Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design Paperback – June 3, 2014

The Blind Watchmaker: A Beguiling Materialist Dream"A wise proverb warns that it isn't what you don't know that gets you in trouble; it is what you do know that isn't so.""It soothed us--it beguiled us--then, to hearOnce more of troubles wrought by magic spell." (1)A Prelude Of Hermeneutical SuspicionIn this very brief essay, my primary goal will be to better explain why such contentious divisions exist between the majority of positive amazon reviewers and a minority cohort of very recalcitrant atheist reviewers regarding Darwin's Doubt. I will amply demonstrate that this divide is mostly grounded in philosophical differences(2) which have permitted little compromise; in particular, I've found it to be a volatile admixture of antithetical philosophies, combined with ventures into theodicy, and literally hundreds of irreconcilable disputes over field and genetic data. And forget about apologies or erratas as intellectual battle lines are etched in stone as evidenced by the bimodal distribution of reviews.And so, I'll be taking a slightly different approach in my book review. As an old earth, day-age theist, I'll be writing with an eye given to brief historical review, a liberal use of metaphors in the spirit of evolutionary biology and attention to Meyer's very decisive use of scientific reasoning known as vera causa. Consequently, my essay is specifically directed to an audience of fellow theists and open-minded agnostics as I've yet to find any evidence, here at amazon or elsewhere, that dialogue with a new-atheist audience would prove to be anything other than obscurant. The elegance of Intelligent Design, as a scientific theory, is that it levels the philosophical playing field amongst theists and materialists alike as each engage the scientific enterprise, being mindful of the 1960's Wistar Institute's conference that ruled out evolutionary algorithms having been unintelligibly derived.Before proceeding though, I hope you'll keep in mind throughout this short essay, a question which has served me well in keeping this reckless debate in perspective. The question is: What evidence would ever be permissible by materialists that's indicative of an intelligent signature in the book of nature given their enmity against this Signature being considered as part of legitimate scientific inquiry? The real reason for their prohibition, of course, is found in Romans 8:7 despite their many disingenuious protestations about the materialist nature of science given that design in nature is readily demonstrable and requires wilfull and deliberate distortion in describing it as only "apparent". From this biblical admonition, we may deduce that most materialists are spiritually schizoid. Nonetheless, Dawkins and Crick seem to have only postponed their answer to this question by resorting to some form of panspermia, itself subject to materialist causation. Still more revealing, university professors who have posted harsh comments to 5-star reviews have not themselves challenged Dr. Meyer or Dr. Mark McMenamin to a public debate at either The Discovery Institute or an academic setting of their own chosing.Is Darwinism Really A Dangerous Idea Or Mind Over Matter?An excellent place to begin, for purposes of this essay, is with Daniel Dennett's, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", as he discusses how John Locke answered, "Which came first, mind or matter"? Locke said mind while Hume failed to muster up a solid alternative. This Dennettian interlude is yet only an extension of that ongoing debate which began with the Greek philosophers who championed schools of both material self organization vs mind over matter. Enter Darwin's modest, dare I say, innovative scientific theory about successful adaptations via natural selection process; with the later addition of genetics, microevolution has remained an undisputed matter; still, upon closer examination though, natural selection itself has often been described as a misleading metaphor per Lewontin, Oyama, Griffins & Gray. But did I say a modest theory? Well, as Dennett goes on to point out, it actually broached a significant philosophical watershed by providing a "scheme for creating Design out of Chaos without the aid of Mind."Here lay, I maintain, the impetus for what has become a beguiling, materialist dream come true as its "universal acid" spread, as he puts it, all the way up and all the way down the scientific establishment, invoking a taunting "revolutionized worldview". In context, a reversal in philosophical grounding evolved with such ebullient finality that it has become unthinkable, yea Heretical, to ascribe any biological innovations attributable to an Intelligence, period. Unsurprisingly, Dennett also suggests that theistic minds should be restricted to cultural zoos.Ladies And Gentleman Of The Jury: Have You Reached A Verdict?Yet, a fascinating 2012 Gallup Poll was recently conducted which bears irrefutable testimony to the public's overwhelming rejection of this revolutionized dream which is deeply held by members of Darwin's materialist posse; a dream in which they hope that the masses will eventually embrace a beguiling, Dawkinsian baal enshrined as scientific fact. Nevertheless: 46% of the public remain creationists, 32% of the public remain guided evolutionary creationists, and a minority 15% of the public remain blind watchmaker