What do you think?
Rate this book
The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design
The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design By Stephen C. Meyer
Paperback
First published June 18, 2013
976 people are currently reading
5077 people want to read
About the author
Stephen C. Meyer
32 books438 followersThere is more than one author with this name in the database.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. In 2004, Meyer ignited a firestorm of media and scientific controversy when a biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published his peer-reviewed scientific article advancing intelligent design. Meyer has been featured on national television and radio programs, including The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CBS’s Sunday Morning, NBC’s Nightly News, ABC’s World News, Good Morning America, Nightline, FOX News Live, and the Tavis Smiley Show on PBS. He has also been featured in two New York Times front-page stories and has garnered attention in other top-national media.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. In 2004, Meyer ignited a firestorm of media and scientific controversy when a biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published his peer-reviewed scientific article advancing intelligent design. Meyer has been featured on national television and radio programs, including The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CBS’s Sunday Morning, NBC’s Nightly News, ABC’s World News, Good Morning America, Nightline, FOX News Live, and the Tavis Smiley Show on PBS. He has also been featured in two New York Times front-page stories and has garnered attention in other top-national media.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 250 reviews
June 24, 2013
An Abysmal Effort in Lying and Distorting Cambrian Paleobiology Courtesy of Stephen Meyer
Should I feel sorry for Stephen Meyer? For years he and his fellow Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers have insisted that they’ve been persecuted by “Darwinists”, and that their research has been banned from publication in notable, prestigious scientific journals like Paleobiology, Evolution, American Naturalist, Cladistics, Genetics, and many, many others. However, the sad, but true, fact remains that neither Meyer nor his “colleagues” have demonstrated how Intelligent Design creationism could be a better scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory (which has at its core the Darwin – Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection), content instead to pointing out the problems with “Darwinism”, while ignoring the observation made in 2006 by retired Berkeley law school professor Philip Johnson – widely viewed as the “godfather” of Intelligent Design for writing “Darwin on Trial” – that there is not yet a scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Nor will there ever be a valid scientific theory of Intelligent Design creationism given its lack of rigorous scientific research and relying on a thin threshold of proof for which there is much better evidence for the existence of Klingons and my friend Lev Grossman’s magical realm of Fillory in his widely acclaimed novels “The Magicians” and “The Magician King”. Instead, Meyer and his colleagues often engage in quote mining of the kind that another reviewer has noted with regards to Stephen Jay Gould’s famous 1980 quote regarding the “death” of the Modern Synthesis Theory (contemporary evolutionary theory) developed by such legendary figures in 20th Century biology like Gould’s Harvard colleague Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky, R. A. Fisher, Julian Huxley and others. Meyer and his colleagues often engage in viciously attacking their critics, including yours truly, not by producing publishable peer-reviewed scientific research that would demonstrate their contention that Intelligent Design is “science”.
The only area of agreement I might have with Stephen Meyer, who, like yours truly, has a background in geology, is that the “Cambrian Explosion” is noteworthy for the brand new appearance of metazoan body plans, including such weird organisms as the key predator of the Burgess Shale Fauna, the primitive arthropod Anomalocaris. However, I would disagree with him that this was indeed an “explosion”, especially when others, like my friend Donald Prothero in his book “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters”, have argued persuasively that it should be viewed as a “Cambrian Slow Fuse”, since the “rapid, sudden appearance” of metazoans occurred over a span of time approximately as long as the current Cenozoic Era; in plain English, approximately 60 million years. Far more noteworthy is the subsequent “Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event” which was discovered by one of Gould’s former students, Jack Sepkoski, when he noted back in 1980 that there were three great “evolutionary faunas” present in the Phanerozoic marine fossil record (the interval of geological time from the beginning of the Cambrian to the present) and that there was a substantially higher rate of diversification (origination) of taxa than during the so-called “Cambrian Explosion”.
To quote from the Wikipedia article on the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event (GOBE):
“If the Cambrian Explosion is thought of as producing the modern phyla, the GOBE can be considered as the 'filling out' of these phyla with the modern (and many extinct) classes and lower-level taxa.”
“Taxonomic diversity increased manifold; the total number of marine orders doubled, and families tripled. In addition to a diversification, the event also marked an increase in the complexity of both organisms and food webs. Taxa begun to have localized ranges, with different faunas at different parts of the globe. Communities in reefs and deeper water begun to take on a character of their own, becoming more clearly distinct from other marine ecosystems. And as ecosystems became more diverse, with more species being squeezed in to the food web, a more complex tangle of ecological interactions resulted, promoting strategies such as ecological tiering. The global fauna that emerged during the GOBE went on to be remarkably stable until the catastrophic end-Permian extinction and the ensuing Mesozoic Marine Revolution.”
Claiming to be a “student” of the “Cambrian Explosion”, Meyer has ignored the substantial research on it and the succeeding GOBE that has been done by paleobiologists, evolutionary developmental biologists and ecologists since the publication of Jack Sepkoski’s paper. Instead, as Meyer did in his prior book “Signature in the Cell”, he has published another “…intellectual exercise in smoke and mirrors, aimed at an audience which is either sympathetic to the preposterous claims made by Meyer and his colleagues at the Seattle, WA-based Discovery Institute… or so impressed with Meyer’s condescending comments about the flaws in ‘Neo – Darwinian’ thought that he must of course be absolutely right.” (I am quoting from my prior Amazon review of “Signature in the Cell” here.) What Meyer has done here could be described charitably as an exercise in promoting a “dead science” – to use the term that eminent philosopher of science Philip Kitcher has described Intelligent Design in his book – though I would prefer describing it as yet another pathetic exercise in promoting religiously-inspired pseudoscientific mendacious intellectual pornography of the kind which Meyer and his Discovery Institute colleagues have become so proficient in ever since the Discovery Institute was established back in the mid 1990s.
Potential readers should ignore the favorable blurbs given by the likes of commercial fiction author Dean Koontz, Harvard geneticist George Church and other distinguished biologists, since none of them have published substantially – if at all – in the scientific literature pertaining to paleobiology and other, related, aspects of evolutionary biology. Nor should they heed the favorable appraisal by invertebrate paleobiologist Mark McMenamin who expresses a view shared only by himself, not by other paleobiologists currently active or those who are not (such as yours truly). As Paul Burnett has noted, this is a book that is ultimately about religion, not science, since it is published by HarperOne, the religious imprint of HarperCollins. Those who wish to understand the valid science distorted by Meyer would be better off reading any of the books written by invertebrate paleobiologist Richard Fortey, vertebrate paleobiologist Donald Prothero or evolutionary developmental biologist Sean B. Carroll. Once more Meyer has written a book that should be viewed as the worst book about science published this year, and one that relies on reasoning that would substantiate the existence of Klingons and the magical realm of Fillory, not the “scientific reality” of Intelligent Design creationism itself.
Should I feel sorry for Stephen Meyer? For years he and his fellow Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers have insisted that they’ve been persecuted by “Darwinists”, and that their research has been banned from publication in notable, prestigious scientific journals like Paleobiology, Evolution, American Naturalist, Cladistics, Genetics, and many, many others. However, the sad, but true, fact remains that neither Meyer nor his “colleagues” have demonstrated how Intelligent Design creationism could be a better scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory (which has at its core the Darwin – Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection), content instead to pointing out the problems with “Darwinism”, while ignoring the observation made in 2006 by retired Berkeley law school professor Philip Johnson – widely viewed as the “godfather” of Intelligent Design for writing “Darwin on Trial” – that there is not yet a scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Nor will there ever be a valid scientific theory of Intelligent Design creationism given its lack of rigorous scientific research and relying on a thin threshold of proof for which there is much better evidence for the existence of Klingons and my friend Lev Grossman’s magical realm of Fillory in his widely acclaimed novels “The Magicians” and “The Magician King”. Instead, Meyer and his colleagues often engage in quote mining of the kind that another reviewer has noted with regards to Stephen Jay Gould’s famous 1980 quote regarding the “death” of the Modern Synthesis Theory (contemporary evolutionary theory) developed by such legendary figures in 20th Century biology like Gould’s Harvard colleague Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky, R. A. Fisher, Julian Huxley and others. Meyer and his colleagues often engage in viciously attacking their critics, including yours truly, not by producing publishable peer-reviewed scientific research that would demonstrate their contention that Intelligent Design is “science”.
The only area of agreement I might have with Stephen Meyer, who, like yours truly, has a background in geology, is that the “Cambrian Explosion” is noteworthy for the brand new appearance of metazoan body plans, including such weird organisms as the key predator of the Burgess Shale Fauna, the primitive arthropod Anomalocaris. However, I would disagree with him that this was indeed an “explosion”, especially when others, like my friend Donald Prothero in his book “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters”, have argued persuasively that it should be viewed as a “Cambrian Slow Fuse”, since the “rapid, sudden appearance” of metazoans occurred over a span of time approximately as long as the current Cenozoic Era; in plain English, approximately 60 million years. Far more noteworthy is the subsequent “Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event” which was discovered by one of Gould’s former students, Jack Sepkoski, when he noted back in 1980 that there were three great “evolutionary faunas” present in the Phanerozoic marine fossil record (the interval of geological time from the beginning of the Cambrian to the present) and that there was a substantially higher rate of diversification (origination) of taxa than during the so-called “Cambrian Explosion”.
To quote from the Wikipedia article on the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event (GOBE):
“If the Cambrian Explosion is thought of as producing the modern phyla, the GOBE can be considered as the 'filling out' of these phyla with the modern (and many extinct) classes and lower-level taxa.”
“Taxonomic diversity increased manifold; the total number of marine orders doubled, and families tripled. In addition to a diversification, the event also marked an increase in the complexity of both organisms and food webs. Taxa begun to have localized ranges, with different faunas at different parts of the globe. Communities in reefs and deeper water begun to take on a character of their own, becoming more clearly distinct from other marine ecosystems. And as ecosystems became more diverse, with more species being squeezed in to the food web, a more complex tangle of ecological interactions resulted, promoting strategies such as ecological tiering. The global fauna that emerged during the GOBE went on to be remarkably stable until the catastrophic end-Permian extinction and the ensuing Mesozoic Marine Revolution.”
