Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed

In Undeniable (2016), Douglas Axe sets out to answer one of life’s biggest questions: To what or to whom do we owe our existence? He is persuaded that the answer to this question is innately accessible to every person through a common, undeniable design intuition. In spite of its ubiquity, however, life’s circumstances can desensitize this design-sensing apparatus in a way that distorts conclusions about reality, not least of which being those regarding life’s biggest questions. Thus, Axe presents readers with a cogent argument that justifies this intuition in a manner that hopefully reawakens it.In a book-related interview, Axe explains that a key motivation for this project was the recognition that biological studies provide very clear and convincing technical arguments which show that life is designed; yet most people are untrained to follow such arguments in any technical detail and they certainly won’t be reading any scientific journals on the matter. Thus, he aims to present the basic rationale behind the design intuition in a manner that removes the necessity of specialized biological understanding so that everyone can follow the argument.Regarding the title, he credits his daughter who observed that, ultimately, we can’t deny our intuition that life is designed. Intrigued by her suggestion, he discovered that Bill Nye wrote a book by the same name, and so Axe reluctantly scratched the prospect. However, further reflection caused him to consider that using the same title might invite a comparison between Nye’s Undeniable and his own. With due respect to Bill Nye, Axe observes that his own substantial scientific research on the question of evolution surpasses Nye’s and thus provides readers with a perspective gleaned from 25 years of first-hand experience.Vocationally, Dr. Axe directs the Biologic Institute, where his work includes experiments and computer simulations to examine the functional and structural constraints on the evolution of proteins and protein systems. After earning his Ph.D. in molecular biology at Caltech, he held postdoctoral and research scientist positions at the University of Cambridge, the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre, and the Babraham Institute in Cambridge. He has published in peer-reviewed periodicals such as the Journal of Molecular Biology, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Nature.Summary:Undeniable’s opening chapter presents “The Big Question”: To what or to whom do we owe our existence? Axe explains that a theistic response to such ultimate inquiry generates awkwardness in the context of metaphysical materialism, an ideology that dominates contemporary science. In that regard, he cites Thomas Nagel’s candid analysis: “…this cosmic authority problem [associated with theistic implications]…is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life…” Given Nagel’s atheism and his courage to swim against its relentless materialistic currents, Axe recognizes him as “living proof that the awkwardness of bare-naked honesty doesn’t compare to the reward of engaging seriously the matters that concern us most.”In Chapter 2, The Conflict Within, Axe presents insights into his motivation for writing, specifically, his desire to resolve the conflict he experienced between “the voice of scientific consensus” and the “voice of his own intuition.” Even more, he wants to resolve this conflict for readers. Employing a clever thought experiment involving an oracular alphabet soup which spells complex assembly instructions when boiled, he demonstrates how our skeptical intuition about the implausibility of such a scenario is undeniably warranted; but he also observes that the certainty of such intuitions fall short of explaining how we know they’re correct. He further offers one plausible account of this, dubbed The Universal Design Intuition, wherein “tasks that we would need knowledge to accomplish can be accomplished only by someone who has that knowledge.” He caveats this by observing that descriptions of how intuition works are less significant than whether or not intuition can justify our conclusions—and, in particular, whether or not our intuitions that doubt Darwinism are sound.In sharing his pursuit toward resolving the internal conflict, chapter 3 recounts Axe’s experience as a post-doc at Cambridge University’s Laboratory of Molecular Biology (the LMB), where such notables as James Watson and Francis Crick conducted their famous Nobel-Prize-winning research on DNA. It was at the LMB where Axe’s own research unveiled more than just important scientific findings (cf. Journal of Molecular Biology, August 2000), it also raised his awareness of the prevailing science culture—specifically, the inevitable humanness of the enterprise. The utopian view of science—where researchers are driven solely by the quest for truth—began to crumble in Axe’s mind as he experienced first-hand how cultural considerations were as much a factor in peer consensus as solid research.Chapter 4 elaborates on this inescapable human dimension of science culture by observing that researchers are not mere automatons, but are very much driven by hopes and ambitions. Moreover, these qualities are necessary to the advancement of science and, therefore, principally good; however, as Axe emphasizes, harm comes to science when attempts are made to suppress actual results which threaten one’s hopes. Even more problematic for science is the institutionalization of agendas, where opposition to orthodoxy is tagged as anti-science to ensure compliance among the rank and file.Transitioning from human factors within science to a general human capacity abroad, chapter 5 introduces “common science,” a term Axe coins to package the idea that all humans are fundamentally scientists. In fact, common science is an inescapable part of living. Everyone makes observations of the world from which they develop mental notes and derive conceptual models that are continuously tested and refined through experience. Survival would be impossible in the absence of this remarkable ability. Furthermore, this notion of common science serves, in subsequent chapters, to address why tasks that require knowledge are never accomplished without knowledge; i.e., to explain why the universal design intuition is the case.In unpacking this intuition, Axe uses chapter six to address “busy wholes” and “whole projects,” where the former is something that accomplishes the latter. For example, a spider is a busy whole and its web is a whole project. Importantly, a spider differs from entities like rain, for example, since a spider’s web is an intended act for a purposeful end, whereas rain merely causes puddles incidentally. Moreover, we infer from completed projects that something did the work, even though the who and the how may lie beyond our apprehension.Chapter seven explores the inadequacy of natural selection in explaining such wonders as busy wholes. Moreover, in analyzing the viability of selection, Axe exposes “the gaping hole in evolutionary theory” by observing that selection is only capable of homing in on fitness signals that already exist; importantly, that is to say that selection does not invent anything. Amidst this critique, he also makes the fair point that selection functions well as a fiddler, but this capacity is far from inventive and even proves deleterious when beneficial signals are rivaled by harmful yet more-readily-selectable signals. Even in experiments where the conditions are rigged in selection’s favor, it merely homes in on immediate sources of higher fitness, regardless of harm caused within the larger context.Axe devotes chapter eight to demonstrating the challenges to successful blind searches posed by immense search spaces. He proceeds with precision in distinguishing between practical impossibility and conceptual impossibility, where the former lies outside the quantity of possible movements in the universe’s history (i.e., universal probability bound), while the latter is strictly zero. Ultimately, he wants to show that some things are so difficult to find by aimless wandering that their accidental discovery should be considered impossible. This is a critical step toward demonstrating the impracticality of Darwinism’s selection mechanism upon which the theory finally sinks or swims.Chapter eight also lays essential groundwork for appreciating the fantastic improbability of functional coherence, the subject of chapter nine. Here, Axe highlights the indispensable design element of coherence in light of the emergency assembly instructions used to rescue the Apollo 13 space mission. Ultimately, the point of the story and the chapter is to show that our firm intuition that such things can’t happen by accident is, in fact, correct. Furthermore, Axe summarizes the argument developed in chapters six through nine: “Functional coherence makes accidental invention fantastically improbable and therefore physically impossible.”Having used common science to justify the design intuition vis-à-vis the consensus view of biological origins, Axe devotes the book’s final four chapters to inquiry into the big question raised at its outset: to what or to whom do we owe our existence? To that end, chapter ten emphasizes that for all of humanity’s genius, we can’t escape the realization that someone has outdone us. As an example, Axe compares the man-made Tavros2 deep-submergence machine, outfitted with a virtually autonomous onboard computing system and solar-recharging cells, to that of a living machine, cyanobacteria (“high-tech pond scum”), which employs photosynthesis to create its energy. With little surprise, even a cursory comparison of the two remarkable systems demonstrates the surpassingly great complexity of the bacteria over Tavros2 (no offense to the engineers).In advancing the application component of his argument, Axe uses a baseball metaphor in advising common scientists to keep their eye on the ball as they move from the bleachers to the playing field, where jerseys are mostly emblazoned with “Darwin.” The proverbial ball is the argument cited above, that functional coherence makes accidental invention highly improbably and therefore physically impossible. Thus, to take one’s eye off the ball is to avert their attention to any account of origins which fails to answer that key argument. For example, Axe observes that physicist Jeremy England proposes that light + random atoms + time = a living plant, but this doesn’t answer the common science argument and therefore shouldn’t intimidate common scientists from engaging the science elite on this central consideration.Continuing with the application theme, Axe uses chapter twelve to enlist readers into a movement which stands up for the design intuition. Unlike a battle, everyone wins when a good movement prevails. To that end, readers are made aware of areas of retreat within the Darwinist/materialist context, not least of which being the retreat from critical dialogue. As Axe observes, questioning “the most central axiom of modern biology [i.e., evolution] was, and is, to excuse oneself from the company of modern biologists.” In that regard, he observes that when biology (or any other discipline) stifles open inquiry in the name of dogma, it acts more like bad religion than science.Chapter thirteen opens the aperture by shifting from a specific critique of evolution to a broader analysis of