Rating: 
Summary: There they go again!
Review: I'm sorry I thought this was a satire about evolution! He-HE! People will believe what they want to believe even if the evidence of evolution (which is more concrete than any religious dogma of our origins) is as plain as the nose on your face.Religious people are entitled to what they think BUT keep it in church.A theory in crisis? I think not my little half wits!Look... Jesus is coming!! Gotcha! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Wake up !!!!!!
Rating: 
Summary: A very good advanced conceptual bridge
Review: It's a terrible shame that this interesting book has been so effectively swallowed up by the intelligent design movement that it becomes impossible to recommend as a biology book except for advanced students who can appreciate the nuances. The "pro" rhetoric of most of the reviews here reveals the problem. Phillip Johnson and Michael Denton share a lot of common ideas about the orthodox neo-Darwinist synthesis and its ostensible weaknesses. Neither really rejects "evolution" outright. Denton even has an excellent discussion of the evidence for natural selection in speciation, "microevolution" that even most Creationists no longer seem to doubt. The problem is that they, and Johnson in particular, have no interest in enhancing science from this discussion, they are interested in retaining someplace for God to intervene in natural processes. The association with Johnson and the ID movement unfortunately makes Denton's really excellent discussion here moot scientifically by making it sound as if Denton is a Creationist and that "evolution" ostensibly being "a theory in crisis" means that antievolution texts and disclaimers should be foisted on schools. Denton is not a creationist, particularly not in this book (although in later work he seems to be a theistic evolutionist of sorts), and he makes some fascinating points here. Some of his points have been invalidated, but many of them are still valid. Denton accepts natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution and the only scientifically valid one, and accepts what Mayr calls "evolution as such" as pretty much a given here. He notes that speciation has been clearly observed in various ways and that the fossil record is completely inconsistent with anything even vaguely resembling the literal Biblical view of Creation. However, he has lots of issues with the assumption that all form and function in nature arises from a process of gradual incremental change. The alignment of Denton with Johnson and the ID movement is mostly in Denton's primary focus on the puzzling conceptual break in the evolutionary view of nature, something ignored by most evolutionary theory and harped on endlessly by Creationists. The break is between so-called "micro" and "macro" evolution, or what Denton exaggerates somewhat as Darwin's "special" and "general" theories of evolution. The basic point is reasonable. We do get a surprisingly different perspective from observing evolution closely at a "micro" level, where changes in gene frequencies give rise to new species-typical features, and then looking at the pattern of phenotypes of higher orders in nature. But what general conclusion about evolution does this lead us to ? There's the rub. Darwin's point was that the whole thing was part of a single set of natural mechanisms, and this point is driven home for recent general audiences by Richard Dawkins (whose radical anti-religionism makes him a good foil for the religious opponents of evolution as well). Denton *correctly* points out that the patterns of nature are different from what a truly uniformitarian gradual branching of biological diversity would produce. At least in theory. So he points out that gradual change is essential to Darwinian theory (which is probably true) and then concludes that gradual change is not really the rule in nature, and so evolution needs a major overhaul. His argument is nuanced and well made and it requires some sophistication in biological systematics to appreciate where it veers off track at some points. Denton points out first that even given the scarcity of the fossil record, we still find fewer forms that are transitional between than we would expect from a random sampling, and the transitional forms that we do find are "less transitional" than we should expect from a gradual view of phenotypic change. We see animals that have some organ systems of one taxon and some from another, we never find fossils or species that have organ systems that really seem in some intermediate stage between the higher taxa. The truly uniformitarian gradualist view emphasized by Darwin and underscored by Dawkins doesn't seem consistent with the actual organization of the main branches of biological life. The discovery of speciational evolution explained much of this, and evolutionary developmental biology seems to explain the rest, at least potentially. Features that support each other are often carried along together during evolutionary change. Small populations can change very rapidly and are very unlikely to leave transitional fossils, giving the impression of sudden jumps in the fossil record. Second, the Darwin-Dawkins strict uniform gradual view predicts that there should be an adaptive radiation of diversity that increases in distance over time. On the contrary, what we find is that there were several major body plans that arose fairly early, and that we seem to have had no new ones over time. Third, we don't find a continuum of genetic change between species, we see sharp discontinuities in mechanisms. These points are not unique to Denton, of course. Stephen Jay Gould made a career of pointing out the diversity of mechanisms that seemed to be at work in macroevolution and the need for a new evolutionary synthesis. Wallace Arthur provides what may be the early basis for such a new synthesis in his writings on evolutionary developmental biology. The problem of "macromutations" is no longer really relevant when you consider how developmental systems evolve. We no longer need to rely on the assumption that new phenotypic features result from the mutation of individual genes. A tiny genetic change can be corrected by existing genetic mechanisms, or even cause meaningful and significant change in a developmental system without disrupting its existing function. With the emergence of evo-devo and complexity theory to begin to help explain some of the patterns of form that were previously so puzzling, many of the issues raised in this book could be adopted for an introduction to the issues in evo-devo just as they have been adopted unfortunately to the arguments of Creationists. In addition, this book serves as a nice bridge to help advanced biology students understand the anti-evolutionary arguments, stripped of religious elements.
