Customer Reviews

What Darwin Didn't Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

This book is unique in that it comes from a medical/physiological point of view. It is the first book in over 30 years that looks at the complexity of the human body as it pertains to evolution. In the early 70's a book entitled The Body has a Head was published. It was virtually unreadable. Dr. Simmons book is eminently readable and very interesting. Furthermore, Darwin had several doubts about his own theories and Dr. Simmons points out these areas of weakness. If you want to learn something about the arguments surrounding evolution and don't want to have to read a scientific tome, this is the book for you.

I'm a supporter of Intelligent Design, and found this book to be a big disappointment. As a previous reviewer has said in more words, it does not really attempt to "dissect the theory of evolution." It is simply a collection of medical facts and trivia, after which the author asks in a sentence or two in each chapter, "How can this be the work of chance?" I read the first few chapters with highlighter pen in hand, expecting to highlight various things as I often do, but then found myself simply skimming through many sections as I began to realize that every chapter is the same: just a recitation of what things in our bodies do. If you're looking for argumentation and critical examination of evolutionary theory (such as in Behe's or Denton's books), this is not the book to buy.

When I went through medical school, I remember learning the amazing intricacies of the human body. "Someone needs to make this accessible to people not going through medical school," I thought at the time. Dr. Simmons, in this book, has done just that.

This book does a lot more than give a strong argument for "Intelligent Design" -- though it certainly does that. In fact, I ended the book impressed that it takes quite a bit more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in a purposeful creator. But this book also explains the body's complex inner workings in a way that is easy to understand, and to remember.

The problem is not so much what Darwin didn't know, since it is clear by now that most of what he said about evolution has really nothing to do with it, much less is able to explain it. Actually this applies, "mutatis mutandis", to all present evolutionists. Let me tell you what Darwinists still don't know. Although they have lots of models and theories, they really can't explain: 1) the origin of the Universe; 2) the origin of the first stars; 3) the origin of the first galaxies; 4) the origin of the solar system; 5) the origin of the Earth and the Moon; 6) the origin of the oceans; 7) the origin of life; 8) particles-to-people evolution; 9) the origin of the sexes; 10) the origin of language, etc, etc. They can't even demonstrate that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for all the complex specified information we see all around us. So don't ask only what Darwin didn't know; ask also what Darwinists still don't know.

The real problem is that universities have been "programmed" with the wrong "software" ever since the historical emergence of "scientist anti-metaphysical positivism".

How can universities detect design if they were "programmed" not to do so? The main reason why all scientific disciplines agree with evolution is because they cannot but agree with evolution. They have no choice. The "system" doesn't allow any other option. This is not a scientific problem: it is a systemic problem.

Most modern universities have excluded arguments based on design and teleology a priori, as non scientific. Because of that, their "systemic code" can only detect random, natural and accidental causes and processes. Agreement with evolution has been pre-programmed into the system, and as the saying goes: garbage in, garbage out.

That's why I am not really impressed with the argument according to which all disciplines of science agree that evolution took place. That should not be considered a valid argument in favour of evolution, since that "conclusion" is really nothing more than the assumption from which they start reasoning in the first place and from which they approach the facts. No alternative assumptions or interpretations are allowed, no matter how well they are able to explain and predict.

This means that all current certainties about evolution are nothing more than circular reasoning. In fact, that translates in to the methodologies and arguments of all the scientific disciplines: when they deal with evolution they do so in terms of tautology and fallacy. We see that in geology, palaeontology, biology, genetics, chemistry, astrophysics, etc.

The conclusion in favour of evolution is necessary, because the assumption of evolution is mandatory. In "scientific" circles evolution is not so much a matter of chance, but a matter of necessity.

The Dover trial on evolution and intelligent design is a good example: if scientists dismiss design arguments a priori as non scientific, it should be no surprise to anyone that evolution becomes the only game in town. Evolution becomes "scientific" by definition and design becomes "religious" by decree.

If evidence of creation and intelligent design is ruled out, the only option is naturalistic evolution. The same is true in a court of law: if all evidence of criminal intent is ruled out as non-legal, than the court will have to conclude that an accident took place and was responsible for the existing dead body. What a surprise!! All the "circumstantial evidence", all the "coincidences" and all the "patterns" that might lead a judge to an inference of intent beyond reasonable doubt were not presented nor assessed in court. They were dismissed a priori as non-legal, as irrelevant from the point of view of the "code" of the legal system.

That's why evidence of design and creation has to come from those who work outside the system, that is, outside the mainstream "pre-programmed" naturalist "scientific" circles. That's why we observe the creation and evolution of many creationist and intelligent design web sites, publications and other materials.

The same phenomenon is true about the legal system. If the judges in a court arbitrarily rule out relevant evidence in a case, it is for the press, who works outside of the legal system, to try to denounce cases of gross miscarriage of justice.

That's what creationists and design theorists are doing when they put forward evidence of creation and design in nature and try to persuade those who are willing to open their minds to other kinds of arguments, and demonstrate that the observed evidence fits much better within a creationist and design model. Evidence of design in nature is not hard to find, because, as even atheist Richard Dawkins admits, it is simply overwhelming.

Of course, creationists and intelligent design theorists will have a hard time convincing mainstream scientists, because they are pre-programmed to listen and recognize only those arguments that don't allow for design and teleology. The problem is not about the quality and quantity of the evidence of design. The problem is that, no matter how good or how much, design evidence is simply ruled out as inadmissible. The current scientific paradigm is one sided from the start.

