|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Black Box
und über 1 Million weitere Bücher verfügbar für Amazon Kindle .
Erfahren Sie mehr
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Produktinformation
|
Mehr über den Autor
Entdecken Sie Bücher, lesen Sie über Autoren und mehr
› Besuchen Sie die Seite von Michael J. Behe auf Amazon
› Besuchen Sie die Seite von Michael J. Behe auf Amazon
Produktbeschreibungen
Amazon.co.uk
Michael J. Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, presents here a scientific argument for the existence of God. Examining the evolutionary theory of the origins of life, he can go part of the way with Darwin--he accepts the idea that species have been differentiated by the mechanism of natural selection from a common ancestor. But he thinks that the essential randomness of this process can explain evolutionary development only at the macro level, not at the micro level of his expertise. Within the biochemistry of living cells, he argues, life is "irreducibly complex". This is the last black box to be opened, the end of the road for science. Faced with complexity at this level, Behe suggests that it can only be the product of "intelligent design".
-- Dieser Text bezieht sich auf eine vergriffene oder nicht verfügbare Ausgabe dieses Titels.
Amazon.com
Michael J. Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, presents here a scientific argument for the existence of God. Examining the evolutionary theory of the origins of life, he can go part of the way with Darwin--he accepts the idea that species have been differentiated by the mechanism of natural selection from a common ancestor. But he thinks that the essential randomness of this process can explain evolutionary development only at the macro level, not at the micro level of his expertise. Within the biochemistry of living cells, he argues, life is "irreducibly complex." This is the last black box to be opened, the end of the road for science. Faced with complexity at this level, Behe suggests that it can only be the product of "intelligent design."
-- Dieser Text bezieht sich auf eine vergriffene oder nicht verfügbare Ausgabe dieses Titels.
Welche anderen Artikel kaufen Kunden, nachdem sie diesen Artikel angesehen haben?
In diesem Buch
(Mehr dazu)
Buchdeckel | Copyright | Inhaltsverzeichnis | Auszug | Stichwortverzeichnis | Rückseite
Mehr entdecken
Wortanzeiger
Ausgewählte Seiten ansehenWortanzeiger
Buchdeckel | Copyright | Inhaltsverzeichnis | Auszug | Stichwortverzeichnis | Rückseite
Tags(Was ist das?)Bei einem Tag handelt es sich um ein Schlagwort, das zum Produkt passt.
Tags erleichtern allen Kunden die Suche und die Sortierung ihrer Lieblingsprodukte. |
Kundenrezensionen
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen
2 von 2 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Format:Taschenbuch
Behe gives sound scientific evidence that discredits all organisms could have arose out of naturalism. He gives good analogies and scrutible, concrete examples of how certain biochemical structures must have arose out of design. While, on the other hand, he does not discredit that evolution does not take place. But merely confirms that not all structures could have arose out of gradual, progrssive evolution. I admire how he maintains a scientific mind, as opposed to some creationists and naturalists who jump to the wrong conclusion or somewhere along the line deviate away from science and into the realm of philosophical interpretations. And if they want to, which is valid, they shouldn't label their views as scientific. All in all, a good science book that demonstrates there is intelligent design in nature.
2 von 2 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Format:Taschenbuch
several unflattering reviews of Behe's book (some on this page, some elsewhere on the 'net) show clearly why Behe's claims should be not be taken too seriously- the most common and most successful argument is that Behe's entire logical framework is based upon false (or at least questionable) assertions. For example, Behe gives no experimental evidence or data that support his claims. He gives plenty of examples of the mind-numbing complexity of biological systems, but categorically fails to give any hard evidence as to why natural selection cannot explain irreducible complexity-he even fails to give any evidence that irreducible complexity even exists in the first place, which could be done by systemically erasing each gene in a pathway and recording the results of these deletions- surely this would be tedious and difficult, but it would yield invaluable information). Instead, he makes a weak analogy to a mousetrap that is just about as bad as Dawkins' rampant use of computer programs and uses quotes from eminent biologists(and some people who have no authority in the field of biology) that supposedly show that Neo-Darwinian evolution is on the precipice of utter collapse (of course the same could be said of the argument from design ever since it was first uttered by Rev. Paley). Of course, no acceptable scientific theory is based upon analogies and quotes that have been taken out of context (one of the people who was quoted was actually shocked by how his statements were misused-check out the Boston Review for a more complete explanation)but this is exactly what Behe has presented us with. A final, disturbing note is that nobody tries to address these objections to Behe's theory (a defense actually written by Behe can actually be found on the Boston Review-and i would assume in the '98 edition as well, but all Behe does is hide behind his mousetrap analogy) Instead, people try to show that atheists have faith and that Dawkins is actually some sort religious dogmatist in a confusing and vague atheistic fashion-However, i have one small question-What does this have to do with anything??? It's tactless mud-slinging that has no bearing on the scientific debate at hand and it shows that instead of answering the objections to Behe's theory, people will much rather hurl insults than try to explain why the refutations are wrong (or maybe they just can't).
