Ben Mordecai
asked:
Has anyone reviewed this book that is not on a crusade and who has read the whole book? I don't think that is a lot to ask.
To answer questions about
Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design,
please sign up.
Martin Roules
I seriously wanted to read the scientific background about the Cambrian Explosion. Having completed this complex and detailed book, I am astonished how weak the macroevolution case is, how many statistical and mathematical holes it has. "Denial" is not a convincing argument -- and the priests of evolution are BIG on denial. Anyone who wants to be fully informed on the origin of life and its development on earth MUST read this book.
Brett
It seems difficult to dismiss Intelligent Design from consideration after reading this. It is a pity that science considers certain subjects closed and refuses to listen to anything but the "consensus" and ridicules, if not openly persecutes, those who question orthodox views. We ought to know better by now, but science continues to be bought and paid for and defenses of purity and reason ring hollow.
It would seem that we are stuck on this mote of dust far from anywhere with our current science - and with all our knowledge incapable of managing our resources short of authoritarian means. While the distinction between hard science and soft science needs to be clear, it isn't - and that is actually more the fault of hard scientists manipulated by politics than soft science imposing its views.
I pull these definitions from my love of science fiction, where hard science is that which could actually happen and soft science is conjecture, from over-the-horizon prophesy to pure fantasy. I do not share in the popular notion that we have discovered most of the basic principles of the Universe, let alone that we understand them.
It is those who dreamed of flying built the first planes (and balloons) and if you want to build your world view on the basis of radio isotope decay and paleontology I understand that. I'm not even asking you to jump from the cliff first. There is a name for scientists who take risks: inventor.
Regulatory bodies do not like to deal with new information (and information is what Meyer is talking about) and seek to impose their rules and regulations in order to enforce a hierarchy disturbingly similar to certain religions, republics, monarchies, authoritarian regimes and corporations. If we seek to stifle debate because it disturbs the status quo, we may miss an opportunity - say the ability to manipulate time and space ourselves - and deservedly so.
Natural selection has always made sense to me, but I have never made the logical conclusion that evolution thus follows; besides, evolution hits a brick wall when you follow it back to the cellular level, let alone the intricacies of DNA and such random 'coincidences' as chlorophyll, hemoglobin and the human mind itself.
It would seem that we are stuck on this mote of dust far from anywhere with our current science - and with all our knowledge incapable of managing our resources short of authoritarian means. While the distinction between hard science and soft science needs to be clear, it isn't - and that is actually more the fault of hard scientists manipulated by politics than soft science imposing its views.
I pull these definitions from my love of science fiction, where hard science is that which could actually happen and soft science is conjecture, from over-the-horizon prophesy to pure fantasy. I do not share in the popular notion that we have discovered most of the basic principles of the Universe, let alone that we understand them.
It is those who dreamed of flying built the first planes (and balloons) and if you want to build your world view on the basis of radio isotope decay and paleontology I understand that. I'm not even asking you to jump from the cliff first. There is a name for scientists who take risks: inventor.
Regulatory bodies do not like to deal with new information (and information is what Meyer is talking about) and seek to impose their rules and regulations in order to enforce a hierarchy disturbingly similar to certain religions, republics, monarchies, authoritarian regimes and corporations. If we seek to stifle debate because it disturbs the status quo, we may miss an opportunity - say the ability to manipulate time and space ourselves - and deservedly so.
Natural selection has always made sense to me, but I have never made the logical conclusion that evolution thus follows; besides, evolution hits a brick wall when you follow it back to the cellular level, let alone the intricacies of DNA and such random 'coincidences' as chlorophyll, hemoglobin and the human mind itself.
Nigel Eves
Yes, it has been peer reviewed and thoroughly dismissed here...
http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28...
Actually, peer reviewed is not being fair. Meyer has no training in paleontology, more of a duck like person...
http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28...
Actually, peer reviewed is not being fair. Meyer has no training in paleontology, more of a duck like person...
WinstonSmith
It was quite possibly the most clever creationist guise I've ever had the pleasure of reading. As someone who teaches science for a living, I found the book quite entertaining. From straw men to complete fallacies, this book had it all. It even had a few new ones that took me about 5 minutes of research to disprove. The only way people will enjoy this book is if they are in need of some more confirmation bias.
Abraham Rempel
Ben Mordecal, "Darwins Doubt" is one of the few books I give a 5 star rating. Can't say I'm on a crusade, but have read it at three times.
Abraham Rempel
"The Book of Nots in Science & Religion"
Abraham Rempel
"The Book of Nots in Science & Religion"
Darryl
I have yet to read this myself, but one famously gifted computer scientist who has read all of this book and defends it (in fact credits it for demolishing his faith in Darwinism) is David Gelernter. He's the reason I'm going to read this book. His article is found at:
https://www.claremont.org/crb/article...
https://www.claremont.org/crb/article...
Mike
Wrong question. Has anyone with actual expertise in evolutionary biology recommended this book? Of course not, silly. This book is simply a "god of the gaps" fallacy creationist denial of reality.
Luis
Yes.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more
