There are those who think that the so-called ‘teleological argument’ of God’s existence was in Paley’s past, with the example of the clock. The mechanistic universe, completely predictable and ordered according to strict laws that could be fully designed by science and that would work anywhere in the cosmos is an idea that, as we know, is no longer sustainable.
The man was dethroned? Of its prominent place, according to Darwinism, and then these are the “laws of nature”, mainly after the advent of quantum mechanics and the strange distortions of general relativity. Today, we know that when it comes to large or very small, conventional laws of physics are not valid, and other physics is necessary?and so it was in the twentieth century.
- However.
- A thin and almost imperceptible line of conduction of the reality thread was observed.
- From the microphone to the macrocosm; A fine logic that crosses cosmological aspects (hence the so-called “anthropological constants” of Creation) and biochemicals.
- That is.
- Through different areas of Creation that modern apologists have even had some difficulty cataloguing the material that underpinned teleological speculations that would have been impossible two hundred or three hundred years ago.
The following video is an excerpt from a debate in which Dr. Craig participated and in which he talks about the teleological issue from the current perspective Very well !?(Artur Eduardo)
The book? In Guarda? It presents this argument and many others in a simple and didactic way, we recommend it to anyone who wants to start on the subject.
Dr. William Lane Craig holds a Ph. D. de the University of Birmingham, England, and the University of Munich, Germany.
The teleological argument
This is not due to random or physical need.
Therefore, the fit is due to the design.
We now come to the teleological argument, or to the design argument. Although advocates of the so-called intelligent design movement have continued the tradition of focusing on examples of design in biological systems, the breaking point of contemporary discussion focuses on the extraordinary development of the cosmos. because of the existence of life.
Before discussing this argument, it is important to understand that by “finely tuned” no one means “projected”. (otherwise, the argument would obviously be circular). In fact, over the past fifty years, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends on a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions that occur simply in the Big Bang itself. This balance is called “fine tuning” of the universe.
The fine fit is of two types. First, when the laws of nature are expressed in the form of mathematical equations, you will find certain constants, such as the constant that represents the force of gravity. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent. Second, in addition to these constants, there are certain arbitrary amounts placed as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and antimatter in Now, all these constants and arbitrary amounts are part of a narrow and extraordinary range of values that allow life to exist; If these constants or amounts were altered less than the width of a hair, the balance that allows the existence of life would be to be destroyed and no organism of any kind could exist. [1]
For example, a change in the vigour of the atomic force of a feast in 10100 would have prevented the existence of life in the universe. The cosmological constant that drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recent discovery that accelerates the expansion of the universe inexplicably adjusts to about a part of 10120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University estimated that the eccentricities of the Big Bang are low. being the condition of entropy by chance are of the order of a party in 1010 (123). Penrose says: “I don’t remember anything else in physics that even from a distance comes close to a part of 1010 (123)?[2]. And it’s not just a constant or arbitrary amount that fits perfectly to a given value; the relationships between constants and quantities must also be fine-tuned, so that improbability is multiplied by improbability until our minds are lost in such incomprehensible numbers.
So when do scientists say it’s the universe?Finely solved? For the existence of life, they do not mean that it was “designed”; they mean that small deviations from the real values of nature’s constants and arbitrary amounts would forbid the universe from harboring life or, alternatively, that the range of values that allow life to the universe is incomprehensibly narrow in relation to the number of values that Dawkins himself, citing the work of the royal astronomer Sir Martin Rees, recognizes that the universe presents this extraordinary fine setting.
So here’s a simple formulation of the teleological argument based on a fine-tuning of the universe:
1. The development of the universe is due to a physical need, randomly or in design.
2. No is not due to a physical or random need
3. Therefore, the adjustment is due to the design.
Premise 1 simply lists the three possibilities to explain the presence of this incredible focus on the universe: physical necessity, chance or design. The first alternative holds that there is an unknown ‘theory of the whole’ that would explain what the universe is like. it was going to be the case, and there was no way the universe wasn’t the way it is, allowing life to exist. On the other hand, the second alternative indicates that fine tuning is entirely due to chance. It’s just an accident that the universe lets life exist, and we’re the lucky beneficiaries of this accident. The third option rejects the two earlier claims in favor of an intelligent mind behind the cosmos, which designed the universe to allow life to exist. of these alternatives is the best explanation?