Claiming to be a “student” of the “Cambrian Explosion”, Meyer has ignored the substantial research on it and the succeeding GOBE that has been done by paleobiologists, evolutionary developmental biologists and ecologists since the publication of Jack Sepkoski’s paper. Instead, as Meyer did in his prior book “Signature in the Cell”, he has published another “…intellectual exercise in smoke and mirrors, aimed at an audience which is either sympathetic to the preposterous claims made by Meyer and his colleagues at the Seattle, WA-based Discovery Institute… or so impressed with Meyer’s condescending comments about the flaws in ‘Neo – Darwinian’ thought that he must of course be absolutely right.” (I am quoting from my prior Amazon review of “Signature in the Cell” here.) What Meyer has done here could be described charitably as an exercise in promoting a “dead science” – to use the term that eminent philosopher of science Philip Kitcher has described Intelligent Design in his book – though I would prefer describing it as yet another pathetic exercise in promoting religiously-inspired pseudoscientific mendacious intellectual pornography of the kind which Meyer and his Discovery Institute colleagues have become so proficient in ever since the Discovery Institute was established back in the mid 1990s.
Potential readers should ignore the favorable blurbs given by the likes of commercial fiction author Dean Koontz, Harvard geneticist George Church and other distinguished biologists, since none of them have published substantially – if at all – in the scientific literature pertaining to paleobiology and other, related, aspects of evolutionary biology. Nor should they heed the favorable appraisal by invertebrate paleobiologist Mark McMenamin who expresses a view shared only by himself, not by other paleobiologists currently active or those who are not (such as yours truly). As Paul Burnett has noted, this is a book that is ultimately about religion, not science, since it is published by HarperOne, the religious imprint of HarperCollins. Those who wish to understand the valid science distorted by Meyer would be better off reading any of the books written by invertebrate paleobiologist Richard Fortey, vertebrate paleobiologist Donald Prothero or evolutionary developmental biologist Sean B. Carroll. Once more Meyer has written a book that should be viewed as the worst book about science published this year, and one that relies on reasoning that would substantiate the existence of Klingons and the magical realm of Fillory, not the “scientific reality” of Intelligent Design creationism itself.
August 10, 2016
CRITICAL ACCLAIM:
“Meyer writes beautifully. He marshals complex information as well as any writer I’ve read... a wonderful, most compelling read.” — Dean Koontz
“It’s hard for us paleontologists to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably... Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer.”
— Dr. Mark McMenamin, paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and coauthor of The Emergence of Animals
“A tour de force... This book is well informed, carefully researched, up-to-date and powerfully argued... I recommend it to students of all levels, to professionals and to laypeople.”
— Dr. Norman C. Nevin, Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen's University, Belfast
“A truly remarkable book.”
— Dr. Mark Biedebach, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach
“Darwin’s Doubt is by far the most up-to-date, accurate, and comprehensive review of the evidence from all relevant scientific fields that I have encountered in more than forty years of studying the Cambrian explosion.”
— Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, senior scientist emeritus (biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research
“Meyer demonstrates, based on cutting-edge molecular biology, why explaining the origin of animals is now not just a problem of missing fossils, but an even greater engineering problem at the molecular level... An excellent book and a must read.”
— Dr. Russell Carlson, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Georgia and technical director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center
“An intriguing exploration of one of the most remarkable periods in the evolutionary history of life... No matter what convictions one holds about evolution, Darwinism, or intelligent design, Darwin’s Doubt is a book that should be read, engaged and discussed.”
— Dr. Scott Turner, professor of biology at the State University of New York and author of The Tinkerer's Accomplice
“Stephen Meyer has masterfully laid out one of the most compelling lines of evidence for intelligent design.”
—Dr. William S. Harris, Professor, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota
“Darwin’s Doubt is another excellent book by Stephen Meyer.”
—Dr. Stuart Burgess, Professor of Design and Nature, Head of Mechanical Engineering at Bristol University
“Meyer is a talented writer with an easygoing voice who has blended interesting history with clear explanations in what may come to be seen as a classic presentation of this most fundamental of all debates.” — New Oxford Review
“Meyer writes beautifully. He marshals complex information as well as any writer I’ve read... a wonderful, most compelling read.” — Dean Koontz
“It’s hard for us paleontologists to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably... Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer.”
— Dr. Mark McMenamin, paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and coauthor of The Emergence of Animals
“A tour de force... This book is well informed, carefully researched, up-to-date and powerfully argued... I recommend it to students of all levels, to professionals and to laypeople.”
— Dr. Norman C. Nevin, Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen's University, Belfast
“A truly remarkable book.”
— Dr. Mark Biedebach, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach
“Darwin’s Doubt is by far the most up-to-date, accurate, and comprehensive review of the evidence from all relevant scientific fields that I have encountered in more than forty years of studying the Cambrian explosion.”
— Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, senior scientist emeritus (biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research
“Meyer demonstrates, based on cutting-edge molecular biology, why explaining the origin of animals is now not just a problem of missing fossils, but an even greater engineering problem at the molecular level... An excellent book and a must read.”
— Dr. Russell Carlson, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Georgia and technical director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center
“An intriguing exploration of one of the most remarkable periods in the evolutionary history of life... No matter what convictions one holds about evolution, Darwinism, or intelligent design, Darwin’s Doubt is a book that should be read, engaged and discussed.”
— Dr. Scott Turner, professor of biology at the State University of New York and author of The Tinkerer's Accomplice
“Stephen Meyer has masterfully laid out one of the most compelling lines of evidence for intelligent design.”
—Dr. William S. Harris, Professor, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota
“Darwin’s Doubt is another excellent book by Stephen Meyer.”
—Dr. Stuart Burgess, Professor of Design and Nature, Head of Mechanical Engineering at Bristol University
“Meyer is a talented writer with an easygoing voice who has blended interesting history with clear explanations in what may come to be seen as a classic presentation of this most fundamental of all debates.” — New Oxford Review
July 28, 2013
The book, 'Darwin's Doubt', by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer is written as a follow-up to his popular book that he released in 2009 titled, 'Signature in the Cell'. As he laid out in the prologue of his book, this book was written as a response to the critics of his first book, which mistakenly judged his first book as if his book was written with the intention of making a full-blown refutation of Neo-Darwinism. 'Signature in the Cell' was a book discussing the first life and the subsequent chemical evolutionary processes that best explained it. This book is oriented towards critiquing Darwinism, and it is exceptionally well documented, objectively communicated, and most of all, addresses the genuine concerns of the validity of Darwinism (primarily the inadequacy of the fossil record). Along with critiquing Darwinism's shortcomings, Meyer beautifully constructs a positive case for Intelligent Design (ID).
As many of us have heard over the years, ID generally gets discredited in the public eye because the media is 'in bed' with the scientific elitist groups that supposedly promote the 'advancement of science' . If 'advancing science' were the goal of Darwinism advocates, it can be assured that honest critiques of Darwinism would be acceptable in the public eye by scientists like Dr. Stephen Meyer. As of this writing, critiques of Darwinism are sparsely tolerated because Americans have been taught not to question the scientific status quo of Darwinism at risk of losing all scientific credibility (reference Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"). Despite the risk of losing his scientific credibility in the public eye and in academic circles, Meyer has continued to ask the hard questions and promote the true spirit of science while most of his fellow colleagues in the 'scientific elite' fail to muster the courage to express their concerns publicly. I deeply admire Stephen Meyer for continuously releasing scholarly material that truthfully challenges not only the misguided ideologies but the methodological naturalism as well.
As many of us have heard over the years, ID generally gets discredited in the public eye because the media is 'in bed' with the scientific elitist groups that supposedly promote the 'advancement of science' . If 'advancing science' were the goal of Darwinism advocates, it can be assured that honest critiques of Darwinism would be acceptable in the public eye by scientists like Dr. Stephen Meyer. As of this writing, critiques of Darwinism are sparsely tolerated because Americans have been taught not to question the scientific status quo of Darwinism at risk of losing all scientific credibility (reference Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"). Despite the risk of losing his scientific credibility in the public eye and in academic circles, Meyer has continued to ask the hard questions and promote the true spirit of science while most of his fellow colleagues in the 'scientific elite' fail to muster the courage to express their concerns publicly. I deeply admire Stephen Meyer for continuously releasing scholarly material that truthfully challenges not only the misguided ideologies but the methodological naturalism as well.
July 17, 2013
Meyer does an excellent job in explaining his point. It is clear that Neo- Darwinism is a faith system built on the mathematically impossible. That it remains scientific orthodoxy is a testimony to the level of bullying used to keep doubters in line and nothing else
December 31, 2013
First of all, I have read the entire book. All of it. From reading other "reviews," I can see that not everyone has read the entirety of the book.
Second, for a detailed view of this book and Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True, go here: http://brianjameswatson.wordpress.com....
In this book, Meyer addresses something that troubled Darwin: he knew that the fossil record did not match his evolutionary "tree of life." He assumed that future discoveries would vindicate his theory. Meyer shows that impressive fossil records in British Columbia and in China have not produced a fossil record that matches a Darwinian view of evolution. Instead, the "Cambrian explosion" shows an emergence of many different phyla within a relatively short amount of time, something you wouldn't predict with Darwin's theory.
Meyer also addresses neo-Darwinism, particularly the idea that genetic mutations can produce large-scale evolution, such as new body plans. He shows that the chance of genetic mutations producing functioning proteins (which are needed to produce new cell types, which are needed for new body plans) is extremely small.
He also examines epigenetic information (information outside of DNA), which is an integral part of cellular life.
The main thrust of the book is that all living things require specified information (found both in and outside of genes). Specified information does not come from chance, from blind, unguided processes. Rather, we know that specified information comes from intelligent agents. It is therefore reasonable to assume that all of life has come from an ultimate Intelligence. This book stops short of being a work of theology. It is not a "God did it" book. It is a work of science. The model of science employed by Meyer is the same as that of Darwin and his successors: historical science, which uses abductive reasoning.
Of course, since this a controversial book, it will have its detractors. It is best to read the book with an open mind to see its strengths.
My only criticism of the book is that it could have used a glossary for technical terms, to help out the average reader.
Second, for a detailed view of this book and Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True, go here: http://brianjameswatson.wordpress.com....
