Rating: 
Summary: This a poor book!
Review: 1- Anyone who is a little familiar with the theory knows that it is adaptations WITHIN species and not AMONG species.2- Determining if something is transitional or not requires looking at it's anatomy, not its name. He is always claiming that fossil only show us human beings or apes, just by confusing the reader using names. 3- First he say he is no criationist and he doesn't think Earth is only a few thousands of years old. He also say he has no idea about this subject and in his view nobody has it. After some pages, he try to show us there is significant evidence to a young Earth! He is so confuse in a few pages... 4,5,6,7,8...you can find it by yourself if you want it, but I don't recommend this book to anyone who wants to get scientific knowledgement.
Rating: 
Summary: It Doesn't Get Much Better Than This
Review: Contrary to earlier reviewer who apparently doesn't understand that 'Natural Selection' is a SECONDARY process which does not *cause* or facilitate evolution but merely conserves or destroys the fruits of the core mutation process, THIS IS A GREAT BOOK. Milton has worked for more than two decades as a writer for solid, mainstream scientific publications such as New Scientist. Does anyone 'seriously' believe that he is some kind of creationist 'sleeper'? I suspect that in their heart of hearts even his most trenchant opponents do not, though I note that evolutionists, broad minded rationalists that they are, have a remarkable inability to think outside of a strict "Them" and "Us" scenario. Anyway, what Milton has provided in this book is simply a well-laid out description of the many 'facts' that conventional evolutionary theory seems unable to deal with and which therefore tend to get swept under the proverbial carpet. Milton DOES NOT support creationism, he doesn't even discount evolution as a scientific reality - he merely asks WHY the self-styled Darwinists and neo-Darwinists don't stop mouthing off at anyone who disagrees with them and start finding some answers to these unanswered questions.
Alternatively, if Darwinism, in all its variations, CANNOT provide the answers, for goodness' sake let's move on and find a bigger and better theory. Trouble is, of course, most academics owe their comfy positions to having toed the party line. How on earth do they admit they've got it at least partly wrong for so long without looking like total wallys? Milton's only crime - if crime it is - has been to pull some highly inconvenient skeleton's out of rather a lot of closets. If you really want a reliable measure of the value of this book, check out its detractors. And see how many of them offer genuine scientific criticism, and how many do little but descend into childish name calling. If you have the faintest interest in the evolution controversy, and your job doesn't depend on you sticking to the officially approved stories, I'm guessing that you'll love this book.
Rating:
Summary: Wow
Review: As Richard Milton concedes, this book is heretical. Why? Not because in it, Milton makes statements opposed to Darwinist orthodoxy, but merely because he raises questions about that orthodoxy. They are fair and honest questions, and they deserve fair and honest answers. Instead, from what I can tell, Milton's many illustrious critics have responded en masse with outrage at being questioned, ad hominem attacks, and/or attempts to silence him. But where are their answers? Indeed, their bizarre reactions alone ought to be enough to arouse the curiosity of anyone about just what might be so threatening in this little book. I couldn't put it down.