Premise 2 of the argument answers this question. Consider the three alternatives: the first, physical need, is extremely implausible because, as we have seen, constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature, so, for example, the most promising candidate for theory at all to date, super-remember theory or M theory, cannot predict the uniqueness of our universe. String theory allows it?Cosmic landscape?Of some 10,500 different possible universes governed by the current laws of nature, it does nothing to attribute physical necessity to observed values and constants. With regard to this first alternative, Dawkins points out that Sir Martin Rees rejects this explanation, and Dawkins says, “Do I think I agree with them [those who reject this explanation]?[3].
So what can we say about the second alternative, that the approach of the universe is due to chance?The problem with this alternative is that the points against the possibility of the universe allowing life are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be considered rationally. if there were a lot of universes in the cosmic landscape, however, the number of worlds that would allow life to exist would be infinitely small compared to the entire landscape, so the existence of a universe that allows life to exist is incredibly unlikely. . Students or lay people who cheerfully declare, “This could have happened by chance!”, You simply have no idea of the fantastic accuracy of fine-tuning requirements for the existence of life. Wouldn’t they ever accept such an assumption in any other area?of their lives?for example, how a car appeared in their garage overnight.
To save the alternative from chance, its defenders have been forced to adopt the hypothesis that there are an infinite number of random universes that make up a kind of set of worlds, or multiverse, of which our universe is only a part. set of worlds, universes finely tuned for the existence of life will appear by chance, and we will find ourselves in one of these worlds. This is the explanation Dawkins finds more plausible.
Here Dawkins is very sensitive to defining the postulation of several existing universes as soap bubbles, as he so kindly put it, an “extravagant luxury”. But he replies: “The multiverse may seem extravagant in the vast number of universes. But if each of these universes is simple in their fundamental laws, do we not postulate anything very unlikely?[5]
This response is repeatedly confusing. First, each multiverse universe is not simple, but is characterized by a multiplicity of constants and independent quantities. If each universe were simple, then why would Dawkins feel the need to resort to the multiverse hypothesis in the first place?Moreover, is it not the simplicity of fundamental laws, because all universes of all worlds are characterized by the same laws: they differ in the values of constants and their quantities.
Second, Dawkins assumes that the simplicity of the set depends on the simplicity of the parts. That’s obviously a mistake. A complex mosaic of a Roman face, for example, consists of a large number of simple and monochrome individual pieces. Similarly, a set of simple universes would remain complex if these universes varied in the values of their constants and quantities, as well as sharing all the same values.
Third, Ockham’s knife tells us that we should not multiply explanatory entities beyond what is needed, but the number of universes that run only to explain the fine scenario of our universe is somewhat extravagant. Using the multiverse to explain the design of our universe is something extravagant. Like using a hammer to break the shell of a peanut!
Fourth, Dawkins tries to minimize the extravagance of the multiverse by stating that despite its extravagant number of entities, such a multiverse is not highly unlikely, it is not known where this response becomes relevant or even what it means, since the objection considered is not. that the multiverse is unlikely, but that it is extravagant and not parsimonious. To say that the multiverse is not highly unlikely is not to comment on the actual objection. Besides, it’s hard to know how likely Dawkins is talking here. speaks of the intrinsic probability of the multiverse, considered outside the evidence of fine tuning, but how is that probability determined?For simplicity? But the problem is dawkins didn’t show us how simple the hypothesis that there is a set of universes can be.
What Dawkins seems to be saying, it seems to me, is that the multiverse can be simple if there is a simple mechanism that, through a repetitive process, generates many universes, in this way the large number of entities applied would not be a burden on theory because all entities come from a simple and fundamental mechanism.