materialism and the mental world. Interacting with Thomas Nagel’s work, Axe explores issues in the philosophy of mind with respect to the inadequacy of a materialist accounting of reality—namely, the existence of consciousness and personhood. He observes that the uniqueness of personhood extends well beyond mere conscious thought and moral sense; in fact, persons are also friends, lovers, givers, takers, dreamers, visionaries, storytellers, philosophers, advocates, pleaders, sympathizers, sacrificers, poets, sculptors, dancers, reminiscers, and much more. Remarkably, the richness of this inner world also seems to compliment that of the outer world as if the two were made to go together.Undeniable’s closing chapter expounds on the nature of personhood while answering “the big question”: we owe our existence to a very personal God. While everyone had an innate grasp of this answer in childhood, it is all too often misplaced in later years, thus, providing impetus for the universal-design-intuition argument to resurface what we once already accepted as true. Reacquaintance with this reality will open avenues of inquiry that are presently closed within the materialist school of thought, such as asking why-questions with respect to function. Engineers develop indispensible insights in the problem-solving process by using such purpose-focused orientations, but biologists are implicitly forbidden by a paradigm where something like purpose is, at best, illusory.Evaluation:A great strength of Undeniable is its accessibility for a large audience. Achieving this without compromising the subject matter’s technical integrity is no easy task, but Axe accomplishes this with considerable success. Like many effective communicators, he does it by making ample use of stories, illustrations and analogies to clarify points of particular difficulty. For example, in answering the question of whether some things would be so hard to find by aimless wandering that we should consider their accidental discovery impossible, he uses the analogy of an Easter egg hunt to orient his readers by way of a familiar concept. Since such an analogy implies a goal-directed notion of searching (i.e., finding an egg), however, he helpfully distinguishes this colloquial sense of the term (search) by defining it as any process that can potentially find something, regardless of a goal. Thus, an egg hunt is a blind search inasmuch as the searcher lacks any special foresight or insight.This concrete analogy sets the stage for presenting an abstract notion of searching that most readers will find unfamiliar—specifically, searching nonphysical spaces. Unlike a physical egg hunt, nonphysical searches function in the realm of conceptual possibilities, such as a game of twenty questions, where the answer exists in the mind of a given player (as opposed to the corner of the backyard behind a rock, as in a physical egg hunt, for example). Thus, Axe connects the dots by explaining that a nonphysical, blind search is equivalent to a Darwinian search. This is significant because the true limitations of Darwinian explanations surface when searches are subjected to the immense conceptual search spaces that biological evolution entails.While expounding this important concept of searching vast spaces, Axe reverts to physical searches and invites readers to join him in conducting a virtual search of their own within the largest space one can mentally picture—the Earth’s surface. He picks the 2.5mm-diameter crosshair stamped upon a brass plaque at America’s Four Corners and dubs it the CUNA target (the intersection of Colorado, Utah, Nevada and Arizona). In terms of the Earth’s 510-million-square-kilometer surface area, the CUNA target covers 1 part in one hundred billion billion equal-sized parts. Readers can experience the difficulty of blindly hitting this target by dropping virtual pins at random to see just how close they can come to it on a world map (www.geomidpoint.com/random). This is a brilliant illustration on Axe’s part, as it vividly demonstrates the immense difficulty of hitting a target through blind searching within a vast space. Moreover, he does this in preparation for explaining evolutionary searches, which are much more difficult than hitting the CUNA target.In addition to cementing concepts and painting powerful imagery in the minds of readers, Axe uses these exercises to present key points of rationale, such as the coverage principle, where “if a pin is dropped blindly over a search space, the probability of it hitting any target within that space is equal to the fraction of the search space covered by the target.” In other words, the bigger the target, the better the chances of blindly hitting it. This is not only intuitive, but mathematically inescapable. Axe leverages this principle and the mental imagery gained by the CUNA experiment to test search spaces of “surreal size,” where the coverage principle applies with equal force.While this section on blind searches is masterfully presented, it might have been even more effective to explain the concept of physical impossibility in the text rather than as an endnote. In that regard, the endnote is well written and easily understood, but to the extent that readers treat them as nonessential, they will miss the technical grounding upon which Axe’s appeal to physical impossibility turns. Nevertheless, the general argument for impossible searches is soundly made regardless of technical amplification and readers will see that any accidental discovery which leads to functional coherence is highly improbable and therefore physically impossible.The general feature of accessibility throughout Undeniable is thematic, as its target audience is the biologically untrained (though biologists will benefit from its insights, too). Unfortunately, some reviewers considered the lack of technical arguments related directly to Axe’s research to be a liability. For example, “Tahir Nasser,” an Amazon reviewer, thinks this is an “excellent” book, though “slightly incomplete.” He points out that Stephen Meyer’s recent work, Darwin’s Doubt, cites more of Axe’s research than Undeniable. While this is the case, and while it may be disappointing for readers with similar expectations, the book is not meant to portray arguments for scientists by a scientist. Rather, its scope is mass appeal by way of justifying a capacity that people already possess: the design intuition.With respect to this intuition, other reviewers seem to miss the book’s aim altogether. For example, “Julias K.,” another Amazon reviewer, criticizes the validity of intuition as it relates to scientific inquiry, citing the once-universal acceptance of geocentrism as a failed example. A problem with this analysis as it relates to Undeniable, however, is that Axe devotes several chapters to justifying the design intuition. He doesn’t merely assert that one should assent to every sense experience, but rather argues for intuition in this particular case. From the book’s outset, Axe writes, “Specifically, we want to know whether the intuition that makes us doubt Darwin’s theory is sound … whether it [intuition] justifies our conclusions.” In other words, far from begging the question in favor of the design intuition, he argues (convincingly) for it.Another reviewer offers a critique that misses on a related point. He observes that “there is little interaction with other evolutionary scenarios … several different notions of how evolution may produce new life forms are proposed [by other scientists], and that most acknowledge some combination of several factors is probably right.” Unless the reviewer is referring to some sort of theistic version of evolution, which doesn’t seem to be the case, and which is equally rejected by the science establishment, then Axe’s argument still applies for the simple reason that insight and foresight are exempt from any naturalistic account of biological complexity. In other words, biological complexity displays functional coherence (which requires insight), and functional coherence is only achieved by top-down processes, but naturalistic accounts categorically preclude top-down processes; therefore, all naturalistic explanations fail to account for functional coherence. This is the point that Axe emphasizes with respect to Jeremy England’s evolutionary proposal (its Darwinian commitments notwithstanding) as was observed in the above summary.The same review levels another critique that seems to miss the main purpose of the book: “I understand this is a book for laity, but the movement from seeing some aspect of evolution as physically impossible to design is an inference that requires some explanation beyond assertion.” This is bewildering since Axe never merely asserts the legitimacy of a design inference in the absence of an argument. As is observed above, he develops an argument for the soundness of doubting Darwin’s theory on the basis of the design intuition, which he then extends to any naturalistic theory of evolution. This argument is even represented in an illustration (p. 162) which juxtaposes the various means by which design is concluded: “Instantly (by intuition),” and/or “Rigorously (by reasoning).” In that same illustration, he lays out the five premises for his argument and then synthesizes them into a single sentence. That the reviewer missed this key element of the book explains, perhaps, why he gave it a three-star rating.Contrary to these kinds of critiques, it is precisely because Axe argues so thoroughly and accessibly for the design intuition that Undeniable accomplishes its intent. Of course, many reviewers followed the arguments and grasped the book’s key points. Among such readers was a software developer who was inspired to create a program of his own to test the creative potential of mutation and selection. Similar to a theme rehearsed by Michael Behe in The Edge of Evolution, the reviewer pointed out that mutation and selection are better at breaking complex functional systems than making them (assuming it can make them in the first place): “My findings so far are that random mutation and selection have no creative power whatsoever and are highly destructive to code. The only way programs can survive being randomly mutated without being utterly destroyed is to have systems of functions that call each other and protect each other from single mutations. If they don't protect themselves from these mutations, they get completely destroyed.” Software analogies like these can be extended to include related mind-boggling factors, including the existence of the code itself, the complex computer system that process the code, the generation of the electricity which powers the computer that processes the code, etc. And again, this is Axe’s point. Just as one wouldn’t expect high-level functionality like this to result without insight and foresight, neither should one expect highly ordered biological systems to proceed from blind processes.In addition to its comprehensive and accessible argumentation, Undeniable also successfully leverages the power of story to provide rare and memorable insight into the pervasively naturalistic science culture as experienced by an insider. Readers already familiar with the resistance to design within biology won’t be surprised by these anecdotes, but they are likely to find that Axe’s first-person accounts will dispel any notion that the materialist bias within science enterprise is overplayed by design