In this book, Meyer addresses something that troubled Darwin: he knew that the fossil record did not match his evolutionary "tree of life." He assumed that future discoveries would vindicate his theory. Meyer shows that impressive fossil records in British Columbia and in China have not produced a fossil record that matches a Darwinian view of evolution. Instead, the "Cambrian explosion" shows an emergence of many different phyla within a relatively short amount of time, something you wouldn't predict with Darwin's theory.
Meyer also addresses neo-Darwinism, particularly the idea that genetic mutations can produce large-scale evolution, such as new body plans. He shows that the chance of genetic mutations producing functioning proteins (which are needed to produce new cell types, which are needed for new body plans) is extremely small.
He also examines epigenetic information (information outside of DNA), which is an integral part of cellular life.
The main thrust of the book is that all living things require specified information (found both in and outside of genes). Specified information does not come from chance, from blind, unguided processes. Rather, we know that specified information comes from intelligent agents. It is therefore reasonable to assume that all of life has come from an ultimate Intelligence. This book stops short of being a work of theology. It is not a "God did it" book. It is a work of science. The model of science employed by Meyer is the same as that of Darwin and his successors: historical science, which uses abductive reasoning.
Of course, since this a controversial book, it will have its detractors. It is best to read the book with an open mind to see its strengths.
My only criticism of the book is that it could have used a glossary for technical terms, to help out the average reader.
July 14, 2013
This was something of a difficult book to read, as it was incredibly detailed, and the author was definitely not "dumbing it down" at all. It explains, though, one of those scientific conundrums that has plagued the thoughtful for the last 150 years. The particular issue is the explosion of animal life in the Cambrian period, with all of the fossils, which seemingly just appeared.
He very thoroughly goes through the various theories, and finds most of them inadequate, in their ability to explain this emergence of the different animal phyla in so short a period of (geologic) time, and he backs up his statements very carefully.
I don't want to give away his conclusions, but just want to say that this represents a major work, no matter where you personally stand on the issue. Well worth the read, if you have the time.
He very thoroughly goes through the various theories, and finds most of them inadequate, in their ability to explain this emergence of the different animal phyla in so short a period of (geologic) time, and he backs up his statements very carefully.
I don't want to give away his conclusions, but just want to say that this represents a major work, no matter where you personally stand on the issue. Well worth the read, if you have the time.
August 1, 2013
Just finished a cover-to-cover, word-for-word reading of DD. Working on a thorough review, to be posted soon.
Update: Review series in progress at sciencereasonfaith.com :-)
Update: Review series in progress at sciencereasonfaith.com :-)
March 12, 2014
This book was slow going because it was so scientifically technical. Meyer examines fossils, especially those during the Cambrian period, and genetics in great detail. One by one, he show the shortcomings of all the varieties of evolutionary theories: Darwinsim, punctuated equilibrium, neo-Darwinism, and others. Then he offers scientifically based alternative solutions to these shortcomings.
I particularly liked this quotation from evolutionist Richard Lewontin, which glaringly shows an evolutionist's REAL reasons for dismissing intelligent design theory out of hand:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fultill many of its extravagant promises..., in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a COMMITMENT TO MATERIALISM. ...We are forced by our A PRIORI adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialsim is absolute, FOR WE CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR."
Bottom line: evolutionists do not have a scientific reason to refute intelligent design, they simply refuse to believe in any such theory, because evolution IS their God.
Meyer's final chapters succintly show that there is more scientific evidence for intelligent design than there is for any of the evolutionary theories that have been put forth to date.
I particularly liked this quotation from evolutionist Richard Lewontin, which glaringly shows an evolutionist's REAL reasons for dismissing intelligent design theory out of hand:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fultill many of its extravagant promises..., in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a COMMITMENT TO MATERIALISM. ...We are forced by our A PRIORI adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialsim is absolute, FOR WE CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR."
Bottom line: evolutionists do not have a scientific reason to refute intelligent design, they simply refuse to believe in any such theory, because evolution IS their God.
Meyer's final chapters succintly show that there is more scientific evidence for intelligent design than there is for any of the evolutionary theories that have been put forth to date.
August 12, 2024
Note: My review for Darwin's Doubt initially appeared at Amazon and was transferred to Goodreads.
So I've finished reading Darwin's Doubt. I have several issues with Dr. Meyer's argument for Intelligent Design. While the book is extensive and well written it is also misleading, contains misunderstandings, and overall is not well researched. It does not present a balanced view of the debate and leaves out key points potentially damaging to the Intelligent Design argument. The author presents information that supports his view without presenting decenting arguments. I cannot recommend it.
For example, in the first chapter the author goes on at length about the criticism of Darwin's ideas by Harvard University professor Louis Agassiz, specifically concerning Darwin's inability to explain the discontinuity of animal life between the Precambrian and Cambrian. While Agassiz was indeed a great scientist and thinker, but he was by no means the only great scientist and thinker of the time. Others of equal stature such as Asa Gray, Thomas Huxley, Richard Owen, and later Edward Drinker Cope did embrace and support Darwin. Agassiz's criticisms of Darwin may have more to do with ego than science. The author clearly cherry picks this info without giving equal time to other critiques of Darwin's work. He makes it seem as though natural selection was derided from the start which it was not.
Second, while I am not an expert on the Cambrian Radiation Dr. Meyer places a lot of emphasis on fossils from the Burgess Shale and Maotianshan Shale faunas of mid-Cambrian age. Both groups of organisms were quite diverse, but may or may not represent the worldwide state of animal life in the mid-Cambrian. Conversely, fossil assemblages from the Ediacaran period of the late Precambrian appear much less diverse in comparison, yet sedimentary layers of Ediacaran age are few and far between and again the Ediacaran fossils found thus far may not represent the true species disparity and diversity of the late Precambrian. Contrary to what the author states there is still debate in paleontology over this point, yet he downplays this information and makes it seem as though it is a non-issue. Thus, comparing the known mid-Cambrian fossils and Ediacaran fossils may be akin to comparing photos of New York City and Chicago from the present with photos of Nebraska from 100 years ago with New York and Chicago of 100 years ago not represented. An apples and oranges argument. Here again is another example of where information contrary to the author's argument is not presented.
Third, recent studies on rates of evolution in body size and life history traits in fish suggest that these characters evolve much faster than previously thought, usually just within just a few years. Given that the Precambrian and Cambrian species were invertebrates, they may have had much faster rates of evolution than fish, since in invertebrates in general have shorter generation times than fish. This is why insects and other invertebrate pests can evolve resistance to pesticides in a few generations. The author does not mention this anywhere, probably because it runs contrary to his assumption that too little time passed for the mid-Cambrian species to evolve from the Ediacaran fauna. Almost 40 million years (the author argues 5 million years, again cherry-picked info without any contrary positions) pasted between the end of the Precambrian and the time at which the Burgess Shale fossils were preserved, given what we know now there was more than enough time for the Cambrian biota to evolve.
Finally, Dr. Meyer does not address two competing, yet important, hypotheses that have been propounded recently about the origins of life. First, that life may have evolved in thermal vents deep in the Precambrian oceans, and second that life may have first evolved in freshwater environments and later invaded the oceans. Both scenarios are controversial, but if evidence is found to support either one, then the sudden appearance of species in the mid-Cambrian can be easily explained by the fact that the species found in the Burgess Shale and Maotianshan Shale evolved elsewhere and later invaded these marine environments where they thrived and were fossilized. This is essentially a variation of Walcott's Artifact Hypothesis.
Darwin's mechanism of evolution, natural selection, has been refined and modified over the years. We know that natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolutionary change, there are others including genetic drift, assortative mating, and migration. To invoke a designer without exhausting all potential natural explainations is a "leap of faith" indeed. To say that life in Cambrian was designed is akin to saying that Extraterrestrials beings helped the Egyptians build the Pyramids. According to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is usually correct and over 150 years of research into the mechanisms of evolution has build up a strong body of evidence that suggests a natural explanation for biological diversity NOT a Divine one.
So I've finished reading Darwin's Doubt. I have several issues with Dr. Meyer's argument for Intelligent Design. While the book is extensive and well written it is also misleading, contains misunderstandings, and overall is not well researched. It does not present a balanced view of the debate and leaves out key points potentially damaging to the Intelligent Design argument. The author presents information that supports his view without presenting decenting arguments. I cannot recommend it.
For example, in the first chapter the author goes on at length about the criticism of Darwin's ideas by Harvard University professor Louis Agassiz, specifically concerning Darwin's inability to explain the discontinuity of animal life between the Precambrian and Cambrian. While Agassiz was indeed a great scientist and thinker, but he was by no means the only great scientist and thinker of the time. Others of equal stature such as Asa Gray, Thomas Huxley, Richard Owen, and later Edward Drinker Cope did embrace and support Darwin. Agassiz's criticisms of Darwin may have more to do with ego than science. The author clearly cherry picks this info without giving equal time to other critiques of Darwin's work. He makes it seem as though natural selection was derided from the start which it was not.
Second, while I am not an expert on the Cambrian Radiation Dr. Meyer places a lot of emphasis on fossils from the Burgess Shale and Maotianshan Shale faunas of mid-Cambrian age. Both groups of organisms were quite diverse, but may or may not represent the worldwide state of animal life in the mid-Cambrian. Conversely, fossil assemblages from the Ediacaran period of the late Precambrian appear much less diverse in comparison, yet sedimentary layers of Ediacaran age are few and far between and again the Ediacaran fossils found thus far may not represent the true species disparity and diversity of the late Precambrian. Contrary to what the author states there is still debate in paleontology over this point, yet he downplays this information and makes it seem as though it is a non-issue. Thus, comparing the known mid-Cambrian fossils and Ediacaran fossils may be akin to comparing photos of New York City and Chicago from the present with photos of Nebraska from 100 years ago with New York and Chicago of 100 years ago not represented. An apples and oranges argument. Here again is another example of where information contrary to the author's argument is not presented.
Third, recent studies on rates of evolution in body size and life history traits in fish suggest that these characters evolve much faster than previously thought, usually just within just a few years. Given that the Precambrian and Cambrian species were invertebrates, they may have had much faster rates of evolution than fish, since in invertebrates in general have shorter generation times than fish. This is why insects and other invertebrate pests can evolve resistance to pesticides in a few generations. The author does not mention this anywhere, probably because it runs contrary to his assumption that too little time passed for the mid-Cambrian species to evolve from the Ediacaran fauna. Almost 40 million years (the author argues 5 million years, again cherry-picked info without any contrary positions) pasted between the end of the Precambrian and the time at which the Burgess Shale fossils were preserved, given what we know now there was more than enough time for the Cambrian biota to evolve.