So what mechanism does Dawkins suggest to explain the emergence of an orderly, infinite, and random set of universes?First, it proposes an oscillating model of the universe, in which
our time and space really started with our big bang, but this was just the last of a long series of big bangs, each beginning with the great fit that ended with the previous universe of the series. No one understands what’s going on in singularities like the big bang. bang, so it is conceivable that laws and constants will be restored and have new values every time. If the bang-expansion-contraction-crunch cycles have since occurred, as in a cosmic accordion, we have a serial, rather than parallel, version of the multiverse. [6]
Dawkins is apparently unaware of the many difficulties with oscillatory models of the universe, which have left contemporary cosmologists skeptical. In the 1960s and 1970s, some theorists proposed oscillation models for the universe in an attempt to avoid the initial singularity predicted by the Standard Model. The prospects for such models, however, were seriously clouded in 1970 by the formulation of the singularity theorems of Stephen Hawkins and Roger Penrose, which took their names. The theorems have shown that, under very general conditions, an initial cosmic singularity is inevitable. Since it is impossible to extend the spacetime of the singularity to the previous state, the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem implies the absolute beginning of the universe. Reflecting on the impact of this discovery, Hawking notes that the Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorem leads us to abandon attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a prior non-singular contraction and rebound phase to the expansion. I say this despite the fact that almost everyone today believes that the universe and time itself began at the Big Bang. [7] Dawkins apparently works with the illusion that the singularity does not set limits for space and time.
In addition, evidence of observational astronomy has consistently opposed the hypothesis that the universe will one day reconsider in a Big Chunch. Attempts to discover a mass dense enough to generate the gravitational pull needed to stop and reverse expansion continuously have begun recently. , recent observations of supernovae indicate that “far from slowing down” cosmic expansion accelerates. Is there any kind of dark energy? Mysterious in the form of a variable energy field (called “quintaesence”) or, more likely, the positive cosmological constant or vacuum energy caused faster expansion. If dark energy indicates the existence of a positive cosmological constant (as evidence increasingly suggests), then the universe will expand forever. According to NASA’s website for Wilkinson’s microwave anisotropy probe, “because the theory that corresponds to our data is that the universe will expand forever. “[8]
Also, apart from all the physical difficulties that oscillatory models face, the thermodynamic properties of these models imply the absolute beginning of the universe that their proponents are trying to avoid, since entropy is conserved from circle to circle in these models, where it has the effect of generating larger oscillations with each successive circle. As a team of scientists explains, “The production of entropy will have the effect of expanding the cosmic scale, from circle to circle. [?] Therefore, when looking in time, each circle generates less entropy, they have a circle of time smaller and a lower expansion factor than the circle that followed it. [9] Thus, as you track the oscillations over time, they will get smaller and smaller until they reach a very small first oscillation. and Novikov conclude: “The multi-circle model has an infinite future, but a finite past. ” [10] In fact, astronomer Joseph Silk estimates, based on current levels of entropy, that the universe has not had more than 100 previous oscillations. [11] This is far from being necessary to generate the kind of multiverse series envisioned by Dawkins.
Finally, even if the universe could have oscillated from an eternal past, such a universe would require an infinite fine adjustment of its initial conditions to continue to exist after an infinite number of successive bounces. So the mechanism Dawkins dreams of generating its Many Worlds is not simple, but quite the opposite. In addition, such a universe implies a fine adjustment of a rather strange type, since its initial conditions must be adjusted in the smaller parts. ?
Returning to the discussion of the oscillating models of the universe, quantum cosmologist Christopher Isham meditates,
Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with what is received by some atheist physicists, who has sometimes generated scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, advancing tenaciously. which exceeds both its intrinsic values that one can only suspect that the functioning of psychological forces rests much deeper than a the usual academic desire of a theorist. to defend his theory. [12]
In the case of Dawkins, it is not difficult to discern these psychological forces in action.