2 von 2 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Format:Gebundene Ausgabe
As someone who believes in evolution but believes Darwinism is a bad joke, this is an excellent book. While I do not necessarily agree that evolutionary progress is a sign of intelligent design, it is definitely evidence of structure, which may or may not have an intelligent origin.
The argument of irreducible complexity may be old, but it remains unrefuted. In fact most Darwinists have spent little effort supporting their belief system simply because it is primarily based upon faith and support is impossible. Darwinism is a religion, nothing more and nothing less. Darwinists who attack Behe for his religious views are hardly on solid ground. He supports his arguments far better than his opponents.
While I don't necessarily agree with Behe's final conclusions he has done a superb job of tearing apart the religion of Darwinism. It is nonetheless clear that evolution does occur and unfortunately neither Behe nor the Darwinists have the slightest idea how it really works. Maybe Peter Bros is right.
Möchten Sie weitere Rezensionen zu diesem Artikel anzeigen?
Waren diese Rezensionen hilfreich?
Wir wollen von Ihnen hören.
Die neuesten Kundenrezensionen
Intelligence is more reliable than accident
Behe cleans up with the idea that the Creator God or the Intelligent Designer is a stopgap for the lack of explanation potency. Lesen Sie weiter...
Veröffentlicht am 17. August 2008 von Roman Nies
Exzellent
Ein sehr gutes Buch, das klar Probleme bei der klassischen Evolutionstheorie herausstellt, ohne unsachlich zu werden. Lesen Sie weiter...
Veröffentlicht am 19. Dezember 2002 von "stefan_kernstock"
a layperson who could use some help...
I'm beginning to read from both sides of the debate, but am a lay-person just beginning to take up and expose myself to the issues. Lesen Sie weiter...
Veröffentlicht am 30. Juli 2000 von "lindajg"
Concept flawed but thought provoking
For the much of the scientific world "irreducible complexity" is an invitation to do more research; for others, it's an invitation to ponder the mystical. Lesen Sie weiter...
Am 28. Juli 2000 veröffentlicht
Old theory, new flawed arguments
I don't want to add anything about Behe's reductionnist science since everything has already been said below, but I just want to ask a simple question: Why doesn't any religious... Lesen Sie weiter...
Veröffentlicht am 27. Juli 2000 von Pierre Frechette
Not one of my favorites
I ordinarily love reading this type of book, even if I don't agree with the author. However, I was very disappointed in this book and stopped reading it after 2-3 chapters.
Dr. Lesen Sie weiter...
Am 25. Juli 2000 veröffentlicht
MS in Computer Science, and Artificial Intelligence
This is an intellectually provocative book. Michael Behe is willing to openly speak what it considered to be heresy by popular American culture. Lesen Sie weiter...
Veröffentlicht am 22. Juli 2000 von S. Wuest
My 5 stars don't mean a thing!
I felt compelled to write a review even though I read precious little of Behe's book, therefore ignore my rating. Lesen Sie weiter...
Am 3. Juli 2000 veröffentlicht
Behe advances a much-needed argument to evolutionary studies
All of the recent debate concerning Darwinism and the existence of God have created an upsurge in evolutionary studies. Lesen Sie weiter...
Veröffentlicht am 29. Juni 2000 von Robert H. Pietrzak
A real challenge to science
Since Popper we know what science is about. To formulate hipothesis in order to explain problems and then try to refute them by testing its predictions or its consistency with... Lesen Sie weiter...
Veröffentlicht am 21. Juni 2000 von Patricio Artiagoitia
Kunden diskutieren
|
Das Forum zu diesem Produkt
Fragen stellen, Meinungen austauschen, Einblicke gewinnen Aktive Diskussionen in ähnlichen Foren
Kundendiskussionen durchsuchen
|
Ähnliche Foren
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieblingslisten
Ähnliche Artikel finden
Anhand des Sachgebietes nach ähnlichen Produkten suchen:
Ihr Kommentar
Möchten Sie die Produktinformationen aktualisieren oder Feedback zu den Produktabbildungen geben?