Finally, Dr. Meyer does not address two competing, yet important, hypotheses that have been propounded recently about the origins of life. First, that life may have evolved in thermal vents deep in the Precambrian oceans, and second that life may have first evolved in freshwater environments and later invaded the oceans. Both scenarios are controversial, but if evidence is found to support either one, then the sudden appearance of species in the mid-Cambrian can be easily explained by the fact that the species found in the Burgess Shale and Maotianshan Shale evolved elsewhere and later invaded these marine environments where they thrived and were fossilized. This is essentially a variation of Walcott's Artifact Hypothesis.
Darwin's mechanism of evolution, natural selection, has been refined and modified over the years. We know that natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolutionary change, there are others including genetic drift, assortative mating, and migration. To invoke a designer without exhausting all potential natural explainations is a "leap of faith" indeed. To say that life in Cambrian was designed is akin to saying that Extraterrestrials beings helped the Egyptians build the Pyramids. According to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is usually correct and over 150 years of research into the mechanisms of evolution has build up a strong body of evidence that suggests a natural explanation for biological diversity NOT a Divine one.
July 6, 2013
***The compelling case for Intelligent Design!***
Creationists and evolutionists have long debated their respective views over the origins of man. Did man evolve from the lower animal forms or did man suddenly appear as the Bible suggests. Although Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection favors evolution, even Darwin acknowledged there was a significant historical event he couldn’t account for called the “Cambrian Explosion.”
He called it a “troubling anomaly” in “The Origin of Species” and trusted future science and exploration to find the answer. However nothing has explained the event that documents a sudden appearance in the “fossil records” of animals with no sign of previous ancestors. The fossils that have been found are too simple to explain the complex animal forms that suddenly appeared.
That’s why Stephen Meyer penned Darwin’s Doubt that follows his “Book of the Year,” Signature in the Cell where he advocated intelligent design. In Darwin’s Doubt he continues the argument that favors “…living creatures are best explained by an intelligent cause…”
…Full Review: www.examiner.com/list/darwin-s-doubt-...
Creationists and evolutionists have long debated their respective views over the origins of man. Did man evolve from the lower animal forms or did man suddenly appear as the Bible suggests. Although Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection favors evolution, even Darwin acknowledged there was a significant historical event he couldn’t account for called the “Cambrian Explosion.”
He called it a “troubling anomaly” in “The Origin of Species” and trusted future science and exploration to find the answer. However nothing has explained the event that documents a sudden appearance in the “fossil records” of animals with no sign of previous ancestors. The fossils that have been found are too simple to explain the complex animal forms that suddenly appeared.
That’s why Stephen Meyer penned Darwin’s Doubt that follows his “Book of the Year,” Signature in the Cell where he advocated intelligent design. In Darwin’s Doubt he continues the argument that favors “…living creatures are best explained by an intelligent cause…”
…Full Review: www.examiner.com/list/darwin-s-doubt-...
February 4, 2015
Outstanding, detailed, well-documented presentation and evaluation of the "explosive origin of animal life" that occurred during the Cambrian period. Meyer examines Darwinian evolution's inability to explain how it is that 20 of the 26 phyla (broad categories of biological classification) present in the geologic record all first appear in a very narrow geologic time period called the Cambrian. Contrary to Darwinian expectations, these 20 phyla appear suddenly in the Cambrian period, present a "startling array of completely novel animal forms", and are not preceded, as Darwin expected, by transitional intermediate fossils in the Precambrian. Outstanding discussion of the issues facing, and the current state of thinking regarding, neo-Darwinian and alternative theories.
July 25, 2013
Great book. If you are interested in the Cambrian Explosion, fossils, geology, or just the history of life this is a wonderful book for you. Meyer breaks everything down in a way that one can understand and convincingly refutes the ability for neo-Darwinian evolution to account for the Cambrian. He also breaks down the myth of Intelligent Design not being a scientific community. He compares evolution and ID and shows that they are equally scientific. If you don't include ID as scientific, you can't include evolution and vise versa.
June 27, 2017
في عام ١٩٨٠ صرح عالم الأحافير بجامعة هارفارد "ستيفن جولد" أن الداروينية الحديثة ميتة ومنتهية رغم بقائها كتقليد في المراجع الدراسية، يأتي ذلك في مقابل مؤيدين شرسين لنظرية التطور ك"دوغلاس فوتوياما" الذي قال أن مجرد جهلنا بكيفية حدوث التطور لا يبرر الشك في حصوله.
لا يزال الانتخاب الطبيعي يفسر بقاء الأكثر تكيفاً فقط ولا يفسر ظهور الأكثر تكيفاً، ولا تزال الداروينية تواجه مشكلة نشوء المعلومات البيولوجية الجديدة ومعضلة الانفجار الكامبري، في خضم هذا الجدل المشتعل جاء كتاب المؤلف الذي يرى في حل التصميم الذكي المخرج من عنق الزجاجة.
اعترف داروين أن التنوعات المفيدة في الأنواع هي نادرة وضئيلة أما التغيرات الكبرى في الأشكال ستكون مشوهة وربما قاتلة، وتتطلب آلية الاصطفاء الطبيعي والتنوعات العشوائية مدة زمنية طويلة لتُنتج كائناً جديداً، إلا أن الانطلاق من وحيد الخلية إلى ثلاثيات الفصوص سيتطلب عدداً لامتناهياً من الأشكال الانتقالية وتجارب بيولوجية فاشلة على مدى الزمن الجيولوجي كما يشرح بعض علماء الأحافير، والذين لاحظوا أن عمود طبقات الأرض يدعم الظهور المفاجئ للحيوانات الأوائل واختفاء الأعداد الضخمة من الأشكال الانتقالية التي قادت إلى كائنات العصر الكامبري، لذلك طرح "جولد" تساؤله الشهير كيف لداروين أن يوفق بين نظريته في التطور التدريجي وبين انقطاعات السجل الأحفوري الواضحة التي تدل على ظهور أولى الأشكال الحيوانية وازدهارها وكأنها خرجت من العدم؟
طرح هذه الملاحظة على داروين عالم الأحافير "أغاسيس" إلا أن داروين أجاب باحتمال وجود نقص في السجل الأحفوري، ثم ادعى بعض علماء الأحياء أن الأشكال الوسيطة التي أدت إلى الحيوانات الكامبرية ربما كانت متناهية الصغر أو رخوة جداً لذلك لم تُحفظ في السجل الأحفوري، لكن ما يشكك في هذه الفرضية وجود خلايا من كائنات تُشبه الخيط وقد حُفظت في الصخور ما قبل الكامبرية وكذلك وجود أجسام رخوة أو صغيرة في الفترتين الكامبرية وما قبلها، واثبتت الأبحاث قرب تشينغ جيانغ أن الصخور الرسوبية قادرة على حفظ الرخويات من العصور القديمة بتفاصيل دقيقة جداً.
يعترف الآن كثير من علماء الأحافير والبيولوجيا التطورية بفقدان الأحافير ما قبل الحقبة الكامبرية والتي تعد ضرورية لتوثيق قصة داروين عن أصل الحياة، فلجأوا إلى دليل التباعد العميق الذي يعتمد على الدليل الجزيئي أو الجيني، فالاختلاف الطفيف بين الحيوانات يعني أن بينهما زمناً قصيراً والكبير يعني زمناً طويلاً مع حساب القيمة المرجعية لمعدل الطفرات، إلا أن الدراسات المسحية التي نقلها المؤلف تؤكد وجود أزمنة تباعد مختلفة ومتناقضة ولا يسعها عمر الأرض لدرجة أن بعض علماء الأحياء قد جادلوا أن مفهوم شجرة الحياة التي رُسم فيها تشعب الحيوانات قد ماتت وظلت العلاقات بين الشعب المتوالية معلقة دون حل، وبعضهم حذف ٣٥٪ من المورثات المفردة من نتائج البيانات لأنها أنتجت سلاسل تطورية مخالفة للحس السليم، وإذا كانت الحيوانات منحدرة من سلف مشترك فيجب عليها إظهار نفس النمط الأساسي لتشكل الخلايا الجنسية لأن الطفرات إن أصابتها فإنها ستشوش عملية التكاثر السليم، إلا أن نمط تشكل الخلايا الجنسية موزع عشوائياً في المجموعات الحيوانية المختلفة مما يعني استحالة تشكيل شجرة تطورية متماسكة.
حاول "نيلز إلدردج"و "جولد" وضع نظرية تجديدية تُسمى بالتوازن المتقطع بسبب عدم بقاء أحافير الأشكال الانتقالية، فاقترحا انتخاباً طبيعياً بين الأنواع بدلاً من الأفراد، والتغيرات المورفوليجية تحصل وفق قفزات أكبر وأكثر انفصالاً مما تخيله داروين وبذلك يكونون قد تبرؤوا من مبدأ التطور التدريجي، ولقد سمى خصومه هذا النموذج بالتطور في نظر الحمقى.
قدّم اكتشاف الطفرات الجينية بواسطة "مولر" طريقة لتسوية نزاع الداروينية مع المندلية، لكن السؤال المهم إلى أي قدر تستطيع الطفرات العشوائية تزويد الانتخاب الطبيعي بالمادة الخام المطلوبة لإنتاج البروتينات والأعضاء الجديدة؟ قام "موراي إدين" بروفيسور الهندسة والحاسب الآلي بمحاولة حل هذه المعادلة، فأدرك هو وآخرون ضخامة الفضاءات التوافقية المرافقة للجينات وأدركوا أن الطفرات العشوائية غير الموجهة بحاجة إلى عدد هائل من الاحتمالات لتنتج جيناً أو بروتيناً جديداً يفوق بكثير ما هو منطقي في الزمن المتاح للعملية التطورية، فالفضاء التوافقي لبروتين يحمل ٢٥٠ حمضا أمينياً هو ١٠ أمامها ٣٢٥ صفراً ترتيباً ممكناً للأحماض الأمينية لا تملك الزمن الكافي لتوليد العدد الكلي من تتاليات الأحماض الأمينية الممكنة الموافقة لبروتين وظيفي مفرد بهذ الطول، لذلك اعتقد "إدين" أن الطفرات لا تمتلك عملياً فرصة لإنتاج معلومات جينية جديدة.