advocates. The power of these personal stories cannot be overstated, as they are among the few particulars that readers are likely to remember after they’ve finished the book. This is an important take-away since it showcases that scientists are human, too, and like every other human, they are subject to the pressures of their own biases as well as the biases of their peers—after all, who wants to be ridiculed and denied professional privilege for the sake of mere principle. Cynicism aside, a firm grasp of this phenomenon, vis-à-vis Axe’s own experience, will aid readers in understanding that the wide acceptance of naturalistic evolutionary tales reflects the imperfect human condition, not the detached objectivity of a Spock-like personality that many scientists would like to portray.In a similar regard, Undeniable also makes many significant existential connections, not least of which involves “the big question” that Axe interacts with throughout: To what or to whom do we owe our existence? Unlike many other ID texts, which tacitly distance design from its theological implications, Axe appeals to the handiwork of a personal God as the explanation of our existence. He doesn’t go so far as to argue for Christian theism, as that would launch the book into an entirely new direction; nevertheless, he does identify himself as a “Christian thinker,” thereby putting his personal theological commitments on display. This is a bold move since ID critics want to dismiss design as a religiously-motivated perspective vice a valid scientific inference; thus, to surface one’s religious view in the context of an ID argument would seem tantamount to conceding such a point. But regardless of the author’s perspective, the arguments stand on their own merit. Moreover, no thinking person is void of a theological perspective, so in that sense, Axe’s move is not only bold, but timely, as this fact seems lost on many engaging in the ID-evolution discourse; i.e., the atheist materialist has as much of a theological commitment as the Christian theist (disputes over the definition of atheism notwithstanding).As a representative of Christianity, Axe writes not only as a scientist, but as an ambassador for Christ—a role he should be commended for. His invitational, yet firm, presentation of the rationale for the universal design intuition is an exemplary model for others who plan to present this information to their family, friends, neighbors and co-workers. His engagement of Thomas Nagel’s perspective, for example, illustrates how one can critique an opposing view without assailing the person who holds it. In an age where brash exchanges and ad hominen attacks seem more common than ever, Axe’s respectful and courteous tone is refreshing indeed.Concerning possible improvements, there is really nothing the book itself is missing that would enhance its effectiveness. Given its target audience, it leverages an appropriate array of literary elements mentioned above (stories, illustrations, analogies) to clarify and reinforce its arguments and ideas. Given the importance of its subject, however, the production of a corresponding video presentation, along the lines of an Illustra Media project, would go a long way toward disseminating this message among a broader audience who have neither the time nor inclination to read it, but who would benefit from viewing an hour-long DVD.Recommendation:As has been mentioned, Undeniable’s accessibility lends itself to a broad audience, including high-school (and possibly middle-school) aged students. While the technical sophistication is tailored to accommodate readers untrained in biology, those with professional science backgrounds will also benefit from its philosophical insights and personal reflections. Given the novelty of the design-intuition argument itself, those acquainted with other ID projects should not approach this one as merely a repackaging of design arguments that they’ve encountered elsewhere.This book is particularly recommended for teachers who have the flexibility to incorporate it into their science and/or philosophy curricula. High school through graduate students will enjoy its readability and thought-provoking insights, and teachers may avail themselves of the engaging exercises presented within the book, such as attempting to hit the CUNA target with random drops of a virtual pin (as noted above). Students planning to enter the secular university will definitely benefit from this book’s ideas, as it will prepare them for the bombardment of materialist thinking that awaits and provide the confidence that comes from knowing that someone other than their youth pastor doubts the adequacy of a naturalistic worldview. After all, how many of their prospective teachers are likely to have been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, or the Journal of Molecular Biology?Finally, those who are not necessarily teachers but have a motivation for defending design will find Undeniable especially helpful as a template for developing both formal and impromptu presentations on the topic. Whether such an endeavor targets theists, agnostics, or atheists, reasoning along the lines that Axe provides will surely provoke thoughtful exchanges with anyone open minded enough to listen. Since the arguments themselves involve an innate human faculty (the design intuition), much of the heavy lifting is already done—it is merely a reawakening of the intuition that’s needed. After all, as Axe states in his closing sentences, “[the deepest questions] were never restricted to the most clever. Some things, of course, can only be seen by standing on the shoulders of giants, but the most crucial things have always been seen best by standing on the ground.”

