Reddit reviews Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design

Evolution 2.0 by Perry Marshall

---

Posted by: j***d

Evolution 2.0 by Perry Marshall

The author was by no means a creationist or a science denier. He did not deny that horizontal gene transfer and other factors were not at play. In fact, the main point of the book was that those factors were key components of evolution and could explain things that natural selection could not. He used these mechanisms to rebut the creationist view that these “irreducibly complex” features could not evolve. I’m not sure where you got “science denier” from this post.

Yes, as you suspect, the author is a Christian. But again, he rejects creationist views multiple times. The main point of the evolution part of the book is that natural selection and random mutation are not the all-powerful mechanisms like many people believe, rather, their are other evolutionary mechanisms that assist these and in many cases surpass them as evolutionary forces.

The second half of the book is more about DNA and less about evolution. The author is an electrical/computer engineer and feels that he can talk about the “data” aspect of DNA with some authority. This part of the book is where his own opinions and theology are more prevalent. He claims that DNA is literally a “code” by every definition of the word. Following this, he claims that there is no such thing as a naturally occurring code. Natural chemical processes will never produce a code. DNA or other genetic material has never been observed being generated from natural chemical reactions. To create a code, some sort of consciousness must be involved. I realize that this part of the book is controversial and heavily influenced by his own beliefs. But at the same time, I don’t know if any scientific papers that can disprove this, so he is not denying science, rather he is speculating about things that science cannot yet explain. I am not really interested in debating this part of the book but if you could provide me with scientific sources countering his argument that would be much appreciated.

If you want to call this creationism, then go for it. But it is not “science denialism.” Again, I am only interested in the part of the book where he supports evolution theory and denies creationism. If you think he is using valid science to validate his religious opinions then yes, that may be what he is doing. But I am only interested in the validity of his science claims not his other ones. I am simply trying to find other sources that explain what he talking about without the religious bias.

EDIT: the book is Evolution 2.0 by Perry Marshall.