The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems

by William A. Dembski, Jonathan Wells

The Design of Life , written by two leading intelligent design theorists, offers the clearest, most comprehensive treatment of intelligent design on the market, with answers to Darwinists’ objections drawn unrelentingly from the recent science literature.

Genres: Science, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Nonfiction, Biology, Philosophy, Pseudoscience

423 pages, Hardcover

First published November 19, 2007

About the author

A mathematician and philosopher, Dr. William Dembski has taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. He is the recipient of a $100,000 Templeton research grant. In 2005 he received Texas A&M’s Trotter Prize.

Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, engineering, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of over twenty books.

His most comprehensive treatment of intelligent design to date, co-authored with Jonathan Wells, is titled The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems.

As interest in intelligent design has grown in the wider culture, Dr. Dembski has assumed the role of public intellectual. In addition to lecturing around the world at colleges and universities, he is frequently interviewed on the radio and television. His work has been cited in numerous newspaper and magazine articles, including three front page stories in the New York Times as well as the August 15, 2005 Time magazine cover story on intelligent design. He has appeared on the BBC, NPR (Diane Rehm, etc.), PBS (Inside the Law with Jack Ford; Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson), CSPAN2, CNN, Fox News, ABC Nightline, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Reviews

[useFOSS · Rating 5 out of 5]

EDITORIAL REVIEWS:
"I would enthusiastically adopt The Design of Life as a required text in courses in evolution and the origin of life and in graduate seminars on information theory and molecular biology, and use it as a supplement in introductory biology classes... I salute Dembski and Wells for a most worthy addition to the already powerful case that intelligent design deserves a seat at the academic table in university biology courses and with all scientists working to unlock the mystery of life's origin."
- Dean H. Kenyon, Ph.D in Biophysics, Emeritus Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University

"Gives all interested parties in the debate over biological origins the hard scientific evidence they need to assess the true state of Darwin's theory and of the theory of intelligent design. But it does much more: it carefully fosters the attitude of open inquiry that science needs not only to thrive but also to avoid becoming the plaything of special interests."
- William S. Harris, Ph.D in Nutritional Biochemistry, Research Professor, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota

"Essential reading for students at all levels - even those at the professorial level! There is something here for everyone... This book sets a new benchmark - a statement of our contemporary understanding biological origins - and as such one that Darwinian theorists will have to take seriously and respond to in an equally good book if they are to maintain any academic credibility (i.e. beyond the micro-evolution level)."
- Christopher D. Beling, Associate Professor of Physics, University of Hong Kong

"Systematically reviews past and present theories of evolution and reveals their utter inadequacy to explain the origin of the complex and intricate mechanisms that comprise living systems... The authors outline a practical approach that allows intelligent causation to enter the equation without being a science stopper... Inclusion of intelligent causation in the scientific equation is not novel and has not impeded the practice of science in the past, e.g. Newton and Kepler, in an age when science was not constrained by a philosophical materialism, and by many current scientists who have remained open to following the evidence where it leads. This is an important work that should be read by all students and practitioners of science."
- Donald L. Ewert, Ph.D in Microbiology (University of Georgia)

"I disagree strongly with the position taken by William Dembski. But I do think that he argues strongly and that those of us who do not accept his conclusions should read his book and form our own opinions and counter-arguments. He should not be ignored."
– Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy, Florida State University [Re: No Free Lunch by William Dembski]

"When future intellectual historians list the books that toppled Darwin's theory, The Design of Life will be at the top."
- Michael J. Behe, Ph.D., Prof. of Biochemistry, Lehigh University


All the above reviews except Ruse's are available on Amazon. Those of Beling and Ewert are found among the user reviews, not the editorial reviews. Ruse's comments are from the back cover of the book.

[فادي أحمد · Rating 4 out of 5]

أحيانًا كثيرة كنت أجلس لأفكِّر لماذا كانت الصدفة التي خلقت الحياة على الأرض تحت ظروف مثالية فشلت تجربة يوري وميلر في تحقيقها رغم التقدم العلمي الهائل إلا باتفراضِ أن الجو البدائي للأرض والذي نشأت فيه الحياة كانت مختزلًا من الأكسجين وهذهِ دعوى ضعيفة. لماذا استطاعت هذهِ الصدفة خلق حياة ملائمة للظروف على كوكب الأرض ولم تستطع الصدفة في المقابل خلق حياة على كوكب المريخ مناسبة لطبيعة الكوكب. أسئلة كثيرة قد تطرح حول الطحالب الزرقاء التي سافرت عبر الفضاء لتبدأ من خلالها بذرة الحياة على الأرض والخلية الأولى والسمكة الشجاعة التي قررت الخروج من البحر لتكون السلف لكل الكائنات الحياة!

