---
product_id: 1363329
title: "Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design"
price: "€ 42.88"
currency: EUR
in_stock: true
reviews_count: 8
url: https://www.desertcart.com.cy/products/1363329-darwins-doubt-the-explosive-origin-of-animal-life-and-case
store_origin: CY
region: Cyprus
---

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

**Price:** € 42.88
**Availability:** ✅ In Stock

## Quick Answers

- **What is this?** Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design
- **How much does it cost?** € 42.88 with free shipping
- **Is it available?** Yes, in stock and ready to ship
- **Where can I buy it?** [www.desertcart.com.cy](https://www.desertcart.com.cy/products/1363329-darwins-doubt-the-explosive-origin-of-animal-life-and-case)

## Best For

- Customers looking for quality international products

## Why This Product

- Free international shipping included
- Worldwide delivery with tracking
- 15-day hassle-free returns

## Description

Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design [Meyer, Stephen C.] on desertcart.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design

Review: Required reading in the debate over intelligent design - 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.
Review: Richard Dawkins needs to hide...or evolve quickly! - Dr. Meyers: "Darwin's Doubt" will shelve "Origin of Species" to the comic book isle. I have both his books "Signature in a Cell" and "Darwin's Doubt". I have gone through them both once and I admit I need to read them again. Biology (to me) seems more difficult to understand than cosmology...but like any learning, there is always a learning curve. It is not learning that is the problem (we have a very capable brain), it is finding the time away from this rut-like-world to allow us to discern truth. I met with Dr. Meyer and listened to his lectures recently at a Charlotte, N.C. conference and I was impressed with his presentation, knowledge, and focused passion. I suspect in the future that Dr. Meyer and Richard Dawkins will/must have an open debate. Richard; you need to evolve, very quickly before you debate with Dr. Meyer--and you do not have millions or years to blindly do it. The constant ad hominem attack by materialistic Darwinists that ID is just religion (in disguise) is a lame and childish whine--frankly; I believe most of you are tired of hearing it. If I.D. leads to religion then fine, but it does NOT begin with religion (there is no preempted bias). If one is seeking truth then one must be prepared to go where it leads regardless of how uncomfortable it might make you. There is no dogma in proper religion! Those that go and chant their brains into submission are only destroying the one very unique `tool' we have (our brain). IF one believes in God then they must be insulting Him...and Galileo said it first and best: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use". If there is any restriction to advanced knowledge then it is science which limits itself to only materialistic beginnings and only materialistic conclusions: it is particle physics that states matter is mostly empty space and E=MC^2 that concludes matter is energy and light (speed). And Quantum Mechanics involves itself hardly with that which is materialistically testable. Science is painting itself in its own materialistic corner (with no room to advance). Admittedly, I'm not sure where it would go, to advance past materialistic conclusions (and we should NOT give up trying but we should also not limit ourselves to it)--let's leave that to mathematics, philosophy, and some few really smart non-biased folks. But any dogma is bad when it brainwashes people from using their curiosity (be it science dogma or religious dogma) and it was bad religion (used to control people and maintain the power of religious leaders) that restraint society for over 1600 years until Copernicus and Galileo came along and liberated us from a Geocentric society (if the Catholic Church had sought truth then, then who knows how much further along we would be, now). Our education system is another dogmatic establishment--it gets the basics into our heads and then it programs us to (overall) just get a job and earn a wage so that we will then be a tax base asset to the society. I know that sounds really, wrong--but think about it. Education should do what it does now--but we need to continue learning after we attain employment and we need to have the education system that teaches graduates to remain curious and to continue learning, but this curiosity needs to be guided by an experienced conscience. There are laws: cosmic and moral...all things are NOT allowed least we end up as a horde of pirates (and even pirates have a code). We are not designed to be too free (in what we do). Totally free, gets us into trouble and makes us lost; too limited puts us in restraints and causes us to rebel...honest justice, fairness, and truth is much more satisfying then collecting stuff. It seems that the abstracts (to include intelligence/information) satisfy us far better than any amount of materialistic items. I wonder why? One thing that has twisted my head even before Dr. Meyer's books came along (and William Dembski also has some good books concerning I.D. backed up via mathematics) has now surfaced with a vengeance: If we are just Darwinist evolutionary mistakes with no purpose or reason for being and have survived only by blind natural selection `efforts' (which weeds out the non-functioning, the weak, old, and young), then why do we have the size brain we have? If we evolved by natural selection then that process provides just what is necessary