Creationism and intelligent design are being judged by the court of science without "due process" rights. When a court is not independent and impartial in a given question, the best way to solve the problem and get a fair hearing is to do away with it and replace it altogether. The only way out is to break the naturalistic "code" and reprogram the "systemic code" by which science defines itself. That's why many have been saying, even outside creationist circles, that we need a new kind of science.

The author, a medical doctor, in this book recounts his conversion from a Darwinist to an Intelligent Design advocate. He also goes into detail about his indoctrination into Darwinism in school and why he began to doubt Darwinism in later life (as have more and more intellectuals today). What Darwin Didn't Know is an excellent, very readable, work about how little Darwin knew about biology, especially cell biology, because so little was known when he lived and worked. If he lived today in a nonDarwinian world, his theory would have difficulty getting published in a mainline journal. For example, in the middle 1800s cells were thought to be simple globs of protoplasm that served as mere building blocks of a body much like bricks are used to construct a house. Now we realize that cells are the most complex machine in the known universe that can live on their own in the right environment. Over 200 very different types are known. Much of the book is on human anatomy and physiology and why our modern knowledge has proven Darwinism wrong. As I teach Human Anatomy and Physiology at the college level, I found the book fascinating and found much insight to enrich my classes. This book is also an excellent introduction to anatomy and physiology that covers all 10 organ systems plus cell biology. I wish I had a book like this when I was an undergraduate (or even a graduate student in medical school). My first text was boring, to say the least. Students today are fortunate to have such excellent material as this available.

The book basically gives a very simplistic overview of each body system (college-level anatomy and physiology textbooks are much deeper in scope) and ends with several main points from each chapter that would seem to point to design. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Christian and I believe in God. However, I have read better and more informative books about the design inherent in the universe as well as in humanity.

I hate to speak critically of anyone who at least puts forth the effort to write any book... but this was not great. It reads like a general introduction to human anatomy that was re-purposed to counter Darwinian Evolution Arguments by adding a paragraph to every chapter that says, "See how complex the (fill in the blank) system is? That could not possibly evolve as Darwin suggested."

The book *does* however give the reader a much greater appreciation for the complexities of our bodies... and if you are undecided on the topic, it may push you much closer to intelligent design over random mutation.

What can I say, I found this book disappointing. Perhaps my expectations were too high. As a supporter of Intelligent Design, I expect books which are riding on the ID coattails to have a certain level of sophistication. This one didn't.

The front cover advertises, A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution. Unfortunately, the promise is never fulfilled. The book doesn't deal with evolutionary theory as anything more than a caricature. If you want a book that truly dissects the Theory of Evolution, I recommend The Biotic Message by Walter ReMine.

The book contains a great deal of anatomical and physiological trivia, and is therefore of some benefit, but the author fails to ever put the deatils together into any sort of coherent argument. The author relies upon what he terms the Whole Package Phenomena (WPP) which vaguely resembles Cuvier's Correlation of Parts and Behe's Irreducible Complexity but without the specificity.

His argument consists primarily of, look at this set of features, look at the complexity, look how they work together, it's inconceivable that they came about by chance mutations. Unfortunately, the features are described at such a high level that they don't seem to be all that complex and inter-dependence of the various parts is often not explained in sufficient detail to make it plain that one must have the whole package or none at all. Why it's inconceivable that these systems could not have come about through evolution is never quite explained and the reader is left with begging the question or circularity.

For a much better argument using biological phenomena, I would recommend Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe.

I found What Darwin Didn't Know fascinating and engaging. Not only does Dr. Simmons lay out the older, obsolete arguments and the newer Intelligent Design arguments, but he shows us how Darwin went wrong and yet gives him credit for working with science in that century. Would you go to a doctor who was trained in the early 1800s and take his or her advice? Of course not. Then why would you believe a scientist from that era whose only exposure to monkeys was twice in a zoo, who didn't know why a child looked like its parents, who made many racist and sexiest comments in his writings and who didn't have the foggiest idea about any internal human physiology.

Dr. Simmons lays it out simply and yet like tidal wave (as stated in the blurbs) He shows the reader how impossible it would be to have clotting, heart beats and breathng control by accdient. There had to have been design it in from the beginning, whether one believes that the earth is 8ooo or three billion years old

Modern Darwinism has already rejected the Neanderthal man and others as our predecessors and is still trying to find a common olrigin to all primates. So far no luck. Also,there are no fossils for pre-whales, none for pre-fish, noe for pre-giraffes and indeed none for pre-monkeys.

What keeps us breathing when we're alseep? Was this a hit and miss trial by nature before man? What keeps our kidneys and heart functioning and adjusts them according to our needs?. Whats keeps us from rolling off our bed at night.

The nay sayers to Simmons book, don't want to accept Intelligent Design for a variety of reasons, probably/mostly personal agendas, but there are no other logical options to Intellgent Design and Simmons makes that very point very clear.

This is not a religious, in the usual sense, book, but one that clearly argues science against science. It is time to smell the roses and enjoy a book that leads you down one of the right paths. Too many customer reviewer have tried to slam this book and others for their own egos and agendas. To sound cute; to impress their friends with a "line veto"; or maybe stir people away from worthwhile books that address issues differently than they feel.

Read this one if you have any interest in the area! Or tell someone else who might be. They won't be disappointed.

This book goes where no other book has before, showing how the complexity of the human body contradicts the theory of evolution. It is very clearly laid out, system by system, in a very interesting and easy-to-read fashion. Mechanisms that require multiple sophisticated steps that depend on other multiple and sophisticated systems could not have happened by piecemeal or by accident. The book is a page-turner for the secular world as well as the religious world. Perhaps, there's another explanation for our existence yet to be discovered, but the theory of evolution is not it. This book is science arguing against "science."