6 of 13 people found the following review helpful
Careful and reasonable,
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Darwin's Doubt (Hardcover)
Having studied sciences at university, I've always looked for a more substantive scientific approach than well-meaning people around me were prepared to offer in discussing questions of origins. By this, I don't simply mean those people who plugged God into the gaps of their knowledge, but also those who made up "just-so stories" to explain the way in which the incredible complexities of biological systems "must have" just appeared as a result of natural processes. So I have been interested in the debate about Intelligent Design (ID) for probably around 15 years, since I first came across Darwin's Black Box. There are some books that don't do the discussion of ID any favours - that effectively present it as "creationism in a tuxedo". However, the most significant ones don't - they make a careful, thought-out case for a requirement of intelligent agency.
Meyer's previous book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design looked at the initial appearance of life. This new book moves on to look at the origin of complex animal life - specifically at a geological moment referred to as the Cambrian explosion. In a geologically insignificant time, huge numbers of new biological forms appeared. This was mysterious at the time of Darwin, and represented a challenge which even he recognised. The mystery has only deepened with the passing of time, and no attempt to explain it has been generally regarded as successful within the community of evolutionist scientists.
Meyer describes what took place, and explains how the Cambrian explosion is not simply a question of new body forms, but more significantly a staggering increase in biological information, encoded in the DNA and structurally within the animal forms that appeared. The materialistic processes that have been offered are simply not capable of generating the additional information required in the timeframe in which they appeared. What we observe in biological systems, he argues, is what in any other context we would have no problem with describing as the product of design.
One of the charges frequently thrown at proponents of ID is that "if this was science, then it would be in the journals" - so why isn't it? You don't have to read very hard between the lines to see. The commitment of the scientific establishment to materialism when it comes to discussion of origins has already resulted in the use of political (rather than scientific) machinations to exclude ID from consideration - there is a determination to ensure that the possibility of design is not just refuted but kept off the table. Is "Darwin's Doubt" science? Does it make a case? Well, it's as careful and well-structured as any scientific paper - and if there is no substantive refutation, then it will represent another brick in the increasingly solid edifice of Intelligent Design.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 24 Jan 2014 00:49:57 GMT
"Studied sciences at university" - and I am a prima ballerina - cut and pasted from the discovery institute website - creationist mind numbing drivel - KEEP THESE DEVIOUS SIMPLETONS AWAY FROM CHILDREN.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›