<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Politics over Science
Review: Denying Evolution is both insightful and powerful in the attempt to isolate the issues that make this debate one about critical issues affecting education. It is not a debate between science and Christianity. It is a systematic attempt to define science and the rules of evidence, and how democratize science education. The issue is what is science.
First we need to separate myth from science. Myth is a non-rational and sacred or intact folk explanation or the origins or creation of natural, supernatural, or cultural phenomena. These explanations are a matter of faith and not subjected to scientific or empirical inquiry.
Theory is working model that organizes our concepts of the empirical world in a systematic way, to help us guide further research and analyze the findings. All theory is based upon empirical variable facts. The strength of a theory is the skill in which it arranges information that can explain complex information in manageable form. It must all be empirical statements that can be tested, and explain a complex interaction of observable phenomena. Theory is not a guess that is a hypothesis. Theory is a factual statement.
What is at issue here is political not science. Whether we can have a body of knowledge that is open to all willing to learn and look at the data for themselves. The other side of the coin is to have a few religious experts set the limits of what is acceptable evidence before the research is carried out, protecting there power base.
Rating:
Summary: Politics over Science
Review: Denying Evolution is both insightful and powerful in the attempt to isolate the issues that make this debate one about critical issues affecting education. It is not a debate between science and Christianity. It is a systematic attempt to define science and the rules of evidence, and how democratize science education. The issue is what is science.
First we need to separate myth from science. Myth is a non-rational and sacred or intact folk explanation or the origins or creation of natural, supernatural, or cultural phenomena. These explanations are a matter of faith and not subjected to scientific or empirical inquiry.
Theory is working model that organizes our concepts of the empirical world in a systematic way, to help us guide further research and analyze the findings. All theory is based upon empirical variable facts. The strength of a theory is the skill in which it arranges information that can explain complex information in manageable form. It must all be empirical statements that can be tested, and explain a complex interaction of observable phenomena. Theory is not a guess that is a hypothesis. Theory is a factual statement.
What is at issue here is political not science. Whether we can have a body of knowledge that is open to all willing to learn and look at the data for themselves. The other side of the coin is to have a few religious experts set the limits of what is acceptable evidence before the research is carried out, protecting there power base.
Rating: 
Summary: author shows biggotry and closed-mindedness
Review: I have to give this book a less than perfect rating because I'm not quite sure what was the purpose of the book. I bought the book, thinking it was a manual on arguing with Creationists, but then I found a disclaimer clause in the book stating that it was not. "What good is half an eye?" Creationists ask us this question over and over, and I would like to answer it. Pigliucci only gives us is a reference to a journal article on this question. How can we answer the numerous arguments in "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe? Pigliucci provides some rebuttal, but not much. Rather, he tosses off this responsibility by referring us to the talkorigins Website. I appreciate the references, but I had hoped to do all my shopping in one stop. And how about another tough challenger--"Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells? He spends a few pages on this book, but not enough. He uses technical terms which he doesn't define, and he hastily presents arguments without clearly spelling out each premise. Is this book a history of the Creationist-Evolutionist dispute? It seems that way somewhat, but it doesn't stick to that subject either. But it's an interesting book, and a very informative book. That's why I give it an almost perfect rating.
Rating: 
Summary: good book, but what is it about?
Review: I have to give this book a less than perfect rating because I'm not quite sure what was the purpose of the book. I bought the book, thinking it was a manual on arguing with Creationists, but then I found a disclaimer clause in the book stating that it was not. "What good is half an eye?" Creationists ask us this question over and over, and I would like to answer it. Pigliucci only gives us is a reference to a journal article on this question. How can we answer the numerous arguments in "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe? Pigliucci provides some rebuttal, but not much. Rather, he tosses off this responsibility by referring us to the talkorigins Website. I appreciate the references, but I had hoped to do all my shopping in one stop. And how about another tough challenger--"Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells? He spends a few pages on this book, but not enough. He uses technical terms which he doesn't define, and he hastily presents arguments without clearly spelling out each premise. Is this book a history of the Creationist-Evolutionist dispute? It seems that way somewhat, but it doesn't stick to that subject either. But it's an interesting book, and a very informative book. That's why I give it an almost perfect rating.
Rating:
Summary: Well written but a little dogmatic
Review: Massimo's book is very well written (considering he is from Italy) and his arguments are of the highest caliber. I know Massimo and must say that he is a little dogmatic for an atheist. His arguments are well thought out but still do little to cast doubt in most believer's minds. Massimo may come to be one of the best humanistic debaters of our time. In person, he will claim that he has no positive proof that God doesn't exist. He will say that *he* need not believe in God becasue *he* doesn't see proof. He will usually even admit that Theists are well within their epistemic rights in believing in God. However, he will then write a book such as this that seems to counter that. He seems a little dogmatic with his atheism on paper (not that theists aren't). Why doesn't he shut up and let people believe? Because as Theists we bother him with our arguements constantly! This book is a great insight to how one of the smartest men in the evolutionary field debates the existence of God and the denial of evolution. Massimo has debated big name apologists such as William Lane Craig and spoken at several universities and schools. If you want a great place to examine or even critique some of the best atheistic arguments out there, this is the place.
