I have been a big fan of the Huffington Post since it sprang onto the scene back in 2005.  But recently, I have noticed a disturbingly high number of seriously uninformed, pseudoscientific articles presented as legitimate science—anti-vaccination quackery, reality denyers, and Deepak Chopra's ramblings on intelligent design.

In his Intelligent Design Without the Bible, Deepak begins by establishing his credentials as an authority on the subject of intelligent design vs. evolution; namely, that he was asked to appear on CNN's Larry King Live Show.  He then goes on to explain that ID and evolution are not at odds with one another and suggests that even Einstein said as much by (incorrectly) invoking "a fascinating theory called the anthropic principle" (which, apparently, Deepak also does not understand, either—but I digress.)  Completely misusing the anthropic principle, Deepak trots out the tired and thoroughly debunked anti-evolution argument:

"To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow through a junk yard and produce a jet plane."

Uh, no, its not at all like saying that.  It is like saying that because I can step up a 1/4 inch step, I can, eventually, walk up Mt. Rainier.  Nobody (who actually understands the theory of evolution) seriously suggests that a random event created an eye, a wing, a kidney, a brain, or a human all in one step!  Evolution is a slow, incremental process.  A process that slowly raises the complexity of systems through differential survival rates.  Evolution is a crane, not a skyhook.

Then Deepak raises a series of the twelve main issues to be considered by anyone "interested in placing the debate on a higher plane than us-versus-them" (ah, the old  12 steps formula).  As you might anticipate already, every single one of the twelve "issues" is presented as a question that further demonstrates Deepak's lack of study in this area.  Any student of evolution will easily see the fallacy in each question.

12 Steps to Misunderstanding Evolution

1. How does nature take creative leaps?
   (It doesn't.  It takes billions of teeny tiny little steps; the ones in the direction of improved fitness are more likely to be reproduced.)
2. If mutations are random, why does the fossil record demonstrate so many positive mutations -- those that lead to new species -- and so few negative ones?
   (A very low percentage of living animals are preserved as fossils.  Animals with negative mutations, by definition, were less likely to reproduce making them less likely to have an opportunity to be fossilized.)
3. How does evolution know where to stop?
   (It does not.  It has no intention whatsoever.  Mutations are random.)
4. How could one kind of cell take three different routes purely at random?
   (Random mutation creates changes in random directions.  There are (way) more than three possible directions.)
5. If design doesn't imply intelligence, why are we so intelligent?
   (This is a non sequitur. If cheese is made from milk, why is GM losing money?)
6. Why do forms replicate themselves without apparent need?
   (Because it is possible.  Why does a rolled die sometimes come up 2?)
7. If the oxygen doesn't change physically -- and it doesn't -- what invisible change causes it to acquire intelligence the instant it contacts life?
   (It does not become intelligent.  It becomes engaged in a system that includes many physical parts interacting in complex ways.)
8. How can whole systems appear all at once?
   (This is the tired old argument regarding holes in the fossil record.  Yes, there are gaps.  There will always be gaps.  Finding a new fossil to fill a gap actually creates two new, albeit smaller, gaps.  However, the fossil record is huge and has accurately predicted the existence of forms that were later discovered as fossils.)
9. Darwin's iron law was that evolution is linked to survival, but it was long ago pointed out that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology.
   (Once understood, any invariably true statement becomes a tautology, by definition.  This is the very brilliance of Darwin's idea.  Yes, this is how evolution works.  Those forms that survive provide the raw materials from which incrementally different forms may descend.  This is true.)
10. At the moment of stinging, a honeybee dies. In what way is this a survival mechanism, given that the bee doesn't survive at all?
    (This question misunderstands survival of a genotype vs. survival of a phenotype.  The genes that lead an individual honeybee to sting in a given situation are shared by vast numbers of individual bees.  Experience with bees' ability and propensity to sting leads other creatures—humans, dogs, monkeys, etc.—to be more respectful of bees.  The overall net effect is increased probability that the "stinging" gene will be reproduced, even if an occasional carrier of that gene dies.)
11. How did symbiotic cooperation develop?
    (See The Extended Phenotype for a good discussion of this issue.)
12. Finally, why are life forms beautiful?
    (Another non sequitur, but beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.  There is no universal, absolute definition of beauty.  Are all life forms beautiful?  Does every person agree that all life forms are beautiful?  This is an ill defined question.)

I am very, very curious to know what aspects of the theory of evolution Deepak has actually studied. How has he educated himself in this area?  Has he read any of Richard Dawkins' books on the subject?  Books like, The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, The River Out of Eden, Climbing Mt. Improbable, or The Extended Phenotype?  Each of these is easily accessible to non-scientists, and this is just a few examples from a single author.  There are many, many more.  Any intelligent person that read and understood even one of these books, would not assemble such a list of twelve "issues."

No, Deepak Chopra does not understand the theory of evolution.