Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design

Stephen C. Meyer is prominent in Intelligent Design (ID) theory. He serves as Director of the Center For Science And Culture, Discovery Institute, in Seattle. A philosopher of science and former geophysicist, Meyer holds a Cambridge University Ph.D. His successful writings, including Signature In The Cell, and now this best-selling book, plus major media recurrences tag him as an ID legend in the making. Philosopher of science Robert Bishop, in his review of the book, states: “…Meyer has given what I think is the strongest argument for ID to be found anywhere.” Emeritus professor of biology Darrel Falk, in his review states, “…somewhat of a masterpiece in accomplishing their agenda,” and, “the depth of knowledge…is very impressive.” I concur with both critics. Darwin’s Doubt derives its name from what Meyer views as Darwin’s weightiest unresolved dilemma—the inexplicability of the Cambrian explosion. The quandary has only worsened since Darwin. Whereas Signature In The Cell addressed chemical evolution theory, Darwin’s Doubt confronts biological evolution theory. Of course, Meyer considers ID to be the inference to the best explanation of it all. In his now familiar style, he argues convincingly. Meyer approaches his thesis in three parts, with copious endnotes, and a generous bibliography. Part I retells the history of Darwin’s dilemma, and the futile efforts to resolve it. Part II details how the biologic information revolution worsened Darwin’s dilemma, while vectoring towards ID. Part III moves past Darwinian to dissect emerging theories readdressing evolution theory. Let’s proceed. Part One: The Mystery Of The Missing Fossils Darwin attempted to replace design in Nature with Nature’s own independent, uniformitarian enterprise. But, Swansea Valley Cambrian layer findings portrayed a relatively sudden injection of new species and complexity, while lacking Precambrian ancestors or transitional forms. Even worse, these sudden appearance-disappearance acts persisted through subsequent geologic history. The lack of uniformitarianism (i.e. continuity) was obvious. In 1909, paleontologist Charles Walcott discovered in British Columbia the Burgess Shale equivalent to Swansea Valley. Abundant, well-preserved hard and soft body parts further inflamed the controversy. 20 of 26 known animal phyla suddenly appeared in the Cambrian strata. Walcott, a Darwinian, failed to conclusively explain the top-down versus bottom-up findings; instead confirming and expounding upon the Swansea Valley revelations. In 1980, Chinese scientists uncovered Chengjiang’s Maotianshan Shale. Beautifully preserved Cambrian-era fossils were even more plentiful and confirming. The disputation of Walcott’s artifact hypothesis, built on absent soft body preservations, was complete. The lack of transitional forms in three widely displaced worldwide sites was disconcerting to Darwinism. Attempts have been made to link the Precambrian Ediacaran and Vendian layer fossils to Cambrian species, to refute sudden novelty. However, this is not the predominant opinion among paleontologists, for several firm reasons. The number of identified phyla in the Cambrian layer increased to 23 with only four of them having any possibility of a Precambrian link. In Chapter 5, we are introduced to “molecular clocks,” retrospective genetic studies attempting to project into early Precambrian period for a common ancestry of Cambrian phyla (i.e. “deep divergence”). One big problem: scientists know that molecular clocks are grossly unreliable. Depending on assumptions, projected epochs span from pre-Big Bang to post-Cambrian. Molecule-based animal phylogenetic trees contradict each other, according to which reference genes are employed. When cross-compared to taxonomic trees, there is more conflict. When taxonomic trees are compared against each other, there is yet more disagreement. The issues are severe enough that scientists risk hallowed common descent in championing “convergent evolution” from separate lines of traits. Why so much difficulty? Apparently, it is due to the repeated attempt to build trees of life against the evidence, rather than in support of it. Perhaps you might better recognize “punk eek” as the “punctuated equilibrium” of evolutionists Gould and Eldridge. They attempted to explain missing transitional forms by a turbo-charged evolutionary process outpacing fossilization. Meyer does an excellent job of pointing out, with references, why their theory cannot solve the Cambrian explosion mystery: lack of species selection and bottom-up evidence, but most importantly an adequate source of genetic information. In his review of this section, paleontologist Ralph Stearley thinks that Meyer was a bit too conservative in dating the Cambrian explosion, “glossing over” evidence that would substantially expand the period, to almost five times the estimate. Philosopher of science Paul Nelson corrects Stearley by pointing out, “Meyer himself explains, that expanding the geologic period…does little to solve the relevant problems…” Paleontologist Charles Marshall is equally quick to argue a similar objection as Stearley. However, elsewhere Meyer adequately addresses his charge. I agree that even the suggested expansion is too brief to improve the evolutionary appearance of body plans, and Meyer does provide the information to reach such a conclusion. Part Two: How To Build An Animal I really appreciated Meyer’s decision to follow the prior section of refutations clearing the path for the reality of the Cambrian explosion, with one now devoted to explaining “how” it might have happened. For this we can thank the progress of genetic research—DNA’s chemical importance in generating the biology of phylogenies. It helps even more to have already covered the introduction to all of this in Signature In The Cell. Meyer shows us that to achieve explosion of new species in the Cambrian period, we need novel genetic information for novel proteins, novel cell types, novel tissues, novel organs, and novel body plans. Nonexistence must suddenly exist. Genetic information has specified complexity, so there must have been an “information explosion.” Deep diving into ID inevitably encounters the fallout from the historical 1966 Wistar Conference, a turning point for evolution theory. We rehash MIT mathematician Murray Eden’s provocative exposure of mutations as actually detrimental to proteins, rather than of any advantageous benefit to them. Meyer reveals how “combinatorial inflation” of developing proteins presents an insurmountable functional protein challenge to neo-Darwinism. He recruits another MIT standout, molecular biologist Robert Sauer, to demonstrate that the limited period of the Cambrian explosion did not provide enough opportunity for even a single new functional protein construction by natural processes (i.e. Darwinian mutations). A Douglas Axe story is always fascinating. The molecular biologist borrowed from Sauer’s research, expanding on it with potential mutagenesis risk to protein folding. His result distances Darwinian mutations far from the real world of protein biology and the Cambrian explosion. In Chapter 11, Meyer reveals why homologous gene speculations can be deceptive. It begins with the premise—common ancestry. Wearing such blinders, scientists invest various mutational possibilities in theorizing how the purported homologous genes came to be. Not only is no other source considered (i.e. ID), but obvious specified complex information is ignored. Non-homologous genes (ORFans) are simply relegated to chance. Theories fail to account for functional protein folding, specified complex information, and the improbability of mutations leading to functional proteins. Robert Bishop takes exception here as well. He sees all of this as “question-shift strategy,” switching between the results of common ancestry and origin of life (OOL) considerations, thereby misrepresenting the literature. Paul Nelson takes up the gauntlet to defend Meyer. He states that Bishop is “just flatly mistaken,” noting that this book is about the origin of body plans, at most only a “tenuous connection” to OOL. From all I read it seems that Nelson has the proper perspective here. Chapter 12: Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math A nice thought among evolutionary biologists is that new species beneficial mutations might arise from several coordinated mutations. These “complex adaptations” could occur if a species is given enough time for large enough gene pool populations to form these multi-mutation traits. Basically, it is an attempt to overcome improbability statistics by overwhelming the chances of occurrence with excessive randomness. Unfortunately, as demonstrated by Michael Behe, David Snoke, and supported even by their naysayers, the most liberally allowed necessary historical factors fall far short of the requirement. And, that is only when taking into consideration just two such coordinated mutations, far short of any realistic demand for the Cambrian explosion. Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger worked in the laboratory to genetically alter a bacterial enzyme into another functional relative, and discovered that at minimum, seven of these coordinated mutations were required to foster a single event’s complex adaptation. Unfortunately, Axe’s calculated natural upper boundary limits Nature to only six coordinated mutations—since the advent of life! Bottom line, Darwinian evolution producing complex adaptations is off the table for any serious consideration. Darrel Falk disagrees on the research implications, rather viewing the counterarguments as simply Meyer attempting to construct his justification for external intelligence only. Future research should benefit one or the other of them. Chapter 13: The Origin of Body Plans Not so willing to easily give up, researchers proposed moving up the occurrence of mutations to much earlier in embryonic development. The idea is that given enough time, impacting enough cell differentiation, larger-scale change might occur, at least enough to yield altered functional body plans. Unfortunately, it turns out that it isn’t so simple as that. Earlier developmental mutations invoke many other necessary coordinated changes, and the embryo is not friendly to such early alterations, raging in a fit of autoimmune hostility. Classic experiments in Drosophila species (fruit flies) with “saturation mutagenesis” were inevitably fatal early on. Developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs), basically a circuit board of signaling molecules, are responsible for ensuring healthy embryonic development. When mutations interfere with the complex coordinated molecular circuitry, it spells disaster for the nascent organism. So, here’s the rub—the early-on coordinated mutations necessary to new body plans are systematically erased, while the later developmental spontaneous mutations, even if non-deleterious, are too late in the progression of embryonic events to have any reasonable chance of effecting new body plans. Critic Falk admits that, “We really have little idea at this point how things would have worked…” However, he isn’t so willing to forego the search quite yet. Charles Marshall counters Meyer by proposing that ancient dGRNs were much simpler than today’s, therefore not as prone to deleterious mutation effects. Meyer rebuts, adhering to the evidence already laid out. The real problem here is that this is pure speculation on Marshall’s part, while Meyer offers evidence. Critic Marshall also purports the idea that the Cambrian explosion did not require a plethora of novel genetic information and protein folds, but only some rewiring of existing GRNs. Meyer provides an extensive rebuttal to this charge that is already laid out in the book, basically that complex organisms “would not have just required new Hox genes, ORFan genes, or genes for building new regulatory (DNA-binding) proteins…would need to produce a whole range of different proteins…” Chapter 14: The Epigenetic Revolution This is a chapter you will not want to skip over. DNA, despite its phenomenal information workload, isn’t the only major player in the game of life when it comes to forming body plans. Besides the almost unfathomably confusing intracellular interplay in specified complexity of DNA-derived, information-laden proteins of all types, even more specified complexity in biological information processing occurs at advancing levels of various cells, tissues, organs and composite body plan levels. Epigenetic information, i.e. specified complex information beyond the genes, is turning Darwinian evolutionary biology upside down by directing intracellular events beyond DNA’s direct influence. Meyer provides several fascinating examples of a wide-open field for new research, but not for evolutionists who were putting all their chips into the DNA basket. Part Three: After Darwin, What? Chapters 15 & 16: Post-Darwinian Models Unsurprisingly, despite the overwhelming evidence against them, evolutionists are not so easily willing to through in the towel. Within their own ranks, new theories taking exception to Darwinian evolution repeatedly emerge, attempting to take into account the contrary revelations. These “post Darwinian” proposals remain aloof from inferences to intelligent causation, despite foregoing random mutations, natural selection, or inheritance of their purported benefits. One alternative receiving quite a bit of attention is “self organization.” Stuart Kauffman’s self-organization theory opts for Nature’s spontaneous production of new body plans by taking advantage of undefined “natural laws.” Stuart Newman’s idea of self-organization is “dynamical patterning modules,” including complex molecular toolkit arrays facilitating new development and organization. Beyond limited cell clustering, he runs out of reasonable proposals. Self-organization theories are interesting, but Meyers reminds us that they fail to answer to the origin of complex specified information needs. Another attention-grabbing effort in the post-Darwinian milieu is “evolutionary developmental biology,” or “evo-devo” (catchy phrases must entertain when Darwinism no longer can). Scientists in Evo-devo are no longer championing the classic small-scale