Product Description

Dr. Geoffrey Simmons focuses on the millions of structures and systems on the Earth that came about all at once, entire...with no preceding links, no subsequent links, no “sideways” links.

To illustrate, he surveys examples like...

• the hummingbird and its circulatory system
• insects and insect–eating plants
• the role of the thousands of species of viruses
• chemical signals and the sensory apparatus that detects them
• the self–regulating capacity of the Earth’s ocean/air/soil system

It’s clear: Nature containsonly leaps, not links. Only the intelligence and purpose of an all–powerful Designer can explain the intricate creatures, connections, and “coincidences” everywhere.

Excellent for students and parents, especially homeschoolers, and for educators who want to present the “full picture.”

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #298215 in Books
• Published on: 2007-02-15
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 288 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780736917469
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

Review
"A well-researched and open-minded analyses." -- Stephen Meyer, PhD, Dir. of the Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute

"You've posed all those "break-down complexities" that Darwin worried about, and you've done it with flair!" -- Jody Sjogren, Illustrator for Icons of Evolution

A wonderful book...clear and accessible to the nonspecialist -- John Patrick, M.D., Prof. of the History of Science, Medicine and Faith, Augustine College, Ottawa, Canada.

Geoffrey Simmons is a rarity (referring to the types of books written). His book holds evolution, as he sees it, to the standard of scientific observation and finds evolution lacking -- Dan Hays, Salem Statesman Journal, May 20, 2007

From the Author
There are essentially three religions or belief systems: One that believes life is a product of Design (or Design-guided) and usually that's a single God; one that believes an incredibly dense speck exploded for no reason at all (long ago) and accidentally made life as we know it through billions of lucky changes (and without transition steps), or one belongs to the I don't know/don't care group. The complexity upon complexity in all life systems and the presence of exponentially increasing numbers of missing links as science marches on decimates the faith in an exploding speck within a vacuum of nothingness forming anything. The argument is not with "science" itself or with survival of the fittest or natural selection but with Darwin's notions that species can actually change into other species. It is now very clear, they cannot.

About the Author
Dr. Simmons has written eight books. His latest two books are best selling (within their niche) and they both successfully argue medicine and biology, often by example, against the theory of evolution. He states Darwin's theory is obsolete as are most theories from the eighteenth century. Simmons has practiced medicine for over 40 years and is a national speaker which includes appearances on Coast to Coast with George Noory, NPR, Issues in Education and Southwest Christian Ministries as well as lectures at universities, churches and synagogues.

Customer Reviews

And Just How Plausible is Darwin's Theory?
NOTE TO READERS: This review was subjected to a negative vote campaign beginning December 29, 2007. There is a small cadre of Amazon reviewers and cohorts who vote down any review that is not a uniform attack on a book advocating intelligent design. Their express purpose is to try to dissuade people from reading the book. This is a juvenile tactic which undermines Amazon's whole voting system. Please keep in mind that the huge number of negative votes given to the bulk of reviews on this page do not reflect upon either the author or the book. Review follows.


Despite living a century before Karl Popper, the great philosopher of Science, Darwin understood that any genuine scientific theory had to include the possibility of falsification. He therefore suggested in 1872 that if any complex organ (or organism) existed which could not have evolved from successive small steps or "modifications" that his theory would "ultimately break down." The bulk of this book by Geoffrey Simmons is an attempt to do just that. In it he quickly surveys the plant and animal kindoms and finds numerous instances of living organisms with traits so unique and highly adapted that, he argues, they could not have evolved in short successive steps.

Repeating the many examples Simmons offers would be beyond the scope of this review, but in general Simmons suggests two versions of his critique to Darwin's theory. The first is the lack of fossil antecedents. In his discussion of bats, for example, Simmons notes that bat fossils can be found over a period of 50 million years but each fossil shows clearly defined bat characteristics, including echolocation abilities and unique tendons that allow bats to easily hang upside down. There are, he notes, no obvious predecessors which perhaps occasionally fell (darn those unevolved tendons) or flew into cave walls (better sonar next time...). Similar points are made about the dragonfly.

Simmons's second critique, far more common than the first, is that it is impossible to imagine successful intermediate steps for some plant and animal traits. He notes that many species are so highly adapted that they have symbiotic relationships with other plants or animals. Since these behaviors and accompanying physical characteristics are so closely bound together, one has a hard time imagining just how these relationships could have evolved independently. One example of this is the Mojave Yucca and the Yucca Moth. Although it is not mentioned in this book, the relationship between the two is characterized in popular literature as a "mystery" of the desert. But this is only a mystery if one assumes Darwin's hypothesis of slight modifications. Other examples Simmons offers include resident bacteria within humans that allow us to utilize vitamin K.

