I have not read this book in its entirety so it would be inappropriate and presumptious to assign a rating. I was asked to review specific chapters by a church friend who, having read it, wanted a second opinion. The text copied from my e-mail reply to him summarises my reaction and thoughts on the limited parts I read.
"Guttman is very outspoken and adopts a mocking tone toward those Christian forces so strong in the US that promote creationism and reject evolution. One gets the feeling that his tone may have resulted from uncharitable treatment he himself might have received.
The probability arguments do not satisfy me. He is basically saying that, although the probability is vanishingly small, it is theoretically possible. Hence, step two of his argument is that because we see the complex world around us it must mean that, despite being vanishing small, it is the way it occurred. This view, called by Dawkins, a ‘cummulative’ process seems to me to also be a faith statement.
He additionally recognises that genetic systems demonstrate the ability to move to more complexity but invokes that wonderfully ability to have produced the ability.
Bizarrely, in the traditional monkey/Shakespeare example, he has to invoke some guided process to select particular monkeys to make it work. He has an outside agent selecting a promising primate.
The section on entropy is also unsatisfying for he confirms that closed systems must move to increased entropy and recognises that biological systems decrease entropy locally by drawing on solar energy and the sun’s increasing entropy. He cannot get round the entropy issues without drawing on his unproven probability issues that produce genetic structures.
Even his tidying up the room illustration requires some form of external director but you cannot have an external director in a closed system. He maintains that we are in a closed system.
Overall, I find his arguments unconvincing. He can legitimately (and must as a responsible scientist) probe the ‘how’ but I cannot see how he can claim it is proven. I think he is left, like me, with the inescapable and wonderful reality around him. He must ask how and he must look in awe. (Dawkins would support this.) Neither he nor Creationists are, in my view, in a position to be dogmatic.
Also, ironically, I have more sympathy with his view than the statements of Creationists for his view does not exclude the possibility that God might have done it that way. To me Creationists are misrepresenting God.
Final thought, he is writing from the US context and I suspect it understandably contributes to the vehemence of his views."