Christian Readers discussion

40 views
Book Discussions > Darwin's Doubt

Comments Showing 1-7 of 7 (7 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Debbie (new)

Debbie (wolfflet) | 3 comments I'm curious if any members of this group have read Darwin's Doubt.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

If so, I'd like to hear from you. I struggled with a lot of the science he covered and short of examining all of his sources, found it to not be so utterly convincing, though highly informative.

I'm moving on to Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati next.


message 2: by Alan (new)

Alan Fuller | 26 comments Here's a review I posted.


Most evolutionists hold to methodological materialism, which rules out anything but purposeless chance guided by natural selection. There is no design. The belief was that maybe 90% of DNA was ‘junk DNA.’ It was a product of the random process of evolution. The prediction of ID was that most DNA would be functional. It turns out that ID is right.

Lamarckian theories of inheritance fell out of favor early in the last century. Neo-Lamarckian epigenetic inheritance has recently been discovered to play a part in genetics.

Stephen Jay Gould first wrestled with the question of how new forms of animal life could have arisen so quickly in the fossil record. In his famed 1980 paper he declared neo-Darwinism “effectively dead." Neo-Darwinism lacks an explanation for the origin of organismal form precisely because it cannot explain the origin of epigenetic information. The neo-Darwinian synthesis was formulated during the 1930s before the elucidation of the structure of DNA.

Many evolutionary biologists have simply regarded mathematical challenges to the creative power of the mechanism, coming as they mostly do from scientists and engineers in other fields, as exotic or irrelevant. Overall synthesis of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian theory came to be called “neo-Darwinism.” Eldredge and Gould devised the theory of punctuated equilibrium to eliminate the conflict between the fossil record and evolutionary theory. This was a discrepancy that puzzled Darwin himself. Darwin believed that layers of sediments would eventually be discovered that would solve the lack of transitional life forms. Preservation of numerous soft-bodied Cambrian animals as well as Precambrian embryos and microorganisms undermines the idea of an extensive period of undetected soft-bodied evolution.


message 3: by Debbie (new)

Debbie (wolfflet) | 3 comments Thanks! I've finished Sarfati's Refuting Evolution and I believe that he covered all of the topics, if not more so, than Darwin's Doubt and didn't bury me in science at the same time!


message 4: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle Yes, thankfully Darwin's claims have been dealt with by many good and honest scientists. Sarfati has some great stuff.


message 5: by [deleted user] (new)

I have a DVD called Darwin's Dilemma which is based on Stephen Meyer's Darwin's Doubt...excellent DVD on the Cambrian Explosion...with some really good questions/answers in "special features." But have not read the book yet.

I have read Meyer's Signature in the Cell...which I found brilliant and well written. Would also recommend Seven Days That Divide the World by John C. Lennox.

Am currently reading Undeniable by Douglas Axe...so far one of the best and most readable books on the evolution/creation debate.

Have not heard of Sarfati but will read him next. Thanks, Rod.


message 6: by Debbie (new)

Debbie (wolfflet) | 3 comments Thanks for the Meyer's book recommendation!


message 7: by [deleted user] (new)

Undeniable by Douglas Axe turned out to be a great book...makes a great case for why we do not have to be PhD scientists to unravel the creation/evolution issues.

Would also recommend Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells...very readable book.

Two classics if you have not already read them: Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson...law professor examining the evidence for Darwinism...and Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe...both authors prominent in the Intelligent Design debate.


back to top