<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: For a monkey, it's terrific!
Review: A well written and interesting bit of science fiction.But I think we all know, as Prof. Wizzleteet's so eloquently illustrated, evolution is a compelling story but scientifically laughable. Wizzleteetian proofs of creationism: Great ape hygiene is a sham.
Great ape anatomy vs. Human anatomy is problematic in that they look different.
Great ape's have a natural aversion to proper clothing.
Great ape's cannot be taught capitalism/materialism with the exception of an appreciation for Happy Meals. That said this is an enjoyable read just don't take it serious.
Rating: 
Summary: A New Kind of "War"
Review: Talk about darwinian wars sounds to me as old and outmoded as talk about World War II and even the cold war. Darwinian weapons of random mutations and natural selection or even stasis and punctuated equilibrium have led us not to a meaningless, pointless and purposeless universe, as darwinians enjoy saying (as if they had discovered the wheel) but to a meaningless, pointless and purposeless scientifc paradigm, unable to deal with the "complex specified information" in nature (William Dembski), the "irreducible complexity" of biological systems (Michael Behe) and the "computational structure" of the universe (Stephen Wolfram). What's more, darwinism never really got to refute biblical creationism (contrary to what the vast majority of uniformed people think) as it has been proposed and defended by Douhane Gish and John and Henry Morris or R. Humphreys. You may be surprised if I am saying this. But is is just plain fact. Darwinism never refuted creationism. It just assumed that creation never took place, which is something very different than a true and convincing refutation. All the darwinian arguments about evolution assume it existed, rather than demonstrate it existed. They are circular arguments that only convince the already convinced. This means that, as Donald Rumsfeld is reforming the Pentagon and getting it ready to fight new wars, so there should be a profound reform in the realm of scientific paradigms. I am convinced that the future "scientific wars" will be about information, intelligence and even creation. Intelligent design theorists and even biblical creationists seem to me more prepared in the long run to fight the new scientific wars ahead of us than darwinism. This outdated paradigm looks more and more like a kind of "cold war relic".
Rating:
Summary: Wide-ranging, informative and readable
Review: This book does a wonderful job of presenting a wide variety of debates that have surrounded evolutionary theory from the time of Darwin to the present. Ruse makes his own positions known, but tries to present all sides fairly, and for the most part does it well. He is especially interesting in his dissection of the underlying philosophical concerns that have driven the discussion of evolution. In spots the writing rambles somewhat and can become unclear. After going to great lengths to define what is meant by "evolution," Ruse makes no such effort to define his term, "secular religion," which recurs frequently throughout his discussions. In other places, the author veers off in a new direction before finishing his point. For example, while addressing Philip Johnson's criticism of the "methodological naturalism" of science, Ruse slides off into the question whether one can be a methodological naturalist and still believe in God. It's a fascinating and worthwhile discussion, but it leaves out what seems to me to be the more important question in response to Johnson: can one do science at all without assuming that physical events have predictable physical causes? For serious students of the subject, this book will not be the last word. For general readers it opens up a window on the rich field of evolutionary science and the debates that have surrounded it. The suggested additional reading at the end of each chapter should help anyone who is interested in pursuing a topic further. It helps to have some basic background in biology to understand this book, but no extensive knowledge is necessary.
<< 1 >>
| 