to survive--not more. It does not provide MORE than what is necessary for that would be a waste of energy, materials, and need. Humans do not have any natural predators because we can out-think them and too we adapt our environment. Further, many of our most important advancements have (at the start) no Darwinist survival value. What are some examples? The four dune-buggies we have on the moon (or just going there), diving to the deepest parts of the ocean, beauty, art, music, flight, electricity, nuclear power etc etc. Admittedly, once having acquired such they have done humanity well. Our world would be terrible without electricity and what we have accomplished in medicine and chemistry is phenomenal. The only push that natural selection `should' provide is that we: don't get eaten, but can eat, survive our environment, and can prorogate our kind. So how did we get this brain that has allowed us to outdo natural selections' limited ability to only allow us to survive; to just get by? We are NOT just getting by. I did not want to just review Dr. Meyers' book but to also make a plea that we use our brains for more than just a repository for dogmatic bias and power trips. Life and even existence itself (such as the age old question: Why is there something rather than nothing?) when we finally figure it out is bound to be stranger than we suppose. No! It will be stranger than we CAN suppose. And yet here we are trying to suppose it. Where did we get this ability? I believe the bottom line to where Dr. Meyer is making his conclusion is really all too obvious and also very controversial and not liked (just like the Big Bang Singularity is controversial and not liked as compared to the failed Steady State Eternal theory). If one discovers information then it must originate from intelligence--somehow. Disorder and chaos is the law of entropy. And in chaos and disorder information is not found (because it is chaotic) yet if there is information buried in the chaos then it has a difficult time hiding from our thinking abilities. For example: it takes a large brain to even recognize that a jigsaw puzzle began as a low entropic design, that was then cut-up and allowed to increase in entropy, so that we could then `enjoy' and use our imagination and thinking ability (our large brain) to put it back together (in order). We come into life with a puzzle--DNA; and this puzzle has purpose and is designed it cannot come out of chaos and error any more than a jigsaw puzzle can appear by mistake and blind natural selection. We seek knowledge, reason, and test for what is good in life (all three are scientific and all three are also Biblical). We look for patterns, symmetry, order, empirical ability, meaning, trust, fairness, perfection, we imagine and then design new things (and get upset when those things decay and break down) and we hate the insidious itch of time--we are one weird and special piece of work! We hardly fit in with any other creature on this planet in spite of the fact that we are all made of the same (few) periodic table elements. If there are aliens anywhere then in looking at life on Earth (collectively) we look to be the only creature not of this world. Dr. Meyer is doing for our (biologic) scientific society and education what Copernicus and Galileo did for cosmology--many years ago they removed the dogma of a religiously controlled geocentric Earth. Dr. Stephen Meyer is removing the dogma of a narrow minded materialistically controlled antiquated science; borne of a time before electricity, hydraulics, aviation, and nuclear power. Darwin is...really dead! As of 27 Oct... I've decided to not receive any more replies; (and to delete out some of my replies) the discussion(?) was full of childish egotistical rants, playground bulling and abuse (I even fed them back their own medicine hoping that they would come around and stop being so foolish...but it did not work). I'm too old, educated, and experienced...to compete over this length of time--it's a waste of effort and brainpower. No reasonable, logical, thought provoking words were received. At first (and in my post) I nearly begged for rational discussion...yet only received selfish prejudicial rhetoric based mainly on the comment that I went to a conference in Charlotte NC...so therefore I don't have a brain and must be a young earth, ark and flood believing Christian (poisoned against logic and materialism's 'only' answers to existence). Some Christians are young Earthers; not me, some do not hold any credibility to science (and evolution) not me...etc etc etc. And yet I've met many Christians who do accept materialism but also realize that everything cannot be materialism (there is a blending here in life and too in our existence--it is not so rigid and conservative as materialistic science forces those here to be limited to). Science has a philosophy and all scientists have a faith (in the universality of math, and reason an odd occurrence and language). I'm very confident that Dr. Meyer will ruffle up the Darwinist thought process in the future, regardless of the children bantering here. I'll just have to find a better source of folks to discuss with...I'm sure the Internet has many blogs which are not prejudicially limited and tied to a limited materialistic view point. The truth is out there one way or the other and either way it is very interesting and full wonder and surprises; but one thing IS certain...there will be many who will try to explain away the result because they are set in their way and do not want to change. The truth always makes someone uncomfortable...so we need to be ready to have an open mind.