هل تمتلك الطفرة وآلية الانتقاء الطبيعي الفرصة المنطقية لإيجاد جينات وبروتينات جديدة ضرورية لبناء حيوان جديد من العصر الكامبري؟ استنتج علماء آخرون أن البحث العشوائي عن البروتينات المبتكرة سيؤدي إلى ضياع في الوظيفة قبل الوصول إلى بروتين ذو تطوي فراغي جديد، فالتطور العشوائي للجين يزعزع استقرار البنية الفراغية البروتينية قبل الوصول إلى تكوين جين جديد قادر على توليد طية بروتين مميزة، فاحتمال توليد جين واحد كطية بروتينية وظيفية جديدة من كل الجراثيم والكائنات الحية التي عاشت يوماً ما على الأرض هو ١ إلى ١٠ تريليون تريليون تريليون حسب تجارب "دوغلاس إكس" والتي نشرها في مجلة البيولوجيا الجزئية في عام ٢٠٠٤، هذا فضلاً عن إنتاج جينات وبروتينات أخرى وفضلا عن بناء أنظمة خلوية جديدة، فالجين الخاصع للتطور سيصطدم بنهاية تطورية مميتة قبل أن يصبح قادراً على إنتاج طية بروتينية جديدة كما أن الندرة الشديدة لهذه الطية تضمن عزلتها عن بعضها البعض في حيز التسلسلات، وجاءت مقالة "لونغ" لتقول إن العديد من العمليات المعتمدة على الطفرات قد تستدعي قفزات غير مفسرة من العدم.
يقول علماء الداروينية أن البشر انفصلوا عن الشمبانزي منذ ٦ ملايين سنة، إلا أن رياضيي التطور اعترفوا أن الزمن اللازم لتوليد وتثبيت طفرتين متسقتين في الخط البشري يستغرق ٢١٦ مليون سنة وهو أكثر بثلاثين ضعف من الزمن المتوفر لظهور البشر والشمبانزي وكل التكيفات المعقدة المميزة بينهما والفروقات عن سلفهما المشترك.
تستند الداروينية الجديدة إلى ثلاثة مبادىء رئيسية وهي حدوث التطور كنتيجة اختلافات دقيقة وعشوائية، غربلة هذه الاختلافات بالانتخاب الطبيعي، ثم توريثها بدقة للأجيال اللاحقة مما يسبب تطور في الجماعة، في عام ٢٠٠٨ اجتمع ١٦ عام في الأحياء التطورية في "ألتنبرغ" ليعلنوا بأن النظرية التركيبية الداروينية الجديدج قد ولى عهدها وأن هناك حاجة إلى آليات تطورية جديدة لشرح نشوء الشكل البيولوجي، من النظريات الجديدة اللاماركية الجديدة والتي تقول بأن المصدر اللاجيني للمعلومات ربما يلعب دوراً في تطور الشكل البيولوجي، ونظرية الهندسة الجينية الطبيعية التي تقول أن التغيرات الجينية قد تحدث كاستجابة للضغوط البيئية أو الإشارات والمثيرات، وأظهر أحد مؤيدوها وهو "شابيرو" أن الخلية عبارة عن نظام حوسبة فائق وهذا يناقض أحد عناصر الداروينية الجديدة وهي العشوائية، ويبقى السؤال كيف تبرمج الخلية نفسها؟ وظهرت نظرية التطور المحايد ل"مايكل لينش" والتي تقول إن تضخم الجينوم ونشوء التعقيد التشريحي هو نتيجة لعمليات التنامي الجينية للجينات أكثر من كونها عملية تكيفية تتضمن الانتخاب الطبيعي.
يرى المؤلف أن جميع هذه النظريات اشتركت في أمرين وهما اعتمادها على المادية البحتة وفشلها في تحديد سبب قادر على توليد المعلومات الضرورية لإنتاج الأشكال الحية الجديدة، ومن هنا جاءت نظرية التصميم الذكي التي هي ليست فكرة توراتية كما يُشاع عنها لتتحدى بعض معاني مصطلح التطور، فبعض الداروينيون الجدد يُسلمون أن الكائنات تبدو وكأنها مصممة، ودوكنز نفسه يذكر أن المعلومات الرقمية في الحمض النووي تتشابه بشكل مبهر مع برنامج حاسوبي وتعطي انطباعاً بأنها صممت لهدف، لكنهم يرجعون ويقولون أن مظهر التصميم ليس إلا وهماً لأنهم يجعلون عمليات مادية غير عاقلة -مثل الانتخاب والطفرات- قادرة على إنتاج بُنى حيوية معقدة، وهنا يختلف التصميم الذكي معهم مع تسليمه بالتطور الذي يحدث مع الزمن ووجود السلف المشترك العام ويرفضون كون المسببات البيولوجية وظهور التصميم كعملية عمياء غي موجهة.
ولحل معضلة الانفجار الكامبري فإن بعضهم يزعم أن أحداث التطور في الماضي كانت مختلفة بشكل جذري عن التطور اليوم، والذكاء وحده هو القادر على تحديد آلية كافية أو سبب وجود خصائص الأشكال الحية، إذ أننا نعلم أن الوسيط الذكي قادر على توليد معلومات على شكل شيفرة برمجية ونصوص قديمة وكتب وشيفرات عسكرية وغيرها فهو الوحيد المُتصف بالكفاية السببية المطلوبة للتفسير العلمي التاريخي، فالعوامل العاقلة تستطيع ترتيب المادة والرموز مع وضع أهداف بعيدة في الاعتبار ويمكنها حل معضلات التضخم التبادلي، وتملك العوامل الذكية القدرة على إظهار أنظمة تقنية معقدة إلى الوجود المباشرة كاختراع المذياع الذي لم يكن له شبيه مسبق، فهذه العوامل قادرة على الاختيار العقلاني وممارسة الإرادة الحرة.
في عام ٢٠١٢ نشرت مجلات علمية مرموقة خلاصة أبحاث مشروع موسوعة عناصر الحمض النووي المعروف اختصاراً باسم إنكود والتي تقول أن ٨٠٪ من الجينوم يؤدي وظائف بيولوجية كبيرة وبذلك عارضوا عقيدة الدراوينيين الجدد الذي جعلوا من غالبية الجينوم مستودعاً لعمليات التجربة والخطأ العشوائي والتي تشبه الخردة البالية.
ملاحظة: يعتبر المؤلف كلمة "خلقيون creationist " كلمة إعلامية قذرة لا تقل شناعة عن كلمة شيوعي في منتصف القرن العشرين.
December 3, 2013
Darwin’s Doubt is the second installment by Stephen C. Meyer to address unresolved mysteries in the history of life. His first book, Signature in the Cell, addresses chemical origins and how current theories do not adequately explain not only how DNA arose, but the information content in DNA. Darwin’s Doubt flashes forward a couple billion years from the first pro-cell to address what some refer to as the “Cambrian Explosion,” named for the period in Earth’s history in which an abundance of complex organisms appears in the geological record.
Part one walks the reader through a history of varying views of the fossil record. These views fall somewhere in a continuum in which the fossil record either indicates gradual change or saltations. Meyer begins with a historical discussion of Darwin’s interaction with Agassiz who differed from Darwin on his views of the fossil record. Meyer then devotes an entire chapter to the Burgess Shale findings from the early twentieth century, which seemed to confirm that the Cambrian explosion is not a misnomer: Complex body plans seemed to emerge in a geologically brief amount of time. Meyer also devotes a chapter to the Maotianshan Shale excavation near Changjiang (1990s), which had Cambrian samples that were dated earlier than the Burgess Shale.
Myer is critical of the Darwinian view of gradual descent with modification, and addresses modern-day Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian Explosion with references and resources. Additionally, he addresses alternative explanations such as punctuated equilibrium, and why it has fallen out of favor as a viable explanation.
Part two transitions from the macro-scale to the micro-scale, and considers the volume of genetic information necessary to code for complex body forms that are seen in the Cambrian fossils. In other words, Myer analyzes what kind of informational leap would be required to go from pre-Cambrian to Cambrian body forms. This part of the book is perhaps the strongest arguments for a non-Darwinian perspective on the Cambrian Explosion. While Part one discusses the complexity of body forms, Part two puts numbers to just how many mutations are needed to create even a modest change in function from one protein to another within the same family of proteins, let alone for whole new functioning systems.
Importantly, Meyer addresses how proteins not only need to have the right sequence of amino acids, but they must also have the right three-dimensional structure, adding another layer to the level of complexity required to establish a functioning protein. Meyer cites the work of Doug Axe and others that demonstrates the lack of available probabilistic resources to reasonably assume that complex protein structures, let alone complex body plans, arose from chance mutations coupled with natural selection.
Finally, at the end of Part two, Meyer addresses epigenetic factors, which are yet another layer of complexity needed for complex organisms. Epigenetics have to do with information content that is not found in the genetic sequence of the genome. Some examples cited in Darwin’s Doubt include factors that affect embryological development and cellular membrane patterns. Methylation patterns on the genome are another epigenetic feature that provides information for cellular function.
Part three is about various theories, both naturalistic and non-naturalistic, that reject a Darwin paradigm. Meyer devotes an entire chapter to self-organization, which has recently gained traction among some scientists. This view assumes that spontaneous self-organization is responsible for the information content in biological systems. This view relies on physical laws to exact the necessary changes to create complex systems. Meyer also discusses evolutionary developmental biology, a view that differs from neo-Darwinism primarily in the extent to which mutations are capable of changing an organism. Rather than small-scale changes to an organism through minor mutations, evo-devo biologists assume that mutations occur early in development when single mutations result in large-scale changes. Meyer describes a couple of other theories in this section, each differing from neo-Darwinism in one or more of neo-Darwinism’s three core claims which he defines as:
… evolutionary change occurs as a result of random, minute variations (or mutations); second, that the process of natural selection sifts among those variations and mutations, such that some organisms leave more offspring than others (differential reproduction) base on the presence or absence of certain variations; and third, favored variations must be inherited faithfully in subsequent generations of organisms, thus causing the population in which they reside to change or evolve over time. (Meyer, 292)
In the last couple of chapters, Meyer provides a positive case for intelligent design. Meyer discusses reasons why intelligence is a viable and scientific option for explaining origins and reiterates one of his main theses in Signature in the Cell, that “neo-Darwinism and the theory of intelligent design are not two different kinds of inquiry…They are two different answers – formulated using a similar logic and method of reasoning – to the same question” (Meyer, 392).
