Mostly an uninspired retread of Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box
. Behe's is an interesting read (although it's all but discredited as pseudoscience now) and its central idea, irreducible complexity, could have been Intelligent Design's lynchpin in the post-millennial world had it not been squandered by overzealous and under-qualified scientists like those who write for In Six Days
. As is stands here, you won't learn a whole lot.
I've heard from various sources that some of In Six Days
' arguments regarding thermodynamics and entropy are plain kooky. I've never studied physics so I couldn't say for sure, but I'm inclined to agree with the critics on that one. As I understand it, global entropy is a non-decreasing function, but local entropy can decrease for a time. If my understanding is correct, that blows a sizeable hole in many of the arguments put forth by the scientists behind In Six Days
Equally troubling is the fact that many of these scientists are not strictly scientists—biologists, chemists, physicists et al.
—rather, they are doctors or engineers or other such professionals. This is in no way a slight against those important professions, but one wonders whether an engineer is qualified to speak on such a topic as evolution or even irreducible complexity. It doesn't render void their arguments, but it is cause for concern. One must also wonder why said scientists "chose to believe in creation". Did they make that choice in spite of the mass of evidence in front of them? Does science even offer us such a choice? Difficult questions that In Six Days
is not well-equipped to handle.