Customer Reviews

Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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)

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.

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)

Why are we still debating evolution, a topic for which the scientific debate ended once and for all in the nineteenth century? The reason is that an unscientific debate continues. Part of the problem is that many people have little understanding of what science is all about.

My feeling about the controversy is that we have on one side some educated people who are actually using science to make progress in fields such as medicine that would otherwise be impossible while on the other side are those who complain that all these achievements are indeed impossible.

Pigliucci starts with some of the history behind the creationism-evolution debate. This includes the heresy conviction for James Woodrow in South Carolina in the 1880s, and the Scopes trial of 1925 in Tennessee. And we see the latter involving a clear case of anti-intellectualism, where William Jennings Bryan appeared to favor majority rule in matters of scientific fact.

In Chapter Two, we see David Hume's arguments against intelligent design. The analogy between the universe and human artifacts is weak. Intelligence is not the only cause of patterns (consider snowflakes). Even if intelligent beings do create things today, that does not mean that intelligence created the Universe. The origin of the Universe may be unique, and thus analogies to it may not be meaningful. The analogy between a human mind and a divine mind is anthropomorphic and leads to a finite God. We also see what evolution is. It is defined as a change in frequencies of the genes found in natural populations. As a consequence, it can also be seen as gradual descent with modification linking different life forms on Earth. Evolution itself is not a theory of origins, either of life or of the Universe.

The next chapter has an interesting discussion of anti-intellectualism, including "post-modernism." Of course, to my way of thinking, anti-intellectualism simply attacks truth. However, truth is an inherent value, and in general, those who fight it on principle will not fare as well as those who embrace it.

The author then gets into a good discussion of what science is, and what hypotheses, theories, and laws are. After that he covers eleven specific creationist fallacies, followed by three very misleading creationist claims. Next is a short chapter that mentions some errors made by scientists. Scientists can make mistakes, get defrauded, or have error imposed upon them by a government (such as Lysenko in the Soviet Union). Pigliucci shows that science, being self-correcting, eventually deals with these errors by measuring them against the real world.

What recommendations does the author make? Well, scientists must take a more active role in their communities, and also organize "community days." We need to hire good researchers to do research and good teachers to teach. There must be continuing education for teachers. Universities must provide teacher training for professors and graduate students. Universities ought to have more truly interdisciplinary courses and curricula. Some textbooks teach too many facts and not enough ideas, and need to be rewritten. We need more "active learning," not lectures in the classroom. There need to be more "open-inquiry" exercises. More emphasis has to be placed on the "how" of science, not just the "what." Students need to be taught critical thinking, and their writing and communication skills need to be improved. The use of information technology must engage the student's brain, not bypass it. Teachers ought to use contoversial subject matter as a stimulus to thinking.

I occasionally disagreed with some of what the author said. But it is an excellent book, and I strongly recommend it.

I've been looking for book recommendations from people online in the creation-evolution-design debate for books to give to people new to the online debate in order to bring them up to speed as quickly as possible. This book got into my reading list as a result of such recommendations, reading it through was made possible but the well above average writing ability and the excellent way the author handles the material. At this point, it is my first recommendation to people joining the discussion, not perfect but very good for the purpose. It's a worth-the-time to read and understand 6 star book.



The author seems to have two purposes for writing the book. The first is as an introduction to the CED debate, the second is rather muted but it looks like an argument for his more radical skepticism, which has as a primary target the skepticism regarding gods. I think he tones down what is probably a big thing with him, in order to reach more people and to make his book more successful. I see he has other books, i'll read then soon to see. There was only one big place towards the end that dealt strongly with the issue, i suspect that towards the end he had lost most of the more conservative believers in God anyhow, at that point talking to rather convinced skeptics. The other small places were as always little irritants but excusible in the mass of what is well done and worthwhile to read.