stuff of neo-Darwinism. Evo-devo goes after large-scale mutations hopefully far more influential in regulating new body plans. Unfortunately, the results of evo-devo remain at small-scale levels. The favored regulatory Hox genes fail on several accounts. Bishop doesn’t agree with Meyer’s contention that neo-Darwinism is being abandoned, rather he sees Evo-devo as simply building upon it towards a “new synthesis” in evolution theory. Ralph Stearley agrees with Bishop. Nelson disagrees with them, insisting that evo-devo is not about the business of applying band-aids to neo-Darwinism theory, but instead developing core dogma replacements. Meyer’s emphasis aligns with Nelson’s thoughts. “Neutral evolution” focuses on the gradual accumulation of random mutations eventually leading to new body plans, thereby lessening the role of natural selection. Somewhat of a rehash of old ideas, it fails to account for the necessary enduring management of any accumulating mutated genes during the interim. Also, what is a body plan to do with even potentially beneficial mutations in the eons prior to their final needed service? “Neo-Lamarckism” has given old Lamarckian ideas sort of a revival by taking advantage of the epigenome phenomenon to point beyond mutations to thoughts of heritable traits. So far their offered examples are too limited, and not enduring. “Natural genetic engineering” proposes a built-in inheritable capacity for self-engineering of new body plans. But, coming up with adequate evidence of this pre-programmed potential is left wanting. Chapter 17: The Possibility of Intelligent Design Nelson, in afterthought of the preceding nine chapters, believes that Meyer has convincingly shown that the arguments “…either fail to address the problem of the origin of necessary biological information” or, “they simply presuppose earlier unexplained sources of such information.” After exhausting Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, and post-Darwinian challenges, Meyer brings ID up to the plate. Taking up where he left off with Signature In The Cell, Meyer invokes true design, not just apparent design, into biological development. The only accounting for specified complexity in developmental information is an intelligent designer, as with all else known that possesses specified complexity. While not denying changes over time, or even the possibility of some degree of common ancestry, Meyer close the door on chance with new body plans. Reminiscent of Signature In The Cell, Meyer reminds us that design theory has a scientific history, and remains the inference to the best explanation, which also has a standing history in science. Here, Falk joins Bishop in taking exception with Meyer. He sees such thoughts as “a stretch,” mainly because of what he views as ID’s paltry prediction record. Perhaps a little patience is in order. After all, the current ID movement has been around only a couple of decades, and is already producing successful prediction, while Darwinian-influenced evolution theory has held center stage for over 150 years. Surprisingly, Bishop seems to miss Meyer’s whole thesis when he states that, “…the diversification of body plans in the Cambrian never was Meyer’s target; the real target…the origin of life.” Having dealt with chemical evolution in Signature in the Cell, and now addressing biological evolution, Meyer’s grand scheme of refutation and theorizing exceeds OOL. Chapter 18: Signs of Design in the Cambrian Explosion Even evolutionary biologists agree that the Cambrian epoch events are unprecedented and unrepeated in history, and remain at a loss to explain them. ID theorists put forward both negative and positive arguments in confidence that the ID explanation is the correct one. Only ID is able to adequately account for the top-down evidence of the Cambrian explosion. While evolutionary biologists describe homologous genes across wide variations in species, but are unable to adequately account for them, ID theory accepts the repetitive aspect of genetic engineering as logical. Only ID can account for the functional specified complexity of information and true design in and beyond the genes of successful new body plans. Again, Bishop employs his “question-shift strategy” objection against Meyers, accusing him of using the term “de novo” to sway thoughts towards OOL. But the critique seems trivial when Bishop admits that Meyer’s referenced authors used the same term to reference something not in an OOL context. Also, Bishop attempts to label Meyer’s use of human analogies in his ontological insinuations of DNA intelligence as “the fallacy of false analogy.” Granted, more needs to be argued in this regard by Meyer, but in my opinion he has already highlighted plenty of supporting analytical and empirical evidence in his favor in both books, progressing his arguments in the direction of closure. Chapters 19 & 20: The Rules of Science and What’s at Stake Meyer claims that there is nothing non-scientific about ID theory. It meets the established rules of proper modern science theorizing and research. Its inherent predictive capability is evident in the successful ENCODE project. ID theorists are not a proponent for the “who” of ID, only the evidentiary “how” of it all. Attempts at staying ID theory with demarcation criteria fail. The ambiguousness of demarcation criteria is justifiably rejected in the philosophy of science. ID is science. Darwin’s Doubt has laid down the gauntlet, taking exception with neo-Darwinism’s denial of design and its failed hypotheses. Meyer has revealed its inability to successfully retrieve functional proteins form combinatorial sequence space. He has exposed the insurmountable improbability of randomness in generating new specified complex information. And he has convincingly shown neo-Darwinism’s impotence in producing novel body plans from early embryonic developmental mutations, as well as late ones. Neo-Darwinism’s fixation on genes renders it not even at the offering table for theories on generating epigenetic specified complex information. Even Stearley seems to agree to some degree: “I think he [Meyer] has developed a case for the inadequacy of standard “bean-bag” genetic approaches to the production of animal body plans.” And, the ENCODE project confirms ID’s prediction that junk DNA isn’t junk at all. Despite all this, as mentioned earlier, Bishop takes exception with Meyer’s claim that neo-Darwinian theory is being reconsidered. However, Falk does not agree with Bishop here. He sees it as, “…a fairly accurate summary of the state of biology.” After reviewing Meyer’s evidence, I am convinced that Falk is justified in his reaction, while Bishop remains wishful (see more comments of Falk in the footnote). ID is science, not religion. It does not deny God, but does not attempt to confirm Him either. And, despite theologian and philosopher Alister McGrath’s and Marshall’s worn out contention of ID purporting “God of the Gaps,” ID theory does not gap fill what isn’t known, but instead reveals design in what has been discovered. Elsewhere, Meyer provides an extended rebuttal to this accusation. Meyer has struck a grand slam homerun, first with Signature In The Cell, and now with Darwin’s Doubt. If present to read Meyer’s book today, even Darwin might no longer be in doubt. After reading his well thought out and exceptionally well-organized books, if one is not at least impressed with ID’s scientific challenge, then the blinders need to come off. Darwin’s Doubt has gone beyond Signature In The Cell to add ID biological development to ID chemical development as noteworthy components of overall ID theory. I found the book to be comfortably readable, and because of its important details, I highly recommend it to everyone in science and theology, especially evolutionary biology and liberal theology. But, every science student, from high school through collegiate levels, can benefit from this book, or suffer from missing it. Buy it and enjoy it. References, citations on file.

This is not an easy read. At 413 densely-worded pages, it took me the better part of a month to finish. However, I am glad that I persevered. This is a remarkably well-written, well-researched, and well-argued companion to Meyer’s previous volume Signature in the Cell. Whereas his earlier work made the case for intelligent design based on the complexity of the cell and the inadequacy of materialistic origin-of-life hypotheses, Darwin’s Doubt focuses on the origin of animal life, and the particular challenge posed by one feature of the geologic record: the so-called “Cambrian explosion.” The book is divided into three parts: Part 1 deals with the fossil evidence of the Cambrian explosion, Part 2 deals with the biological information necessary for animal life, and Part 3 argues that intelligent design provides a better explanation of all the evidence than any naturalistic alternatives. I will examine and evaluate each part in turn. Part 1 begins with a history of the early reception of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. It is hard to overstate the significance of this little book, which became the foundation of modern evolutionary theory. The scope of Darwin’s theory was vast (after all, he was trying to explain all life as we know it!), and he personally believed that he had solved every problem—save one. The budding discipline of modern geology had unearthed a piece of evidence that did not fit very well into Darwin’s gradualistic schema. Fossils indicate that about 530 million years ago—or what has come to be known as the Cambrian period—there was an extremely abrupt proliferation of different forms of animal life. These animal fossils showed no signs of evolutionary predecessors in earlier layers, leading to the apt description of the “Cambrian explosion.” Darwin himself was aware of this problem, and indeed it gave him some doubt as to the veracity of his theory (hence the title of Meyer’s book). However, he was confident that the problem would one day be solved—either it would be shown that Precambrian animals had not been fossilized for some reason, or their fossils had not yet been found. Meyer evaluates these two possibilities, and argues that subsequent history would have greatly disappointed Darwin. Both of these efforts at explaining away the Cambrian explosion are variants of the so-called “artifact hypothesis.” According to this hypothesis, Cambrian fossils are merely “artifacts” of an incomplete record. Some have suggested that paleontologists need only to look in other places around the globe to uncover Precambrian ancestors, while others have suggested reasons why such ancestors could not in principle have been preserved—perhaps, for example, their soft body forms did not lend themselves to fossilization. Unfortunately, neither solution appears to match the observed evidence. Paleontologists since the time of Darwin have examined geologic layers across the globe, with the conclusion that there are plenty of Precambrian layers, but zero evolutionary ancestors to Cambrian animals. Moreover, there are plenty of non-animal fossils in the Precambrian strata—even those with only soft body parts. But if these soft non-animal fossils could have been preserved, why not also their animal counterparts? Darwinian Theory does not provide an adequate explanation, nor have subsequent complementary theories to Darwinism (such as punctuated equilibrium). In Part 2, Meyer moves the discussion from fossils to genetics/anatomy. The fundamental challenge in building an animal from scratch is that you need to be able to create novel “protein folds.” This is one of the most basic units of mutational change that can lead to new function. And yet protein folds require a significant number of coordinated DNA mutations in order to come into being. Think of genes as letters strung together to form words, phrases, and sentences. If the genes are not precisely coordinated, the sentences will quickly degenerate into meaningless gibberish. This is the known as the problem of “combinatorial inflation.” Consider the example of a combination lock: each time you add another number to the lock, the resulting combination becomes exponentially more difficult to unlock. So it is with animal evolution—it becomes probabilistically prohibitive. In Part 3, having concluded that Darwinism isn’t up for the job, Meyer surveys some of the other naturalistic explanations on the market. But these are also shown to be inadequate for various reasons. It is only at this stage of Meyer’s argument that he finally puts forward his own theory: intelligent design. Animals bear all the marks of “specified complexity” that we find in the products of intelligent agents. We easily recognize design in the world of engineering, for example. Why should it not be so in the world of biology? In essence, Meyer is making his case as an inference to the best explanation—taking into account the entire range of data, and ruling out any hypotheses that lack sufficient explanatory power. Meyer is quick to point out that the theory of intelligent design is scientific and not necessarily religious in nature (although it would certainly have religious implications). And this brings me to my only possible critique of the book. Meyer’s reasons for wanting to distance intelligent design from religious creationism are political. His concern seems to be to allow the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. However, in my judgment the debate over public science education rests on the mistaken separation of “fact” from “value,” as if it were possible to teach religiously neutral science. This might be where my own neo-Calvinist sympathies come to the surface, but I believe that all education is inherently religious education. It all depends on what religion you subscribe to. And that means that fundamentally, all education will be either Christian or anti-Christian (although there will always be overlap, due to God’s common grace). So in the end, I don’t really have a problem saying that intelligent design is creationism. But that minor quibble aside, this is an outstanding book. It does get pretty technical pretty fast, so its audience will probably be limited to those with a college education. But this will be essential reading in debates over intelligent design in the coming years.