بدأت بالبحث في نظرية التطور التي تعتمد على السجل الأحفوري هي نظرية غير مثبتة ولكن أضحت إيمانًا مطلقًا وأصبح داروين نبيًّا صديقًا مبشِّرًا بأصل الأنواع. حتى أن الدراوينيين كما أفضل تسميتهم لا يملكون إلا الإيمان بما قال داروين وبما قال العلم مع عدم وجود أي دليل ملموس على التطور بمعناه الانتقال من خلق إلى خلق وظهور أجناس جديدة من أجناس قديمة بفضل الانتخاب الطبيعي. ولو راجعنا السجل الأحفوري لوجدنا بأنّه بين الأحافير التي ظهرت في سلم التطور هناك مئات الحلقات المفقودة. زد على ذلك بأن مجموعة عظام مع خيال واسع لعالم قد تعطي شكلًا لكائن لم يكن موجودًا ولكن طوّر بالعقل البشري بما يؤيد نظرية التطور (راجع مجلة براهين الملحمة المستحيلة إشكاليات الاستدلال بالسجل الأحفوري على التطور). والتي تطرقت فقط لقضية السجل الأحفوري التطوري للحوت.

هذا الكتاب يأتي مؤكدًا على أن الضرب والخبط العشوائي للطبيعة لن يستطيع أن ينشأ خلقًا متقدمًا متطورًا في نواحٍ كثيرةٍ كالإنسان ويطرح عدّة معضلات أمام المؤمنين بالدروينية وأهمها اللغة والأخلاق والأسلاف ودلولاتها على وجود انحدار الإنسان لأصول حيوانية. الأدمغة الكبرى والأدلة التطورية. وأخيرًا أسئلة للمناقشة السيء في كُل ما حصل بأنَّ النسخة الوحيدة الوجودة على الشبكة هي للفصل الأول من الكتاب

[Heather · Rating 5 out of 5]

For anyone interested in up-to-date and well-written scientific arguments for intelligent design. This is a great book. I have read quite a bit of the ID literature, and I still learned a lot from this book. The chapter on specified complexity was exceptional.

[John · Rating 1 out of 5]

On December 20, 2005 Federal Judge John E. Jones, a Republican jurist appointed by President George W. Bush rendered this decision:

"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

"Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

"With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Two years have elapsed since Judge Jones issued this historic verdict. A decision which was, without question, a staggering blow to both the Discovery Institute's Intelligent Design advocates, and to many others, who, regrettably, still harbor ample, rather disingenuous, pretensions to asserting the scientific validity of an idea that was soundly rejected once before, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and deserves its widespread current repudiation by modern scientists, especially from those who are professional evolutionary biologists (If you don't believe my claims, then please read the many ludicrous, often hysterical, comments posted by Intelligent Design advocates (who truly deserve British paleontologist Richard Fortey's perjorative nickname, IDiot) and other creationists at the Amazon.com product page for Dr. Michael Behe's "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits to Darwinism", often relying upon vituperative attacks on supporters of evolution, and in, general, on reason itself.). However, the conservative Discovery Institute, and its fellow intellectual travelers in the Intelligent Design and creationist movements are in a total state of denial, still refusing to admit their devastating debacle at the hands of a Republican Federal jurist. The most recent example of the Discovery Institute's ongoing delusional state is this very textbook co-authored by Discovery Institute Senior Fellows William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells, who, in spite of their impressive academic credentials, have not published anything that would be regarded as valid mainstream science by their peers in the scientific community for nearly a decade and a half. Their book is the widely anticipated sequel to the earlier Intelligent Design creationist textbook "Of Pandas and People", whose "evolutionary" history was one of the important pieces of evidence used by plaintiff attorneys against both the Dover Area School District and Intelligent Design advocates during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial. It can also be seen - and I believe quite correctly - as the Discovery Institute's last ditch effort at grasping at intellectual straws, by urging high school educators to "Teach the Controversy" - which this textbook emphasizes with respect to contemporary evolutionary theory - instead of trying to explain why Intelligent Design deserves ample, serious consideration as a valid alternative in attempting to explain the origins, history and current complexity of Planet Earth's biodiversity. Indeed, it should be regarded as a valiant, yet hopelessly inane, effort by two Fundamentalist Protestant Christian-oriented "scholars" who remain quite determined - almost to the point of religious fanaticism as seen from the likes of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda brethren - to seeing their narrow, tormented version of a Christian origin myth taught alongside genuine science in North American science classrooms and elsewhere around the globe.