It's addressed to interested parties, but i don't think many creationists will wade through it, just too cognitively dissonant for them, rats, they are the ones that need it the most, isn't that always the way it seems? A little sad, for of all the potential readers they are the ones who would benefit the most from the book. So it's natural audience is going to end up with those who are pretty neutral about the issues and are looking for more through the scientifically educated looking for good arguments to the skeptics putting it all together. It's not written to high school students but a little bit higher than that mythical general reader. It is not hard reading but scientifically based and despite the author's best intentions probably a harder read than most people are willing to give. Which is sad and says more about the general level of reading desire and ability than it does about the book. For it is a must read in the topic and as said above an excellent recommendation for the introductory book to the topic.

The author is a teacher, from reading just this one book, i'd guess a very good one, a very concerned and involved one. He is also a natural debater and arguer, things i like but can only inspire to, however some people will be turned off by these characteristics, to them i'd say just ignore and move on, there is much here for you to learn. The structure of the book is, like the writing, excellent, well thought out and persuasive that the author is a born teacher with great gifts.

I think the place to start for figuring out if you want to or will read the book is start with chapter 2 and read until you decide to buy it or to put it away.

important pullquotes and reading notes:

Prologue: or How I Got into this Mess:

creationism is more properly called evolution denial.
creationism is not a viable theory of anything, and it is certainly not a scientific theory.
part of it certainly comes from the shrewdness of a few ideologues who distort or ignore scientific findings, manipulate the media (who are often happy enough to be manipulated), and atempt to force their own ideological agenda on a nation.
a broad cultural war between conservative and progressive forces, between a priori ideologies and the spirit of inquiry, between ignorance and education.
pg 2,3

1 Where Did the Controversy Come From?

ushered in a new age for science, one in which concern for th public acceptance of scientific ideas was as important as their acceptance among peer scientists...these men understood-much like creationists understand today...that in a democracy...it is equally crucial to defend and nurture them in the public's mind. pg 9,10
this wave of attempts at shifting the creationist movement toward a more progressive position, close to the idea of theistic evolution...that provoked the inevitable backlash. pg 14
is not really to establish the scientific credibility of evolutionary theory, but to prevent its alleged moral implications from being accepted by the population pg 20
using the Bible as a book of factual truths about the universe as opposed to spiritual insights marred the history of Western religion throughout the Middle Ages and Renassance. pg 22
Scientific findings...ought to be judged on their own merits, regardless of the ethical connotations some people might see in them. Ethical choices, OTOH-while they should certainly be informed by the best science available-are too important to be left only in the hands of scientists. ... This confusion between the purposes of science and religion is of course based on the fundamentalists' misunderstanding of their sacred scriptures as not only books on how to live, but also descriptions of how the universe works. By the same token, the, scientific discoveries must describe not only how the world is, but how it should be. This is perhaps the single most tragic mistake repeatedly made by both sides of the debate, though much more often by the religious side than the scientific side. pg 25
although we all necessarily have to make assumptions about the world in order to live our lives, some assumptions represent small and others large leaps of faith, and science is distinguished by the attempt to make those leaps as small as possible,...pg 28
allowing that science has confused the two realms in the past would simply confirm that science has evolved gradually from natural philosophy with heavy theological influences(in 18th and early 19thC)to the full-fledged, independent entity it is today. pg 30

2 Evolution-Creationism 101

This is the much-dreaded "slippery slope" of interpretation of the sacred Scripture that, even though it is adopted in one fashion or another by most practicing Crhistians, is seen as very dangerous by fundamentalists, who believe that the word of God should be a clear and universal message, not subject to the whims and fashions of human explanations. pg 39
Jonathan Wells unmasked as a Unification Church member and how people reacted to that versus his bad science. the author says: "i was reaping the benefits not of superior logic and evidence, but of the intertribal warfare among Christians themselves!" pg 45
scientists and educators are involved in this debate because they care about science education, not about winning an ideological war. ... even though most creationists are sincerely convinced of their postions, they are interested only in winning the ideological war. If evolutionary theory had no theological implications ..., there wold be no debate. pg 45
Yet the degree of ideological separation within the scientific community is much less broad, and it is usually settled-in the long run at least- by appeal to an external source of evidence: the natural world. ...it is this lack of objective criteria that makes the divisions with creationism so large. pg 48
the big point: he conflates the real or alleged philosophical-theological implications of evolution with the science. pg 50
in what is one of the best arguments in the book, against ID, he writes: (darwin) did so because the then current supernatural explanations-explantions that were distinctly teleological in the Aristotelian sense, the concept having been absorbed into the Christian metaphysics and through the latter into pre-Darwinian, nineteenth-century scientific thought-had proven unworkable. pg 55
advantage conferred after the fact of natural selection; it is not the fulfillment in the original Aristotelian sense of telos, or purpose, guiding the development of the organism. pg 56
these objects can be clearly attributed to natural processes also for two other reasons: they are never optimal in an engineering sense, and they are clearly the result of historical processes. pg 63
The evolution-creation controversy is not a scientific debate, but rather a mighty ideological struggle for the control of public education and the financing of scientific research. pg 69