Dr. Meyers: "Darwin's Doubt" will shelve "Origin of Species" to the comic book isle. I have both his books "Signature in a Cell" and "Darwin's Doubt". I have gone through them both once and I admit I need to read them again. Biology (to me) seems more difficult to understand than cosmology...but like any learning, there is always a learning curve. It is not learning that is the problem (we have a very capable brain), it is finding the time away from this rut-like-world to allow us to discern truth. I met with Dr. Meyer and listened to his lectures recently at a Charlotte, N.C. conference and I was impressed with his presentation, knowledge, and focused passion. I suspect in the future that Dr. Meyer and Richard Dawkins will/must have an open debate. Richard; you need to evolve, very quickly before you debate with Dr. Meyer--and you do not have millions or years to blindly do it. The constant ad hominem attack by materialistic Darwinists that ID is just religion (in disguise) is a lame and childish whine--frankly; I believe most of you are tired of hearing it. If I.D. leads to religion then fine, but it does NOT begin with religion (there is no preempted bias). If one is seeking truth then one must be prepared to go where it leads regardless of how uncomfortable it might make you. There is no dogma in proper religion! Those that go and chant their brains into submission are only destroying the one very unique `tool' we have (our brain). IF one believes in God then they must be insulting Him...and Galileo said it first and best: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use". If there is any restriction to advanced knowledge then it is science which limits itself to only materialistic beginnings and only materialistic conclusions: it is particle physics that states matter is mostly empty space and E=MC^2 that concludes matter is energy and light (speed). And Quantum Mechanics involves itself hardly with that which is materialistically testable. Science is painting itself in its own materialistic corner (with no room to advance). Admittedly, I'm not sure where it would go, to advance past materialistic conclusions (and we should NOT give up trying but we should also not limit ourselves to it)--let's leave that to mathematics, philosophy, and some few really smart non-biased folks. But any dogma is bad when it brainwashes people from using their curiosity (be it science dogma or religious dogma) and it was bad religion (used to control people and maintain the power of religious leaders) that restraint society for over 1600 years until Copernicus and Galileo came along and liberated us from a Geocentric society (if the Catholic Church had sought truth then, then who knows how much further along we would be, now). Our education system is another dogmatic establishment--it gets the basics into our heads and then it programs us to (overall) just get a job and earn a wage so that we will then be a tax base asset to the society. I know that sounds really, wrong--but think about it. Education should do what it does now--but we need to continue learning after we attain employment and we need to have the education system that teaches graduates to remain curious and to continue learning, but this curiosity needs to be guided by an experienced conscience. There are laws: cosmic and moral...all things are NOT allowed least we end up as a horde of pirates (and even pirates have a code). We are not designed to be too free (in what we do). Totally free, gets us into trouble and makes us lost; too limited puts us in restraints and causes us to rebel...honest justice, fairness, and truth is much more satisfying then collecting stuff. It seems that the abstracts (to include intelligence/information) satisfy us far better than any amount of materialistic items. I wonder why? One thing that has twisted my head even before Dr. Meyer's books came along (and William Dembski also has some good books concerning I.D. backed up via mathematics) has now surfaced with a vengeance: If we are just Darwinist evolutionary mistakes with no purpose or reason for being and have survived only by blind natural selection `efforts' (which weeds out the non-functioning, the weak, old, and young), then why do we have the size brain we have? If we evolved by natural selection then that process provides just what is necessary to survive--not more. It does not provide MORE than what is necessary for that would be a waste of energy, materials, and need. Humans do not have any natural predators because we can out-think them and too we adapt our environment. Further, many of our most important advancements have (at the start) no Darwinist survival value. What are some examples? The four dune-buggies we have on the moon (or just going there), diving to the deepest parts of the ocean, beauty, art, music, flight, electricity, nuclear power etc etc. Admittedly, once having acquired such they have done humanity well. Our world would be terrible without electricity and what we have accomplished in medicine and chemistry is phenomenal. The only push that natural selection `should' provide is that we: don't get eaten, but can eat, survive our environment, and can prorogate our kind. So how did we get this brain that has allowed us to outdo natural selections' limited ability to only allow us to survive; to just get by? We are NOT just getting by. I did not want to just review Dr. Meyers' book but to also make a plea that we use our brains for more than just a repository for dogmatic bias and power trips. Life and even existence itself (such as the age old question: Why is there something rather than nothing?) when we finally figure it out is bound to be stranger than we suppose. No! It will be stranger than we CAN suppose. And yet here we are trying to suppose it. Where did we get this ability? I believe the bottom line to where Dr. Meyer is making his conclusion is really all too obvious and also very controversial and not liked (just like the Big Bang Singularity is controversial and not liked as compared to the failed Steady State Eternal theory). If one discovers information then it must originate from intelligence--somehow. Disorder and chaos is the law of entropy. And in chaos and disorder information is not found (because it is chaotic) yet if there is information buried in the chaos then it has a difficult time hiding from our thinking abilities. For example: it takes a large brain to even recognize that a jigsaw puzzle began as a low entropic design, that was then cut-up and allowed to increase in entropy, so that we could then `enjoy' and use our imagination and thinking ability (our large brain) to put it back together (in order). We come into life with a puzzle--DNA; and this puzzle has purpose and is designed it cannot come out of chaos and error any more than a jigsaw puzzle can appear by mistake and blind natural selection. We seek knowledge, reason, and test for what is good in life (all three are scientific and all three are also Biblical). We look for patterns, symmetry, order, empirical ability, meaning, trust, fairness, perfection, we imagine and then design new things (and get upset when those things decay and break down) and we hate the insidious itch of time--we are one weird and special piece of work! We hardly fit in with any other creature on this planet in spite of the fact that we are all made of the same (few) periodic table elements. If there are aliens anywhere then in looking at life on Earth (collectively) we look to be the only creature not of this world. Dr. Meyer is doing for our (biologic) scientific society and education what Copernicus and Galileo did for cosmology--many years ago they removed the dogma of a religiously controlled geocentric Earth. Dr. Stephen Meyer is removing the dogma of a narrow minded materialistically controlled antiquated science; borne of a time before electricity, hydraulics, aviation, and nuclear power. Darwin is...really dead! As of 27 Oct... I've decided to not receive any more replies; (and to delete out some of my replies) the discussion(?) was full of childish egotistical rants, playground bulling and abuse (I even fed them back their own medicine hoping that they would come around and stop being so foolish...but it did not work). I'm too old, educated, and experienced...to compete over this length of time--it's a waste of effort and brainpower. No reasonable, logical, thought provoking words were received. At first (and in my post) I nearly begged for rational discussion...yet only received selfish prejudicial rhetoric based mainly on the comment that I went to a conference in Charlotte NC...so therefore I don't have a brain and must be a young earth, ark and flood believing Christian (poisoned against logic and materialism's 'only' answers to existence). Some Christians are young Earthers; not me, some do not hold any credibility to science (and evolution) not me...etc etc etc. And yet I've met many Christians who do accept materialism but also realize that everything cannot be materialism (there is a blending here in life and too in our existence--it is not so rigid and conservative as materialistic science forces those here to be limited to). Science has a philosophy and all scientists have a faith (in the universality of math, and reason an odd occurrence and language). I'm very confident that Dr. Meyer will ruffle up the Darwinist thought process in the future, regardless of the children bantering here. I'll just have to find a better source of folks to discuss with...I'm sure the Internet has many blogs which are not prejudicially limited and tied to a limited materialistic view point. The truth is out there one way or the other and either way it is very interesting and full wonder and surprises; but one thing IS certain...there will be many who will try to explain away the result because they are set in their way and do not want to change. The truth always makes someone uncomfortable...so we need to be ready to have an open mind.

