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

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

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

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

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

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

Une argumentation claire, rigoureuse et documentée. Excellent livre !

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