Of course it is! Darwin’s understanding of evolution is now a century and a half out-of-date. He got some fundamental basics right but so much of the massive evidence of evolutionary processes which we take for granted today was unknown to him.
You are correct: Darwin’s theory of evolution fails “to account for all complexity and diversity of life.” That’s why evolutionary biologist have built upon his foundation to develop the Modern Synthesis and concepts like neutral drift.
i am not talking whether Darwin got it right, but whether now with know mechanism you got it right to account all complexity and diversity of life
Evolutionary biologists don’t claim to have explanations for every facet of the complexity and diversity of life. There will always be fascinating aspects of evolutionary processes yet to be explored.
It never ceases to amaze me ID-Creationists are always screaming about Darwin this! and Darwin that! Darwin has been dead for almost 140 years. Attacking his work is like trying to show modern aircraft can’t fly because some of the Wright Brothers original ideas were wrong.
The DI of course loves to scream about Darwin because it’s the only name most laymen have heard about evolution and the DI’s anti-science propaganda is 100% directed at scientifically untrained laymen.
I didn’t claim that Darwin’s Doubt wasn’t ranked #1 in Biology. (I didn’t address that issue at all.)
Instead, I pointed out that Darwin’s Doubt is Amazon-ranked as #1 in Religious Book. If you had actually checked the link I posted, you would see that my claim was and still is correct.
It means you agree with this statement:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
you forget to mention that Darwin’s Doubt ranked #1 also in Cosmology (Books) even though we all know there is nothing about cosmology in the book
LOL! You mean the DI’s propaganda piece once again attacking “Darwinian” theory? 
Yeah, that’s how science is done for sure!
So I guess being ranked number 1 in biology doesn’t mean it’s good biology either.
Yes, I most certainly do agree with it. In fact, I’ve written entire essays on that very topic of how pointless is the entire The Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition campaign. I’ve said it before and I will say it again: Every competent evolutionary biology could honestly sign the aforementioned petition—if not for the fact that it is a silly propaganda tactic aimed at people who are unfamiliar with evolutionary processes and how science works.
Every competent scientist should (1) approach every scientific theory in a “skeptical” manner, always ready to take new evidence into account, and (2) “careful examination of the evidence” applies to every scientific theory. That’s why the petition is stating the obvious—but in a manner which misleads people who are not well-versed in scientific methodologies.
being ranked number 1 in biology does mean that the interview took people’s attention and now they are reading, and will soon be informed about the inadequacy of Darwinian mechanism to account the diversity of life in the Cambrian explosion
In this case it merely means Amazon assigned the book to the Biology category out of convenience even though the book has nothing to do with actual evolutionary biology. Amazon doesn’t have a category “crappy pseudo-science nonsense” which is where the book really belongs.
I didn’t “forget” to mention it. But now that you’ve brought it up, are you unaware that the publisher of Meyer’s book, Harper-Collins, specifically aimed and marketed the book for the Cosmology and Religious Books market segments and that Meyer (as the author) could have refused such marketing and found another publisher? If Meyer didn’t want his book promoted and advertised in a campaign which classified it within the Cosmology and Religious Books category, he could even have published and marketed it through the Discovery Institute.
Have you read the book?
Most of it yes. Have you read any published scientific papers on paleontology and the Cambrian biota?
yes,
could you mention a few factual errors, mistakes, wrong judgments in Darwin’s Doubt, is there any?
You mean besides the dozens of examples of Meyer cherry-picking data and ignoring evidence already pointed out by professional paleontologists who found his book execrable?
show me the ignored evidence that professional paleontologists found his book
If informing the general public of “old news” is a virtue, then I suppose we can give Stephen Meyer credit for telling his readers something that biologists figured out long ago: Darwinian mechanisms fall short of explaining the diversity of life—period, not just in the Cambrian explosion. Today’s evolutionary biology textbooks go far beyond “Darwinian mechanisms.” They explain evolutionary processes like neutral drift and exciting topics like epigenetics. Such textbooks help students to understand how the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis has replaced “traditional” Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Here’s a big list of Meyer’s blunders, omissions, and deceptions. Enjoy!