Darwin's Doubt Analysis

In “Darwin’s Doubt” by Stephen Meyer, Meyer contends that scientists have yet to find a way to account for the Cambrian explosion. He argues that the theory of evolution is unable to provide an explanation for the rapid origin of animals with body plans. The lack of immediate precursors leads to the question of whether or not the appearance of life forms can actually be explained by modification. Meyer supports this thesis by addressing three key topics, and later goes into great detail about these issues. He begins by discussing the fossils that are unaccounted for. Then, Meyer talks about the composition of species and body plans. Lastly, he goes on about post-Darwin discoveries and claims, and explains the idea of an intelligent designer.
What’s hard to ignore when analyzing fossil records is the “quantum leap in complexity” as Meyer would put it. It’s difficult in any way to describe the activity of these variations as gradual. And naturally, with these sudden appearances comes missing intermediates and transitional forms. Another approach to explaining the Cambrian explosion Meyer describes is one that goes under the assumption that the Precambrian fossil record does actually preserve some of these ancestral forms, but also highlights the differences. Paleontologists have noted differences among body plans, and organisms that have been presumed to be from the same animal kingdom. Not only does Meyer bring up the issue Agassiz had with Darwin’s theory, he also mentions how ancestor-descendant relationships between some of these organisms are not accepted by all paleontologists. The point he is trying to make here is that this clear discontinuity in the record raises questions that are just too obvious to ignore. Meyer concludes this part of his book by addressing numerous theories that make an effort to explain this sudden appearance in the fossil record. In particular, Meyer focuses on the theory presented by Gould and Eldredge concerning “punctuated equilibrium”. Meyer takes issue with Gould’s theory due to its contradictory nature. Gould concludes that the fossil
He claims intelligent design offers an answer or solution to the problem of strikingly different designs of organisms. And why so many dismiss intelligent design, Meyer says, is because it is beyond the bounds of science. I find this to be one of Meyer’s stronger arguments. The fault I find in a naturalistic approach is that the supernatural is always discounted. But why not consider all possibilities of origin? Are there any other sources of complex information other than design by some sort of intelligence? He finishes this chapter by inviting the reader to “break some rules and follow the evidence wherever it leads.” Here I would side with him and agree that most practical way to seeking the truth would be “following” the evidence, and leaving behind all agendas and previous absolute ideas. Meyer provided more than enough evidence to show Darwin’s ideas of evolution are not without flaw. I don’t find the idea of the existence of an “intelligent designer” to be any more far-fetched than trying to explain genetic evolution and modification with large missing gaps. A key point Meyer tries to make when discussing intelligent design is the use of inference by