This new textbook doesn't even try to defend Intelligent Design's pretense of being a better alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory in discussing the origins and history of life on Planet Earth. Nor does it demonstrate that it is valid science, but instead, stresses the current "controversies" with respect to our understanding of evolutionary biology, with topics ranging from those pertaining to the fossil record to evolutionary developmental biology; the latter known popularly as "evo-devo". Indeed, in private e-mail correspondence with both Dembski and Behe, I have received no definitive statements from either, indicating that Intelligent Design is truly, a compelling, scientifically more valid, alternative than contemporary evolutionary theory in explaining the origins and history of life on Planet Earth. Instead, the best response I received from them was this, quoting from Dembski, " Intelligent Design raises questions". It does indeed, but not those that he alludes to in his prolific writing, simply because he, Wells, Behe, Minnich, Gonzalez, and their fellow Intelligent Design advocates, have had more than fifteen years to make their case within the mainstream scientific community, and have failed miserably, not just once, but again and again (Much to my amazement, Philip Johnson, the spiritual "godfather" of the Intelligent Design "movement", has conceded recently that Intelligent Design is not yet a valid scientific theory.). I asked both Dembski and Behe these questions: "Where are Intelligent Design's testable hypotheses? Where are the productive scientific research programs inspired by Intelligent Design? Where are Intelligent Design's peer-reviewed scientific papers published in such eminent mainstream scientific journals such as Nature, Science, Paleobiology, Cladistics, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Evolution, American Naturalist, among others?" The replies I received were only deafening silence from both. So much for Intelligent Design's pretensions for being a valid scientific theory, right?

Dembski tries to make a persuasive case on behalf of Intelligent Design, using the same probabilistic models he developed for his "No Free Lunch" and "Explanatory Filter" concepts; the very models that have been harshly criticized by his former Ph. D. dissertation advisor at the University of Chicago, who is now a highly respected mathematician teaching at a prominent Canadian university (Incidentally, three times I have asked Dembski - who has a M. S. degree in statistics from the University of Illinois, Chicago - a basic statistics question which he couldn't answer, both twice, in person, after the 2002 American Museum of Natural History Intelligent Design debate, and, recently, in private e-mail correspondence: "How do you calculate the confidence limits for the Explanatory Filter?" Three times he hasn't provided me with any answer but a deafening, stony silence.). I wonder what the current president of the University of Chicago, distinguished mathematician Robert Zimmer - who is a prominent alumnus of my prestigious New York City public high school - thinks of Dembski's "research", especially when Zimmer has taught mathematics at the University of Chicago for decades, except for a relatively brief stint as the provost of Brown University (my undergraduate alma mater); it's quite possible that Zimmer served as a member of Dembski's doctoral dissertation committee in mathematics. Since Dembski's concepts are fundamentally, just metaphysical, pseudoscientific, religious nonsense, it seems that a more appropriate usage of his fine literary talents would be writing a textbook on Klingon Cosmology; a potentially lucrative suggestion that he has rejected (For reasons which I have noted elsewhere, here at Amazon.com, I believe that there is substantially more evidence in support of Klingon Cosmology than there is for Intelligent Design.).