## Technical Specifications

| Specification | Value |
|---------------|-------|
| Best Sellers Rank | #39,178 in Books ( See Top 100 in Books ) #9 in Creationism #30 in Science & Religion (Books) #98 in History & Philosophy of Science (Books) |
| Customer Reviews | 4.7 out of 5 stars 1,945 Reviews |

## Images

![Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design - Image 1](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/91LH9mQbiTL.jpg)

## Customer Reviews

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Required reading in the debate over intelligent design
*by K***N on June 2, 2014*

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.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Richard Dawkins needs to hide...or evolve quickly!
*by G***N on October 25, 2013*

Dr. Meyers: "Darwin's Doubt" will shelve "Origin of Species" to the comic book isle. I have both his books "Signature in a Cell" and "Darwin's Doubt". I have gone through them both once and I admit I need to read them again. Biology (to me) seems more difficult to understand than cosmology...but like any learning, there is always a learning curve. It is not learning that is the problem (we have a very capable brain), it is finding the time away from this rut-like-world to allow us to discern truth. I met with Dr. Meyer and listened to his lectures recently at a Charlotte, N.C. conference and I was impressed with his presentation, knowledge, and focused passion. I suspect in the future that Dr. Meyer and Richard Dawkins will/must have an open debate. Richard; you need to evolve, very quickly before you debate with Dr. Meyer--and you do not have millions or years to blindly do it. The constant ad hominem attack by materialistic Darwinists that ID is just religion (in disguise) is a lame and childish whine--frankly; I believe most of you are tired of hearing it. If I.D. leads to religion then fine, but it does NOT begin with religion (there is no preempted bias). If one is seeking truth then one must be prepared to go where it leads regardless of how uncomfortable it might make you. There is no dogma in proper religion! Those that go and chant their brains into submission are only destroying the one very unique `tool' we have (our brain). IF one believes in God then they must be insulting Him...and Galileo said it first and best: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use". If there is any restriction to advanced knowledge then it is science which limits itself to only materialistic beginnings and only materialistic conclusions: it is particle physics that states matter is mostly empty space and E=MC^2 that concludes matter is energy and light (speed). And Quantum Mechanics involves itself hardly with that which is materialistically testable. Science is painting itself in its own materialistic corner (with no room to advance). Admittedly, I'm not sure where it would go, to advance past materialistic conclusions (and we should NOT give up trying but we should also not limit ourselves to it)--let's leave that to mathematics, philosophy, and some few really smart non-biased folks. But any dogma is bad when it brainwashes people from using their curiosity (be it science dogma or religious dogma) and it was bad religion (used to control people and maintain the power of religious leaders) that restraint society for over 1600 years until Copernicus and Galileo came along and liberated us from a Geocentric society (if the Catholic Church had sought truth then, then who knows how much further along we would be, now). Our education system is another dogmatic establishment--it gets the basics into our heads and then it programs us to (overall) just get a job and earn a wage so that we will then be a tax base asset to the society. I know that sounds really, wrong--but think about it. Education should do what it does now--but we need to continue learning after we attain employment and we need to have the education system that teaches graduates to remain curious and to continue learning, but this curiosity needs to be guided by an experienced conscience. There are laws: cosmic and moral...all things are NOT allowed least we end up as a horde of pirates (and even pirates have a code). We are not designed to be too free (in what we do). Totally free, gets us into trouble and makes us lost; too limited puts us in restraints and causes us to rebel...honest justice, fairness, and truth is much more satisfying then collecting stuff. It seems that the abstracts (to include intelligence/information) satisfy us far better than any amount of materialistic items. I wonder why? One thing that has twisted my head even before Dr. Meyer's books came along (and William Dembski also has some good books concerning I.D. backed up via mathematics) has now surfaced with a vengeance: If we are just Darwinist evolutionary mistakes with no purpose or reason for being and have survived only by blind natural selection `efforts' (which weeds out the non-functioning, the weak, old, and young), then why do we have the size brain we have? If we evolved by natural selection then that process provides just what is necessary to survive--not more. It does not provide MORE than what is necessary for that would be a waste of energy, materials, and need. Humans do not have any natural predators because we can out-think them and too we adapt our environment. Further, many of our most important advancements have (at the start) no Darwinist survival value. What are some examples? The four dune-buggies we have on the moon (or just going there), diving to the deepest parts of the ocean, beauty, art, music, flight, electricity, nuclear power etc etc. Admittedly, once having acquired such they have done humanity well. Our world would be terrible without electricity and what we have accomplished in medicine and chemistry is phenomenal. The only push that natural selection `should' provide is that we: don't get eaten, but can eat, survive our environment, and can prorogate our kind. So