem to bolster his case that we are lacking the transitional fossils necessary to prove an evolutionary model.

In chapter 3, Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger has a chapter called “The Miracles of Darwinism.” In it, Schutzenberger starts with a 1996 interview with La Recherche, a French magazine. Shutzenberger was a mathematician and doctor of medicine. He was questioned about evolution and his responses were rather interesting. He was asked for his definition of Darwinism, in which Schutzenberger argues that evolution holds two contradictory ideas to be true. That is that of gradualism (small successive changes) and saltationism (changes that jump) on the other. He cites Richard Dawkins as a radical gradualist and Stephen Jay Gould as a radical saltationist.

When it was mentioned that Schutzenberger was not a biologist, he retorted that evolutionary biologists want mathematicians to participate. He claims Dawkins is “fatally attracted” to arguments that “hinge on concepts from mathematics.” (p.104) He goes on to say that Darwinism doesn’t actually explain that much and that the models presented aren’t worthwhile. On the one hand, Gradualism fails because it doesn’t align with paleontological evidence. On the other hand, saltationism requires a miracle to be true, argues Schutzenberger.

He continues by labeling evolution as “grossly insufficient” and cites the idea that horses were once as small as rabbits and only grew overtime to escape from predators. He says while that idea that this could have happened is partially true and possible, it doesn’t account for the fact that gaining size also has negative consequences. So it would seem that finding an exact reason for such a drastic change would seem no more than speculation.(p.110)

In chapter 4, Nancy Pearcy seeks to address Evolution as a worldview. She takes issues with Dawkins and others ruling out other explanations for human origins on the notion that they aren’t naturalistic. (i.e. they reject all supernatural explanations.) She fights hard against the idea that morality is some sort of natural occurrence within our humanity. As she points out several authors who have argued that rape and other heinous things are natural occurrences that we have later made crimes. She disagrees with Dr. Steven Pinker, who argues in his book A Blank Slate that rape is an adaptive strategy pursued by low-status males who are alienated from their communities and unable to win the consent of women. Dr. Pinker concludes that this will lead to a gene or a discovering of a gene that predisposes men to rape.(p.126)

Next she takes on Dr. Peter Singer, the Princeton professor who famously defended bestiality. She finds a weird disconnect in Singer who on the one hand argues for animal liberation but on the other supports human sex with animals. She blames evolution for this, as evolution classifies humans as animals, therefore, it is a species difference but not anything significant otherwise. (p.129)
She argues that evolutionary psychology is self-refuting and an “incoherent patchwork.” (p.132) and addresses Daniel Dennett’s trademark metaphor of Darwinism being a universal acid that eats through every traditional concept. She then briefly addresses theistic evolution. She states that only process theology could account and be compatible for a harmonious relationship between God and evolution.(p.138)

In the 5th chapter, Edward Sission seeks to point out the flaws in what he terms Neo-Darwinism. A lot of these flaws have to do with failed experiments and philosophical points that are disguised or hidden in the science of Evolution.(i.e. Evolutionists will make philosophical arguments with scientific claims and claim the whole thing as science.) In Chapter 6, J. Budziszewski, argues that naturalism is at odds with natural law. His reasoning goes as follows. He states that naturalism destroys any meaningful concept of morality. (p.190) He also states that it’s a disaster to ethics (p.196) and overall that Evolution cannot account for anything because it isn’t a predictive model/theory.

In chapter 7, Frank Tipler calls into question the honesty and integrity of scientific peer-reviewed journals. Tipler is a Christian physicist who took issue in particular with Howard Van Til, a theistic evolutionist, who had told him his work wasn’t worth considering because it wasn’t peer-reviewed. Tipler argues that many great scientific breakthroughs and achievements happened before peer-review was a thing so peer-review shouldn’t be the litmus test for correct information.(p.210) Tipler argues that the peer-review process is arbitrary and that Science journals should be more open to the idea that they could be wrong when presented counter-evidence. (p.229)

In chapter 8, Michael Behe urges us to not reject evolution outright because of our theological convictions, but to thoroughly investigate it. (p.237) Behe repeats his famous irreducible complexity argument and addresses the history of the Catholic church gradually accepting Evolution as an orthodox position on human origins. (p.248)
In chapter 9, Michael John Denton tells us his personal story on his back-and-forth with evolution. Denton argues that scientists make a mistake when they assume animal organs work similar to ours or to man-made machines and thus make false inferences. (p.273)
In chapter 10, James Barham tells us why he is not a Darwinist. He thinks that Darwinism is not empirical, makes sweeping philosophical claims and pushes back against the idea that Darwinism is even the only naturalist explanation for human origins. (p.314)

In chapter 11, Cornelius Hunter argues that Evolution is not consistent with the scientific method. Therefore, it shouldn’t count as a science. The experiments don’t prove what they say they prove and the evidence is shoddy at best.(p.325) In chapter 12, Ronald F. Hirsch argues that bacterial genome sequences prove that Darwin’s conception of evolution is less likely than thought.(p.362) In chapter 13, Christopher Langan argues that naturalism lacks explanatory power and therefore should not be the main model in scientific inquiry. (p.378) In chapter 14, David Berlinksi argues that the fossil record is incomplete, that evolution is defended with faulty reasoning and that it isn’t fit to survive in today’s intellectual climate. (p.425)

Conclusion


I tried to summarize each chapter to give you an idea on what kinds of claims were being made. To see their arguments in further detail, get the book yourself. It’s better to read, digest, and contemplate on your own without someone telling you what to think. My opinion is that some of these chapters are woefully insufficient, while others are thought-provoking. You can judge which you think is which. Come to your own conclusions. However, I think a balanced approach whether you deny evolution or accept it, is to read the for/against works on it. Tolle Lege.… (altro)

Fascinating book but not exactly what the title led me to believe. However, extremely valuable as the list of scholars who contributed are among the most credible one could find. The variety of topics is also very valuable; from philosophy, including proofs for the existence of God, to methodology, to scientific depictions of Intelligent Design to historical research into the resurrection and the reliability of Scripture, each section brings scholarly precision to bear on the relevant questions. Even the footnotes(!) are valuable and of interest. This is a kind of reference text for future use.… (altro)