The Blind Watchmaker: A Beguiling Materialist Dream "A wise proverb warns that it isn't what you don't know that gets you in trouble; it is what you do know that isn't so." "It soothed us--it beguiled us--then, to hear Once more of troubles wrought by magic spell." (1) A Prelude Of Hermeneutical Suspicion In this very brief essay, my primary goal will be to better explain why such contentious divisions exist between the majority of positive amazon reviewers and a minority cohort of very recalcitrant atheist reviewers regarding Darwin's Doubt. I will amply demonstrate that this divide is mostly grounded in philosophical differences(2) which have permitted little compromise; in particular, I've found it to be a volatile admixture of antithetical philosophies, combined with ventures into theodicy, and literally hundreds of irreconcilable disputes over field and genetic data. And forget about apologies or erratas as intellectual battle lines are etched in stone as evidenced by the bimodal distribution of reviews. And so, I'll be taking a slightly different approach in my book review. As an old earth, day-age theist, I'll be writing with an eye given to brief historical review, a liberal use of metaphors in the spirit of evolutionary biology and attention to Meyer's very decisive use of scientific reasoning known as vera causa. Consequently, my essay is specifically directed to an audience of fellow theists and open-minded agnostics as I've yet to find any evidence, here at amazon or elsewhere, that dialogue with a new-atheist audience would prove to be anything other than obscurant. The elegance of Intelligent Design, as a scientific theory, is that it levels the philosophical playing field amongst theists and materialists alike as each engage the scientific enterprise, being mindful of the 1960's Wistar Institute's conference that ruled out evolutionary algorithms having been unintelligibly derived. Before proceeding though, I hope you'll keep in mind throughout this short essay, a question which has served me well in keeping this reckless debate in perspective. The question is: What evidence would ever be permissible by materialists that's indicative of an intelligent signature in the book of nature given their enmity against this Signature being considered as part of legitimate scientific inquiry? The real reason for their prohibition, of course, is found in Romans 8:7 despite their many disingenuious protestations about the materialist nature of science given that design in nature is readily demonstrable and requires wilfull and deliberate distortion in describing it as only "apparent". From this biblical admonition, we may deduce that most materialists are spiritually schizoid. Nonetheless, Dawkins and Crick seem to have only postponed their answer to this question by resorting to some form of panspermia, itself subject to materialist causation. Still more revealing, university professors who have posted harsh comments to 5-star reviews have not themselves challenged Dr. Meyer or Dr. Mark McMenamin to a public debate at either The Discovery Institute or an academic setting of their own chosing. Is Darwinism Really A Dangerous Idea Or Mind Over Matter? An excellent place to begin, for purposes of this essay, is with Daniel Dennett's, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", as he discusses how John Locke answered, "Which came first, mind or matter"? Locke said mind while Hume failed to muster up a solid alternative. This Dennettian interlude is yet only an extension of that ongoing debate which began with the Greek philosophers who championed schools of both material self organization vs mind over matter. Enter Darwin's modest, dare I say, innovative scientific theory about successful adaptations via natural selection process; with the later addition of genetics, microevolution has remained an undisputed matter; still, upon closer examination though, natural selection itself has often been described as a misleading metaphor per Lewontin, Oyama, Griffins & Gray. But did I say a modest theory? Well, as Dennett goes on to point out, it actually broached a significant philosophical watershed by providing a "scheme for creating Design out of Chaos without the aid of Mind." Here lay, I maintain, the impetus for what has become a beguiling, materialist dream come true as its "universal acid" spread, as he puts it, all the way up and all the way down the scientific establishment, invoking a taunting "revolutionized worldview". In context, a reversal in philosophical grounding evolved with such ebullient finality that it has become unthinkable, yea Heretical, to ascribe any biological innovations attributable to an Intelligence, period. Unsurprisingly, Dennett also suggests that theistic minds should be restricted to cultural zoos. Ladies And Gentleman Of The Jury: Have You Reached A Verdict? Yet, a fascinating 2012 Gallup Poll was recently conducted which bears irrefutable testimony to the public's overwhelming rejection of this revolutionized dream which is deeply held by members of Darwin's materialist posse; a dream in which they hope that the masses will eventually embrace a beguiling, Dawkinsian baal enshrined as scientific fact. Nevertheless: 46% of the public remain creationists, 32% of the public remain guided evolutionary creationists, and a minority 15% of the public remain blind watchmaker devotees. These statistics have remained virtually unchanged for the past 30+ years now though you might not have necessarily thought so with all the bragging rights exercised by modern day disciples of Darwin; particularly given such recent court trials rendering verdicts similar to the Dover decision and ongoing indoctrination of evolutionary biology in the public schools and institutions of higher learning e.g. repression of Professor Eric Hedin's inclusion of ID reading materials in an interdisciplinary honors course at Ball State University which was instigated by Jerry Coyne. Please note that the Amazon distribution of reviews also mirrors that of the Gallup Poll. Predictably though, despite truncated legal victories, those bragging rights have become very premature and ineffective against an evolutionary-schooled public in this information-dominated age with google search, podcasts, blogs, and electronic access to research libraries; unintended results, no doubt, for very disappointed materialists with expenditure of all those taxpayer dollars. This is why I find duplicitous criticisms of Phillip Johnson, as a mere jurist who is outside of his expertise when criticizing evolution, now to be found wanting. From this poll, one easily surmises that overused quips like "god of the gaps, citizens are ignorant, goddidit, science is materialism, The Dark Ages and Dishonesty Institute" have not significantly increased the percentage of uber-darwinist converts; merely listing such may elicit accusations of yet more out of context quote-mining. This dissent, because it's so widespread and unchanged, tellingly reveals that students and the public have identified materialism disguised as scientific fact which can be accompanied by very sardonic, anti-Christian bigotry which delves into Bart Ehrman or David Hull styled theodicy. In 2014, scholarly criticisms of both Neo-darwinism and Intelligent Design are easily accessible to and can be read with just a click of a mouse. I must confess that this prospect holds much promise for the ID Movement as natural selection continues to favor and swell the ranks of creationists at such a propitious, differential reproduction rate over that of darwinian 15-percenters. Deck The Halls Of The Materialist Elite Another fascinating survey which highlights materialist influence, this time more specifically within the halls of academia, was conducted by Edward Larson and Larry Witham in 1996. This historian-journalist team repeated a survey completed by psychologist James Leuba back in 1914 and again in 1933. Leuba was interested in measuring the attitudes of scientists toward traditional religious beliefs by asking 2 questions: a.) "Do you believe in a God in intellectual and affective communication with man to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer" and b.) "Do you believe in personal immortality". As you might expect, the answers were given anonymously with yes, no, or don't know responses. (3) Their random sample of names was taken from a directory entitled, Men and Women of Science. Their results, in 1996, mirrored those of Leuba obtained in 1914: 40% of scientists-in-general believe in a prayer answering God and in personal immortality, 40% disbelieve, and 20% were unsure. From this survey which specifically measured attitudes of scientists toward religion, clearly, a significant percentage of theists are also members of the scientific establishment though materialist responses to Doubt, here at amazon, might suggest otherwise. Just as interesting, Larson and Witham repeated this survey for elite-scientists in 1998 defined by elected membership into the halls of the National Academy of Sciences; its membership scored over 90% with "no" responses; for biologists, "no" responses topped at 95%. As can also be seen, this 95% has adversely impacted the potential of ID research being published in biology journals. Stranger still, in a broader context and under ordinary circumstances, the Darwinian Left would otherwise champion and espouse proportional representation and eschew the practice of viewpoint discrimination. A Priori Materialism: Prevent Intelligent Design By Any Means Necessary. As I hinted at earlier, this story really began as most folk already know after the publication of Darwin's, "Origin of Species", which has become part of today's tumultuous and often confusing culture wars. Yet, with the release of "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson, back in the 1990s, the public got their first glimpse into why devotees of the blind watchmaker respond with very defensive and angry retorts when their cherished belief, framed as a scientific theory, is doubted by those of us who question its exclusive explanatory prowess. Johnson as well as other ID scholars, including Stephen Meyer, have revealed the answer to this singularly most important question which now defines the character of this watershed debate. The answer quite simply is this: members of Darwin's materialist posse have made an a priori commitment to materialism before examining the record of nature while strategically wedding the exercise of methodological naturalism and the definition of science to this philosophical framework. Surprisingly, it was during this time period that eminent darwinian disciples, such as Richard Lewontin, Michael Ruse, Kenneth Miller, and Robert Pennock, also came to acknowledge that materialism was, indeed, the philosophical framework to which the scientific enterprise had been rightly wed just as Phillip Johnson had astutely observed in his landmark treatise; the works of philosopher Alvin Plantaga have also delved into this philosophical quandary for those interested. More specifically, a materialism characterized by unintelligent, unguided, undirected, mindless, and purposeless material processes which only appear to mimic intelligent design yet having been endowed with the ability to program information at the molecular level via natural selection and mutation. Subsequently, though Darwin's modern-day posse has continued to defend the theory on strictly "scientific" grounds, Michael Ruse made yet another interesting observation; he maintains, that for many uber-darwinists, their materialist defense is greatly influenced, of all things, by a belief system which functions as a type of secular religion e.g. Darwin's Day celebration. In that vein, Lynn Margulis also acidly stated that Darwinism would eventually be judged as a minor religious sect of Anglo-Saxon biology (Lynn Margulis and palentologist Mark McMenamin were very close colleagues who shared much doubt regarding this blind watchmaker thesis). Interestingly, Darwin himself admitted that many of his contemporaries had done much the same in his day; just perhaps current darwinian fundamentalists will yet relent just a lil' with their Marxian cliche that religion has served as an opiate for the masses, after all? In any case, this explains, if you haven't already noticed here at amazon, helps to explain the reactionary passion, hostility and dogma devoted to their righteous cause; for these responses flow out of an ideologically calcified worldview which, in keeping with the spirit of Darwin's Origins, conscientiously militates against a serious, present day discussion of the information content of living cells which is attributable to any intelligence while simultaneously preempting "a divine foot in the door". Counter-intuitively I might add, we are asked to suspend our otherwise uniform and repeatable experiences that have led us to empirically verify that the varied expressions of "information" have always traced back to an intelligent cause, without exception; and it's uniform, verifiable and repeatable experiences which compose an important part of scientific reasoning. Nevertheless, with so narrowly defined an edict, please permit me to inform you that if you do not