The second mechanism suggested by Dawkins for the generation of the multiverse is Lee Smolin’s evolutionary cosmology. Smolin envisions a scenario, Dawkins explains, according to which child universes are born out of parent universes, not in one big complete crisis, but more locally, in black holes. Smolin adds a form of inheritance: the fundamental constants of a childhood universe are slightly? Mutated? the constants of your parents? What universes have what it takes to survive? Y? play? they eventually predominate in the multiverse. Necessary? includes a sufficient period of time to “reproduce. ” Since the act of reproduction takes place in black holes, successful universes must have what it takes to create black holes. This ability requires several other properties. For example, the tendency of matter to condense into clouds and then stars is a prerequisite for the production of black holes. The stars? they are the precursors to the development of interesting chemistry and, therefore, of life. Thus, Smolin suggests, there was a natural Darwinian selection of universes in the multiverse, directly promoting the evolution of fertility in black holes and indirectly the production of life. [13]
Dawkins acknowledges that not all physicist is enthusiastic about Smolin’s script. Smolin’s scenario, his ad hoc part and based on conjectures that have already been ruled out by science, encounters insurmountable difficulties.
First, a fatal flaw in Smolin’s scenario is his hypothesis that universes adjusted for the production of black holes would also be adjusted for stable star production. In fact, it is the exact opposite: the most efficient black hole generators would be the universes that generated primordial black holes before the formation of the stars, so the universes that could generate life would be helpless by Smolin’s evolutionary cosmological scenario. even more unlikely.
Second, speculation about the carrier universes?Through black holes contradicts the established knowledge of quantum physics. John Preskill. In 2004, Hawking finally admitted, at a much-talked-about event, that he had lost. [15] The conjecture requires that information enclosed in a black hole be completely lost and forever when escaping to another universe. Hawking eventually agreed that quantum theory requires information to be preserved in the formation and evaporation of a black hole. Implications?” There is no baby Universe that is diversifying, as I thought. Information remains firmly in our universe. I’m sorry to disappoint sci-fi fans, but if the information is retained, is there no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes?[16] This means that Smolin’s scenario is physically impossible.
These are the only mechanisms suggested by Dawkins for the generation of ordered and random universes. None of them are even defensible, let alone simple. Dawkins, therefore, did not reverse the objection that the nomination of ordered and random multiverses is an “extravagant luxury”. “.
But there are still formidable objections to the inference of the multiverse, apparently unknown to Dawkins. First, there is no independent evidence that the multiverse exists, let alone that it is randomly sorted and infinite. Remember that Edge, Guth, and Vilenkin have shown that any expanding universe cannot have an infinite past. Your theorem also applies to the multiverse. Therefore, since the past of the multiverse is over, so far only a finite number of other worlds can have been generated, so there is no guarantee that a finely tuned world will appear on the multiverse. On the other hand, we have independent evidence of the existence of a Cosmic Designer, that is, the other arguments in favor of the existence of God that we discuss. So, given all this, theism is the best explanation.
Second, if our universe is just a random member in a set of universes, then it is infinitely more likely that we should be looking at a universe that is very different from what we are actually looking at. Roger Penrose made this objection forcefully. [17] He calculated that an entire solar system is inconceivably more likely to form through collisions of random particles than a finely tuned universe. So if our universe were just a random member of a multiverse, then it is incalculably more likely that we are observing a universe that is no more ordered than our solar system. Or, if our universe were a member of a multiverse, then we should be on the lookout for extraordinary events, such as the appearance of horses from random particle collisions or perpetual motion machines, as such things are far more likely than all. the constants and quantities of the universe coinciding like a glove, by chance, with the infinitesimal values that allow the existence of life. Observable universes like these would be much more common in the multiverse than worlds like ours, so they should be observed by us. We have no such observations, which strongly disproves the multiverse hypothesis. In atheism, at least, it is more likely that there is no multiverse.
Therefore, the development of the universe is not due to a physical or random need. Therefore, fine tuning is due to design, unless it can be shown that the assumption of the design is even more implausible than its opponents.
Dawkins argues that the design alternative is actually inferior to the multiverse hypothesis. Summarizing what he calls “the central argument of my book,” he argues,
One of the biggest challenges for human intellect has been explaining where the complex and unlikely appearance of design in the universe comes from.
2. La natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of real design and design.
3. La temptation is incorrect, because the assumption that there is a designer immediately poses the biggest problem of who designed the designer.
