Item description for What Darwin Didn't Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution by Geoffrey S. Simmons, Professor William A. Dembski & M. D. Simmons...
Overview Accessible, clearly presented, and utterly fascinating, "What Darwin Didn't Know" shows the human body to be a marvelous system constructed by an infinitely wise Designer.
Endorsed by William Dembski, Ph.D., the scientist at the forefront of the intelligent-design movement.
Darwin might have thought twice about publishing his theories if he had had access to today's medical and microbiological discoveries. Drawing on years of research, Dr. Simmons demonstrates that the almost infinite complexity of the human anatomy simply could not have developed by chance. For example: the body runs on "battery power..".from the hundreds of mitochondria in each cellthe two sexes--evolutionary theory cannot explain why they existevery cell is its own pharmacist, chemist, and metallurgist
Accessible, clearly presented, and utterly fascinating, "What Darwin Didn't Know "shows the human body to be a marvelous system constructed by an infinitely wise Designer.
Citations And Professional Reviews What Darwin Didn't Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution by Geoffrey S. Simmons, Professor William A. Dembski & M. D. Simmons has been reviewed by professional book reviewers and journalists at the following establishments -
CBA Retailers - 01/01/2004 page 94
Promise Angels is dedicated to bringing you great books at great prices. Whether you read for entertainment, to learn, or for literacy - you will find what you want at promiseangels.com!
Studio: Harvest House Publishers
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 8.52" Width: 5.6" Height: 0.72" Weight: 0.83 lbs.
Release Date Jan 1, 2004
Publisher Harvest House Publishers
ISBN 0736913130 ISBN13 9780736913133
Availability 142 units. Availability accurate as of Oct 26, 2016 01:26.
Usually ships within one to two business days from La Vergne, TN.
Orders shipping to an address other than a confirmed Credit Card / Paypal Billing address may incur and additional processing delay.
More About Geoffrey S. Simmons, Professor William A. Dembski & M. D. Simmons
Reviews - What do customers think about What Darwin Didn't Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution?
Typical creationist sleight of hand Mar 30, 2007
Like all creationist propoganda, this book is aimed towards the scientifically illiterate and the religiously biased. It uses a typical creationist approach: spout out a lot of scientific trivia to overwhelm layman readers and bring out some variant of the Watchmaker cliche. Its individual points have been refuted many times before and are available to anyone willing to do the research so I won't waste time on them.
I'd instead like to focus on one statement of the book that killed what little credibility the author had. He states that science has been wrong before, so why should we be so sure evolutionary science is right? This shows a misunderstanding of the basics of scientific method. Disproving existing theories is an important part of science. When scientists are sure a theory (like evolution) is correct, it is because it continues to survive constant analysis and the scientists have found nothing to contradict the evidence that supports it. The fact that other theories can and have been proven wrong is a testament for, not against, the strong base of evidence for the theory of evolution.
Fascinating journey into the human body. Mar 17, 2007
The ancients had it all wrong. They dubbed the Pyramid of Giza, and Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Colossus of Rhodes, etc to be the Seven wonders of the world. Little did they know that to find the biggest wonder in the world, all they had to do was look inside themselves. That ability had to wait for the technology that would allow humans to discover what a marvel they really are. As the wonders of what transpires under my skin were skillfully unfolded, my mind was filled with awe. There is no part of the body I will take for granted again. Who can not be impressed that their blood vessels laid out end to end would circle the globe twice? How about the fact one cell is more complex than the space shuttle? Those stories and more await discovery between the covers.
Dr. Simmons tells the story with humor and clear, precise language. He is the tour guide on this ultimate, incredible journey. At each stop in the human machine, he reveals in detail the complexity of that particular part of the body and how it relates to the whole. The chapter on reproduction is absolutely mind boggling. The chapter on the development of an embryo gives the reader a play by play account of the development of a new human being. All the major systems of the body are explained in language that makes it fun to read this book. Dr. Simmons is a writer who is also a scientist. This is one of the most edifying books I have ever read.
If you home school your children or teach science in a private school, this book is an excellent resource to augment your curriculum.
What This Doctor and This Mathematician Don't Know.... If They Prevail, Medicine Will Return to the Dark Ages Aug 16, 2006
For more than fourteen hundred years, Western medicine returned to the Dark Ages due in no small measure to religious superstition and faith-based adherence to Roman doctor Galen's medical text on anatomy. It wasn't until the advent of the Renaissance, with such leading figures as Leonardo Da Vinci and William Harvey, that Western medicine once more became a rigorous discipline based entirely on serious, extensive scientific study of human anatomy and the origins of infectious diseases such as smallpox and cholera. Geoffrey Simmons, a doctor, and William Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician (I might add too, a strident Fundamentalist Protestant Christian ideologue, whose philosophical point of view isn't too far removed from Osama bin Laden's.) have sought to recast modern medicine as offering evidence in support of Intelligent Design; an invalid hypothesis claiming to be scientific which was rejected originaly back in the 18th and 19th centuries by scientists, and most recently, has been determined to be a religious doctrine masquerading as science by Republican Federal judge John Jones in his landmark, historic December 22, 2005 ruling in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education trial (htttp://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_kitzmiller_decision.pdf) - claiming that the complex nature of human anatomy is sufficient proof of the concept of irreducible complexity stated by biochemist Michael Behe in his book "Darwin's Black Box".
If one were to follow Simmons' and Dembski's tortuous, sloppy logic, then the concept of irreducible complexity would explain why African-Americans are susceptible to sickle cell anemia. Unfortunately, not only does Intelligent Design fail to explain the existence of sickle cell anemia, it also casts into question whether an "Intelligent Designer" would seek to create this disease. On the other hand, evolutionary biology has demonstrated conclusively that sickle cell anemia arose as a means of insuring immunity from insect-borne diseases carried by the tsetse fly and other insects within native African populations. Once Africans were transported to the New World - which had a different suite of insect-borne diseases - then sickle cell anemia was no longer a beneficial trait, but instead, became a serious medical condition within African-American populations.
Over the past year and a half major American medical organizations and journals have issued statements in praise of evolutionary theory and condemning Intelligent Design, echoing Judge Jones' decision by noting that Intelligent Design isn't a valid scientific theory, but rather, a religious doctrine masquerading as science. One notable example was published recently by Stanford University's medical school: http://mednews.stanford.edu/stanmed/2006summer/. Those interested in rigorous, contemporary medical research should not think of acquiring this book, unless they wish to see medical practice return quickly back to the Dark Ages of Western civilization (EDITORIAL NOTE: Of the comments listed below, Stewart Thorne's are the most thoughtful and persuasive, and are indeed, a rather insightful commentary on my own eloquent points made in this review.).
A Harsh Review From An ID Supporter Jul 31, 2006
This book is possibly THE worst book of its kind...at least of all that I have read. Off the bat, let it be known that I am an ID proponent and a critic of Darwinism. I'm not an atheist/materialist out to criticize a book for questioning evolution. That said, this book has alot of problems. First, it seems like information is repeated more often than necessary. This book could have been one-fourth of the size it is now. Second, there are far too many questions posed and far too few questions answered. "How could evolution..? Why would evolution...?" Mere speculation abounds in this book and will not be helpful to any reader. Third, there is also inaccurate and pointless information all over the pages of this book. The chapter "Gifts" is so non-sensical it was amazing to me that it was included in the book. ID is real science, but this book does it no justice. This book is fodder for materialists who are critical of ID. I'm a supporter of ID and I found plenty of reason to criticize it. If you want to read about ID, there are much better sources of information than this book.
Evolution: chance or necessity? Oct 27, 2005
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.