Two years ago I attended an alumni gathering in the auditorium of my high school alma mater, New York City's prestigious Stuyvesant High School (Many regard Stuyvesant as America's premier high school devoted to the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. Its many prominent alumni include distinguished scientists, mathematicians, engineers and doctors, including four Nobel Prize-winning scientists and an economist; the most of any high school in the United States; with the notable exception of arch rival Bronx High School of Science's seven Nobel Prize-winning alumni in physics. Barely three percent pass of those taking the annual competitive, quite rigorous, entrance examination for the nearly 800 places available in the following year's freshman class; an acceptance rate that is substantially lower than gaining admission to Harvard University's undergraduate college.). Stuyvesant's current principal, Mr. Stanley Teitel, pledged that Intelligent Design would never be taught at Stuyvesant, as long as he served as its principal; a pledge made by Mr. Teitel during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial (Mr. Teitel has taught physics at Stuyvesant since the mid 1980s, and still teaches one course of senior-level physics to a class comprised of entering freshmen.). Why did Mr. Teitel make this pledge? The answer is obvious. Unlike Dembski, Wells, Behe, and their Discovery Institute colleagues, Mr. Teitel recognizes that Intelligent Design is unscientific.

In my Amazon.com review of British filmmaker Matthew Chapman's hilarious, yet profound, eyewitness account of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, I concluded with these remarks, which, upon reflection, are an appropriate ending for my review of this latest example of mendacious intellectual pornography - which is how I regard Intelligent Design - being disseminated by the Discovery Institute:

"I concur with Ken Miller's observation that introducing Intelligent Design into science classrooms would be a `science stopper'. It would conflate most students' understanding of what exactly is the difference between religious faith and science, though I suppose that some truly gifted students, like those attending prominent American high schools such as Alexandria, Virginia's Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Tchnology, and New York City's Bronx High School of Science and Stuyvesant High School, might readily understand and appreciate these distinctions. And yet I am inclined to agree more with the harsh view articulated by distinguished British paleontologist Richard Fortey in his essay published in the January 30, 2007 issue of the British newspaper Telegraph, contending that it is an absolute waste of time arguing with Intelligent Design advocates, and that they ought to be dismissed as `IDiots'; by extension, so would be the teaching of Intelligent Design alongside evolution in a science classroom. I would rather see talented students from Thomas Jefferson, Bronx Science and Stuyvesant engage themselves fruitfully in genuine scientific research of the highest caliber, than in trying to understand the metaphysical, religious nonsense known as Intelligent Design and other flavors of creationism. I think, in hindsight, so would Charles Darwin."

(Reposted from my 2007 Amazon review. William Dembski opted for a crude form of censorship and had Amazon delete it for nearly twenty four hours. It was reposted only after I e-mailed him an ultimatum to have it reposted or else.)

[مي احمد · Rating 5 out of 5]

بسم الله ؛
فى منتصف هذا الكتاب اكتشفت ان موضوعه الاساسي ليس نفي نظرية تطور الكائنات الحية _كما اعتقدت _ عن بعضها البعض على قدر ما يتصدى لفكرة العشوائية والصدفوية التى يتبناها الداروينين ؛ وان كان الكاتب تطرق فى اكثر من موضع لهدم نظرية التطور الدروينى بالكلية كما فى الفصل الثالث مثلا (السجل الاحفوري)
فكرة الكتاب الرئيسية هي اثبات ان الكائنات الحية مصممة بطريقة متقنة وذكية ويسعى الكتاب الى اثبات علامات الذكاء فى النظم البيولوجية .
على اية حال ؛ ان كنت اريد وضع تقرير عن هذا الكتاب فلن اجد افضل مما ذكره المؤلف نفسه فى نهاية الفصل التاسع والاخير :-
"لا يدعو مؤيدو التصميم الذكي لحظر تعليم التطور والدليل عليه بسبب تعارضها مع التطور ، وانما يدعون لأن تخضع نظرية التطور الدروينى _ممثلة بالتطور الذي يحدث بطرائق آلية غير موجهة كالانتخاب الطبيعي والتنوع العشوائي _للمساءلة ؛لان الدليل العلمى المستخدم لدعمها ضعيف.
يؤكد عالم الداروينية الجديدة theodosius dobzhansky(لامعنى لشئ فى علم الاحياء الا فى ضوء التطور)
لكن الحقيقة ان لا معنى لشئ فى علم الاحياء الا فى ضوء الدليل.
الى اين يقودنا الدليل فى علم الاحياء ؟هل يقودنا الى التطور غير الموجه ام الى التصميم الذكي ؟يقدم هذا الكتاب للطلاب من خلال عرضه لأدلة وحجج التصميم الذكي المعلومات التى يحتاجونها للأجابة عن هذا السؤال ."