UndeniableBy Douglas Axe Published by Harper OneA review by Jack KettlerDouglas Axe, a brief bio:Douglas Axe is a molecular biologist and Director of Biologic Institute. He completed his PhD at Caltech and held postdoctoral and research scientist positions at the University of Cambridge, the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre, and the Babraham Institute in Cambridge. He worked as a postdoctoral fellow at the Centre for Protein Engineering under the supervision of Alan Fersht of the University of Cambridge. His current research examines the functional and structural constraints on the evolution of proteins and protein systems. His work has been published in the Journal of Molecular Biology.What others are saying:“From childhood everyone directly grasps that life is designed - until they’re talked out of it by a culture saturated with materialism. Using the latest science, molecular biologist Douglas Axe shows why you don’t have to be an expert to trust your firm knowledge of the wonderful design of life.” (Michael J. Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box)“Douglas Axe’s Undeniable is bold, insightful and world-changing. It’s also a joy to read. I recommend it highly!” (Phillip E. Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Law at U. C. Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial)“Highly rigorous yet passionate, lyrical, forthright, refreshingly brief and accessible, Undeniable is an urgently needed addition to the library of books on intelligent design.” (Evolution News)“In Undeniable we are privy to a first-hand account of the evidence for intelligence and the painful professional cost of swimming against the flow of accepted but un-proven truth. A must-read.” (Gerald Schroeder, author of The Science of God and God According to God)“Probably the most engaging book I have read in the past ten years, because of Dr. Axe’s clear explanations and profound insights. This is an important book, perhaps the best one in existence, for anyone who takes origins questions seriously, whatever their perspective.” (Chuck Garner, Professor of Organic Chemistry at Baylor University)“Axe has carefully crafted a case that strongly favors our human intuition that life was designed, demonstrating why unguided evolution is improbable in the extreme. This book’s power to convince surpasses that of everything I’ve read on origins science in my sixty-five years as an engineer, biophysicist, and physiologist.” (Mark C. Biedebach, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach)“Douglas Axe is one of the very few experimental scientists who has used his skills to test the validity of evolutionary mechanisms as a source of inventions. Here, he concludes that we can trust our common [universal] design intuition; it is supported by science, whereas evolutionary stories are anti-science.” (Matti Leisola, D.Sc. Professor Emeritus of Bioprocess Engineering, Aalto University, Finland)“Undeniable is a marvelous book, both engaging and convincing-a true masterpiece.” (Marcos Eberlin, Professor of Chemistry at University of Campinas, member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences)About this book:Axe starts with a fascinating analogy. He asks us to imagine what can be found in “oracle soup.” The alphabet soup is boiled in a pot covered with a lid. When the lid is removed, a message appears in the soup. That message gives complete instructions for building something new like a machine with useful functions. If you actually saw such an oracle soup boiling, you could not possibly believe that random boiling produced those instructions. Nonetheless, evolution researchers want you to believe that the intricate instructions for building the first “simple” life form came from random interactions in some kind of “primordial soup.”“A three-letter word appearing in alphabet soup is worth mentioning, a five-letter word is worth photographing, and a seven-letter word is downright suspicious.” (Chapter 9, p.152.)Although Axe is dealing with very technical information, he writes in a style that can be followed by the layman. Some of the chapters that impressed me particularly were Chapter 3; Science in the Real World, Chapter 4; Outside the Box and Chapter 5; A Dose of Common Science. The book is a treatise, logically building a case that Darwinism has run its course and is out of gas. The more that is learned about the makeup and complexity of the simplest form of life, the knowledge screams, random mutations could never have responsible for the complexity of life as we know it.Axe makes the case that when there is too much information, there is no way random processes could have produced it. Axe goes on and discusses how an evolutionary process in one of his experiments took a protein that didn’t work well and converted it into a protein that did work well. Conversely, random processes could never have produced the