unquestioningly believe in the sanctity of this gradualist-fundamentalist doctrinal creed, you will very likely be chastised by a materialist patriarch or member of Darwin's materialist posse, being told that you are stupid, ignorant, insane, delusional and possibly even wicked. This is contrarian, oppositional defiance and not science. Stephen Jay Gould, who remains one of my favorite evolutionary authors, once informed us that the neo-darwinian synthesis was very beguiling for materialists, and so, is it any wonder that another just-so story in the form of macroevolution with designoids and selfish genes has proven to be just too irresistible? These are materialists employing "science" just as Phillip Johnson revealingly exposed in "Darwin on Trial". Splitting The Log Of Materialism Enter Stephen Meyer's splendiferous magnum opus, "Darwin's Doubt". Meyer, who has degrees in physics, geology, and philosophy of science, captures the imagination of materialists in their obsession with mindless operations in nature. With Meyer's background both in applied science and philosophy, I was not very surprised to learn via recent Discovery Institute podcasts that Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne declined debates extended to them. (4) With his Signature and Doubt treatises, he once again aids his readers to more keenly differentiate between matter and information. In that regard, George Williams, recently deceased but a darwinist with impeccable credentials, once criticized evolutionary biologists for not recognizing that information and matter are incommensurable domains: " In biology, when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality." (5) This lack of recognition was clearly documented throughout Doubt and particularly as Meyer explored Post-Darwinian theories currently being pursued in order to account for the generation, retrieval, and storage of digital information. This backdrop is significant as Meyer frames throughout this exhaustive work how Intelligent Design serves as a scientific theory by using the very exact scientific reasoning that Darwin based his modest theory on; variously known as vera causa, inference to the best explanation or, as Gould once affectionately described, a consilience of induction, this reasoning is used throughout forensic sciences. Ironically, even though Darwin conscientiously used vera causa to elude Intelligence, Meyer boldly, brazeningly, and brilliantly reintroduces evidenced based Signature by using the very same scientific reasoning. This is why criticisms along the line of "god of the gaps", which amount to accusations of an argument from ignorance, are but a philological ruse without merit. The evidence is quite clear regarding this overused strawman as ID theory posits positive, affirming knowledge of the cause, now in operation and in the spirit of Lyellian uniformitarianism, that explains the genesis of ALL information which is easily verifiable while also critiquing the "informational gaps" found throughout the Blind Watchmaker thesis. But don't expect most materialists to admit this as their secularized, religious ideology strategically rules out Intelligence in the very definition of how science works; obviously, to do so would threaten their worldview with falsification. The audacity of materialists to equate materialism with science is nothing more than prejudicial front-end loading resulting in that Darwinian baal I mentioned earlier; creationists, on the other hand and in comparison to Darwin's materialist posse, have an appreciable historical heritage of scientific reasoning and discovery with roots tracing back to the scientific revolution. (6) But there's also a very interesting socio-political dynamic at work here; a materialist consensus is being wielded, albeit unsuccessfully, in an attempt to shutdown legitimate scientific dissent to promulgate a materialist worldview; orchestrating such by the misuse of academic authority narrowly concentrated in the hands of an atheistic elite as the Larson and Whitham survey amply demonstrates. For me, their attempt at doing so is not really surprising even as similar individuals continue to be vey unsuccessful at discouraging legitimate dissent here at amazon with their use of uncouth, caustic, and ad hominem comments. For example, witness the spirit of Occupy Wallstreet on full display complete with materialist squatters who while denying anti-Christian bigotry endorse the cantankerous rantings of a bombastic former young-earth demagogue and spokesman now turned theistic evolutionist whom both they and Richard Dawkins would still call delusional: see recent "One Who Learns Online" comment below as he continues to obsequiously seek after a mere pittance of materialist approval while mysteriously guarding his former young earth identity. Their taking advantage of such a misguided, authoritarian personality type who yearns for their acceptance composes only part of a much broader unconventional strategy elsewhere employed by fellow Leftists who are especially adept at the use of utopian devises: morph into "Transformers" in a politically correct defense of Darwin when discussing the roots of social darwinism; defend the tragi-comic passage and imposition of ObamaCare upon the public; liberally approve of Coyne's role in the Ball State University's gag order directed against ID; endorse pro-choice mob which wrecked havoc during the last special session of the Texas Legislature; approve of Darwin lobby which helped to mislead Judge Jones, in the Dover Trial, into actually believing that evolution of new genetic information has occurred via natural process; indifferent to the possible use of Executive Orders being issued by President Obama to implement social justice edicts; tacit approval of skullduggery associated with cancellation of Darwin's Dilemma screening at the California Science Center. The Wedge of Truth: Asking The Right Questions Continuing, this is the same bias which also helps to explain interest in Carl Sagan's SETI program in their pursuit of finding "little green men from space" or finding remains of fossilized microbes beneath the polar-desert of Mars as they WANT to find evidence for ETs or evidence that Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles is not so fictional after all; this would be yet more evidence that the Blind Watchmaker has been creating elsewhere throughout the cosmos even as they squint at a gnat discerning whether or not the implantation of a human zygote into the uterine wall merits preservation; yesz, human designers are also welcomed too. But evidence of Intelligence staring them right in the face within the vast biological realm here on Earth is only apparent so they tell us; an illusion, a deception of nature's improbabilities, and nothing more Dawkins would lament. Could this be the universal acid that Dennett has in "mind"? I concede that this is the type of question only a creationist would dare ask. In contrast to materialist misrepresentation, ID has methodically introduced an important scientific middle ground assuming neither materialism nor theism while conscientiously using methods specifically amenable to historical sciences. Again though, don't expect materialists to publicly state that there is a distinction between ID and creationism even as my essay has rhetorically shifted between the two: some will only perseverate upon the weakness of negative argumentation; many who do understand perfectly well will not concede the obvious point because of a dogmatic belief that a Post-Darwinian theory will yet be discovered; some who readily grapple with the implications of theodicy seem to only grudgingly embrace Nietzsche and avoid the implications of social darwinism; and for still others, they just, I mean, they just don't get it. For example, page 412 has been used to suggest an admission to creationist formulation of ID theory, the supposed Phase II of the Wedge and a favorite smoking gun; never mind the fact that Meyer specifically states otherwise on page 413, in the very last paragraph, having simply pointed out second order philosophical implications which they continue to conflate. While ID theory is certainly falsifiable should a materialist explanation be discovered, these self-organizing and auto-catalytic theories remain impotent into the foreseeable future. Why? Meyer outlines 3 basic informational barriers that materialists must account for: 1.) the digital code found in DNA, 2.) the genesis of neurochemical circuitry and engineering necessary for the construction of body plans, and 3.) the hierarchical organization of epigenetic information via Neo-Lamarckism. Attempts to reduce information to mere materialist processes involving chemical selection, without a doubt, is what philosophers call a category mistake because DNA is only the medium and not the message though Post-Darwinian researchers would, of course, greatly differ. It's the difference between using the laws of physics and chemistry to describe the ink and paper composing a page in a book AND a mind which comprehends the information which was transcribed onto that page by intelligence. And so, a really fair reading of "The Wedge" is about asking the right questions, inference to the best explanation also invoked by Darwin himself, and Popperian dissent. The Wedge is grounded in scientific reasoning despite its many misinformed distracters. Epilogue The Apostle Paul once noted that the Epicureans, Stoics, and pagans at Mars Hill were most religious with their worship of many gods during his time; not much has really changed as even now the vast majority of the American public has had to confront the worship of a 21st century god of scientism; a Dawkinsian baal, endowed with the powers of natural magic beyond mathematization, she once again enjoys the worship from an academic elite who dogmatically believe her existence, this time, is rooted in macroevolutionary science with biology once again yielding to metaphysics. Metaphysics? Well, my essay suggests that it all depends upon what you know just ain't so; these metaphysicians, these strident messengers of Paine, Rousseau, and Voltaire. "There are more things in heaven And earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (7) End Notes (1) "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism" by Phillip Johnson, 2000; "The White Doe of Rylstone", 33-34, by William Wordsworth. (2) Broadly speaking, for most orthodox materialists the essential philosophical difference is best described by Stephen Jay Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria(NOMA) which separates science and religion into non-overlapping magisterium. Gould's NOMA is particularly significant in that it represents a very important pillar of scientism now extant throughout evolutionary biology. Scientism, however, is a dumb-downed version of positivism which stipulates that authoritative knowledge may only be gained via mathematical treatments or experimental verification. The opinion that scientism is true is not itself, of course, a truth that can be demonstrated by science: Is scientism really true, and did "science" tell you that? And so, Gould's NOMA represents more of an epistemological leap of faith based on philosophic materialism than upon ontological verification as this doctrine cannot be mathematically demonstrated or experimentally verified; like so many deeply held scientistic convictions, NOMA ultimately is self-refuting. And yet, while his NOMA is widely indulged and applied by fellow materialists, Gould also described a more modest approach, a "consilience of induction" invoked by Darwin himself, in his 1992 Scientific American review of Phillip Johnson's, "Darwin On Trial. What's important here is that NOMA, as a strict tenet of scientism, is actually incompatible with consilience of induction though materialists often unwittingly gloss over this as though it's a distinction without a difference; this helps to explain why Gould was often criticized by Darwinian Fundamentalists for equivocation. For anti-theists, the New Atheists of our time, their scientism is also self-defeatingly, self-refuting for the same reasons. Also, reviewers will find that most amazon materialists will present a revisionist version of the very recent debate between Meyer and Charles Marshall found at: evolutionnews"dot"org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811"dot"html . Though Marshall stated that he "enjoyed reading" Darwin's Doubt, thought it was "good scholarship", and said that it "looked like good science", many will nevertheless attempt to distort his positive comments, using a logical fallacy known as "a distinction without a difference". Fair-minded listeners will learn that for every critique that Marshall presents, Meyer astutely addresses and refutes. (3) "Scientists and Religion in America" by Edward Larson and Larry Witham in Scientific American, 1999. (4) Evolution News & Views for refutations of criticisms. (5) "Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges" by George Williams, 1992. (6) Reasons To Believe with Hugh Ross; reasons"dot"org: search ENCODE for discussions about skeptics, multiple overlapping codes and "codon usage bias". (7) Hamlet Act I, scene v.