Overall, Darwin’s Doubt is a well-researched discussion on the various theories that attempt to explain the Cambrian Explosion, and more broadly, information content within biological systems. Because Meyer’s task was to systematically describe and critique the historical and prevailing theories explaining the Cambrian Explosion, the book can be a bit tedious to read at times, which might be expected considering there are thirty-eight pages of references followed by a twenty-six page bibliography.
What I most admire about Meyer’s writing is that he is not shy about admitting what the best arguments are that are contrary to his own. He, furthermore, makes sure to give those arguments extra space in his work. Some academics like to go for “easy” targets and address the most extreme or absurd theories against their own. Stephen Meyer does the opposite, spending little time on those theories that have fallen out of favor by most scientists, and takes time to acknowledge and dissect the strongest counter-theories.
Even if one is not sympathetic to intelligent design, Darwin’s Doubt is a valuable read for a look at the current research and theories regarding the origins of Cambrian body forms including discussions on epigenetics and new alternative theories to the traditional neo-Darwinian model.
Part one walks the reader through a history of varying views of the fossil record. These views fall somewhere in a continuum in which the fossil record either indicates gradual change or saltations. Meyer begins with a historical discussion of Darwin’s interaction with Agassiz who differed from Darwin on his views of the fossil record. Meyer then devotes an entire chapter to the Burgess Shale findings from the early twentieth century, which seemed to confirm that the Cambrian explosion is not a misnomer: Complex body plans seemed to emerge in a geologically brief amount of time. Meyer also devotes a chapter to the Maotianshan Shale excavation near Changjiang (1990s), which had Cambrian samples that were dated earlier than the Burgess Shale.
Myer is critical of the Darwinian view of gradual descent with modification, and addresses modern-day Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian Explosion with references and resources. Additionally, he addresses alternative explanations such as punctuated equilibrium, and why it has fallen out of favor as a viable explanation.
Part two transitions from the macro-scale to the micro-scale, and considers the volume of genetic information necessary to code for complex body forms that are seen in the Cambrian fossils. In other words, Myer analyzes what kind of informational leap would be required to go from pre-Cambrian to Cambrian body forms. This part of the book is perhaps the strongest arguments for a non-Darwinian perspective on the Cambrian Explosion. While Part one discusses the complexity of body forms, Part two puts numbers to just how many mutations are needed to create even a modest change in function from one protein to another within the same family of proteins, let alone for whole new functioning systems.
Importantly, Meyer addresses how proteins not only need to have the right sequence of amino acids, but they must also have the right three-dimensional structure, adding another layer to the level of complexity required to establish a functioning protein. Meyer cites the work of Doug Axe and others that demonstrates the lack of available probabilistic resources to reasonably assume that complex protein structures, let alone complex body plans, arose from chance mutations coupled with natural selection.
Finally, at the end of Part two, Meyer addresses epigenetic factors, which are yet another layer of complexity needed for complex organisms. Epigenetics have to do with information content that is not found in the genetic sequence of the genome. Some examples cited in Darwin’s Doubt include factors that affect embryological development and cellular membrane patterns. Methylation patterns on the genome are another epigenetic feature that provides information for cellular function.
Part three is about various theories, both naturalistic and non-naturalistic, that reject a Darwin paradigm. Meyer devotes an entire chapter to self-organization, which has recently gained traction among some scientists. This view assumes that spontaneous self-organization is responsible for the information content in biological systems. This view relies on physical laws to exact the necessary changes to create complex systems. Meyer also discusses evolutionary developmental biology, a view that differs from neo-Darwinism primarily in the extent to which mutations are capable of changing an organism. Rather than small-scale changes to an organism through minor mutations, evo-devo biologists assume that mutations occur early in development when single mutations result in large-scale changes. Meyer describes a couple of other theories in this section, each differing from neo-Darwinism in one or more of neo-Darwinism’s three core claims which he defines as:
… evolutionary change occurs as a result of random, minute variations (or mutations); second, that the process of natural selection sifts among those variations and mutations, such that some organisms leave more offspring than others (differential reproduction) base on the presence or absence of certain variations; and third, favored variations must be inherited faithfully in subsequent generations of organisms, thus causing the population in which they reside to change or evolve over time. (Meyer, 292)
In the last couple of chapters, Meyer provides a positive case for intelligent design. Meyer discusses reasons why intelligence is a viable and scientific option for explaining origins and reiterates one of his main theses in Signature in the Cell, that “neo-Darwinism and the theory of intelligent design are not two different kinds of inquiry…They are two different answers – formulated using a similar logic and method of reasoning – to the same question” (Meyer, 392).
Overall, Darwin’s Doubt is a well-researched discussion on the various theories that attempt to explain the Cambrian Explosion, and more broadly, information content within biological systems. Because Meyer’s task was to systematically describe and critique the historical and prevailing theories explaining the Cambrian Explosion, the book can be a bit tedious to read at times, which might be expected considering there are thirty-eight pages of references followed by a twenty-six page bibliography.
What I most admire about Meyer’s writing is that he is not shy about admitting what the best arguments are that are contrary to his own. He, furthermore, makes sure to give those arguments extra space in his work. Some academics like to go for “easy” targets and address the most extreme or absurd theories against their own. Stephen Meyer does the opposite, spending little time on those theories that have fallen out of favor by most scientists, and takes time to acknowledge and dissect the strongest counter-theories.
Even if one is not sympathetic to intelligent design, Darwin’s Doubt is a valuable read for a look at the current research and theories regarding the origins of Cambrian body forms including discussions on epigenetics and new alternative theories to the traditional neo-Darwinian model.
January 16, 2014
In the popular Harry Potter books, Lord Voldermort is often referred to as 'He Who Must Not Be Named." In the 21st century when it comes to discussing science, especially on the subject of the origin of life or evolution, God is "He Who Must Not Be Named."
Fortunately, not all scientists are afraid of ¨He Who Must Not Be Named.¨ Last summer Stephen Meyer came out with a great companion book to his Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. His first book dealt with the failures of current science to show how life began. His argument was that the basic components of life show evidence of design so it is more logical to attribute the origin of live to a designer instead of random chance. Many critics, totally failing to read the book, instead criticized Meyer as a creationist and hack trying to force religion on science and denying evolution, which is not any part of the book. Meyer is no young earth creationist and he relies on no theological sources to support his arguments. Evolution was hardly a focus of this book.
Well, now his critics who often refuse to read his Signature book (because they are afraid they might get cooties?) can complain about intelligent design vs. evolution for real this time because Meyers new book, Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, takes on the subject head on. It is laughable if you read the negative reviews of this book -- they treat it the way a vampire might treat a holy cross -- they want as little to do with it as possible.
The main problem for defenders of Darwinian evolution is that they base their beliefs on random chance for the creation of life from nothingness and its further evolution from its origin to the current diverse and complicated life forms. The more we learn about the building blocks of life, the more we see evidence of design at work, not random chance.
I think the reason evolutionists fight so hard to avoid the Evolution - ID debate, is that they are afraid they will lose the support of fellow citizens. Even in this increasingly secular country, a clear majority of Americans (80-95%) continue to believe in God. While some of these people believe in the literal Bible creation version, many have no problem accepting that the universe is billions of years old and that God is still the creator. For atheists who overwhelmingly accept evolution as gospel, this is a threat they want to stamp out. If it turns out that intelligent design is a better explanation to explain the origin of life and its evolution to current life forms, God is the obvious candidate as the designer, not something atheists want to deal with.
My challenge to all people who accept the reality of God is to continue to call for a debate between intelligent design and random undirected evolution. The secular humanists have used evolution as a beachhead to tear down conservative institutions and values. Conservatives have been successful in challenging the truthfulness of man-made global warming. Liberals have not been able to implement carbon taxes that they think can help control the climate. We need to push for a similar action regarding undireced evolution.
For an entertaining and informative way to study the intelligent design - evolution controversy, I invite you to read my play Inherit the Wind Overturned by DesignInherit The Wind: Overturned by Design.
Fortunately, not all scientists are afraid of ¨He Who Must Not Be Named.¨ Last summer Stephen Meyer came out with a great companion book to his Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. His first book dealt with the failures of current science to show how life began. His argument was that the basic components of life show evidence of design so it is more logical to attribute the origin of live to a designer instead of random chance. Many critics, totally failing to read the book, instead criticized Meyer as a creationist and hack trying to force religion on science and denying evolution, which is not any part of the book. Meyer is no young earth creationist and he relies on no theological sources to support his arguments. Evolution was hardly a focus of this book.
Well, now his critics who often refuse to read his Signature book (because they are afraid they might get cooties?) can complain about intelligent design vs. evolution for real this time because Meyers new book, Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, takes on the subject head on. It is laughable if you read the negative reviews of this book -- they treat it the way a vampire might treat a holy cross -- they want as little to do with it as possible.
The main problem for defenders of Darwinian evolution is that they base their beliefs on random chance for the creation of life from nothingness and its further evolution from its origin to the current diverse and complicated life forms. The more we learn about the building blocks of life, the more we see evidence of design at work, not random chance.
I think the reason evolutionists fight so hard to avoid the Evolution - ID debate, is that they are afraid they will lose the support of fellow citizens. Even in this increasingly secular country, a clear majority of Americans (80-95%) continue to believe in God. While some of these people believe in the literal Bible creation version, many have no problem accepting that the universe is billions of years old and that God is still the creator. For atheists who overwhelmingly accept evolution as gospel, this is a threat they want to stamp out. If it turns out that intelligent design is a better explanation to explain the origin of life and its evolution to current life forms, God is the obvious candidate as the designer, not something atheists want to deal with.
My challenge to all people who accept the reality of God is to continue to call for a debate between intelligent design and random undirected evolution. The secular humanists have used evolution as a beachhead to tear down conservative institutions and values. Conservatives have been successful in challenging the truthfulness of man-made global warming. Liberals have not been able to implement carbon taxes that they think can help control the climate. We need to push for a similar action regarding undireced evolution.
