Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe

My first encounter with Michael Denton was doing Graduate work and taking a course on Philosophical Evolution. I am grateful for the riches that came from this microbiologist's work  Evolution: A Theory In Crisis  which was one side of the required reading for the course. I walked away with a priceless addition to my education. It wouldn't take much for anyone to follow Denton's ideas and premises further and reach the bottom of the argument of this subject once and for all. Likewise, I found this Nature's Destiny to be another of his enthralling works. Like I said about following his thought and conclusions above, for one thing I believe you'll get a look at how many are being duped by the "carbon" theory.

It is a tragic demonstration of what Cremo, in "Forbidden Archeology," politely calls the "knowledge filter" of science, that evolutionists can take the time to read the 428 pages of this book and completely miss the whole point. To claim that Denton has been "converted" to evolutionism is either a serious misreading or deliberate misrepresentation. Perhaps the following, from the conclusion of "Nature's Destiny," will suffice to demonstrate:"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389)Can Denton's stance be any more clearer than this? Perhaps. He does say that "to get from a single cell to Homo Sapiens has taken about 4 billion years". Likewise, he seems to assume that evolution is responsible for the diversity and complexity of life, albeit directed by information built into the first cell, by whom or what he does not say. However, he offers little to support the notion that the origin of this first cell (and its wondrous DNA) was "in some way programmed into the laws of nature ... it has to be admitted that at present, despite an enormous effort, we still have no idea how this occurred ..."He goes on to mention the various theories currently offered, unfortunately with a less critical eye than he should. Even the poor example of snowflakes as a highly ordered state analogous to the molecules of life is thrown a bone. This seems strange in light of the still unanswered challenges presented in his previous book, but it is an example of why evolutionism has survived-- the compartmentalization of science, whereby each scientist, assuming evolution to be proven outside his own field of expertise, discards or explains away his own contradictory findings (the "knowledge filter" again). We will have to be content with such excellent volumes on the subject as "Forbidden Archeology","The Origin of Species Revisited", and Lubenow's "Bones of Contention". However, this does not detract from the main thrust: the overwhelming evidence of design, inexplicable by "natural" evolution.Another flaw is his requiring that "evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life" must somehow contradict his own notion of "special creation." Even supposing this were true, he errs in forgetting that the creation of the first cell (to use his evolutionary view) or DNA, or indeed the left-handedness of life's proteins, are in themselves worthy of being considered supernatural acts, in that they do not naturally follow from the (strangely fortituous) laws of nature in the same way as the origin of the heavier elements. He neglects to address the still unresolved (and fatal) problems regarding the early atmosphere, crucial to the origins question. In distancing himself from his perception of "creationism," he exhibits similar forgetfulness when he claims that his argument is consistent with naturalistic science--"that the cosmos ... can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason." But surely he does not mean to include abiogenesis and the fitness of the universe for life. Instead, one gets the impression that he is trying to be charitable to his fundamentalist Darwinian colleagues.What Denton does do well is take us on a marvelous tour of how finely-tuned the universe is to allow us to exist. He does this in far greater detail than most other books of this kind. He covers such "coincidences" as the many fortituous (and anomolous) properties of water, independent yet working together to support life; the fine-tuning of physical constants; suspicious dovetailing of nuclear resonances; the fitness of carbon and other elements for life; the complexity and inexplicability of DNA and proteins; etc. As we read about the ingenuity employed at the molecular level for the sending of nerve signals, manipulation of electrons, conveyance of oxygen, and so on, and the many such contrivances that are essential for life, we are struck by the overwhelming, mind-boggling complexity of it all, and the sneaking suspicion that much is taken on faith in evolutionistic circles. And we see immediately that it cannot be an informed faith based on any scientific evidence, but rather a wishful, forced belief that such nanomachines could have arisen by chance. By the time we have recovered from our revelations about water and carbon, how wonderfully fit they are for our existence, by the time we are finished reading about proteins and the cell, it seems an impossibility that life, being so complex as it is, could have arisen at all, even if it were created by some supernatural being; for this being would have to be possessed of an intellect that beggars our minds. We are used to thinking of cells as simple blobs of protoplasmic jelly, as did Darwin; not so. Now we can understand wny the intricate requirements of life are usually glossed over in popularized treatments on evolution: either the knowledge was not available then, or the inclusion of it would have made evolution impossible, even ridiculous, to defend.However, details even creationists take for granted are scrutinized, leaving us with a sense of awe (or gnashing of teeth): the fitness of the visual spectrum for vision; the design of the hand; our body dimensions and bipedal gait, allowing us to use fire and thus develop technology; our capacity for language; and so on. In doing so he shows us that the "chance" so casually spoken of in evolutionism quickly diminishes to absurdity upon open-minded examination of our cosmos; and that, indeed, we were meant to discover this fact.This compilation of smoking guns makes for an always fascinating, always interesting read, bound to raise much ire in evolutionistic circles. Perhaps a better title would have been "Denton's Dangerous Idea." Apologies to many sci-fi writers should be forthcoming, as he demonstrates that many concepts of otherworldly life can be entertained only in our naivete.

Do not miss this excellent, readable, amazing work looking at what we have discovered about biology and how it demonstrated the mind of an intelligence that clearly has had a hand in designing the most complex life forms in the universe. This is readable for the lay man, and you will come away with an understanding of biology that you hear constantly in the news and wonder about. This is a scientific page turner.

I have been looking at evidence for design in nature and the universe. This book delivers that information in spades!

This book was written by a genius. In this book, he shows that the physical laws of the universe demonstrate porpose. I recommend this book to anyone who enjoys learning about the natural world, and knows that thier is one GOD in the universe.

brilliant book. absolutely must read. and enjoyable read. i hope the author writes many more books.

It's a good job Denton is not a lawyer. This is how not to argue a case. Let me sum up his argument briefly: nature is suitable for the life forms that exist in it, therefore God must have created nature.Now let's give the opposing argument: the life forms which exist in nature are suitable for the environment in which they exist, therefore if nature changes, the life forms will change. Those which can adapt will (evolution) and those which cannot will go extinct.Now think about extinction. Over 99% of all species which ever lived have gone extinct. So, if Denton's argument is correct, God has got it wrong countless millions of times, but keeps trying. If the opposing argument is true, then what we see happening is exactly what could be expected to happen.It's really not difficult to see where the balance of probability lies, is it?

Very Informative and enlightening. It Dispels the myths and reveals scientific arguments against one of the biggest deceptions of this era

Thoughtful, comprehensive and convincing. Makes a strong case that either the universe was designed for life or else we are the product of an extremely unlikely, perhaps impossible, coincidence.

Excellent writing.