This book is about intelligent design (ID) so if you don’t want to investigate this, then you may as well not waste your time. Most scientists will not like this book; not because it’s not good science but because, like most people, scientists want to fit in and keep their jobs, salary and prestige. In order to do this, one must subscribe to an orthodoxy that requires them to have an a priori commitment to methodological naturalism (materialism). Meyer explains all this in chapter 19, “The Rules of Science”. It is estimated that over 40% of scientists believe in God, that means that close to 60% are committed to a philosophical naturalism as well and so provide sufficient peer pressure to keep it going. The conclusion; While most scientists from the 17th to the 20th century before the self-imposition of the materialistic worldview on science, would be quite at home; most contemporary scientists will not like this book. But Stephen C. Meyer has the courage to challenge the predominant Neo-Darwinian paradigm based upon this philosophy with another great book arguing that intelligent design is the best explanation for the origin of the hierarchically organized layers of information needed to build the animal forms that arose in the Cambrian period. From the start it is important to recognize that Intelligent Design(ID) is not the same as Creation Science contra the NCSE which is really just a political lobbyist organization pushing Darwinism and climate change and opposing any religion in the government run schools. In order to understand what Meyer is saying in this book and in his previous book, Signature in the Cell ; it would be extremely helpful for the reader to first read a little known book co-written by the author, called Explore Evolution. It is a must read because it puts the arguments for and against Neo-Darwinism and Intelligent Design in an easy to read format. Now, for a short review of Darwin’s Doubt to get you interested in reading it. Meyer divides the book into 3 parts and it is important to remember where you are in the book because it is easy to get lost in the details. Meyer is very thorough. Part 1 The Mystery of the Missing Fossils The 1st part is about the Cambrian explosion and deals with the original doubt of Darwin, which had to do with not only an incomplete fossil record, but the fact that animals appear suddenly and with complete body plans. It looks more like an orchard than a single tree of life. Darwin was confident that they would fill in the missing links as science progressed; but even though he must have got excited over archaeopteryx, they really have done poorly in this department. 1. Darwin’s Nemesis Not everyone interpreted the facts the way Darwin did. One such person was paleontologist Louis Agassiz of Harvard. There were many others. 2. The Burgess Bestiary Wales is not the only place that we find the Cambrian explosion. There is also the Burgess Shale in British Columbia. In this chapter we are introduced to the Artifact Hypothesis which tries to solve the problem of the missing fossils and missing links by asserting that the Cambrian explosion is not real; it is only the result—or an “artifact”—of having too small a sample of fossils to work with. 3. Soft Bodies and Hard facts There is also Chengjiang, China and the work of paleontologist J.Y. Chen, who says with a wry smile,” In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government”. Here the Artifact hypothesis is further explored but emphasis is on the other excuse as to why we are missing the fossils; the idea that they are too soft or too small to be preserved. The work of J.Y. Chen has overturned this idea because they found excellent preserved microscopic fossils of sponge embryos, which are both soft-bodied and small. 4. The Not Missing Fossils This chapter explores the idea that there may not be any missing fossils after all. They may be in the Ediacaran or Vendian layer which is a layer that it is claimed was laid down about 13 million years before the Cambrian explosion. Meyer does not leave any paleontological stone un-turned as he examines this. 5. The Genes Tell the Story? In this section Meyer explores the conflicting stories that arise depending upon the discipline of science one is engaged in. This chapter is for paleontologists and others that are hoping that genetics has the answer. The Concept of deep divergence, that there's a "long fuse" of evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion. is examined and found wanting. 6. The Animal Tree of Life The tree of life is a major Icon of Evolution. And rightly so; because it is the basis for one of the three major doctrines: Universal Common Descent. Although the fossil record does not support this, evolutionary biologists are confident that this is still the case using phylogenetic reconstruction derived from both anatomical and molecular homology. 7. Punk Eek! How much of the system do you have to hold to in order to still be a Neo- Darwinian? In order to stay true to the fossil record Paleontologists of the punctuated equilibrium (Punk Eek) school jettisoned small, gradual, slow, and incremental changes that Darwin insisted on and replaced it with large discrete jumps followed by long periods of stasis. In the process, they had to come up with a new mechanism to explain this with a subsequent smaller role for natural selection. Part 2 How to Build an Animal If the 1st part is a detective story about the case of the missing fossils, Part 2 is an engineering story on what it would really take to build an animal. This consists of another 7 chapters (8-14) 8. The Cambrian Explosion Starting with the Phyla that appear suddenly in the Cambrian we ask this question; by what means, process, or mechanism could something as complex as a trilobite have arisen? The answer has something to do with information. If you want to design and build a complex machine, you 1st need information. The question then arises; what do we actually mean when we speak of information? 9. Combinatorial Inflation Natural selection works well when it can build structures in small incremental steps. But when multiple mutations are necessary to produce a selective advantage, the odds of the trait arising begin to become very small. This is called combinatorial inflation and this chapter illustrates this using combination locks. 10. The Origin of Genes and Proteins Can natural selection and mutation actually build new organisms? In the Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins smuggles in his own intelligence by using computer simulations and clever analogies all designed by him to “prove” that it does. But this is unconvincing. Perhaps a more rigorous mathematical method is needed to test this. Douglas Axe, taking his cue from the 1966 Wistar conference called “Mathematical Challenges to Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution”, tackled this problem connecting process control from engineering with genetic regulation and focusing on the origin of new protein folds. 11. Assume a Gene This is perhaps the most interesting chapter in the whole book. It tells the largely untold story of the great lengths Neo-Darwinians will go to discredit anyone who dares disagree with them. It also goes to the heart of the controversy which is best summed up in the old preacher story “God’s Dirt” where God was once approached by a scientist who said, “Listen God, we’ve decided we don’t need you anymore. We can make a man without you.” And then when the scientist reached down to get the dirt in order to perform the experiment, God steps in and says, “get your own dirt.” In this case it is “Assume a Gene” or “once upon a Time, a Gene” or from God’s perspective, “Get your own gene”. The chapter is about an article published by the author in the biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and published by the Smithsonian Institution back in 2004 that posed a serious challenge to the neo-Darwinian mechanism and suggested that intelligent design might be the key to understanding the origin of biological information. This is a must read chapter. It has all the drama of a Shakespearian Tragedy or Comedy depending on which side of the controversy you are on. Richard Sternberg, the editor of the Proceedings, lost his job and was vilified, slandered, and libeled. No formal scientific response to the challenge was issued, but instead, ad hominem attacks were slung about by the mainstream press and scientific journals. Finally, two scientists and an advocate for the teaching of evolution and climate change stepped forward with an article purporting to answer the challenge. But the article itself, with the catchy title of “Meyer’s Hopeless Monster” based its conclusions on a scientific review essay that had appeared in 2003 referred to as the “Long Paper” which begged the question by going back to the same assumptions. Every one of the explanations, exon shuffling, retro-positioning of RNA manuscript, lateral gene transfers, gene fusion, and ORFan genes all presuppose significant amounts of preexisting genetic information on preexisting genes. Meyer spends most of the chapter answering each of these explanations. All of this was also used in the 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover trial that outlawed Intelligent Design from the Pennsylvania schools. This chapter touches briefly on this as well. 12. Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math If chapter 11 is the most interesting, this chapter is a bit more tedious for the person that is not a mathematician. It explains why neo-Darwinian biologists are not at all bothered by ID challenges and remain confident in their understanding. It has to do with mathematical models such as population genetics. In this chapter Meyer takes on the challenge and introduces another mathematical challenge to the creative power of neo-Darwinian mechanism that “arises from within the neo-Darwinian framework and raises yet new questions about the causal adequacy of the Neo-Darwinian mechanism.” 13. The Origin of Body Plans This chapter explores the fascinating question of what kind of mutations would it take during the embryological development of an organism to produce a brand new body plan? The short answer is, nobody knows. He begins the chapter with the saturation mutagenesis of fruit flies by Noble prize winners, Nusslein-Volhard and Wieschaus back in 1979. It’s all about animal development and what role exactly do genes and proteins play and what kind of changes must occur and when they must occur during the process in order to effect viable and reproducible change. The answer they found so far is that 1. The earliest stages determine what follows 2. Mutations expressed early must occur and be viable and be able to be transmitted to offspring. 3. Early acting mutations are the least likely to be tolerated by the embryo and are dead ends. In other words the organism like Drosophilia are DOA. This problem is explored by first examining Developmental Gene Regulatory Networks (dGRNs). 14. The Epigenetic Revolution In this chapter, Meyer explores the idea that changes of sequences within the genes may not tell the whole story after all and examines the field of epigenetics. Epigenetics is the study, in the field of genetics, of cellular and physiological phenotypic trait variations that are caused by external or environmental factors that switch genes on and off and affect how cells read genes.When James Watson and Francis Crick identified the structure of DNA molecules in 1953, they revealed that DNA information determines who we are. The sequence of the letters G, A, T and C in the famous double helix determines what proteins are made in our cells. If you have brown eyes, for example, this is because a series of letters in your DNA encodes for proteins that build brown eyes. Each cell contains the exact same letter sequence, and yet every organ behaves differently. Since the mid 1980s, it has been hypothesized that there is a second layer of information on top of the genetic code consisting of DNA mechanical properties. Each of our cells contains two meters of DNA molecules, and these molecules need to be wrapped up tightly to fit inside a single cell. The way in which DNA is folded determines how the letters are read out, and therefore which proteins are actually made. In each organ, only relevant parts of the genetic information are read. The theory suggests that mechanical cues within the DNA structures determine how preferentially DNA folds. He uses some analogies here that can be extremely helpful to those trying to get their head around all this. The 1st one is that of a construction site. In this analogy building materials are represented by the many proteins used and the DNA behind their manufacture. Something else, a floor plan, a blueprint, a plan on how the building is to be used determines the structure. The other analogy is that of electronic components, circuit board, and particular computer or device that has a certain function and so arranges these components in a way the is fitting. I think you will like this chapter. You may have to read it a couple times. Part 3 After Darwin, What? After tackling the self -organizational thesis (chapter 15) and other post- neo-Darwinian models ( chapter 16); the final part of the book ( chapter 17-20) is one long abductive argument; concluding that intelligent design is the only known cause among multiple competing hypotheses to explain the fully developed phyla in the Cambrian event. You really have to read it for yourself but it all begins in chapter 17, so if you want to skip to this chapter first and find out where Meyer is coming from; have at it. As mentioned at the beginning chapter 19 and chapter 20 are also necessary reads to get a feel for all the emotions involved in this debate. The following are the final chapters: 15. The Post-Darwinian World 16. Other Post -Neo-Darwinian Models 17. The Possibility of Intelligent Design 18. Signs of Design in the Cambrian Explosion 19. The Rules of Science 20. What’s at Stake? Epilogue: Responses to Critics of the First Edition of Darwin’s Doubt

The worldview of the postmodern era rests entirely upon the foundation of a thesis proposed by a naturalist who lived nearly two centuries ago, well before the explosive advances in scientific technology among which we currently live. Does Charles Darwin's evolutionary thesis hold up under modern scientific scrutiny? Answering this question is the focus of Darwin's Doubt, a four hundred plus page book with thirty pages of fine print scientific reference notes and another thirty pages of scientific bibliography. I highly recommend Darwin's Doubt to inquiring minds for several reasons: It is science. Meyer's holds a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. Most of the book is a documentary study of the history of the evolution of evolutionary thought from Darwin's day to the present. It is focused. Meyer adheres closely to his topic--the challenges to Darwin's theory that the Cambrian explosion presents. He records broadly and in detail the scientific research in the biological and physical science disciplines, as evolutionary scientists have sought to explain the explosive appearance of multiple complex life forms known as the Cambrian Explosion. Using the words and conclusions of evolutionary scientists themselves, he demonstrates that the challenges still remain. No branch of evolutionary science has been able to establish a cohesive explanation that satisfactorily explains the sudden appearance of the complex Cambrian life forms in the fossil record. It seems that Meyer has addressed every significant scientific thought on the subject. It is well written. Meyer's book assumes the tone of a well crafted whodunit mystery heart stopper. One by one he investigates the candidates in minute detail. Which scientists and which theories have been able to explain the Cambrian Explosion? By their own admission, none have. The tone is even keeled. Meyer maintains complete command of his subject matter. He seems to have made an extremely thorough and competent study of his topic. To a great degree, he uses the very words and documented publications of evolutionary scientists themselves to establish the fact that there is no widespread nor consistent agreement among the various scientific disciplines as to how the Cambrian Explosion may be explained. Even the "tree of life" itself has multiple varieties, all of which cannot be true. It is readable. The fact that I read the book cover to cover attests to its high level of readability. The book is interesting, cohesive, well-written, and easy to follow, in spite of its technical nature. Meyer is an accomplished writer in great command of both his material and his style. It is needful. Evolutionary thought has become oppressive religious dogma, at least in our country, where academic freedom is being shut down daily. Why is this so? The evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution does not hold up under scientific scrutiny, and many evolutionary scientists know this to be true. For honest students of science who are ready to consider a scientific alternative to Neo-Darwinism, the theory of intelligent design best fits the actual evidence reality provides. Meyer's book presents a factual, logical, thorough, and comprehensive summary of the cross-disciplinary scientific research in the field of neo-Darwinian evolution over the past two centuries, showing with exact scientific detail how and where it has fallen short. Evolutionists need to quit calling names and consider the specifics of the evidence Meyer presents. Stephen C. Meyer's other widely read book is Signature in the Cell, © 2009 by Stephen C. Meyer, HarperCollins Publishers. I highly recommend Darwin's Doubt as a great summer read and as reference book to keep handy throughout the year.