3 One Side of the Coin: The Dangers of Anti-Intellectualism

anti-intellectualism is a resentment and suspicion of the life of the mid and of those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition constantly to minimize the value of that life. pg 82
the perception that rationality is emotionally sterile; OTOH, there is the fear that rationalism promotes moral relativism and therefore will eventually unravel the very fabric of our society. pg 83
reality has a rather nasty habit of not conforming to our wishes, no matter how majoritarian our views happen to be. Consequently, education is not a democratic process by any means, however distasteful this may sound to the American public. pg 85
"Like William Jennings Bryan, another great populist, Reagan could translate a complicated world which he barely comprehended into values he never questioned." pg 88, refers to: De Groot, fn 10, pg 87
"unreflective instrumentalism" the basic idea in this case is that education-and by extension, inquiry- is not good unless it has immediate practical value. pg 95
Andrew Carnegie remarked that classical studies were a waste of "precious years trying to exract education from an ignorant past" pg 95
unreflective hedonism, or the idea that we live in a society in which the primary goal is entertainment. pg 98
Mouw admits that "in America, there is a populist, anti-intellectual Christain remnant that feeds on overstatement, rhetorical overkill, proof-texting, and sloganeering, which grows out of distorted, grassroots pietism." pg 109
the human mind seems ot have a remarkable capacity to adapt to new technologies while desperately clinging to old ideas. pg 110
since one could argue that the whole purpose of a good education is indeed to upset people at least once a week and possibly more often. pg 111

4 Scientific Fundamentalism and the True Nature of Science
he uses Teller in "it is difficult to find a more clear and disturbing example of scientism, the fundamentalist belief that science can do no wrong and will ultimately answer any question worth answering while in the process saving humankind as a bonus." pg 114, interesting definition of scientism anyhow....
nice paragraph on science and philosophy: Philo does not solve scientific problems, it is metathinking, means to inquire-epistemology, and what we should do-ethics, and the big picture of reality-metaphysics. pg 115
mythos-supernatural explanations and logos-use of rationality pg 119
science as method not a particular body of knowledge pg 119
an interesting set of ideas on human beings finding connections were there are none, and our evolutionary history. pg 125
looks at the problem of induction and reductionism. not deeply but enough to show people that it is a concern.
he makes a philosophic claim as a scientific one at:
a naturalistic explanation is sufficient to account for the functioning of the universe. pg 129
it is not sufficient, it has shown itself to be useful, induction never claims sufficiency, he should know better. it is a methodological claim not an ontological one.
theory ladenness of observation pg 134
science is not the Truth, that is scientism pg 137
beyond reasonable doubt, objective reality, science doesn't prove things, the high points in the philosophy of science, pg 138-144 a good discussion, worth looking at these pages by themselves
Casti in Paradigms Lost and his characteristics of pseudoscience pg 149ff.
they are: anachronistic thinking, search for mysteries, appeal to myths, dismissive approach to evidence, appeal to irrefutable hypotheses, spurious similarities, explanation by scenario, literary interpretation instead of empirically grounded research, refusal to revise, shifting the burden of proof to the other side, Galilei effect:=acceptance fo a theory as legitimate simply because it's new alternative or daring. nice list, ought to be in everyone's mind as they engage in the creation-evolution debate.