4. La most ingenious and powerful crane ever discovered is Darwinian evolution, by natural selection.
5. We don’t have an equivalent physical crane yet
We can’t hope that a better crane will emerge in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
7. Therefore, it is almost certain that God does not exist.
This argument is incredible because the conclusion atheies, “So is it almost certain that God does not exist?” It does not arise from the previous six premises, although it is accepted that each of them is true and justified. At most, the conclusion is that we cannot infer God’s existence on the basis of the appearance of a purpose in the universe, but this conclusion is entirely consistent with the existence of God and even with our belief in God justified by other reasons. The rejection of the design argument for God’s existence does nothing to prove that God does not exist or even that belief in God is not justified.
In any case, does Dawkins’ argument succeed in undermining the design alternative?Step (5) alludes to the cosmic approach that was at the heart of our discussion. Dawkins remains hopeful that “any theory of the type of multiverse can in principle do the same explanatory work for physics as Darwinism for biology, but admits that we do not yet have it, but it also does not address the overwhelming problems of such an explanation of the approach. Therefore, the hope expressed in stage (6) represents nothing but the faith of a naturalist. Dawkins insists that even in the absence of one?highly satisfactory?for fine tuning, but the “relatively weak” explanations we have right now are “obviously better than the counterproductive assumption of a smart designer. “19] Really, what powerful objection to the design hypothesis is it that guarantees this internal evidence for the hypothesis of the multiverse, which is certainly weak?
The answer can be found in step (3). Dawkins’ objection here is that we are not justified in inferring design as the best explanation for the complex order of the universe because otherwise a bigger problem will arise: who designed the designer?(Since Dawkins mistakenly thinks multiverse is simple, the question “Who designed the multiverse” has not occurred to him?) This question is apparently so overwhelming that it compensates for any problems with the hypothesis. multiverse.
Dawkins’ objection, however, is ungrateful for two reasons: first, to recognize an explanation as better, we do not need to explain the explanation; this is a basic point of the philosophy of science; if a group of archaeologists find things similar to ceramic arrows and peaks during their excavations, it is justified to infer that these artifacts are not the result of chance by sedimentation and metamorphosis, but the product of an unknown group of people, even if they do not have them. These people were or where they came from similarly, if astronauts discover machines on the dark side of the moon, they are right to infer that they are the product of intelligent agents, even if they have no idea who these agents were or how we got there.
Again, to recognize an explanation as better, no explanation is needed for the explanation; in fact, such a requirement would lead to an infinite return of explanations so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed!before an explanation can be acceptable, you will need an explanation and explanation for explanation of the explanation, etc. You could never explain anything.
So, in this case, to recognize that smart design is the best explanation of what design looks like in the universe, you don’t need to explain it to the designer. Whether the designer has an explanation or not will simply be open for further research.
Second, Dawkins believes that in the case of the divine Creator for the universe, the Creator must be as complex as the things that are explained, so that no explanatory advance is made when the Creator is posited. This objection raises all kinds of questions about the role of simplicity in evaluating competing explanations. First, Dawkins seems to confuse the simplicity of a hypothesis with the simplicity of the entity described in the hypothesis. [20] Postulating a complex cause to explain an effect can still be a simple hypothesis, especially when compared to rival hypotheses. Think, for example, of our archaeologists who postulate a human being to explain the ceramic arrows and points discovered. A human being is an entity infinitely more complex than an arrow or a piece of pottery, but the hypothesis of a human creator is a much simpler explanation. It’s certainly simpler than assuming that the artifacts were the inadvertent result of, say, a buffalo stampede that shattered a chunk of rock that turned out to be splintered into the shape of spikes and arrows. The point is that it is the rival hypothesis that is evaluated with the criterion of simplicity, not the postulated entities.
Second, there are many factors besides the simplicity that scientists weigh to determine which hypothesis is best, such as explanatory power, explanatory scope, etc. , a hypothesis that has, for example, a broader explanatory scope, may be less simple than their rival hypothesis. , but always preferable because it explains more. Simplicity is not the only criterion, not even the most important, in the evaluation of theories!