original, poorly-working protein, because even a poorly-working protein represents significantly more information than could ever be produced by random chance mutations.Axe describes different systems that are analogous to how a biochemical system would “search” for a useful protein using random mutations acted on by natural selection. He then takes his own published scientific research on proteins and converts the numbers he got from that research into probabilities that are applicable to those analogous systems. In every case, the numbers tell you that it is not possible for the search to be successful considering the laws of probability.Axe’s Undeniable was World Magazine’s book of the year for good reasons. Axe exposes the folly of those who continue asserting the truthfulness of Darwinism in the face of the overwhelming complexity of the simplest single cell of life. Religiously held evolutionary theory is basically asserting: poof bang, all of this DNA, RNA, protein, amino acid, glycol-proteins (cellar communication) and gene sequencing complexity came from nothing. The most brilliant scientists can't make the simplest form of life in a test tube. And yet we are to believe that billions and billions of beneficial mutations and accidents brought us life as we know it today out of nothing. This is not science; it is blind faith, hell bent on keeping the God equation out of the picture.The fools making such extravagant claims about Darwinism usually hide behind a veneer of mathematical respectability. In other words, a smoke screen or like the curtain the Wizard of Oz hid behind. Douglas Axe has amply demonstrated that evolutionary scientists are not neutral in handling the facts of God’s creation; they suppress the knowledge of God for fables like unproven multi universes. (Romans 1:20-22)Douglas Axe is a scientist that shows us The Science That Undoes Darwinism and Vindicates Our Sense That Life Is Designed. Thus, the believer unlike the unbeliever no longer suppresses the knowledge of God.I highly recommend this book. It should be in every Christian’s library.Mr. Kettler is the owner of www.Undergroundnotes.com a conservative web hub and the author of the new book, The Religion That Started in a Hat: A Reference Manual for Christians who Witness to Mormons that is available at Amazon.

Muito lógico e esclarecedor a respeito do que se trata a teoria do Design Inteligente.

This is actual science.

The book is in delivered in good condition. Very interesting and honest book, gives you deeper understanding of reality.

While I'm a believer that evolution isn't a satisfactory answer to life this book does little to nothing to support that. The author spends the majority of the book talking about what he is going to talk about or what he has already talked about.There is very little substance. Just incredibly lengthy hypothetical examples over and over again primarily illustrating odds. He does next to nothing to address the arguments used by evolutionists and certainly doesn't use biology as the title misrepresented. Astronauts solving space problems, robots, pixels in pictures are some of the examples used.There must be far more useful books out there that can point to actual biological examples. I suggest looking elsewhere if you are looking for some compelling evidence against evolution.

Easy to read, personal, insightful, informative and honest. Easy to read and the science for the minds of those who are not as scientifically articulate, the illustrations are delivered with a Christlike simplicity.It's clear for honest discerning people to see/observe that evolution is the greatest hoax concocted in the past 150 years. Why has this deceit fools and controls those who should/do know better is as bigger mystery as evolution itself.It is a brave thing indeed to come out from the scientific world and challenge the lies, deceptive means and sophistry of Dawkins, PZ Myers and the like where society has developed a mindset where now speaking, revealing, exposing the truth of a matter, any matter for that has now become the new "hate speech."The damning conclusion is, there is no, not one shred of evidence for evolution and the myriads of theories this "theory" has created. Yet, against the facts, evidence and reason, evolution is spoken of as fact in the education system from primary to university, yet no option is given for students to consider the works, findings and proposals of Behe, Berlinski, Meyers or Axe!This book is a "must read" for all those, from parents to students alike who know for a fact "ID" is a true reality and what to find reason, evidence to build a foundation against the weight of propaganda from the atheist movement who seek to ridicule belittle, mock and undermine the great weight of evidence to the contrary.In conclusion, the apostle Paul has the final word from Romans 1:20 "For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are INEXCUSABLE!."