The twin pillars of the standard theory of evolution are the ideas of universal common ancestry, that all of life evolved from an ancient single celled life form, and natural selection, that morphological changes are a result of incremental random genetic mutation, a proposition that Stephen Meyer disputes. Meyer contends that neo-Darwinian theory neither explains the source of genetic information nor the sudden appearance of complex body forms during the geologic period known as the Cambrian explosion, a concern expressed by Darwin himself due to the lack of intermediate species found in the fossil record. He assumed that as time passed, the gaps would be filled with new fossil discoveries. Hopes were raised in this regard when in 1909 Charles Doolittle Walcott made one of the most astonishing paleontological discoveries in history in the Burgess shale of British Colombia. Twenty of the twenty-seven phyla alive today, of both soft bodied and hard bodied organisms, were found in a state of extraordinary preservation. But of the more than 65,000 specimens collected by Doolittle and his team, the mystery of the missing precursor fossils only deepened. As Meyer states, “The problem of the Burgess shale is not the increase in complexity, but the sudden quantum leap of complexity, the jump from the simpler Precambrian organisms to the radically different Cambrian forms.” A similar paleontological find in China in 1995, which eclipsed the Burgess shale for its astonishing preservation of fossils told a similar story establishing that Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously thought. Many paleontologists still held out hope that precursor fossils would be found. For example, Walcott argued that the ancestral organisms were missing because the Precambrian fossils evolved in the early seas and only after the seas rose and covered the land in Cambrian times were the remains of these specimens found on the continents. Since that time, deep-sea drillings have failed to reveal any fossils predating the Jurassic period because oceanic crust plunges under the continents and is recycled in the molten mantel destroying any fossil records. The lack of sea sediment fossils should not pose a problem however because both soft-bodied and hard-bodied fossils have been preserved in the fossil record in the oldest rocks in western Australia, and these Precambrian organisms, lacking a head, mouth, bilateral symmetry, a gut, and sense organs bear no resemblance to Cambrian animals. Even fish and chordates thought to have appeared only later in Ordovician and Devonian times have been found in the Cambrian fossil record. The iconic trilobite of Cambrian times looks very similar to trilobites found in Devonian times 300 million years later. Where is the gradual change? Where are the early precursor fossils leading up to the complex chordates, fish, and trilobites? And why, as the great Swiss-born paleontologist Louis Agassiz wondered, is the fossil record incomplete at the supposed branching junctions between simpler organisms and newer more complex organisms but nowhere else? Could it be that these intermediate specimens never existed in the first place? In 1966 a group of mathematicians, engineers, and scientists who were not convinced that random mutation could account for the complexity of organisms convened a conference at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia. They were well aware of the extreme improbabilities that the four biochemical bases A, T, G, and C, acting as digital code, could randomly rearrange themselves over time to produce new viable code for long chains of amino acids that form proteins because they also knew that any random changes of computer code, for example, is much more likely to degrade a program than to improve it. Meyer states: “They realized that, if mutations are truly random—that is, if they were neither directed by intelligence nor influenced by the functional needs of the organism, then the probability of mutation and selection mechanisms ever producing a new gene or program could be vanishingly small.” The only way out of their dilemma, other than invoking intelligent design, was to propose the hypothesis that many different proteins might be able to perform the same functions. However, since that time, experimental work has shown that the chance of randomly selected amino acids making a functional protein is 10 raised to the power of 77—In other words, so unlikely that the chance that this could happen for all intents and purposes is zero! An even larger challenge to the idea of random genetic mutational change producing functional body plans comes from the emerging field of epigenetics. Information in the nonprotein coding regions of the genome and on the surface of the cell membrane in the form of sugar molecules regulate the expression of genes in various tissues of the body and control the timing and regulation of a hierarchical network of genes during embryonic development. Because one gene can affect many genes in a hierarchical regulatory network of genes during the early development of an embryo, any mutation in a gene would be catastrophic for an organism, making it unviable. Yet ironically, only mutations expressed early in the development of an organism, can produce large-scale evolutionary changes that are evident in the organisms of the Cambrian explosion. This suggests that epigenetic programs are inherited but static and resistant to genetic mutation. Other attempts to explain the Cambrian explosion such as punctuated equilibrium, self-organization, nonadaptive evolution, and epigenetic inheritance, have been dismal explanatory failures. Meyer says, “Intelligent agency is the only cause known to be capable of generating information at least starting from nonliving chemicals. Intelligent design offers the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first organism.” Meyer reiterates that the theory of intelligent design is not a biblical based theory but rather a scientific theory. In my estimation appealing to a creator God only leads to infinite regress when trying to explain such a miraculous entity. We can have design without a designer, I believe, and its source will be realized when we understand the most perplexing problem known to mankind—the puzzle of consciousness. This five-hundred-page book took me a long time to navigate, but it was packed with valuable information. I will never look at my shelves of Devonian and Ordovician fossils, collected over a period of a decade near my home town, in the same light after reading Darwin’s Doubt.

The info in the book is thorough, the breadth of subject material is as wide as time is long. The author presents "traditional science's" support for evolution as the primary progenitor of life on earth, then shows how the more recent info gathered, including the most accurate interpretations of DNA data, to show that it is -far, far, far- beyond any chance of likelihood that life on earth did not started from, and continues to adapt thru, the forces of intelligent design (ID). (And the author does so repeatedly, with the precision of an undefeated prosecuting attorney.) Simply put, while agreeing that Darwin's evolution does in fact make small adaptations in plants & animals over time, the author clarifies that there is no mechanism in evolution alone that can account for the large changes required for a new species to come directly from an existing species. (That's just one of the many aspects of science that counter's Darwin's premiss.) But as a non-scientist, think about it for a minute. If a new species evolved from an older species, by definition, they cannot make babies -that reproduce- together. What animal does this "spontaneously new species" procreate with? There are none of it's kind anywhere else. What miraculous mechanism allows for a new species to spontaneously exist and ALSO to have enough animals similar enough to it to procreate? None. (But if this did happen, it would be better explained by intelligent design than randomness.) After seeing the evidence, and understanding the obstacles to the world we live in coming about from solely "random" changes and events, any reasonable mind must conclude, with scientific rigor and rationale, that nothing but ID could account for the universe we live in, and the fine-tuned evidence in front of us every minute. To deny what "science" considers "all the 'anecdotal evidence' we experience every minute of every day" as invalid info is totally absurd. (Unless that's evolution trying to make a blind, totally ignorant "scientist".) Any attempts I have seen (and I've looked far and wide for any with valid scientific teeth) that try still to deny the evidence and logic of Darwin's Doubt, no longer stands on the foundation of science. Instead they fall away as personal beliefs held close because of a lifetime's investment in the belief that there can be no ID simply because "science" can not allow the idea of "God" a foothold in reality. I suppose, given what the Catholic church did to scientists (killed some for the accusation of blasphemy), and thus science, for a thousand years or so, who can blame today's "protectors of science" for being a bit paranoid? But the sad (and ironic) truth is "science" of today is as much of a belief system as any religion is. And when "scientists" refuse to consider the most valid, logical, scientifically researched data and interpretations, they are no longer engaged in the scientific process. As a quick (and usually reverse-less) result, they spontaneously exclude themselves from being considered scientists. There is no valid theory on the table today that can reasonably, scientifically, logically, refute the premiss of Darwin's Doubt. Darwin himself knew when he wrote his books, that the evidence for his premiss was not known, and that future research MIGHT support it. Turns out, the evidence not only does not support Darwin's theory, it clearly refutes it. In all honesty, that it managed to be perpetuated for 150 years by "science" is a bit embarrassing, since a short round of common sense discussion of a few major points by fairly intelligent people would easily show the mechanisms of evolution cannot possible create new successful species. "Science" argues back against Darwin's Doubt, not thru more likely logic, or valid data, but only thru emotional attachment to their history of supporting "a possibly good idea but based on no actual existing evidence". (And that it, coincidentally, kept ID out of the conversation.) One wonders, since Darwin's theory turned out to be incorrect, how long scientists will retard the growth of our true understanding of reality by ignoring the best info available at this time. And I wonder specifically, if Mr. Richard Dawkins, having been informed of this new info, will have the presence of a scientist to accept the new data as more likely correct, even if the next deduction to wrestle with is that intelligent design is the force behind the world we live in. Also ironic is the fact that every thing about science, including the time-honored system of deducing facts thru "The Scientific Method" exists only because of "intelligent design". Every idea, every step, every conclusion, is all a very direct result of controlling as much as possible to achieve a certain result. How could this in and of itself not be one very accurate definition of "intelligent design"? And yet these geniuses would have us believe that the complete universe, including every aspect of humanity (except, of course, their highly regarded religion -science), is a product of random events with no correlation to other events, past or future. How bizarre. Looking from outside in, I can see the silliness of such an idea. However, if I were a scientist entrenched in the religion of science, including the costs of college education, an income I depend on to raise a family, and the apparent oath they have all taken to support science and refute any chance of ID (it's in the book, really), I can see how hard it would be to accept that they may have made poor choices investing in a system that talks of finding truth; but when it shines thru, denies it at any expense. Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist and Nobel winner said a scientist must do -and present- their work such that they don't fool anyone, and they "themselves are the easiest to fool". (He also said a good scientist publicizes his work even when it does NOT bring the results hoped for, in another facet of "honesty". We seemed to have slipped by that need for truth in information.) Enough about scientists fooling themselves. Darwin's Doubt is just one recent example of that phenomenon. The book itself if a bit like reading a lengthy court case. Dr. Meyers presents science's old defense, witness after witness, and then proceeds to apply the newest data to it and show Darwin's original premiss as poorly mistaken. Take from it what you will (possibly it will be consistent with your previous beliefs), but the fact is Darwin never actually presented a "theory". In science a "theory" is one that is supported by many -valid, honest- peer reviewed research studies, and often dozens or hundreds of years of observation. Like, "gravity" is a pretty good theory, since hundreds of years of observation have been consistent with it's premiss. (Although Einstein's theories tweaked it somewhat.) Darwin's idea was never anything more than a premiss. An idea supported by the hope of future evidence. (His theory depended on the fossil record eventually unearthing fossils of "the missing evidence"; it had not up to the time of his death -or any time after that.) Darwin's idea was never supported by enough actual factual info to make it widely accepted as true. It was, possibly, the best idea at that moment in time. (And the reason it had such good traction is it gave "science" a platform to deny any existence of it's nemesis, ID.) As we all know, the PR campaign to perpetuate Darwin's idea was very convincing. However it turns out to be a huge mis-step for those selling science. Now science is stumbling under the pressure of recoil of that -ongoing- blunder.) How and when it will come clean is the only mystery left to solve in the wake of Darwin's Doubt. But don't take my word for it. You must be a fairly intelligent person to care to have read this far. You'll of course need to know the facts for yourself. Enjoy the book.