devotees. These statistics have remained virtually unchanged for the past 30+ years now though you might not have necessarily thought so with all the bragging rights exercised by modern day disciples of Darwin; particularly given such recent court trials rendering verdicts similar to the Dover decision and ongoing indoctrination of evolutionary biology in the public schools and institutions of higher learning e.g. repression of Professor Eric Hedin's inclusion of ID reading materials in an interdisciplinary honors course at Ball State University which was instigated by Jerry Coyne. Please note that the Amazon distribution of reviews also mirrors that of the Gallup Poll.Predictably though, despite truncated legal victories, those bragging rights have become very premature and ineffective against an evolutionary-schooled public in this information-dominated age with google search, podcasts, blogs, and electronic access to research libraries; unintended results, no doubt, for very disappointed materialists with expenditure of all those taxpayer dollars. This is why I find duplicitous criticisms of Phillip Johnson, as a mere jurist who is outside of his expertise when criticizing evolution, now to be found wanting. From this poll, one easily surmises that overused quips like "god of the gaps, citizens are ignorant, goddidit, science is materialism, The Dark Ages and Dishonesty Institute" have not significantly increased the percentage of uber-darwinist converts; merely listing such may elicit accusations of yet more out of context quote-mining.This dissent, because it's so widespread and unchanged, tellingly reveals that students and the public have identified materialism disguised as scientific fact which can be accompanied by very sardonic, anti-Christian bigotry which delves into Bart Ehrman or David Hull styled theodicy. In 2014, scholarly criticisms of both Neo-darwinism and Intelligent Design are easily accessible to and can be read with just a click of a mouse. I must confess that this prospect holds much promise for the ID Movement as natural selection continues to favor and swell the ranks of creationists at such a propitious, differential reproduction rate over that of darwinian 15-percenters.Deck The Halls Of The Materialist EliteAnother fascinating survey which highlights materialist influence, this time more specifically within the halls of academia, was conducted by Edward Larson and Larry Witham in 1996. This historian-journalist team repeated a survey completed by psychologist James Leuba back in 1914 and again in 1933. Leuba was interested in measuring the attitudes of scientists toward traditional religious beliefs by asking 2 questions: a.) "Do you believe in a God in intellectual and affective communication with man to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer" and b.) "Do you believe in personal immortality". As you might expect, the answers were given anonymously with yes, no, or don't know responses. (3) Their random sample of names was taken from a directory entitled, Men and Women of Science. Their results, in 1996, mirrored those of Leuba obtained in 1914: 40% of scientists-in-general believe in a prayer answering God and in personal immortality, 40% disbelieve, and 20% were unsure. From this survey which specifically measured attitudes of scientists toward religion, clearly, a significant percentage of theists are also members of the scientific establishment though materialist responses to Doubt, here at amazon, might suggest otherwise.Just as interesting, Larson and Witham repeated this survey for elite-scientists in 1998 defined by elected membership into the halls of the National Academy of Sciences; its membership scored over 90% with "no" responses; for biologists, "no" responses topped at 95%. As can also be seen, this 95% has adversely impacted the potential of ID research being published in biology journals. Stranger still, in a broader context and under ordinary circumstances, the Darwinian Left would otherwise champion and espouse proportional representation and eschew the practice of viewpoint discrimination.A Priori Materialism: Prevent Intelligent Design By Any Means Necessary.As I hinted at earlier, this story really began as most folk already know after the publication of Darwin's, "Origin of Species", which has become part of today's tumultuous and often confusing culture wars. Yet, with the release of "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson, back in the 1990s, the public got their first glimpse into why devotees of the blind watchmaker respond with very defensive and angry retorts when their cherished belief, framed as a scientific theory, is doubted by those of us who question its exclusive explanatory prowess. Johnson as well as other ID scholars, including Stephen Meyer, have revealed the answer to this singularly most important question which now defines the character of this watershed debate. The answer quite simply is this: members of Darwin's materialist posse have made an a priori commitment to materialism before examining the record of nature while strategically wedding the exercise of methodological naturalism and the definition of science to this philosophical framework.Surprisingly, it was during this time period that eminent darwinian disciples, such as Richard Lewontin, Michael Ruse, Kenneth Miller, and Robert Pennock, also came to acknowledge that materialism was, indeed, the philosophical