how did we get this brain that has allowed us to outdo natural selections' limited ability to only allow us to survive; to just get by? We are NOT just getting by. I did not want to just review Dr. Meyers' book but to also make a plea that we use our brains for more than just a repository for dogmatic bias and power trips. Life and even existence itself (such as the age old question: Why is there something rather than nothing?) when we finally figure it out is bound to be stranger than we suppose. No! It will be stranger than we CAN suppose. And yet here we are trying to suppose it. Where did we get this ability? I believe the bottom line to where Dr. Meyer is making his conclusion is really all too obvious and also very controversial and not liked (just like the Big Bang Singularity is controversial and not liked as compared to the failed Steady State Eternal theory). If one discovers information then it must originate from intelligence--somehow. Disorder and chaos is the law of entropy. And in chaos and disorder information is not found (because it is chaotic) yet if there is information buried in the chaos then it has a difficult time hiding from our thinking abilities. For example: it takes a large brain to even recognize that a jigsaw puzzle began as a low entropic design, that was then cut-up and allowed to increase in entropy, so that we could then `enjoy' and use our imagination and thinking ability (our large brain) to put it back together (in order). We come into life with a puzzle--DNA; and this puzzle has purpose and is designed it cannot come out of chaos and error any more than a jigsaw puzzle can appear by mistake and blind natural selection. We seek knowledge, reason, and test for what is good in life (all three are scientific and all three are also Biblical). We look for patterns, symmetry, order, empirical ability, meaning, trust, fairness, perfection, we imagine and then design new things (and get upset when those things decay and break down) and we hate the insidious itch of time--we are one weird and special piece of work! We hardly fit in with any other creature on this planet in spite of the fact that we are all made of the same (few) periodic table elements. If there are aliens anywhere then in looking at life on Earth (collectively) we look to be the only creature not of this world. Dr. Meyer is doing for our (biologic) scientific society and education what Copernicus and Galileo did for cosmology--many years ago they removed the dogma of a religiously controlled geocentric Earth. Dr. Stephen Meyer is removing the dogma of a narrow minded materialistically controlled antiquated science; borne of a time before electricity, hydraulics, aviation, and nuclear power. Darwin is...really dead! As of 27 Oct... I've decided to not receive any more replies; (and to delete out some of my replies) the discussion(?) was full of childish egotistical rants, playground bulling and abuse (I even fed them back their own medicine hoping that they would come around and stop being so foolish...but it did not work). I'm too old, educated, and experienced...to compete over this length of time--it's a waste of effort and brainpower. No reasonable, logical, thought provoking words were received. At first (and in my post) I nearly begged for rational discussion...yet only received selfish prejudicial rhetoric based mainly on the comment that I went to a conference in Charlotte NC...so therefore I don't have a brain and must be a young earth, ark and flood believing Christian (poisoned against logic and materialism's 'only' answers to existence). Some Christians are young Earthers; not me, some do not hold any credibility to science (and evolution) not me...etc etc etc. And yet I've met many Christians who do accept materialism but also realize that everything cannot be materialism (there is a blending here in life and too in our existence--it is not so rigid and conservative as materialistic science forces those here to be limited to). Science has a philosophy and all scientists have a faith (in the universality of math, and reason an odd occurrence and language). I'm very confident that Dr. Meyer will ruffle up the Darwinist thought process in the future, regardless of the children bantering here. I'll just have to find a better source of folks to discuss with...I'm sure the Internet has many blogs which are not prejudicially limited and tied to a limited materialistic view point. The truth is out there one way or the other and either way it is very interesting and full wonder and surprises; but one thing IS certain...there will be many who will try to explain away the result because they are set in their way and do not want to change. The truth always makes someone uncomfortable...so we need to be ready to have an open mind.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Critical Book Review - Darwin’s Doubt
*by D***C on April 19, 2015*

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.

## Frequently Bought Together

- Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design
- Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
- Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe―Discoveries in Physics and Cosmology

---

## Why Shop on Desertcart?

- 🛒 **Trusted by 1.3+ Million Shoppers** — Serving international shoppers since 2016
- 🌍 **Shop Globally** — Access 737+ million products across 21 categories
- 💰 **No Hidden Fees** — All customs, duties, and taxes included in the price
- 🔄 **15-Day Free Returns** — Hassle-free returns (30 days for PRO members)
- 🔒 **Secure Payments** — Trusted payment options with buyer protection
- ⭐ **TrustPilot Rated 4.5/5** — Based on 8,000+ happy customer reviews

**Shop now:** [https://www.desertcart.com.cy/products/1363329-darwins-doubt-the-explosive-origin-of-animal-life-and-case](https://www.desertcart.com.cy/products/1363329-darwins-doubt-the-explosive-origin-of-animal-life-and-case)

---

*Product available on Desertcart Cyprus*
*Store origin: CY*
*Last updated: 2026-02-20*