As I read through the book, I found myself wondering, "How would a biologist who accepted the theory of evolution respond to all this?" Having read some of the popular literature from this perspective, I can imagine 3 quick responses with varying degrees of effectiveness. As to the fossil record, at least a few Darwinists will respond that only a small portion of fossils are preserved. We could easily find a bat predecessor tomorrow and pointing to the lack of fossil predecessors in some species is simply a "Designer [not God] in the Gaps" hypothesis. (Simmons correctly notes there is nothing specifically Christian in the design argument, though many Darwinists will disagree--their views on this matter reflect more their ignorance of theology than their knowledge of biology.) This is a fair point, but it must be noted that they are placing their faith in a "Darwin in the gaps" hypothesis. More to the point, however, if Darwin is correct, we should expect to find mostly intermediate fossils since successive slight modifications would leave more intermediate than modern fossils, even if only a small portion of all fossils are preserved. We emphatically do not find this, and that point suggests the weakness of this argument. But other arguments raised by Darwinists could be more effective. It should be noted, for example, that natural selection as understood by Darwin and his followers is supposed to explain adaptation. Simmons, they might argue, is vindicating their own thesis in pointing to several dramatic adaptations. Moreover, Simmons does not "deny" natural selection as such. He merely suggests it is not fully sufficient to account for all the variation and uniqueness we find in the natural world. Readers can decide for themselves how effective Simmons's examples are in his chapter on adaptation. I personally found them persuasive, but am willing to consider alternative interpretations.

But perhaps the most powerful argument a defender of Darwin could offer would be to take the opposite approach to Simmons altogether. Where Simmons has pointed to hundreds of examples of uniqueness among plants and animals in the natural world, a Darwinist (not a term they like, but much nicer and more accurate than the descriptions they make of ID theorists) might point to similarities in the animal kingdom. The human genome, they note, is very similar to that of a chimp (90-98%, depending on which source you read). Indeed, our genome shares about half the DNA sequences of a banana. Positive proof, they might argue, for a single tree of life. But then again, it could be DNA sequencing is not a very useful measure. Here again, readers will have to decide for themselves how persuasive the argument from similarity is against the evidence marshalled by Simmons.

In the end, however, I enjoyed the book. Written for a popular audience, this book offers a whirlwind tour through the natural world and its many wonders. Whether or not you find evolution convincing as an explanation for all, or merely some, of what Simmons describes, this is a fun read. So if you want a popular introduction to one aspect of intelligent design, or if you are simply curious about the amazing diversity to be found in life on this planet, this book is a worth your time in reading it.

Fascinating Book
Dr. Simmons starts every chapter with an appropriate quotation, either funny or relevant. Following the title and quote comes a facts packed, humorous look into a different aspect of the animal and plant world. This is a literary work revealing science. The sprinkling of tongue in cheek comments throughout the book was totally enjoyable.
I learned more interesting information about the animal kingdom from this book than I have gleaned in the rest of my life. Stories of the cell from hell, cockroaches running 3 times faster than cheetahs, the weaponry possessed by insects, hibernation and estivation, migration, etc. etc. etc. kept me entertained, amazed, and edified all at the same time. My appreciation for bacteria and even viruses went from zero to 90 in 4 pages.
To top it off the book finished with the most succinct argument against common descent, nondirected evolution that I have seen. After having had time to fully digest this, I label it a culinary masterpiece.
I recommend that all home school and private schools use this book
and also What Darwin Did Not Know, Dr. Simmons similar book on the human race, for classroom material.

interesting book with lots of fun facts
I'd put this book at about the middle of the pack of the ID books I have read. It's certainly not groundbreaking like "Black Box" or "Icons" or some of the others, but at the same time it is well written and entertaining. If you have a gram of objectivity, and most of you don't as will be evidenced by how many negative votes this review will get from people who never even read it, you have to observe that there are a lot of bright people writing books on ID these days, both for and against. Just labeling it creationism and moving on is an easy way to avoid dealing with it, but the author makes an honest effort to marshal his facts and present his case in about as non-threatening and non-condescending way as possible.
What it lacks is a key issue, like irreducible complexity or the design filter or one of those things that are hard to argue. The main observation reminds me more of the William Pawley view that things this complex and wonderful have to have been designed. While I would agree, I don't think the case is overwhelming, and I don't think his points are likely to move anyone off of their stance, assuming anyone reads it who doesn't already agree with the premise. He has about as many amazing science facts as you're likely to come across in one place, and that can make it interesting no matter where you are coming from. "Darwin's Ghosts" was like that for me from the other side- I found his evolutionary arguments very unconvincing but enjoyed the forays into animal behavior.
All that to say, it's a good read and well worth the effort, but in my opionion it misses as a top-tier ID book.