For an entertaining and informative way to study the intelligent design - evolution controversy, I invite you to read my play Inherit the Wind Overturned by DesignInherit The Wind: Overturned by Design.
November 2, 2013
Meyer has presented a comprehensive look at the problems with neo-Darwinism. He notes that many evolutionary scientists now grudgingly admit that no chemical evolutional theory offers an adequate explanation for the origin of life or the ultimate information necessary to produce it. But the public get a different story. There is a great disparity between the popular perception of the theory and the actual state of it in the peer-reviewed literature. He sets that straight in this book.
He concentrates on the Cambrian explosion as the focal point for the inability of neo-Darwinism to explain animal forms and the origin of the information for the new forms. See my full review at http://bit.ly/1iArT8j.
He concentrates on the Cambrian explosion as the focal point for the inability of neo-Darwinism to explain animal forms and the origin of the information for the new forms. See my full review at http://bit.ly/1iArT8j.
May 9, 2015
Sadly, the ratings of this book show the polarization of such a topic. I actually thought that Meyer did a great job of being objective and removing any notion of religion from his investigation. I tried to approach this book without any presuppositions and I walked away with plenty to think about. Meyer's direct interaction with and citation of Neo-Darwinian proponents helps the reader to go explore for himself/herself whether Meyer's critiques have legs. For this reason, I highly recommend this book.
October 17, 2013
This is utter dross. Putting to one side the gross factual inaccuracies, the philosophy underlying his argument is broken and vapid. This should be an embarrassment to someone with a PhD in philosophy.
I've written on the details here: http://brilyn.net/review-darwins-doubt/
I've written on the details here: http://brilyn.net/review-darwins-doubt/
August 31, 2013
Meyer has certainly done his work – any argument so polarizing must be touching down pretty darned firmly on a whole lot of nerves. My thoughts? Indifference mostly. What would I have liked to read? Something new. Something convincing. Something novel. Instead Meyer paints the same old story – God did it! - in a shinier, academic, and footnoted way.
Here is a secret that Meyer never exposes (or maybe he just isn’t aware of it?): working scientists know this stuff already. That is why they are working scientists and that is why they keep asking questions. Why is there still work being done on the mechanism of evolutionary change and the Cambrian Explosion? Because we don’t yet fully understand what happened. Does that constitute a ‘crisis within the world of evolutionary science’? Certainly not. It is exactly how science works. Years ago now, Dawkins offered up The Selfish Gene as an explanation of how finite and discrete chemistry could drive evolution. The work has been expanded, re-formulated, sliced and diced, and built upon. Does this constitute a crisis within the realms of protein synthesis? No. It means that science is working exactly as it should. Gould later argued for punctuated equilibrium. Same thing: slice, dice, build upon, break apart. Science working exactly as it should. This is what science does: deconstruct and reconstruct previous work to continually work for a better understanding of the problem. What scientists don’t argue for is that ‘god did it’ yet this is Meyer’s winding and around-the-fence-post conclusion.
Take protein expression as an example: the Central Dogma of biology is that DNA expresses RNA, which in turn, expresses protein. No scientist working within the field argues that the Central Dogma is systemically wrong yet, all over the world, very smart and very dedicated people fill peer reviewed journals with studies of how the dogma works and with problematic minutiae. To Meyer this constitutes a ‘silent crisis’ in biology. To everyone else this is how science works.
Does science ever get it wrong? Sure. Darwin’s predecessor Lamarck argued for the inheritance of acquired traits. It made sense from the view of simple observation – just like the sun revolving around the earth makes sense – but it couldn’t stand up to rigorous scientific investigation and was replaced with Mendel’s work with what we call genes.
A philosophical point always bothers me in this mastiff vs. Yorkee scuffle: religious people, and Christians in general, and Christian scientists specifically, are just scared to death of not knowing. Of not having an answer. So they revert to theology. “God said it; I believe it, that settles it.” And it’s a great argument for the choir. And gets a whole lot of books sold. But it is not science. Science looks for what we don’t know, and seeks out the seemingly unanswerable. And then works incrementally on figuring it out. The very heart of science is an indifferent shrug. And when we finally ‘know’ something we drop it and move on to the next thing that we don’t.
Meyer presents his illogic and straw men in a clear and understandable fashion. The choir will – and obviously does – enjoy every page. People sitting outside the church will – and obviously do – groan. My hope is that a few people use the book as a jumping-off place to read what working scientists are saying and writing about and working on.
Here is a secret that Meyer never exposes (or maybe he just isn’t aware of it?): working scientists know this stuff already. That is why they are working scientists and that is why they keep asking questions. Why is there still work being done on the mechanism of evolutionary change and the Cambrian Explosion? Because we don’t yet fully understand what happened. Does that constitute a ‘crisis within the world of evolutionary science’? Certainly not. It is exactly how science works. Years ago now, Dawkins offered up The Selfish Gene as an explanation of how finite and discrete chemistry could drive evolution. The work has been expanded, re-formulated, sliced and diced, and built upon. Does this constitute a crisis within the realms of protein synthesis? No. It means that science is working exactly as it should. Gould later argued for punctuated equilibrium. Same thing: slice, dice, build upon, break apart. Science working exactly as it should. This is what science does: deconstruct and reconstruct previous work to continually work for a better understanding of the problem. What scientists don’t argue for is that ‘god did it’ yet this is Meyer’s winding and around-the-fence-post conclusion.
Take protein expression as an example: the Central Dogma of biology is that DNA expresses RNA, which in turn, expresses protein. No scientist working within the field argues that the Central Dogma is systemically wrong yet, all over the world, very smart and very dedicated people fill peer reviewed journals with studies of how the dogma works and with problematic minutiae. To Meyer this constitutes a ‘silent crisis’ in biology. To everyone else this is how science works.
Does science ever get it wrong? Sure. Darwin’s predecessor Lamarck argued for the inheritance of acquired traits. It made sense from the view of simple observation – just like the sun revolving around the earth makes sense – but it couldn’t stand up to rigorous scientific investigation and was replaced with Mendel’s work with what we call genes.
A philosophical point always bothers me in this mastiff vs. Yorkee scuffle: religious people, and Christians in general, and Christian scientists specifically, are just scared to death of not knowing. Of not having an answer. So they revert to theology. “God said it; I believe it, that settles it.” And it’s a great argument for the choir. And gets a whole lot of books sold. But it is not science. Science looks for what we don’t know, and seeks out the seemingly unanswerable. And then works incrementally on figuring it out. The very heart of science is an indifferent shrug. And when we finally ‘know’ something we drop it and move on to the next thing that we don’t.
Meyer presents his illogic and straw men in a clear and understandable fashion. The choir will – and obviously does – enjoy every page. People sitting outside the church will – and obviously do – groan. My hope is that a few people use the book as a jumping-off place to read what working scientists are saying and writing about and working on.
January 27, 2014
This 400 page masterpiece is the book I always wanted to author myself! Stephen Meyer really did his homework, he did'nt miss any relevant research or update to the scientific status of Evolutionary Biology, neither did he oversee any possible objection to his critics or arguments! He is a marvelous writer indeed and his book deserves more than five stars, but not because he proved his point so persuasively ( although he did) but rather because of the objective and open-minded way he presented the evolutionary controversey.
For me, this quote out of the page 228 - 229 summarizes the poor scientific reason of the neo - Darwinian claims about the mechanisms that produce the raw material of Evolution, genetic variation through random mutation that is. And I claim that this is the central dilemma because without any means of variation established, you wont have any credibility to claim to have demonstrated the whole picture of Darwinian Evolution. And here is the quote :
" In the absence of such demonstrations, evolutionary biologists have taken to offering what one biologist I know calls "word salad" -jargon- laced descriptions of unobserved past events - some possible perhaps but none with the demonstrated capacity to generate the information necessary to produce novel forms of life. This genre of evolutinary literature envisions exons being "recruited"and / or "donated" from other genes or from an "unknown source"; it appeals to extensive refashioning" of genes; it attributes "fortuitous juxtaposition of suitable sequences" to mutations or "fortuitous acquisition" of promoter elements, it assumes that "radical change in structure " of a gene is due to "rapid adaptive evolution"; it asserts that "positive selection played an important role in the evolution of genes", even in cases when the function of the gene under study is completely unknown, it imagines genes being "cobbled together from DNA of no related function or no function at all; it asumes the creation of new exons "from a unique noncoding genomic sequence that fortuitously evolved"; it invokes "the chimeric fusion of two genes", it explains "near identical" proteins in disparate lineages as "a striking case of convergent evolution", and when no source material for the evolution of a new gene can be identified it asserts that " genes emerge and evolve very rapidly, generating copies that bear little similarity to their ancestral precursors" because thay are apparently "hypermutable". Finally , when all else fails, scenarios invoke " de novo origination " of new genes, as if that phrase - anymore than the others just mentioned - constitutes a scientific demonstration of the power of mutational mechanisms to produce significant amounts of new genetic information. these vague narratives resemble nothing so much as the naming games of scholastic philosophers in the middle ages. Why does opiun put people to sleep? Because it has a dormative virtue. What causes new genes to evolve so rapidly? Their "hypermutability" or perhaps their ability to undergo "rapid, adaptive evolution". How do we explain the origin of two similar genes in seperate and disparate lineages? Convergent evolution of course. What is convergent evolution? The presence of two similar genes in two seperate but otherwise widely disparate lineages. "
I think the point has been made! haha! I love you Meyer!