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

THE DESIGN OF LIFE is basically an update of OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE, the book which seemingly kicked off the current Intelligent Design movement. As you can probably guess, THE DESIGN OF LIFE argues that Darwinism is insufficient in explaining both the origins and incredible complexity of life on Earth. It's a book that goes out of its way not to get all religious on you. The authors don't try to make a case for either the Christian God or for a literal six-day creation, but rather stick completely to the science. The points they make are reasonable and well-founded. The book is laid out like a textbook, so, if you do decide to pick it up, prepare yourself for some petty dry reading. For something a bit more entertaining, I'd recommend THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO DARWINISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN by Jonathan Wells, one of the collaborators on THE DESIGN OF LIFE.

[Nate · Rating 5 out of 5]

Explains a lot of the scientific problems with evolution and abiogenesis. Also argues that life was designed by an intelligence. A little dry and technical in places, but very informative. Takes a very logical and evidence-based approach.

If you believe evolution is irrefutable, or scientifically bulletproof, then you ought to read this. You may be surprised.

[محمد اکبر · Rating 5 out of 5]

Throws thoughtful questions on human origin. Nice food for the brain.

[Banono · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thinks it's one of the fundamental books in the history

[Eternal · Rating 4 out of 5]

تصميم الحياة
يحاول نقد نظرية التطور من كافة جوانبها وإظهار خطئها ومكامن القصور فيها. وطرح بديلها الذي هو التصميم الذكي
يبدأ من أصول الإنسان وفكرة السلف المشترك التي لا دليل عليها ثم يتطرق لكذبة ٩٨% تشابه. موضحا بعدها الفرق بين micro/macroevolution وأن تراكم الصغير لا يؤدي أبدا للكبير وأنه لم ترصد لحد الآن حالة انتواع واحدة. ليتطرق بعدها لمعضلة الإنفجار الكمبري أو لنقل معضلة السجل الأحفوري الذي غالبا لا يدعم النظرية، ولا حتى فكرة السمات المشتركة التي تعطينا فكرتين متضادتين: هل نصنف على حسب التشابه الظاهري أو التشابه الوظيفي؟
بعد أن عرى النظرية من كافة ما يتبجحون ويقولون أنها أدلة عليها. يبدأ في سرد أدلة التصميم كدليل بيهي المسمى التعقيد غير القابل للاختزال، والتعقيد المحدد (تعقيد يمكن حساب احتمال حدوثه) حيث تقترب نسبة احتمال حدوث الأمثلة التي أوردها من 0. وأخيرا يعالج التفسيرات المادية لنشأة الحياة التي لا تسمن ولا تغني من جوع حتى لو أخذنا المواد الموجودة في الخلية ووضعناها مع بعضها بنسب دقيقة وفي ظروف مواتية فلن تترتب ولو بعد مليون سنة لتعطينا خلية. لهذا يتبنى الكاتبان ومعهد ديسكفري ككل فكرة التصميم الذكي كبديل للتطور الدارويني.
الكتاب يلخص تقريبا كل الأفكار المتفرقة في كتبهم الأخرى مثل الانتواع الخادع، العلم وأصل الإنسان وصندوق داروين الأسود( هذا ما قرأته لهم لحد الآن) مرتب الأفكار يعرض حججهم ثم يعرض الاعتراضات عليها ولهذا يعتبر مرجعا متكاملا لنقد النظرية

[Roddy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Contains an interesting discussion of the Scopes trial. Quite hard going in places as these books often are and not one of the best I’ve read on the debate but worth reading.

[Glen Johnston · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought this was an excellent overview of the problems Evolution has. This should be a must read in High School biology classes.

