Top critical review
28 people found this helpful
on 4 February 1999
(1) The author shows little knowledge of or interest in the evolutionary literature. How is it possible to refute a theory without knowing the evidence and arguments on which it is based?
(2) The "irriducible complexity" argument is just not new. The arguments in the book had been refuted before the book was published by authors such as Darwin, Muller, Cavalier-Smith, etc, etc. This applies to both the general argument and to many of the specific examples given. See (1) above.
(3) The author professes to accept many of the central findings of evolutionary biology, e.g. that plants and animals share the same common ancestor. But these facts pose obvious and profound difficulties for his arguments. His attempt to deal with these difficulties is perfunctory and obviously flawed.
(4) The author is a professional scientist. But he has made no attempt to convince his colleagues of these ideas. Not one peer reviewed paper on irriducible complexity or intelligent design. If he had sought the opinion of his colleagues he would have had to confront problems (1) (2) and (3) and this awful book would not have been published!