For me, this quote out of the page 228 - 229 summarizes the poor scientific reason of the neo - Darwinian claims about the mechanisms that produce the raw material of Evolution, genetic variation through random mutation that is. And I claim that this is the central dilemma because without any means of variation established, you wont have any credibility to claim to have demonstrated the whole picture of Darwinian Evolution. And here is the quote :
" In the absence of such demonstrations, evolutionary biologists have taken to offering what one biologist I know calls "word salad" -jargon- laced descriptions of unobserved past events - some possible perhaps but none with the demonstrated capacity to generate the information necessary to produce novel forms of life. This genre of evolutinary literature envisions exons being "recruited"and / or "donated" from other genes or from an "unknown source"; it appeals to extensive refashioning" of genes; it attributes "fortuitous juxtaposition of suitable sequences" to mutations or "fortuitous acquisition" of promoter elements, it assumes that "radical change in structure " of a gene is due to "rapid adaptive evolution"; it asserts that "positive selection played an important role in the evolution of genes", even in cases when the function of the gene under study is completely unknown, it imagines genes being "cobbled together from DNA of no related function or no function at all; it asumes the creation of new exons "from a unique noncoding genomic sequence that fortuitously evolved"; it invokes "the chimeric fusion of two genes", it explains "near identical" proteins in disparate lineages as "a striking case of convergent evolution", and when no source material for the evolution of a new gene can be identified it asserts that " genes emerge and evolve very rapidly, generating copies that bear little similarity to their ancestral precursors" because thay are apparently "hypermutable". Finally , when all else fails, scenarios invoke " de novo origination " of new genes, as if that phrase - anymore than the others just mentioned - constitutes a scientific demonstration of the power of mutational mechanisms to produce significant amounts of new genetic information. these vague narratives resemble nothing so much as the naming games of scholastic philosophers in the middle ages. Why does opiun put people to sleep? Because it has a dormative virtue. What causes new genes to evolve so rapidly? Their "hypermutability" or perhaps their ability to undergo "rapid, adaptive evolution". How do we explain the origin of two similar genes in seperate and disparate lineages? Convergent evolution of course. What is convergent evolution? The presence of two similar genes in two seperate but otherwise widely disparate lineages. "
I think the point has been made! haha! I love you Meyer!
February 25, 2016
Most evolutionists hold to methodological materialism, which rules out anything but purposeless chance guided by natural selection. There is no design. The belief was that maybe 90% of DNA was ‘junk DNA.’ It was a product of the random process of evolution. The prediction of ID was that most DNA would be functional. It turns out that ID is right.
Lamarckian theories of inheritance fell out of favor early in the last century. Neo-Lamarckian epigenetic inheritance has recently been discovered to play a part in genetics.
Stephen Jay Gould first wrestled with the question of how new forms of animal life could have arisen so quickly in the fossil record. In his famed 1980 paper he declared neo-Darwinism “effectively dead." Neo-Darwinism lacks an explanation for the origin of organismal form precisely because it cannot explain the origin of epigenetic information. The neo-Darwinian synthesis was formulated during the 1930s before the elucidation of the structure of DNA.
Many evolutionary biologists have simply regarded mathematical challenges to the creative power of the mechanism, coming as they mostly do from scientists and engineers in other fields, as exotic or irrelevant. Overall synthesis of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian theory came to be called “neo-Darwinism.” Eldredge and Gould devised the theory of punctuated equilibrium to eliminate the conflict between the fossil record and evolutionary theory. This was a discrepancy that puzzled Darwin himself. Darwin believed that layers of sediments would eventually be discovered that would solve the lack of transitional life forms. Preservation of numerous soft-bodied Cambrian animals as well as Precambrian embryos and microorganisms undermines the idea of an extensive period of undetected soft-bodied evolution.
April 17, 2014
Excellent outlining of the issue and the attempts to solve it. This book was very comprehensive and presented both valid and sound arguments. It described things well, and in a fashion that I as a non-bioligist can understand. My only critique is that the book could have been up to 2/3rds shorter. Dr. Meyer did have a tendency to repeat himself.
January 17, 2016
من أروع الكتب في اثبات التصميم الذكي (الصنع المتقن)
هام جدا لكل من يبحث عن الحق و ليبين حجم التدليس والكذب في الترويج للداروينية
هام جدا لكل من يبحث عن الحق و ليبين حجم التدليس والكذب في الترويج للداروينية
Want to read
May 27, 2021Yale prof (after reading this book) acknowledges that the emperor has no clothes. Video conversation here.
WORLD interviews Meyer on his new book here.
WORLD interviews Meyer on his new book here.
July 31, 2013
While I am not convinced that Intelligent Design is a more useful theory than Darwinism, I do think the issues Meyer raises about the many, many shortcomings of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theories to account for large morphological changes and speciation (especially between different phyla) are very compelling. Plus, the Cambrian Explosion is a very interesting period in the history of life on the planet, and so this would be a fun and interesting read just to learn more about that aspect.
For information on how random variation and natural selection totally fail to account for the *origin* of life (rather than the origin of different species, as this book discusses), try reading Stephen Meyer's earlier Signature in the Cell, another good book.
For a more "mainstream" view of the Cambrian Explosion (it's still an extrordinary event), see Simon Conway Morris. I loved his book Life's Solution.
For information on how random variation and natural selection totally fail to account for the *origin* of life (rather than the origin of different species, as this book discusses), try reading Stephen Meyer's earlier Signature in the Cell, another good book.
For a more "mainstream" view of the Cambrian Explosion (it's still an extrordinary event), see Simon Conway Morris. I loved his book Life's Solution.
August 13, 2014
This is the kind of book that will impress those who know little to nothing about how paleontology works. It will also impress those who want to believe in intelligent design no matter what the evidence actually says.
The most salient aspect of the book is that it horribly mischaracterizes what we know about the so-called "Cambrian Explosion". Rather than go into detail here I'll refer readers to a web site that contains a well-written refutation of Meyer's bad science:
(http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/...).
If you do go to the web site note that this stuff takes some effort to understand and that Meyer does it no justice in his clearly dishonest book. That alone makes the book rather useless and incapable of making a fair argument. In short, paleontology just doesn't work the way Meyer depicts it.
The book is just a set of negative arguments about evolution. Aside from getting it all wrong, Meyer never tells us that science doesn't proceed by making negative arguments. In fact, science is in the business of explaining things so science has to build positive theories that actually say something, i.e. this is what we know and this is why we know it. Nothing is ever explained by negative arguments. But intelligent design doesn't even try to explain things. Thus, there is no scientific theory of intelligent design.
But Meyer's sleight-of-hand is probably capable of fooling people who don't know how to recognize a scientific theory. That's a real shame but it's what Meyer and the intelligent design crowd are counting on.
I can't recommend this book to anyone because it's a propaganda piece that's intended to lead you to an incorrect understanding of the way science works and the way that paleontologists view the fossil record - especially the so-called "Cambrian Explosion".
The most salient aspect of the book is that it horribly mischaracterizes what we know about the so-called "Cambrian Explosion". Rather than go into detail here I'll refer readers to a web site that contains a well-written refutation of Meyer's bad science:
(http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/...).
If you do go to the web site note that this stuff takes some effort to understand and that Meyer does it no justice in his clearly dishonest book. That alone makes the book rather useless and incapable of making a fair argument. In short, paleontology just doesn't work the way Meyer depicts it.
The book is just a set of negative arguments about evolution. Aside from getting it all wrong, Meyer never tells us that science doesn't proceed by making negative arguments. In fact, science is in the business of explaining things so science has to build positive theories that actually say something, i.e. this is what we know and this is why we know it. Nothing is ever explained by negative arguments. But intelligent design doesn't even try to explain things. Thus, there is no scientific theory of intelligent design.
But Meyer's sleight-of-hand is probably capable of fooling people who don't know how to recognize a scientific theory. That's a real shame but it's what Meyer and the intelligent design crowd are counting on.
I can't recommend this book to anyone because it's a propaganda piece that's intended to lead you to an incorrect understanding of the way science works and the way that paleontologists view the fossil record - especially the so-called "Cambrian Explosion".
January 21, 2016
worth book to buy and read along with best explanation and information with this you should also buy Navigating genesis "Its also a great book" to describe about evolution and Bible.
You can buy it on online or in paperback...
Worth reading -Joel stin
Regards
You can buy it on online or in paperback...
Worth reading -Joel stin
Regards
April 6, 2025
This book was handed to me in order to course correct my thinking when I confided coming to terms with modern scientific theories to a close friend. I already was aware that Meyer had ulterior motives as a cofounder of the Discovery Institute, but the sheer amount of quote mining to twist others words and a disingenuous description of the facts was baffling. It was a fun game at first to fact check and look up whole quotes, but after awhile I began to feel miserable thinking of all the people who have and will fall prey to Meyer's arguments. I would actually suggest reading this if you are willing to go through it with skeptism, looking into, for yourself, all of Meyer's claims- but, to only read this to feed into a bias of its faith affirming implications is intellectually dishonest.
Read
March 13, 2024Written as a response to critics of Signature in the Cell. This book deals with the fossil record and Cambrian Explosion, amongst other things. Technical but well explained, with nice illustrations. Raises some interesting questions.
January 31, 2020
There are a number of in-depth reviews that already do a good job of discussing what's in this book. It is not light reading, but neither is it too technical for those without a degree in science. It would certainly help to have studied some college-level biology.
Has the idea of absenting a Creator for the sake of removing religious overtones been successful? Any intelligent source, such as what SETI might ultimately discover, will do as a cause to substantiate ID claims. But, why not give credit where credit is due? Why not shine the glorious light of the created order upon the Creator? I get the reasons. In my view, however, the reasons haven't worked. In other words, as Meyer points out, the hostility against ID is primarily naturalism based.
What I do think works exceptionally well are his arguments against naturalism itself, his multiprong logic for refuting evolution, and his characterization of the culture war driven by antitheists. The arguments in Meyer's books serve almost any creationist's position except those of the most ardent theistic evolutionists.
At its foundation, the evangelist's message is that we exist because God exists. ID refrains from making this assertion yet still stands accused of doing so. Meyer's many other assertions in this book are exceptionally well developed. I highly recommend it and its precursor, Signature in the Cell.
Has the idea of absenting a Creator for the sake of removing religious overtones been successful? Any intelligent source, such as what SETI might ultimately discover, will do as a cause to substantiate ID claims. But, why not give credit where credit is due? Why not shine the glorious light of the created order upon the Creator? I get the reasons. In my view, however, the reasons haven't worked. In other words, as Meyer points out, the hostility against ID is primarily naturalism based.
What I do think works exceptionally well are his arguments against naturalism itself, his multiprong logic for refuting evolution, and his characterization of the culture war driven by antitheists. The arguments in Meyer's books serve almost any creationist's position except those of the most ardent theistic evolutionists.
At its foundation, the evangelist's message is that we exist because God exists. ID refrains from making this assertion yet still stands accused of doing so. Meyer's many other assertions in this book are exceptionally well developed. I highly recommend it and its precursor, Signature in the Cell.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 250 reviews