Rating: 
Summary: Another noncreationist debunking of evolutionism
Review: It's always revealing to see die-hard evolutionists respond to purely scientific exposes of Darwinism's lack of scientific foundation. The name-calling, the baseless assertions ("Transitional forms do exist! ... Molecular biology actually supports evolution! The earth is flat!"), the accusations of the author being a "closet creationist", as if that settles the matter ... If their only ammunition is misrepresentation and misinformation, what is the worth of what evolutionists believe in? (And it gets even worse with his next book, all the claims that Denton has "converted" to evolutionism.) People, on such an important matter, you should try better than that. If you have the scientific proof to answer Denton's objections, let's see it. If you can explain how the avian lung evolved, tell us. If you can explain why protein-sequence differences completely contradict Darwinism, let's hear it. Otherwise, open your minds to the new (and old) discoveries that contradict the theory. For your own sake.
Rating:
Summary: Critique of Orthodox Darwinism
Review: It's amazing to me that Denton's book written 15 years ago (1985)has been largely ignored. It is the best book I have ever read in criticism of The Theory of Evolution; and it does it from a purely scientific basis. Denton a Molecular Biologist removes all of the supports (if there ever were any) from Darwin's theory of macro-evolution (continuity of life). Denton blasts all of the previous arguments made by the pro-evolutionists showing that there is essentially no support of macro-evolution in the fossil record. He also, clearly demonstrates that there is no support coming from his specialty molecular biology. In the end the only sound explanation he can make is that life is profoundly discontinous. Denton makes another point that is particularly interesting, he demonstrates that it is the anti-evolutionists (not to be confused with creationists) that have always utilized a scientific approach to their argument while the evolutionists have been guilty of at best pseudo-science. This book is worth reading for anyone who wants to approach the subject matter objectively and scientifically.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent critique of orthodox darwinism
Review: Michael Denton marshals a vast array of evidence against the theory of Darwinian evolution and is very convincing in the process. Denton begins by chronicling the exploits of Charles Darwin and shows how his views were formed during his expeditionary journey aboard the HMS Beagle. Then, he shows how the theory came to fruition and how it was either accepted or rejected by the scientists of Darwin's day. Finally, Denton shows how the theory itself went from a theory to an established fact within the scientific community within the span of 100 years. Although the first half of this book is somewhat philosophical and concept heavy the information in those chapters is very enlightening and proves that there was solid reasoning in the mid 19th century for rejecting Darwin's thesis. Men like Cuiver and Agassiz disagreed with Darwin's hypothesis and pointed to the discontinuity of nature as proof that continuous evolution could not be true. Furthermore, taxonomists and those following the heir arching systems of Linnaeus perceived that nature was ordered more along the lines of archetypes and patterns and that progressive evolution was antithetical to this idea. Instead of viewing groups of animals in parent/daughter relationships, they viewed animal relationships as sister groups where each specimen of a group conformed to the characteristics of the representative archetype of the group. This is still how most taxonomists view relationships between animal groups today and it is in stark contrast to the evolutionary model. In the latter half of the book Denton lists all of the observational and scientific evidence that argues against evolution. First, the fossil record is discontinuous and offers no evidence that animals gradually evolved from one species into another. Yes, Darwin knew these links were vital to his theory and he and his followers believed they would be discovered in time. Yet, over 120 years later no links have been found and the new fossils that have been discovered paint a picture that is even more discontinuous than the one recognized in Darwin's day. Moreover, work done with selective breeding in domestic animals has illustrated there is a limit that is reached in achieving new characteristics over time. So yes natural selection and mutation can produce new species that are slightly different from the previous one like in birds and dogs, but it cannot explain how an amphibian could become a reptile. Finally, the most convincing and damaging evidence comes from the realm of molecular biology. The comparative analysis done between animal proteins shows that some species are not more intermediate than others. In other words amphibians are just as far removed from reptiles