Rating:
Summary: NOT a Creationist book
Review: First, I want to dispel some propaganda aimed at Milton and his work. He is not a Creationist, is not anti-science, and is not against the idea of the Theory of Evolution. What then, you might ask, is all the fuss about? Why the title of this book? To understand that, you must understand what science really is, the current nature of the scientific establishment, and the nature of the people who are the new high priests of Science-as-ideology. This book explores those topics as they relate to the Theory of Evolution, while Milton's other book, Alternative Science, explores them as they apply to science in general. The Theory of Evolution is a reasonable hypothesis for understanding how life "may" have come to be on this planet. The key thing to remember here is just what kind of science we are talking about, and the meaning of the term "theory." Milton does not say it isn't a good working theory. What he questions is the absolutism and dictatorial nature of the Evolution establishment and its dictates. Science creates models for us to understand our reality, and if those models are not subject to change, knowledge grinds to a screeching halt. Hard science, like chemistry and physics, rests on physical experiments that can be duplicated under controlled conditions (Cooper's Criteria, Koch's Postulates, etc.). As one moves further away from being able to conduct direct experiments, one becomes more and more dependent on observation and intrepretation, both of which depend on human beings, their faults, frailties, and failings. The more one depends on intrepretations, the "softer" is the science. Extrapolating outside your dataset is always speculation, period. It doesn't matter how well you guess, it is still a guess, and not hard science. End of story. Evolution science is a mixture of some hard and some very soft science, and a whole lot of politics, ego, and fear (fear of religion and loss of power). The problem is that Evolution is often presented as the very hardest of science, with absolutely no contradictions, flaws, or imperfections. Milton takes this attitude to task, and systematically points out the flaws and faults in some of the science and thought processes that are involved in that absolutist point of view. In a very real sense, that point of view is a form of religious fundamentalism - a belief in an absolute, black and white view of reality, dictated by an authority, with no appeal to reason or evidence. He examines the major evidence and procedures for gathering and intrepreting it, as well as the problems associated with that evidence. Some of the items considered are; radiologic dating and its flaws, geological data and the problem of circular fossil-rock layer dating, the classification of fossils, the moving target of Evolution Theory's definition, the savage attacks on those who dare to question the theory or present contradictory evidence, and so on. His approach is a scientific one, not religious or emotional, and unlike some of his detractors, maintains a dignified bearing. He discusses radiologic dating, for example, describing what it is and how it works. He also discusses major flaws with its use, the mistakes that plague it and the fundamental flaws in the process itself; i.e. the lack of knowledge of the starting amounts of radioactive material being studied, and the speculative nature of assuming that nothing has altered or influenced the evidence of these processes in 4 billion years. Not religion, not emotion, just logical, rational examination. He cites the research and has eleven pages of references and bibliography. The topic is more complex than one book could cover, much less one review. If you are interested in true scientific inquiry instead of political/religious bickering, give Milton a read. It will provide no comfort to either the hardcore Darwinist/Evolutionist or Creationist, which is probably what makes Milton such a juicy target for propaganda. He refuses to play "the game," and insists on discussing the Emperor's new clothes calmly and objectively. How uncivilized can one get?!
Rating:
Summary: Milton: Modern Day Quack
Review: I am astounded to read these complementary reviews of such a blatantly misleading book. The first ridiculous assumption one must make when reading this is that there is an intellectual controversy regarding evolution. There are many questions remaining regarding evolution, but the evidence supporting it is overwhelming. I only have a second year University education and can easily recognize the manipulations Milton makes. I will not go into details as they can easily be found by searching Google for reviews from any credible SCIENTIST. To believe Milton you have to believe that the scientific fields of Biology, Physics, Cosmology, and Geology are all way off the mark. This belief would take more than just a little leap of faith. However I am sure anyone who wants to believe Milton has more faith than they know what to do with.
Rating:
Summary: A compelling book
Review: I read this book and found it at least extremely provocative.
But if you really want a feel for the mood of the debate of evolution, I suggest you read the reviews for this book. The negative reviews for this book illustrate evolutionist defense. The negative reviewers of this bood engage in just the types of poor reasoning that Milton warns against. e.g.
1) "The first ridiculous assumption one must make when reading this is that there an intellectual controversy regarding evolution". I never got the notion that this book attacked evolution per se, but Darwinian evolution. That is what the title says. So to attack it on these grounds is not fair; it is a straw man fallacy.
2)"Milton: Modern Day Quack" This is an ad hominem fallacy. If the reviewer can call the author enough bad names, perhaps we will reject his ideas. Milton is not so unreasonable, but he is made out to be by his opponents who find his character an easier target than his arguments.
3) "First he say[sic] he is no criationist[sic] and he doesn't think Earth is only a few thousands of years old. He also say[sic] he has no idea about this subject and in his view nobody has it. After some pages, he try to show us there is significant evidence to a young Earth! He is so confuse[sic] in a few pages..." To argue for a young earth is not necessarily to argue for creation. I believe the author only was showing that an old earth is not the foregone conclusion it is presented to be by most people. He does not argue a young earth, he only presents some viable arguments in order to call the old earth hypothesis into question.