[khaled almas · Rating 5 out of 5]

الكتاب جميل جدًا وانصح بقرأته للمتقدمين في علم الأحياء وعندما قرأته توقعت ان الكتاب ينكر التطور لكن ذلك غير صحيح ان الكتاب يثبت حدوث التطور لكن ينكر الاليات المادية والعشوائية لحدوث التطور وكما انه يثبت ان التعقيد في الكائنات يتطلب تصميمًا والتصميم يتطلب ذكاء ، هذا الكتاب يمثل النظرة العلمية للمصمم الذكي فالتصميم الذكي يعتمد على التعقيد في الكائنات الحية وبالتالي انها تتطلب وجود ذكاء خارجي كما ان الكتاب ينكر العشوائية والصدفة وان الكثير من " النظريات العلمية " التي تعتمد عليها التطور ماهي الا ايمان عاري من الدليل الحقيقي وان نظرية التطور امام النقد هي من أسوأ النظريات العلمية في عهدنا اليوم ، انا لا انكر التطور انما انكر الاليات العشوائية التي تعتمد عليها نظرية التطور ولو فحص القارئ البسيط هذه الاليات لوجد انها مهزوزة وغير جديرة بالثقة ، عندما تقرأ في نظريات التطور تشعر انهم يخفون شيئًا وهذه هي الحقيقة ان المجرم يخاف من منهم حوله وتجده يتلفت مرارًا وتكرارًا ويحاول ان يخفي جريمته ويبعد عنه الشبهات ، ان علماء التطور الدارويني تمامًا كالمجرم المتخفي هم لا يريدونك ان تقرأ عن التطور جيدًا لأنك لو قرأت ستجد ان القارئ الساذج يسنتبه لهذه الاخطاء الصريحة ، على العموم انا من اشد دعاة التطور لكن عند النقد انا من اشد دعاة النقد عليها لأننا نتحدث عن علم وليس عن قناعات شخصية ربما تكون منحازة عن الواقع ، وهذا واقع النظرية وعلمائها مع الأسف الشديد!

[Alaa Alawneh · Rating 5 out of 5]

اولا الامانة تقتضي ان اتوجه بالشكر الى من ارشدني الى هذا الكتاب من خلال احدى محاضراته اللدكتور عدنان إبراهيم، ومن على ما يبدوا ان يقتبس منه كثيرا جدا في طيف واسع من محاضراته حول مناقشته ورده على الداروينية
كتاب عظيم على صعوبته بعض الشيء، لم يكن من قبيل المبالغة وصفه بأن تاريخ العلم سوف يذكره باعتباره الكتاب الذي ضرب الداروينه الضربة القاسمة فكرياً، رسخ لدي قناعتي بمدى كون الالحاد حاجة او رغبة نفسية واتجاه مختار يذهب اليه الملحد عن وعي لانه يرغب في الالحاد لسبب في نفسه لا لنقص الادلة على الخالق، لكن وطوال قرائتي للكتب لم يزايلي حزن ممض وشعور بالإهانة الشخصية، شعور بالإهانة والاذلال لكوننا امة ضخمة من مليار ونصف انسان ليس فيها اليوم نظام تعليمي واكاديمي وبحثي حقيقي واحد يمكن ان يخرج ويشارك في هذه الملحمة العلمية العالمية في حين ان جامعة واحدة في إسرائيل المغتصبة نصيبها 9 جوائز نوبل في ميادين العلم المختلفة اي 9 اضعاف نصيب امتنا بأكملها
لا ادري ما وجه الصعوبة في اقامة نظام تعليمي واحد جيد ما المشكلة التي تمنع كل هذه الحكومات في كل هذه البلدان العربية والإسلامية خلال قرن كامل من انشاء نظام تعليمي واحد جيد في المدارس و الجامعات، الامر لا يحتاج موارد مالية هائلة او معجزات الهية من التي يدعوا المسلمون الله بها ليل نهار
لماذا انتهى ذلك الزمان الذي كان الخلفاء والسلاطين المسلمين يشترون الكتاب الواحد في صنوف العلم سواء مترجم او مؤلف بوزنه ذهبا، اين اختفى هاؤلاء

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

Delivers blows against the science of Darwinism in a respectable fashion. Were I more learned in molecular biology, I think I could've appreciated it even more.

I especially like the chapter on Human Origins, exposing the 98% "similarity" between humans and chimps. The final chapter on the Scopes trial was a good snapshot of Darwinism as it pertains to culture (for more on that see John West's Darwin Day in America.)

DesLife puts a pretty strong foot in the door for Intelligent Design. If ID can ever get the funding that the rest of science gets, it can get on to the business of more in depth research.

Bottom line: You can't read this book and not understand Intelligent Design or Darwinian evolution.