as they are from mammals. Yet, the evolutionary paradigm argues that amphibians evolved into reptiles which evolved into mammals, so amphibians should show more similarity to reptiles than mammals. Most damaging of all the complexity and ingenuity of the cell. To believe this complex and highly organized microscopic factory could be created by random processes borders on outright absurdity if not blind faith. The last few chapters are very interesting because Denton illustrates that the evolutionary paradigm is in the same position as the geocentric model of medieval astronomy. It's adherents maintain the status quo because an alternate theory has not been presented even though the theory itself has become a monster. It was only until the rival theory of the heliocentric solar system became scientifically more sound and explained the problems inherent in geocentrism that the model became firmly established. Likewise, the evolutionary paradigm is besieged by problems, but no rival theory has arisen to take it's place and explain the inconsistencies. Therefore, the scientific establishment will retain the theory because it's the only one that offers an explanation for the diversity of life. On a side not, this book in no way endorses creationism. Even though the author is expressing his dissatisfaction and doubt over the evolutionary paradigm, this doesn't mean this book is a blaring endorsement for creationism. Sure, several elements of design and guidance are argued for and this book may strengthen one's faith and commitment to intelligent design, but I don't think that is the primary purpose of this book. The author's primary intent is to catalogue all the evidence against evolution and critique the theory and in this endeavor he does exceedingly well.
Rating:
Summary: Why Darwinists Bristle at Denton
Review: Molecular biologist Michael Denton belongs to the relatively recent group of authors, including William A. Dembski, Phillip E. Johnson, Michael A. Cremo, Michael J. Behe, George Sim Johnston, and others, who have in common that they dare to question on scientific grounds essential tenets of conventional evolutionary theory. Published originally in 1986, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" led the way in offering detailed scientific criticisms of the standard evolutionary paradigm. In the first part of this book, Denton reviews the early history of Darwinism, showing how many scientists rejected Darwin's thesis for what they then viewed to be solid scientific reasons. In the latter portion of his work, Denton explores many evidences he views as problematic to evolutionary theory even today, including the inconceivable complexity of the cell, the continued problem of discontinuity in the fossil record, limits of selective breeding, anomalous results from molecular biology, the gap between evident microevolution and more controversial macroevolution, and so forth. Critics respond by arguing that more recent developments such as the Human Genome Project, chaos theory, evo-devo, speciational evolution, and so forth, explain away much of Denton's claims - potentially all. Denton's defenders point out that not everything has been adequately explained, including such things as the origin of the first living cells, the early appearance of many complex types of organisms, and so forth. It is not my concern to reprise this debate, but to note Denton's major role in catalyzing it. Note that Denton does not write here as a scientific creationist, although his "Nature's Destiny" does argue for a universe that is somehow designed with life and mankind as its goal. In my own "Origin of the Human Species" (Sapientia Press, 2003), I examine many philosophical issues arising from evolutionary theory. Sound philosophy shows that, regardless of evolutionary theory's validity, God's existence and the human soul's spirituality must still be posited in order to explain adequately the very existence of the world and the uniqueness of human intellective abilities. Darwinian naturalism bristles at any critique, like Denton's, which dares to point out problem areas in standard evolution theory, since challenging evolution amounts to challenging the atheism that is so often presupposed in its standard exposition. That is why my own book does an end run of the anti-theistic, anti-Christian presuppositions inherent in Darwinism by showing the compatibility of conventional evolutionary science with the reality of a single set of human first parents as depicted in Genesis - and this without recourse to dependence on young-Earth creationism. Given evolution theory's radically interdisciplinary character and implications, its proper analysis requires illumination, not only by the various natural sciences, but also by philosophy and even theology. Because Michael Denton lays down a central scientific framework for this discussion, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (2002 edition) as well as his "Nature's Destiny" (1998 edition) belong in the library of all interested parties.
