Here on the UK Telegraph.
#1 Barnes and Noble. #5 Amazon.
Darwin’s Doubt is by far the most up-to-date, accurate, comprehensive and in-depth review of the evidence from all relevant scientific fields that I have encountered in 40 years of studying the Cambrian explosion. An engaging investigation of the origin of animal life and a compelling case for intelligent design.
— Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany.
Stephen Meyer’s new book Darwin’s Doubt represents an opportunity for bridge-building, rather than dismissive polarization — bridges across cultural divides in great need of professional, respectful dialog — and bridges to span evolutionary gaps.
— Harvard geneticist George Church.
It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian Explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer for the study of evolution and evolutionary biology. Stephen Meyer points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of Cambrian animal phyla.
— Mark McMenamin, paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and author of The Emergence of Animals (Columbia University Press).
Stephen Meyer elegantly explains why the sudden appearance of animal forms in the Cambrian period gave Darwin pause. He also demonstrates, based on cutting-edge molecular biology, why explaining the origin of animals is now not just a problem of missing fossils, but an even greater engineering problem at the molecular level. With mathematical precision, he shows why the neo-Darwinian mechanism cannot produce the genetic information and novel proteins — or systems for regulating their expression — that are required to build new animals. An excellent book and a must read for anyone who wants to gain understanding of the very real — though often unreported — scientific challenges facing neo-Darwinism.
— Dr. Russell Carlson, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology, director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, at the University of Georgia.
Darwin’s Doubt is an intriguing exploration of one of the most remarkable periods in the evolutionary history of life — the rapid efflorescence of complex body plans written in the fossils of the Burgess Shale. In laying out his case for intelligent design (ID) based on this evidence, Meyer has emerged from the “ID wars” of the past decade as perhaps the most thoughtful and engaging advocate of this controversial perspective. No matter what convictions or beliefs one holds about evolution, Darwinism or intelligent design, Darwin’s Doubt is a book that should be read, engaged and discussed.
— Dr. Scott Turner teaches biology at the State University of New York. He’s the author of The Tinkerer’s Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself (Harvard University Press).
Orrrr-some, and loooong overdue. Here: discoveringid.org
Here. And for the MP3, CD Baby is significantly cheaper than Amazon and iTunes.
Great lecture by Dr. John Lennox at Socrates in the City. This excellent video presentation is in full HD here:
Eric Metaxas and Socrates in the City present an evening with John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, at the Union Club in New York City on January 31, 2013. Dr. Lennox explores a method for reading and interpreting the first chapters of Genesis without discounting either science or Scripture. Afterward Metaxas is heard asking, “Why didn’t I ever have any math teachers like this?”
From Scoop 22-04-2013:
Charter Schools Give Opportunities to Teach Discrimination
Monday, 22 April 2013, 2:55 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Principals’ Federation
Let’s review their press release.
Charter Schools Will Provide Opportunities to Teach Discrimination
The ACT party’s proposed charter schools will open the door to religious groups to teach Kiwi kids discriminatory practices, including that same sex marriage is wrong.
It is hard to believe just how daft this piece of writing is. Does Mr. Harding, president of the New Zealand Principals’ Federation, not realise that the law practices discrimination ALL THE TIME. That is exactly what the law is intended to do.
It may surprise Mr. Harding, but the new [marriage] law will also discriminate — against Christians and Muslims and many others. Yes, it will discriminate in just the same way traffic laws discriminate against people who drive on the wrong side of the road. Yes, the new law will discriminate against those who don’t agree with same sex marriage, and it will also discriminate against polygamists and children, neither of whom have a lawful right to marry whomever they choose.
I dare say that New Zealand school principals also practice discrimination. Yes, I’ll bet some cold cash that they discriminate against betting at school. I bet they also discriminate against students who cheat in exams, beat up other students, or swear at school principals.
‘Just as New Zealanders are celebrating the latest legislation change that brings an end to discrimination against same-sex couples having the right to be legally married, we are opening up a whole new opportunity for discriminatory practices to flourish,’ says President of the New Zealand Principals’ Federation, Philip Harding.
What exactly does Mr. Harding mean by “Just as New Zealanders are celebrating…”? Does not know that New Zealanders are NOT overwhelmingly in favour of this new law. Did he fail to educate himself with the 17,000 vote TV3 poll in which 78% of people were OPPOSED to the bill. Is Mr. Harding really this ill-informed? Was this Press Release reviewed by others in his organisation, and if so, are the rest of his staff likewise uneducated in this matter?
There would be nothing to stop any group setting up a charter school and teaching Kiwi kids that discriminatory practices are to be valued and that evolutionary theories of science are wrong.
Notice how Mr. Harding mixes his morality with evolutionary theory. This guy really needs to listen to Kim Hill’s interview from last Saturday morning with Professor John Lennox from Oxford University. Like Kim Hill, Mr. Harding just does not get it. Perhaps I should quote from Professor Richard Dawkins or Professor Will Provine. Yes, these darwinist atheists agree with each other that if darwinism is true then there is at rock bottom no right, no wrong, just matter in motion. Yes, free will is an illusion and the wrongness of rape is a social construct.
Notice the irony, and the lack of thinking. Mr. Harding wants to prescribe his morality on 78% of New Zealanders, yet at the same time wants to cuddle up to a theory that removes any basis for logically prescribing any objective morality. And if Mr. Harding’s moral values are “no right, no wrong…” then why should anyone really care what he thinks anyway? Oh, that’s right, it’s not about right and wrong — it’s really about power. Yes, the power of Mr. Harding to force his spaghetti bowl morality upon the rest of us.