4)"I will not go into details as they can easily be found by searching Google for reviews from any credible SCIENTIST". I for one have done this, and am far from accepting Darwinian evolution. I also recently read a book by evolutionist Richard Dawkins, and all I see is that evolution is often assumed as fact by evolutionists. Negative reviewers don't seem to be able to escape this common loop of circular reasoning: "BECAUSE evolution is true THEN evolution is true."
The book is supposed to be an analysis of why we accept Darwinian evolution as fact, even though the evidence has not grown as expected. The conclusions are not against Darwinism as much as accepting things second hand, when they do not warrant such a conviction.
I discuss religion a lot, and my observation is that these errors in logic are also common among people trying to defend weak theology. They react with anger that their fundamental assumptions are questioned at all; they attack the person that calls them into question; they distort/misunderstand the opposition's arguments; they fall back on the argument that 'since everyone believes Darwinian evolution, it must be true';" They do not provide any substantive rebuttals, but instead claim they such arguments are everywhere or are so common sensical as to not warrant a thoughtful response.
In short, they commit the same fallacies of any group of zealots that scamper to defend a belief system that has lots of holes.
I don't need more proof that Darwinian evolution is more dogma than science.
This is a good book. It's job is to refute the assumptions of Darwinism, not to replace it with a better system. It does this first job well.
Rating:
Summary: Brush up your Shakespeare
Review: I read this book borrowed from the library about a year ago. Now I am going to buy my own copy, because I have so much trouble remembering all the details he gave from his research when speaking to others. I liked the book because the author does not have an ax to grind. He is a journalist who simply questions the unquestioning devotion of today's 'scientists' to a theory promoted in the nineteenth century based on almost no physical evidence and a lot of conjecture. He documents much of his understanding about evolution from Darwin's own words, as well as from the major promoters of our day. Then he proceeds to question many of the most basic beliefs. He rightly points out that Darwinism cannot be proven any more than one can prove the existence of God. The timeframes required for observation preclude empirical proof. The theory is framed more as articles of faith, logical conclusions from deductive reasoning, not as experimental data revealed by following the 'scientific' method of hypothesis and experimentation in searching for truth. This 'house of cards' is the basic weakness in the whole theory, and the reason for continuing criticism of it from all quarters. If it were obviously true there would be no controversy.
The main point of the book is that those who believe in evolution (Darwinism) do so almost without question, not as scientists. They also seem to respond with the attitude of Shakespeare's Prospero in Winter's Tale, i.e. "they protest too much". Why, if people are committed to scientific pursuit of truth do they refuse to answer honest questions of logic and evidence? I found the book eye-opening and completely logical. I now share his questions, and have yet to find answers to them, other than name-calling and dismissal. They are honest questions. Until the scientific community can answer them with facts, I have decided evolution and Darwinism are really just a fantasy made up to ensure Darwin's place in the scientific community. The emperor has no clothes. And the scientists are too afraid to admit to it, because they will lose their livelihood.
Rating: 
Summary: A complete critique of the whole Darwinian paradigm
Review: Milton has done an admirable job of weeding through the bluff and rhetoric of the arguments for Darwinian evolution and shows the evidence in nearly ever field of science either directly contradicts the predictions of Darwinism or the evidence is inconclusive at best and grossly over exaggerated to support the theory. Perhaps the best part of this book is that a non-creationist has the courage to challenge the sacred dogma of an old earth. Milton in no way is committed to a literal Genesis nor is he a Christian yet clearly sees that the age of Earth is no where near as established as the scientific community wants the world to believe. Milton correctly points out, as creationists have said all along, that dates are accepted as to how they conform to the traditional evolutionary timescale. An excessively old or young date in the 'wrong' place is always explained away after the fact. Yet a 'good' date is never scrutinized. The myth of radiometric dating is further exposed by recent known lavaflows being dated with results in hundreds of thousands and millions of years. The validity of dating fails another check by demonstrating the atmospheric helium is no where near the levels required if decay has been going on for billions of years. Milton again supports what creationists have been saying for years that the geological record shouts of catastrophism. So much of geology is better explained by rapid deposition in water rather than slow processes over long periods of time. Coal for instance is