Rating: 
Summary: Dated
Review: This book is outdated. Even when it first came out in 1986 it was outdated. (And the new edition does little to correct this.) I was struck as I read the book that the arguments seemed somehow to be lacking in modern information. So I took a look at the sources, copiously listed in the endnotes of each chapter. And the overwhelming number of the sources date to 60s and 70s, or even earlier. In fact, the average source date for Denton's cites was 1912! Admittedly, this includes original source dates that refer to The Origin of Species, and responding sources in the years afterward. But as one reads through the endnotes, you can't but be impressed by how even the scientific data that Denton is relying on is usually 20 years out of date- *from when this book was written*! Why is this an issue? After all, why would having old sources make a difference, if the arguments are sound? Because it claims to be a scientific text. And it is precisely in the area of science that discovery and information change and progress so rapidly. A scientific paper written ten years ago is usually passé- unless it was groundbreaking to begin with. This source problem is seen in a number of specific areas. When Denton wrote his work, there was no Human Genome Project- we hadn't even mapped the genetic code of a Nematode at that point! Having a complete map of the genetic code of an organism makes a big difference in understanding evolutionary theory. Chaos Theory was in its infancy, if present at all, and there was therefore no mathematical formulas to demonstrate how random events can have an underlying logical consistency allowing for progression. Or there was the old creationist argument of the problem with whale evolution, that there were no transitional fossils, and how illogical it was to claim that whales could evolve from hoofed hyena-like animals, when there were (admittedly) so many great changes that must occur in the organism. That is, until the 1990s, when we discovered every single transitional fossil in whale evolution, showing the complete progression from a land animal to the modern whale, giving us today one of the best fossil lineages in evolutionary theory. There are other serious problems with the book. Denton makes claims that were not true even in the 80s (or 60s), such as the lack of transitional fossils in general. He seems to focus on the lack of transitional fossils between classes, and then make the claim that the there is a mystical class boundary, deny evolution occurs *within* classes, and ignore all the transitional fossils within classes. He conveniently ignores all the transitional fossils between different fish classes, reflecting his human terrestrial bias, probably lumping Petromyzone, Myxini, Chondrichthyes, and Osteichthyes as just "fish". He suggests that things are too improbable, making the argument of "irreducible complexity", that the cilia and flagella and bird's wing couldn't have evolved, citing a few sources from evolutionists to support his claim. In the process he ignores a lot of much more recent research which has found transitional forms, and discovered ways that these structures could have evolved. He makes strong arguments to imply that evolution only occurred because it satisfied the philosophical needs of the popular theories of Darwin's day and subsequently. He's probably right on that one. But he skips over how every theory ever believed is generally held true because it fulfills the philosophical ideas of the people of their day- including the belief in immediate divine creation. I appreciate that Denton came from a scientific perspective. But his arguments don't hold up. I firmly believe in the God of the Old and New Testament. I don't believe evolution is perfect in it's theory- it's still being worked on. It's simply the best theory we've got. And in the end, Denton does nothing to change that. At the end of his book Denton refers to how, throughout human history, a theory is believed until a new, better one comes along. Precisely. This is standard scientific method. And Denton doesn't guide us to an alternative; he gives nothing to indicate a new encompassing theory that might have half the evidence to support it that evolution currently does. If you want to read a book that explains ideas that are outdated from 15 years ago, 35 years ago, 100 years ago, and understand it as modern science, this is the book for you. Otherwise, I'd recommend Darwin's Ghost, by Steve Jones, which updates Origin of a Species, and Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller, which deals with the issues of Christian theology and evolution from an author who holds to both. (This review refers to the 1985 hard copy.)
| 