Liked and loved reading it and studying it. A must-read for every human being.

It has taken me quite a long time to read this book (all 413 pages, excluding reference material), but it was worth the perseverance! Not because the book was badly written, on the contrary, I found it superbly written - and very stimulating... The perseverance was associated with looking up the substantial amount of notes, bibliography and other allied documentation. Somewhat like his previous book, `Signature in the Cell', Stephen Meyer has presented us with a `milestone' book i.e. one which, in my opinion, substantially places `Intelligent Design' on the scientific `map'. The book is very well set out; in three main parts, with a logical series of chapters making up each part. Part one - "The Mystery of the Missing Fossils" Stephen Meyer gives a good historical background to Charles Darwin's book, `On the Origin of Species'; he even calls it a "singular achievement"..., but he swiftly moves on to describe the main problem facing Darwin's hypothesis, namely, the `Cambrian Explosion'. Meyer also spends time introducing contemporaries of Darwin, such as Agassiz and Sedgwick (both of whom were, respectfully, leading palaeontologist and geologist of the day). They had serious doubts about Darwin's proposition of the abrupt appearance of the Cambrian creatures. Darwin proposed that the geological record was "a history of the world imperfectly kept" rather than anything seriously wrong with his theory, but Agassiz and Sedgwick would have none of it. As expected, the Burgess Shale is given its own chapter, with good historical coverage of Charles Doolittle Walcott, the discoverer, also director of the Smithsonian Institution. Sketches of the fossilised creatures are excellent, with good explanations about morphological diversity and various family trees. There is a very good chapter dealing with `punctuated equilibrium', the proposal by Eldredge and Gould to explain the systematic `gaps' in the fossil record, where, according to neo-Darwinian theory, there ought to be a continuum of transitional forms leading from one body plan to another. Meyer explains fully why "punk eek" fails as an explanatory proposal for the origin of complex creatures found within the fossil record. All of the supportive diagrammatic sketches that Meyer includes, within his text, are superbly produced and very easy to understand. This applies throughout the book. Part two - "How to Build an Animal" This part is principally about biological information, and in this respect, there is an overlap with Stephen Meyer's first book `Signature in the Cell.' There is a short explanation of Shannon information, and how this differs from functional information (or specified information) found in living organisms. Meyer waxes lyrical about the contribution made by Murray Eden in respect of the "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution". Murray had pointed out that "the combinatorial space corresponding to an average-length protein"... is about 10 to the power 325 "possible amino-acid arrangements. Did the mutation and selection mechanism have enough time - since the beginning of the universe itself - to generate even a small fraction of the total number of possible amino-acid sequences corresponding to a single functional protein of that length? For Eden, the answer was clearly no." This was in the 1960's - but according to Meyer, the `mathematical challenge' has been an issue that has not been satisfactorily resolved ever since. He spends a substantial amount of space justifying this position through the work of Douglas Axe, who in the late 1980s examined the then accepted work of Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker, in which Dawkins used a computer programme to illustrate how natural selection could "generate the Shakespearean phrase: "Me thinks it is like a weasel."" Intelligence was found to pervade this kind of `evidence' to prop up the Neo-Darwinian model... Meyer goes on to build on his case that the mathematical challenges have remained un-bridged throughout "the various experiments and calculations performed between 2004 and 2011." Although Meyer makes a substantial case here, he is too reliant upon the work of too few specialists, in my opinion. Meyer's section on "Developmental Gene Regulatory Networks" was particularly interesting - and helped to introduce even greater complexity issues in the origin of body plans etc... Likewise, the section on "the Epigenetic Revolution." Part three - "After Darwin, What?" In this final section, Meyer takes on the post-Darwinian world - and theories of self-organisation, such as the work of Stuart Kauffman and Stuart Newman. Cutting to the chase, Meyer pus it like this: "what needs to be explained in living systems is not mainly order in the sense of simple repetitive or geometric patterns. Instead, what requires explanation is the adaptive complexity and the information, genetic and epigenetic, necessary to build it." (pg. 305). He makes a strong case in justifying this statement! In like manner, Meyer presents a robust summary of his issues with "evo-devo" and "Lamarckian mechanisms." All of the foregoing builds a strong case to support his final four chapters: "The Possibility of Intelligent Design", "Signs of Design in the Cambrian Explosion", "The Rules of Science" and finally "What's at Stake".... Meyer spends some time telling "My Story", which explains his initial interest in intelligent design through to holding robust scientific reasons for his belief in "indicators that make intelligent design scientifically detectable from the evidence of the living world." All in all, this book is far from some form of simplistic `biblical creationism', as suggested by other reviewers, but, in my view, a logically and soundly argued piece of scientific research, which draws conclusions toward an `inference to the best explanation.' Coupled with his former book `Signature in the Cell', Meyer makes the strongest case yet for `intelligent design' - and places it squarely within the scientific domain. To reject it as pseudo-science would be blind prejudice - and damaging to science in the long term, simply because ID makes testable predictions. Examples of these are given in this section! This is how Meyer concludes his book: "The theory of intelligent design is not based upon religious belief, nor does it provide a proof for the existence of God. But it does have faith-affirming implications precisely because it suggests the design we observe in the natural world is real, just as a traditional theistic view of the world would lead us to expect. Of course, that by itself is not a reason to accept the theory. But having accepted it for other reasons, it may be a reason to find it important." In other respects, the book has been beautifully produced by HarperOne, is superbly illustrated and documented - with some nice colour plates of fossils to boot! I heartily recommend this excellent book!!

You may or may not agree with the intelligent design hypothesis advocated by Mr.Meyer, a theory that, according to him, best explains the appearance and evolution of life on earth. But it is undeniable that the author of Darwin’s Doubt poses a brilliant strategy, and becomes a formidable adversary in rebutting, and in many cases making Darwinist orthodoxy looks silly. The arguments he develops, backed largely by scientific evidence, are in many cases overwhelming, devastating for the adversary; and although he uses them in a kind and polite way, they are actually lethal blows that try to do as much damage as possible. There is no other option when you face the mainstream evolution theory which has become some kind of religion. I personally disagree with Darwin and his many followers, but I also don’t think that the powerful and appealing hypothesis of intelligent design should be adopted as a winner as long as it can limit or hinder subsequent and necessary researchs. It seems like the most obvious solution though.

Une argumentation claire, rigoureuse et documentée. Excellent livre !

I loved this book. The writing is very clear and the author doesn't talk down to his audience at all. Rather, his goal is evidently to ensure that readers can grasp the science and significance of what he is saying. I loved the chapters dealing with the probabilities of random mutation producing macroevolutionary changes, dGRN's and how that highlights the difficulty of macroevolutionary changes occurring, the difference between mere order (in Chemistry & Physics) and specified complexity in Biology and lastly his walking us through how Intelligent Design is easily reconciled as a true Scientific Theory (despite the subjective & unprovable a priori assumption of materialists who would have us believe otherwise). Meyer's central thesis is that, due to the indisputably short time frame for the Cambrian explosion (a blink of the eye in the earth's history), only intelligence is capable of producing such innovation. It doesn't appeal to evolutionary stories about how it must've been possible because it happened (the universe doesn't have the probabilistic resources to support such a view - as he shows). He uses a legitimate mode of scientific reasoning used in the historical sciences - reasoning from multiple competing hypothesis - he makes an inference to the best explanation. In our every day experience it is only intelligence that has the ability to produce large scale structural innovation. In fact he shows that it is highly improbable and therefore physically impossible that a random process could've produced what took place in the Cambrian explosion. Irrespective of whether you chose to accept it or not due to what is fundamentally your own personal bias, these facts stand. This book deserves my highest recommendation! It's cuts through all the nonsense materialists want us to uncritically gobble up.