best explained in a catastrophic model rather than a uniformitarian model. Under the right conditions wood buried rapidly under high pressure better explains the formation of coal than one that invokes slow burial of peat over vast periods of time. The evidence in fact speaks of rapid deposition such as the presence of fossilized trees extending as high as 38 feet in coalfields. Though Milton does not support a global flood, he repeats many of the same arguments creationists have been saying for a long time but have been ignored. Milton does not rule out the Earth being billions of years old. He realizes, however, there is no way we can know for sure how old the Earth really is. When uniformitarians dogmatically say the Earth is 4.6 billion years old they fail to inform the public the assumptions involved are so vast and unproveable that an Earth of a several thousands years old is still within reason given the uncertainties in dating. Many of his arguments on the fossil record, difficulties in evolving organs of extreme perfection, origin of life, stasis, limitations in biological change, etc. have been argued similarly and more effectively elsewhere especially by Denton and Behe. It was interesting to read the kind of abuse Milton went through by writing this book. In particular the personal insults from the professor of the 'public understanding of science' Richard Dawkins. Evolution, unlike any other field of science, cannot be criticized. Anyone that is not even a creationist yet challenges any of the sacred scenarios in evolutionary biology and is openly skeptical is shunned from the rest of the community. Challenges to any of the traditional Darwinian scenarios almost never get published. Darwinists have complete control of the media and are selling to the public the idea that evolution is an established scientific fact like gravity on evidence that would get laughed out of court.
Rating:
Summary: Let's Clear the Air!
Review: Milton, a science journalist, takes a fresh and very objective look at the state of darwinism. This is a must read for every educator who has believed the line that, "only evolution is supported by science". This book exposes many of the debunked, but still published, great "evidences" claimed by darwinists such as the peppered moth, the horse evolution tree and radiometric dating. He also soundly thrashes the "scientific community" for it's treatment of catastrophism. Milton makes it very clear how intimately tied fossilization is to catastrophism and how uniformitarianism, as a foundation for darwinism, stands in complete contrast to the reality of how fossils really have come into existence. He also gives some history of darwinism and the political forces that have been at work to keep it alive in the classroom. You may find it enlightening to hear what some of the "scientific elite" have had to say about this book, particularly Richard Dawkins. Milton clearly seems to have ruffled more than the feathers of archaeopteryx in this well written and documented book. This is for anyone who really cares about objectivity in science or is concerned that myths are being taught our children about our origins as human beings. How did I ever believe the "ape to man" fairy tale? Anyway!
Rating:
Summary: Eye opening
Review: This book does as its title promises. Even if every example and reasoning against Neo-Darwinism Milton presents us in this book is countered and all his criticisms come undone, then he'll still have attained his goal. He would have exposed the controlling and silencing powers of mainstream science.
For, if anything, the reactions to Milton's book shows what happens to anyone daring to criticise Neo-Darwinism. It seems that nobody is allowed to believe in evolution if that person doesn't also believe in Neo-Darwinian evolution. If one attempts to find other explanations for evolution - and tries to explain the gaps Neo-Darwinism can't explain - then one curiously becomes both at once a blasphemer as well as a believer in God's creation.
Milton's believes in evolution, he's not a Creationist, yet in this book he structurally exposes all the flaws and misconceptions Darwinists have been waving in our faces as The Truth for more than a century.
Look for Richard Milton with a search engine, and you'll likely to find counter-arguments to this book written by Neo-Darwinists. Many of them make perfect sense, and you'll come to doubt several examples Milton gives in the book. But curiously, I could find no counter-arguments to his core criticisms such as `natural selection cannot lead to new species, only to new races', `chance mutation is hardly ever beneficial to a species and could practically never have lead to the complex organisms that can be found today.' Etcetera.
Milton's comments on Homo Habilis and other early humanoids can perhaps be disproved, as well as other smaller statements, but they do not take away the certainty that mainstream scientists describing evolution have been very wrong and very arrogant for a long, long time. The fact there is nothing yet to fill in the gaps in current theories doesn't mean that the current theories should be guarded as the Church guards the Bible.
Darwinists claim Creationists cling to outdated and medieval superstitions. Milton shows Darwinists are doing pretty well the very same thing.
This one gets five stars,
Bram Janssen,
The Netherlands
| 
