I am so curious to hear what candid Darwinists, the ones who don’t dodge a good debate, will say now. That they don’t have to read or reply in detail to Stephen Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt because ID isn’t science? Sorry, that’s not going to fly. Not if you’re halfway honest with yourself.
Want more scientists who endorse the argument of Darwin’s Doubt? Here is Dr. Russell Carlson, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology, director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, at the University of Georgia (my emphasis):
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.
That really says it all, without apology, equivocation, or ambiguity. Harvard geneticist George Church, who also had supportive words for Darwin’s Doubt, is similarly concerned with the issues arising from the observation that biology represents, first and foremost, an engineering phenomenon.