framework to which the scientific enterprise had been rightly wed just as Phillip Johnson had astutely observed in his landmark treatise; the works of philosopher Alvin Plantaga have also delved into this philosophical quandary for those interested. More specifically, a materialism characterized by unintelligent, unguided, undirected, mindless, and purposeless material processes which only appear to mimic intelligent design yet having been endowed with the ability to program information at the molecular level via natural selection and mutation.Subsequently, though Darwin's modern-day posse has continued to defend the theory on strictly "scientific" grounds, Michael Ruse made yet another interesting observation; he maintains, that for many uber-darwinists, their materialist defense is greatly influenced, of all things, by a belief system which functions as a type of secular religion e.g. Darwin's Day celebration. In that vein, Lynn Margulis also acidly stated that Darwinism would eventually be judged as a minor religious sect of Anglo-Saxon biology (Lynn Margulis and palentologist Mark McMenamin were very close colleagues who shared much doubt regarding this blind watchmaker thesis). Interestingly, Darwin himself admitted that many of his contemporaries had done much the same in his day; just perhaps current darwinian fundamentalists will yet relent just a lil' with their Marxian cliche that religion has served as an opiate for the masses, after all? In any case, this explains, if you haven't already noticed here at amazon, helps to explain the reactionary passion, hostility and dogma devoted to their righteous cause; for these responses flow out of an ideologically calcified worldview which, in keeping with the spirit of Darwin's Origins, conscientiously militates against a serious, present day discussion of the information content of living cells which is attributable to any intelligence while simultaneously preempting "a divine foot in the door".Counter-intuitively I might add, we are asked to suspend our otherwise uniform and repeatable experiences that have led us to empirically verify that the varied expressions of "information" have always traced back to an intelligent cause, without exception; and it's uniform, verifiable and repeatable experiences which compose an important part of scientific reasoning. Nevertheless, with so narrowly defined an edict, please permit me to inform you that if you do not unquestioningly believe in the sanctity of this gradualist-fundamentalist doctrinal creed, you will very likely be chastised by a materialist patriarch or member of Darwin's materialist posse, being told that you are stupid, ignorant, insane, delusional and possibly even wicked. This is contrarian, oppositional defiance and not science. Stephen Jay Gould, who remains one of my favorite evolutionary authors, once informed us that the neo-darwinian synthesis was very beguiling for materialists, and so, is it any wonder that another just-so story in the form of macroevolution with designoids and selfish genes has proven to be just too irresistible? These are materialists employing "science" just as Phillip Johnson revealingly exposed in "Darwin on Trial".Splitting The Log Of MaterialismEnter Stephen Meyer's splendiferous magnum opus, "Darwin's Doubt". Meyer, who has degrees in physics, geology, and philosophy of science, captures the imagination of materialists in their obsession with mindless operations in nature. With Meyer's background both in applied science and philosophy, I was not very surprised to learn via recent Discovery Institute podcasts that Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne declined debates extended to them. (4) With his Signature and Doubt treatises, he once again aids his readers to more keenly differentiate between matter and information. In that regard, George Williams, recently deceased but a darwinist with impeccable credentials, once criticized evolutionary biologists for not recognizing that information and matter are incommensurable domains: " In biology, when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality." (5)This lack of recognition was clearly documented throughout Doubt and particularly as Meyer explored Post-Darwinian theories currently being pursued in order to account for the generation, retrieval, and storage of digital information. This backdrop is significant as Meyer frames throughout this exhaustive work how Intelligent Design serves as a scientific theory by using the very exact scientific reasoning that Darwin based his modest theory on; variously known as vera causa, inference to the best explanation or, as Gould once affectionately described, a consilience of induction, this reasoning is used throughout forensic sciences. Ironically, even though Darwin conscientiously used vera causa to elude Intelligence, Meyer boldly, brazeningly, and brilliantly reintroduces evidenced based Signature by using the very same scientific reasoning. This is why criticisms along the line of "god of the gaps", which amount to accusations of an argument from ignorance, are but a philological ruse without merit. The evidence is quite clear regarding this overused strawman as ID theory posits positive, affirming knowledge of the cause, now in operation and in the spirit of Lyellian uniformitarianism, that explains the genesis of ALL information which is easily verifiable while also critiquing the "informational gaps" found