Most Helpful Customer Reviews
28 of 29 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Scientist Who Came Down from the Ivory Tower, January 3, 2005
This review is from: Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science (Paperback)
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)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
50 of 56 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
good book, but what is it about?, October 12, 2002
This review is from: Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science (Paperback)
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
20 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Thinking Rationally, April 1, 2005
This review is from: Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science (Paperback)
This book is a discussion of the Creationist/Evolution polemic. It includes:
* A discussion of the Scopes trial with William Jennings Bryan's final speech which is a critical read for the understanding of the Creationist mindset. In 1925 Bryan was saying the same thing Creationists are saying now. The argument is based on faith and not on a theory facts derived from over a century of scientific research.
* The book proceeds to the history of the science/ religion discussion including a continuum of thought from "Flat Earth" believers to scientific adherents. Included here is a discussion of Hume's Dialogues in which he disproves Intelligent Design.
* Creationists have long been guilty of muddying the waters of the discussion by using a pseudo science to bolster their claims. He discusses Intelligent Design which suggests that a force more powerful than humans created the world. Pigliucci renders the arguments impotent The arguments of William Dembski, Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe are successfully refuted. It is done it without malice but with authority. He discusses argumentative fallacies on the part of both sides. His discussion here is not hard on Creationist fallacies and easy on Evolution.
* There is an entire chapter on the dangers of anti-intellectualism fueled by radio talk shows that essentially says that intellectuals cannot see the forest for the trees and that is when likes of O'Reilly can point Americans in the right (literally) direction.
I do take issue with the description of Nowak, Page and Sigmund's study-"Ultimatum Game" to show how Mathematical evolutionary theory applied to ethics. Were this game played by a rich (proposer) and the responder poor, out of desperation, the responder may accept a much lower percentage as it would be better than nothing? This is similar to some labor/management disputes especially involving weak or nonunion employees. There are flaws in that comparison but it certainly happens that businesses are shut down at the owner's loss (as well as the wages of the workers) but ultimately, it is the workers who suffer more, often a total loss off employment while it is rare that a business actually shuts down as a result of a contract dispute.
The book ends with a call to praxes. Now that we know all of this, what do we do with it? The author makes suggestions for the teaching of science in our schools. The most important point is that our youth ought to be taught critical thinking. It is having critically thinking educators determine what our children are taught. Education must be a concrete thing and not left up to those with an ideological axe to grind.
The last chapter of this book is important. To live in a society where people are thinking creatively and with discernment then we must have schools that provide the environment for that. Without that we have graduating students who basically know only how to do what they are told.
The book doesn't simply preach to the choir. Pigliucci relates fallacious thinking and smugness amongst his academic peers. He has created the kernel for deep and valuable discourse. He also is not above the use of well timed wry bits of humor that make the reading stay interesting. (a longer review can be found at www.respectfulempiricist.com)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