But put all these problems aside, because Dawkins’ painful mistake is to assume that a Divine Designer is an entity as complex as the universe. Like a pure consciousness or a disembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. A spirit (or a soul) is not a physical object made up of parts. Unlike the contingent and nuanced universe with all its inexplicable and constant quantities, a divine spirit is surprisingly simple. Dawkins protests, “A God capable of continually monitoring and controlling the individual state of every particle in the universe cannot be simple. ” [21] This is a disaster. It is true that a mind can have complex ideas (it can think, for example, in an infinitesimal calculus) and it can be able to perform complex tasks (such as controlling the trajectory of every particle in the universe), but the mind itself is an incredibly entity. simple, not physical. Dawkins clearly confused the ideas and effects of a mind, which can in fact be complex, with the mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. So, positing a divine spirit behind the universe is definitely a step up in simplicity, for what it’s worth.
In his book, Dawkins triumphantly recounts how he presented his supposedly destructive argument at a Templeton Foundation conference on science and religion at the University of Cambridge, before being rejected by other participants, who said theologians have always considered God simple. [45] They were absolutely correct. Indeed, the presumptuous and stimulating attitude of his erroneous objection, supported even in the face of repeated corrections by eminent theologians and philosophers such as Richard Swinburne and Keith Ward, is a wonder to the eye.
So, of the three alternatives before us?physical need, chance or design?the most plausible of the three, as an explanation of the cosmic approach, is design. In this way, the teleological argument remains robust today, as it always has been, defended in different ways by philosophers and scientists such as Robin Collins, John Leslie, Paul Davies, William Dembski, Michael Denton and others. [23]
[1] You might think that if constants and quantities had taken different values, then other life forms might have evolved under other conditions, but that is not the case. For life? scientists refer to the properties of organisms to feed, extract energy from it, grow, adapt to the environment and reproduce. The fact is that for the universe to allow life to exist, in whatever form it adopts, constants and quantities must have their values infinitely finely adjusted. In the absence of fine tuning, there would not even be atomic or chemical matter, let alone planets, where life would have to evolve!
[2] Roger Penrose, “Temporary Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity”, in Quantum Gravity 2 (ed. C. J. Isham, R. Penrose and D. W. Sciama; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 249.
[3] Dawkins, God, an Illusion, 196
[4] Ibid. , 197.
[5] Ibid. , 199.
[6] Ibid. , 197
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1996), 20.
[9] Duane Dicus, et al. , Effects of proton decomposition on the cosmological future, Astrophysical Journal 252 (1982): 1, 8.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 11 (1973): 401-2
[11] Joseph Silk, The Big Bang (2nd ed. ; San Francisco: Freeman, 1989), 311-12.
Common Quest for Understanding (edited by R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger and G. V. Coyne; Vatican City: Vatican Observatory,
1988), 378. Isham mentions that “continuous creation” is a reference to the defunct stable state theory.
[13] Dawkins, God, an Illusion, 197-198
[14] In physics, a wormhole or wormhole is a hypothetical topological feature of the continuum
space-time, which is essentially a “shortcut” through space and time. [Translator’s Note]
[15] For a first-hand account, see John Preskill’s website: http://www. theory. caltech. edu/~preskill/jp_24
jul04. html
[16] S. W. Hawking, Information Loss in Black Holes, http://arxiv. org/abs/hep-th/0507171 (September 15, 2005).
[17] See Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality (New York: Knopf, 2005), 762-65.
[18] Dawkins, God, an Illusion, 213
[20] See his comments about Keith Ward in God, an Illusion, 202-203. Ward thinks the hypothesis of a single cosmic designer is simple, even if he rejects the idea that God is simple, in the sense that he has no different properties.
[21] Dawkins, God, an Illusion, 202.
[22] Ibid. , 204. La simplicity of God was built even to represent that he has no distinct parts, a more implausible doctrine. But the simplicity of an intangible entity does not necessarily imply that the entity has no distinct properties, such as immateriality and self-awareness.
[23] Robin Collins, The Well Soaked Universe (short); John Leslie, Universes (London: Routledge, 1989); Paul Davies, Cosmic Jackpot (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2007); William Dembski, The Design Revolution (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004); Michael Denton, The Fate of Nature: How the Laws of Biology Reveal a Purpose in the Universe (New York: Free Press, 1998); Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism (New York: Free Press, 2007).