throughout the Blind Watchmaker thesis.But don't expect most materialists to admit this as their secularized, religious ideology strategically rules out Intelligence in the very definition of how science works; obviously, to do so would threaten their worldview with falsification. The audacity of materialists to equate materialism with science is nothing more than prejudicial front-end loading resulting in that Darwinian baal I mentioned earlier; creationists, on the other hand and in comparison to Darwin's materialist posse, have an appreciable historical heritage of scientific reasoning and discovery with roots tracing back to the scientific revolution. (6) But there's also a very interesting socio-political dynamic at work here; a materialist consensus is being wielded, albeit unsuccessfully, in an attempt to shutdown legitimate scientific dissent to promulgate a materialist worldview; orchestrating such by the misuse of academic authority narrowly concentrated in the hands of an atheistic elite as the Larson and Whitham survey amply demonstrates.For me, their attempt at doing so is not really surprising even as similar individuals continue to be vey unsuccessful at discouraging legitimate dissent here at amazon with their use of uncouth, caustic, and ad hominem comments. For example, witness the spirit of Occupy Wallstreet on full display complete with materialist squatters who while denying anti-Christian bigotry endorse the cantankerous rantings of a bombastic former young-earth demagogue and spokesman now turned theistic evolutionist whom both they and Richard Dawkins would still call delusional: see recent "One Who Learns Online" comment below as he continues to obsequiously seek after a mere pittance of materialist approval while mysteriously guarding his former young earth identity. Their taking advantage of such a misguided, authoritarian personality type who yearns for their acceptance composes only part of a much broader unconventional strategy elsewhere employed by fellow Leftists who are especially adept at the use of utopian devises: morph into "Transformers" in a politically correct defense of Darwin when discussing the roots of social darwinism; defend the tragi-comic passage and imposition of ObamaCare upon the public; liberally approve of Coyne's role in the Ball State University's gag order directed against ID; endorse pro-choice mob which wrecked havoc during the last special session of the Texas Legislature; approve of Darwin lobby which helped to mislead Judge Jones, in the Dover Trial, into actually believing that evolution of new genetic information has occurred via natural process; indifferent to the possible use of Executive Orders being issued by President Obama to implement social justice edicts; tacit approval of skullduggery associated with cancellation of Darwin's Dilemma screening at the California Science Center.The Wedge of Truth: Asking The Right QuestionsContinuing, this is the same bias which also helps to explain interest in Carl Sagan's SETI program in their pursuit of finding "little green men from space" or finding remains of fossilized microbes beneath the polar-desert of Mars as they WANT to find evidence for ETs or evidence that Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles is not so fictional after all; this would be yet more evidence that the Blind Watchmaker has been creating elsewhere throughout the cosmos even as they squint at a gnat discerning whether or not the implantation of a human zygote into the uterine wall merits preservation; yesz, human designers are also welcomed too. But evidence of Intelligence staring them right in the face within the vast biological realm here on Earth is only apparent so they tell us; an illusion, a deception of nature's improbabilities, and nothing more Dawkins would lament. Could this be the universal acid that Dennett has in "mind"? I concede that this is the type of question only a creationist would dare ask.In contrast to materialist misrepresentation, ID has methodically introduced an important scientific middle ground assuming neither materialism nor theism while conscientiously using methods specifically amenable to historical sciences. Again though, don't expect materialists to publicly state that there is a distinction between ID and creationism even as my essay has rhetorically shifted between the two: some will only perseverate upon the weakness of negative argumentation; many who do understand perfectly well will not concede the obvious point because of a dogmatic belief that a Post-Darwinian theory will yet be discovered; some who readily grapple with the implications of theodicy seem to only grudgingly embrace Nietzsche and avoid the implications of social darwinism; and for still others, they just, I mean, they just don't get it. For example, page 412 has been used to suggest an admission to creationist formulation of ID theory, the supposed Phase II of the Wedge and a favorite smoking gun; never mind the fact that Meyer specifically states otherwise on page 413, in the very last paragraph, having simply pointed out second order philosophical implications which they continue to conflate.While ID theory is certainly falsifiable should a materialist explanation be discovered, these self-organizing and auto-catalytic theories remain impotent into the foreseeable future. Why? Meyer outlines 3 basic informational barriers that materialists must account for: 1.) the