Evolution: Facts and Fallacies

Rating:
Summary: The cure to scientific illiteracy?
Review: The 6 chapters of this slim volume occupy only 140 pages. Only the first half deals with the subject of evolution proper: punctuated equilibrium, dating, missing links. The rest of the book deals with: the mass media, scientific blunders, ET life.

The book's mission is to counter the scientific illiteracy, as perceived by its authors, of the American public as well as the rest of the world. It sets out some very sound scientific principles (p79). Unfortunately the authors themselves have generally failed to adhere to them. Science is equated with evolution, and evolution is treated as a premise throughout. The treatment of the subject is superficial, arguments are oversimplified, difficulties are glossed over, and the wool is pulled over readers' eyes. For example, an evolutionary tree of hominids is presented unquestionably as fact, including H. habilis which is not even accepted as a valid taxon by some evolutionist authorities. Nothing is said to alert readers to the pitfalls surrounding theories of human origin. In his book "Bones of Contention", Roger Lewin wrote: 'In fact, "virtually all our theories about human origins were relatively unconstrained by fossil data," observes David Pilbeam. "The theories are ... fossil-free or in some cases even fossil-proof."

It is claimed that "evolution tells us that all living (and extinct) species did indeed evolve from earlier ancestral species" (p43). Quite apart from the tautology and question begging inherent in the statement, the book offers no empirical evidence for evolution. According to Alan Linton (Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology & former Head of Dept. of Microbiology, University of Bristol, UK), "None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." (book review in The Times Higher Educational Supplement, 20 Apr 01).

Evolutionists frequently portray creationists as scientifically illiterate, and this book adopts the same attitude. But according to Prof. Linton, "They include leading research scientists, past and present, who find the theory of evolution to be scientifically untenable".

I am totally sympathetic to the concern expressed in chapter 4 over the shoddy treatment of science by the mass media, but I also find it ironic that the book laments the lack of critical thinking among the lay public. The fact is that many evolutionist popularisers are not at all interested in critical thinking on the part of their readers. Instead of presenting an accurate, balanced account to their readers so that they can critically evaluate the evidence for and against, and make up their own minds, evolutionist authors are far more concerned to get their readers to believe evolution. This book is no exception, and it is not the answer to making America, and the rest of the world, more scientifically literate.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: This book is a collection of papers presented at a sumposium on evolution. The target audience of the papers is the proverbial educated layperson. This is a good book to give your creationist friends who are asking questions about the reliability of dating methods, missing links, the completeness of the fossil record, etc.

The first paper is by Stephen Gould who is always trotted out by Creationists as someone who doesn't believe in Darwinism ( but punctuated equilibrium ). Wrong ! While Mr. Gould is a proponent of punc ek, he still agrees with Darwinism as his paper makes clear.

A useful way to look at evolution is to divide it into 3 categories: the fact of evolution, the path of evolution and the process of evolution. As Mr. Gould makes clear, the fact of evolution cannot be doubted by any sane person. As he also makes clear in his paper, the path of evolution is random. It is directionless. That is, we did not have to evolve. Mr. Gould's twist is on the process of evolution. He presented punc ek as an enhancement to Darwinism. He felt that Darwinism was incomplete. The Cambrian explosion is an example of evolution that appears to have taken place quickly. He presents punc ek as an explanation. Punc ek is still debated largely because it is not really a theory but more a description.

The papers on dating methods and missing links in the fossil record are good as well.

I recommend the book for new comers who are interested in the specific issues discussed.

For more exhaustive and complete books on evolution, I would look instead to *Evolution*, by Mark Ridley or the new edition of *Evolutionary Biology* by Douglas Futuyma. Some other books to consider that examine creationism and find it wanting: 1)Darwin's Dangerous Idea - Daniel Dennet 2)Tower of Babel - The Evidence Against the New Creationism - Robert Pennock 3)Evolution and the Myth of Creationism - A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate - Tim Berra 4) Science on Trial - The Case for Evolution - Douglas Futyma 5) Darwinism Defended - Michael Ruse 6) Taking Darwin Seriously - Michael Ruse 7) The Blind Watchmaker - Richard Dawkins

There are so many more, but this is a good start.

Besides quantum mechanics, the theory of evolution is the most widely tested and substantiated theory in science. It's a tragedy that more people aren't aware of this. Maybe they don't care for the implications. But: there is a way the world is that is independent of our thoughts and wishes!

Rating:
Summary: Typical Rationalism-Equals-Science Spiel
Review: This is the usual humanistic rosy misportrayal of organic evolution. As always, trivial changes within species or within genera are blindly extrapolated to molecules-to-man evolution. The numerous contradictory opinions within human evolutionary scenarios are conveniently glossed over. Creationism is rejected as science because it supposedly is simply a belief. In truth, whether you agree with creationists or not, you must face the fact that creationists rest their positions not just on religious beliefs but also on the empirical evidence.