Customer Reviews for

Unintelligent Design

Average Rating 3.5
( 4 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing 1 review with 1 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1
  • Anonymous

    Posted August 17, 2005

    Complete misunderstanding of Behe

    I think Mr.Perakh is comletely misunderstanding Behe's definition of irreducible complexity. Behe's definition has nothing to do with the definition of irreducible complexity according to ATP. According to Behe, a biological system is irreducibly complex if it could not be formed by numerous, succesive, gradual modifications. Keeping this definition in mind, even a completely random bit stream is infact REDUCIBLE, because it can be produced by a computer program (Program A) that outputs random 0's and 1's gradually (one at a time randomly). So, according to Behe's definition there is no bit stream which is also irreducible. In order to better understand Behe's idea, we have to put a natural selection like mechanism into our bit stream analogy. For this purpose, suppose, we have another computer program (Program B) which operates on the output of Program A, and saves the bit streams only if their length are even and the number of 1's is twice as the number of 0's. So, only the bit streams satisfying the above criteria are considered to be functional, and others are just erased by Program B. Then, the bit stream 110110 becomes irreducibly complex, because every precursor bit stream to it will be eliminated by Program B and thus, it would have to be outputed by Program A as a whole. So, the question is : Is the bit stream 110110 irreducilbly complex under this conditions? The answer is YES. Does it show a pattern? YES. Unavoidable conclusion : Mr.Perakh's examples are WRONG!

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing 1 review with 1 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1