Here at ENV we’re delighted to offer you Stephen Meyer’s four-part response to Charles Marshall’s review of Darwin’s Doubt. I’ll provide links below as they appear.

Part One: “When Theory Trumps Observation.”

Part Two: “To Build New Animals, No New Genetic Information Needed? More in Reply in Charles Marshall.”

Part Three: “Does Darwin’s Doubt Commit the God-of-the-Gaps Fallacy?“

Part Four: “More on Small Shelly Fossils and the Length of the Cambrian Explosion.”

See also: Casey Luskin’s response to Marshall on the small shelly fossils, and Meyer’s letter to Science that the journal refused to publish.

As I said earlier (“A Taxonomy of Evasion“), Marshall’s review in Science stands out. It’s important. Not only because Marshall is a distinguished paleontologist writing in one of the world’s two most importance science journals — which by itself would be a significant.

Beyond that, while disagreeing with Meyer and rejecting the book’s case for intelligent design, Marshall’s review serves as a rebuke to those critics who came before and thought their methods of evasion were an adequate response to the book’s arguments and evidence. Obviously, Charles Marshall didn’t think so, and neither did Science. If they did, it would be a different review, or would never have been written at all.

Though Darwin’s Doubt was published in June, the real and substantive debate starts now.