As for evolutionary theory, perhaps Mr. Harding would care to do what Richard Dawkins (cowardly — not my word, see this link) has failed to do, and step up and debate his beloved theory.
‘Interest in charter schools from religious groups has been significant,’ said Harding, ‘and the religious beliefs they follow are inconsistent with the values of wider New Zealand society,’ he said.
The significant interest Mr Harding refers to is presumably PRIOR to this latest law being passed, in which case what exactly is his point? And of course we really have no idea what ‘significant’ means because Mr. Harding failed to educate us sufficiently by defining “significant” and providing a numerical figure.
‘There has never been any evidence that the New Zealand tax payer is crying out for another choice of school and no political party, including John Banks’ ACT party, promoted such policy during the last election campaign,’ said Harding.
This is self refuting and illogical. In the previous paragraph Mr. Harding says that “interest… has been significant” and only one paragraph later he is claiming the opposite: “There has never been any evidence that the New Zealand taxpayer is crying out…”.
Seriously, if this what the sort of buffoonery that is coming from the leadership of New Zealand schools, then I hope every child moves to “another choice of school”. And shame on Mr. Harding for tarring the New Zealand Principals’ Foundation with his poorly reasoned politics and ‘morality’.
Here at the Guardian (3,868 comments and counting)
A long overdue debate breaks out about whether rational atheism is being used as a cover for Islamophobia and US militarism
Two columns have been published in the past week harshly criticizing the so-called “New Atheists” such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens: this one by Nathan Lean in Salon, and this one by Murtaza Hussain in Al Jazeera. The crux of those columns is that these advocates have increasingly embraced a toxic form of anti-Muslim bigotry masquerading as rational atheism. Yesterday, I posted a tweet to Hussain’s article without comment except to highlight what I called a “very revealing quote” flagged by Hussain, one in which Harris opined that “the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.”
Shortly after posting the tweet, I received an angry email from Harris, who claimed that Hussain’s column was “garbage”, and he eventually said the same thing about Lean’s column in Salon. That then led to a somewhat lengthy email exchange with Harris in which I did not attempt to defend every claim in those columns from his attacks because I didn’t make those claims: the authors of those columns can defend themselves perfectly well. If Harris had problems with what those columns claim, he should go take it up with them.
Wow, this got really heated, and the personal correspondence between Sam Harris and Glenn Greenwald was also posted. Someone should mention to the neo-atheists that their beloved secular Europe is falling to Islam in large part because secular atheistic Europeans are failing to breed fast enough. Survival of the fittest anyone? Someone should also mention to Harris that he spends too much time moralising, and that he should grow up and be a real atheist and speak honestly as Will Provine does (2 minute video).
That said, what I did say in my emails with Harris – and what I unequivocally affirm again now – is not that Harris is a “racist”, but rather that he and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism. I’ve long believed this to be true and am glad it is finally being dragged out into open debate. These specific atheism advocates have come to acquire significant influence, often for the good. But it is past time that the darker aspects of their worldview receive attention.
Yes, Harris and his mates attack Christians with lines like “science flies rockets to the moon while religion flies planes into buildings” which is of course a veiled attack against Islam, while also being an attack against logic, akin to saying that all atheists are like the darwinist Adolph Hitler.
Lawrence Solomon: Climate changing for global warming journalists
The overwhelming consensus on global warming among journalists may be cracking. Last week, the world’s most prestigious newsmagazine – The Economist – backed away from its past alarmist position, saying that “If climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, climate sensitivity would be on negative watch.” The Economist now discounts the high-end estimates of warming coming from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as being unlikely if not far-fetched.
I like (and respect — yes seriously) honest atheists.
When Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell came out, prominent Darwinian scientists at least waited till the book was published before reviewing it without reading it first. You may recall the famous Francisco Ayala review at the BioLogos website that gave no evidence — in fact, gave counterevidence — that Dr. Ayala had even cracked open the book to read the Table of Contents, so grossly did he misstate the argument.
Now they’re going after Meyer’s forthcoming book, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, not only without having read it or held a copy in their hands but without even waiting for the publication date.
See www.darwinsdoubt.com for more details.
I think they mean “God”, not “god” but hey, Lennox only beat up Dawkins twice. Congrats to Mark Cubey and Kim Hill for having Professor Lennox on their show.
8:15 John Lennox
John Carson Lennox is a British mathematician and philosopher of science who is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford University. He is the author of a number of books, including and God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (Lion Books, ISBN: 978-0-82547-912-0) and Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target (Lion Books, ISBN: 978-0745953229).
Nice post by Barry Arrington:
Physics professor Philipp von Jolly advised a young Max Planck not to go into physics, because “in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes.”
With the clarity of hindsight we might say, “what a maroon.” Standing on the cusp of a century in which the world of physics would be turned on its head – led by the very man to whom he was speaking – von Jolly thought everything important had already been discovered.
Planck’s discoveries in quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theories of space and time were literally unimaginable to a man like von Jolly. His “few holes” were the known unknowns of classical physics. He had no idea that when Einstein and Planck dug down into the known unknowns, they would discovery unknown unknowns that would change the world forever.
I predict that as the twentieth century was to physics, so the twenty-first century will be to biology. Just as today we are inclined to smirk at von Jolly’s naiveté, in the twenty-second century schoolchildren will smirk at the naïveté of people like Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins who believe the fundamental questions in biology have been settled and all that is left is to suss out the details. If today we had even the faintest glimpse of the unknown unknowns of biology that will be discovered in the decades to come, we would gasp with astonishment.
Casey Luskin critiques Ken Miller’s anti Intelligent Design railings. PDF here.