digital code found in DNA, 2.) the genesis of neurochemical circuitry and engineering necessary for the construction of body plans, and 3.) the hierarchical organization of epigenetic information via Neo-Lamarckism. Attempts to reduce information to mere materialist processes involving chemical selection, without a doubt, is what philosophers call a category mistake because DNA is only the medium and not the message though Post-Darwinian researchers would, of course, greatly differ. It's the difference between using the laws of physics and chemistry to describe the ink and paper composing a page in a book AND a mind which comprehends the information which was transcribed onto that page by intelligence. And so, a really fair reading of "The Wedge" is about asking the right questions, inference to the best explanation also invoked by Darwin himself, and Popperian dissent. The Wedge is grounded in scientific reasoning despite its many misinformed distracters.EpilogueThe Apostle Paul once noted that the Epicureans, Stoics, and pagans at Mars Hill were most religious with their worship of many gods during his time; not much has really changed as even now the vast majority of the American public has had to confront the worship of a 21st century god of scientism; a Dawkinsian baal, endowed with the powers of natural magic beyond mathematization, she once again enjoys the worship from an academic elite who dogmatically believe her existence, this time, is rooted in macroevolutionary science with biology once again yielding to metaphysics.Metaphysics? Well, my essay suggests that it all depends upon what you know just ain't so; these metaphysicians, these strident messengers of Paine, Rousseau, and Voltaire."There are more things in heavenAnd earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (7)End Notes(1) "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism" by Phillip Johnson, 2000; "The White Doe of Rylstone", 33-34, by William Wordsworth.(2) Broadly speaking, for most orthodox materialists the essential philosophical difference is best described by Stephen Jay Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria(NOMA) which separates science and religion into non-overlapping magisterium. Gould's NOMA is particularly significant in that it represents a very important pillar of scientism now extant throughout evolutionary biology. Scientism, however, is a dumb-downed version of positivism which stipulates that authoritative knowledge may only be gained via mathematical treatments or experimental verification. The opinion that scientism is true is not itself, of course, a truth that can be demonstrated by science: Is scientism really true, and did "science" tell you that?And so, Gould's NOMA represents more of an epistemological leap of faith based on philosophic materialism than upon ontological verification as this doctrine cannot be mathematically demonstrated or experimentally verified; like so many deeply held scientistic convictions, NOMA ultimately is self-refuting. And yet, while his NOMA is widely indulged and applied by fellow materialists, Gould also described a more modest approach, a "consilience of induction" invoked by Darwin himself, in his 1992 Scientific American review of Phillip Johnson's, "Darwin On Trial. What's important here is that NOMA, as a strict tenet of scientism, is actually incompatible with consilience of induction though materialists often unwittingly gloss over this as though it's a distinction without a difference; this helps to explain why Gould was often criticized by Darwinian Fundamentalists for equivocation. For anti-theists, the New Atheists of our time, their scientism is also self-defeatingly, self-refuting for the same reasons.Also, reviewers will find that most amazon materialists will present a revisionist version of the very recent debate between Meyer and Charles Marshall found at: evolutionnews"dot"org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811"dot"html . Though Marshall stated that he "enjoyed reading" Darwin's Doubt, thought it was "good scholarship", and said that it "looked like good science", many will nevertheless attempt to distort his positive comments, using a logical fallacy known as "a distinction without a difference". Fair-minded listeners will learn that for every critique that Marshall presents, Meyer astutely addresses and refutes.(3) "Scientists and Religion in America" by Edward Larson and Larry Witham in Scientific American, 1999.(4) Evolution News & Views for refutations of criticisms.(5) "Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges" by George Williams, 1992.(6) Reasons To Believe with Hugh Ross; reasons"dot"org: search ENCODE for discussions about skeptics, multiple overlapping codes and "codon usage bias".(7) Hamlet Act I, scene v.

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 FossilsDarwin 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 AnimalI 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 MathA 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 PlansNot 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 RevolutionThis 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 ModelsUnsurprisingly, 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 DesignNelson, 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 ExplosionEven 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 StakeMeyer 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.