Rating:
Summary: The one above
Review: Pure crap in which data is manipulated and twisted around in order to fit the religious agenda. Nice try, but whether or not you want to deny it, evolution has happend, is happening and will be that way until the end, instead of some magical religious diety creating life or this or that.
Rating:
Summary: Evolution: Not a fact, still a theory...with some big flaws
Review: Since publication, Denton's book has inspired the wrath of ardent Darwinists who possess a selective grasp of the facts. Any fair-minded follower of Darwinistic thought would have to admit that Denton points out the major failings of the theory with grace and aplomb. Far from presenting a strictly Creationist arguement, Denton simply uses science to refute what is still a vast theory lacking solid proof. For an evolutionist to state that "...evolution is a fact, so get used to it..." is complete intellectual dishonesty.
Many evolutionists who are partially armed with selective and flawed arguments feel that since Natural Selection (micro-evolution) is a fairly well established fact, then it can only follow that the Theory of Evolution (macro-evolution) is as well, in spite of the troubling evidence that disputes it. That fact is that Denton, using hard science (most notably the fossil record and molecular biology), has demonstrated how evolutionists are forced to fill in the blanks with conjecture, some intelligent and thoughtful, some outlandish and fanciful.
The bottom line is simple... there is far more damaging evidence against the entire theory than there is supportive evidence for it. Any truthful person will examine the evidence and go where it leads them. Anyone who has already bought into "evolution at all costs" will never accept it, even if the evidence is overwhelmingly against their point of view. For this camp, the idea of rejecting Evolution would mean accepting a belief system that they've already condemned as bunk. Yet Denton doesn't approach this as a Creationist... as I've mentioned, he uses only science to refute theory. Any steps taken beyond that are up to the reader.
Regardless of your leanings, if you read this book with an open mind, you'll have to admit the validity of Denton's arguments in spite of the date of publication. Little has been published since to refute him... yet more has been discovered since to support him. Don't take my word for it... explore the evidence for yourself and research both sides of the argument.
Rating:
Summary: interesting
Review: This book could have been considered a great science book maybe. I am not a scientist. I am curios and I read. Evolution is the most controversial subject of all times. And I believe it has great value both in scientific terms and ideologic terms. Denton's simple style, flow of information in the book and his perspective is fantastic. If Denton at the end does not offer a new look into how living things came to be which he does not then people are right to label him as creationist. You cannot be a creationist and a scientist at the same time. You cannot make Noah's Flood reasonable and be a geologist at the same time. This is so simple. Science is trying to explain things and has a evolving nature. So one thing claimed now may not be true tomorrow. This is not the case for religion. So Denton has to put stg into the table.
Rating:
Summary: Fixism : a faith in crisis
Review: This book is deeply disappointing. The author presents dishonestly evolutionary theory as a scientific error (a theory in "crisis"), whereas data show that evolution is a fact. Taking an example, M. Denton writes a chapter about palaeontology and "missing links". There is a wonderful drawing supposedly showing that there are no transitional fossils between, for example, terrestrial mammals and whales or bats, or between reptiles and birds. But it is false ! Each time, there are many transitional species between extreme individuals which are presented. But Denton writes that such intermediary forms do not exist ! In the whale evolution case, his drawing show only Pakicetus and a modern whale, without Protocetus, Rhodocetus, Ambulocetus, etc. which are evidently intermediates between these two species. In another case, he asserts that homologous structures are not built by homologous genes - of course, he wants to show that homology between species or other taxonomic levels is a false idea. But he presents in each case a few pleiotropic genes which do not play a major role in embryogenesis - because all main "architects" proteins, such homeotic genes, support evidently the homology concept. In fine, this book is scientifically uninteresting. For a biologist, it is very funny - but it is its only one advantage.
| 