Rating:
Summary: author shows biggotry and closed-mindedness
Review: Ok, it would be nice to find a good book to debate the creationists, but I am still searching. This sad attempt trys to brainwash the reader into thinking all creationists are a bunch of baffoons. Pigliucci calls anyone who does not agree with his viewpoint an "evolution denier." It's like attending an anti-abortion rally and hearing them call pro-choice folks "anti-life." Does name-calling really sway anyone? Maybe just the weak-minded and insecure. Then he goes on to say in the intro "creationism is really a form of denial, analogous to the denial of the Holocaust by some pseudohistorians, or the denial of environmental problems by so many pundits and special interest groups." From my research, creationists do not deny any of the facts of science, they just question some of the theories of science that HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN! What's wrong with that? So Pigliucci's comparison is inaccurate. Pigliucci identifies the creation-evolution debate as a "broad cultural war ... between ignorance and education." There you go. Identify your opponent as less educated than yourself, anti-something (denier), and call them closed-minded and not paying attention to the facts, and you win the arguement. GUESS AGAIN! Pigliucci does not allow for the supernatural/higher-power. So who is closed minded? Please, I am not the most educated person in the world, but at least I can identify solid arguements from name-calling and "be on my side or else you are an (insert undesirable label here)." Don't waste your time on this book, or else you will feel as disappointed as I do.
Rating:
Summary: A Good Overview of the Issues
Review: Pigliucci has done a fine job in summarizing the various issues related to the so-called Evolution-Creationism controversy. If the reader is looking for an overview, without detailed in-depth discussion, then this is perhaps an ideal book. Certain topics, however, do have more detailed analysis. For some readers, this is all that they want. Creationist and ID folks will likely not think it is sufficient -- just look at some of the reviews listed here. But then again, no matter what they may claim, for some there is nothing that can be demonstrated or explained that will be satisfactory for them. If one desparately needs to believe that there are intrinsic difficulties with evolution, no mattter what, then no one can convince them otherwise -- and facts will be of no import. For those folks, I recommend two books. 1)Young and Edis (2004), "Why Intellegent Design Fails", Rutgers Univ Press, and 2) Eugenie Scott (2004), "Evolution vs Creationism: An Introduction", Greenwood Press. For those who are true Creationsists (many ID claimants are not), then also read 3) Robert Martin (2003), "Missing Links", Jones and Bartlett Pub. and the very thorough and explanatory 4) Arthur Strahler (1987, 1999) "Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy", Prometheus Books. If you still don't agree that modern evolutionary science is not one of the most well confirmed theories in science, then nothing will convince you -- but then don't claim to be objective. Well's Icon's are easily shown to be gross misunderstandings, and even fabrications, of the issues, and Behe's irreducibly complex systems are shown to be not irredicible after all.
Even though I recommend other books for the particularly resistant (with deep seated religious feelings attached), for those who do have an open mind and want to obtain a good overview of the nature of science and of the particular issues related to the E-C controversy, Pigliucci's book is great.
Rating:
Summary: The Scientist Who Came Down from the Ivory Tower
Review: When Massimo Pigliucci speaks about science and creationism, he knows what he's talking about. Denying Evolution reflects his expertise as both a scientist and a committed anticreationist. He is no ivory-tower academic.
Pigliucci covers important bases. He sets the historical context of the creation/evolution controversy and provides an analysis of anti-evolution in its most current form: intelligent design (ID) creationism. Although he explains the varieties of creationism, he correctly recognizes ID as the most troublesome and discusses it at some length. He also devotes a chapter to the anti-intellectualism that has always plagued American culture, explaining much of the resistance to evolution. He follows with a chapter devoted to the nature of science. One of his best chapters is "Creationist Fallacies," in which he deconstructs eleven common misunderstandings of science and evolution.
Yet Pigliucci is fair, refusing to exempt scientists from criticism. He chides them for underestimating the intelligence of creationists, recommending that scientists develop not only greater sympathy for creationists' desire for answers to "fundamental questions," but a better understanding of their own discpline's shortcomings. He offers practical recommendations for addressing the creationism problem with research about how humans learn. But he also recommends attitudinal changes----my personal favorite is "Scientists must come down from the ivory tower!" Finally, he includes valuable appendices: excerpts from David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, in which Hume dissects the argument for design, and William Jennings Bryan's last speech. Readers familiar with ID will note here many of the objections to evolution made by major ID proponents.
The book is designed for the reader's convenience, with footnotes and visual aids: bold subheadings, numbered lists, and well-placed charts, tables, and illustrations. And throughout Denying Evolution, Pigliucci maintains his wit and good humor, transforming an otherwise disagreeable subject into a substantive and satisfying book.
Barbara Forrest, co-author with Paul R. Gross of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (www.creationismstrojanhorse.com)
<< 1 >>
|