5 Creationist Fallacies
1: science must be ethical or it is not true.
2: scientific discussions are a sign of internal crisis
fundamentalist groups splinter over very minor points of doctrine precisely because they see any form of disagreement as a sign of fatal corruption pg 162 **
3: it is just a theory
4: natural phenomena mean randomness
5: the world can be understood by common sense
the human brain has a minimal set of proto-scientific theories aobut he world already built in, and these are theories that served us well throughout our history pg 172
6: we win by default
it is not enough to show X is wrong, but you must be able to advance a better Y. pg 173
7: living beings are obviously designed
8: its' a debate about origins
9: scientific findings are independent of each other
10: education must be democratic
scientific status of creationism is in no way superior to flat earthism pg 177
11: science is a religion
same worlds, separate worlds, conflicting worlds models pg 179
a excellent chart of "fuzziness of the God concept"= y axis, and "level of contrast between science and religion" as x-axis pg 180

6 Three Major Controversies
about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the origin of life, and the Cambrian explosion

7 Scientific Fallacies
the rationalist fallacy:=if you insist that all you need to do is explain things a little bit better and people will see the light
modern science is not a matter of common sense at all. it is very counter intuitive. pg 235
scientific hoaxes
science as a social activity
science is both subjective and objective pg 247ff
there is an objective world out there to measure theories by. science is a social activity, intersubjectivity.

8 What Do We do About it?
his recommendations, center around his calling as a teacher, pg 259-281 are perhaps the most disclosing of the author himself in the book.
worth reading here first.
Coda: the Controversy that never Ends.

Appendix a: Introduction to Hume's Dialogues Concenring Natural Religion

Appendix b: Bryan's Last Speech


it is an excellent book, make all the better by the author's passion, his flair for dramatic and interesting writing, completeness of covering the major points and the essential reading endnotes.

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.

I'd just like to start off by saying: I had to read 6 different books on evolution this past semester for college, and this was by far my favorite. Pigliucci gives a thorough account of the debate between creationism and evolutionism. He even goes so far as to summarize arguments on both sides, and then adds his own opinions. His book was not an easy read, but well worth it.

The second thing I'd like to talk about is in response to the comments on Kent Hovind and other creationsits. First of all, let me say: Kent Hovind is TRAINED in debating...the people he debates ARE much much smarter (and have REAL PhDs....Kent Hovind conveniently is not letting anyone read his "dissertation"), but are not debaters. Evolutionists have evidence; creationists have rhetoric. To the untrained eye (which is unfortunately most of America), Kent Hovind and the creationists are winning these debates. That is, until you actually hear what they are saying. Kent Hovind is a slippery, sneaky man who doesn't know the first thing about the evolution's core statements. Or if he does, he ignores them to advance his so called "argument." He, like other creationists, have their own agenda. They DO take advantage of the fact that science doesn't have all the answers (yet), rather than formulating their own side of the argument. So why did Pigliucci lose any debates to Kent Hovind (if he did at all)? Because Pigliucci is working with FACTS which he cannnot manipulate (otherwise he would be discredited); Kent Hovind is working with anything he can get his slippery hands on. Interestingly, people still listen to him. It's easy to win a debate if you can pull things out of thin air, or things that make absolutely no sense in the context of the argument. I can't wait until I am able to debate one of these creationists because I won't let them win. It's like Pigliucci says...science is under attack, and it's a very scary thing. We need to protect science at all costs; it is the key to our future as a nation and as a planet.

Overall, a fantastic and very honest account of Evolutionism and Creationism.

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.

The review written by R. W. Brightstar just proves Pigliucci is right in his insistence on the importance of a good understanding of the nature of science to clearly comprehend the evolution/creation controversy. Mr. Brightstar worries about the fact that Pigliucci had supposedly lost three debates with Kent Hovind. Well, this is a major difference between science and other endeavors, such as politics (and there is much of politics in the defense of creationism, don't be fooled). In science, it doesn't matter winning or losing debates. Science is not a game of winners and losers. And there is no point in asking for proofs of evolution that might lead one to win a debate. The issue is rather different. In science, we work with a diversity of models, test them against empirical evidence and for theoretical consistency, and we keep the better model temporarily. A model accepted today can be abandoned later. Who knows about the future? It is necessary a more sophisticated epistemology, a better understanding of the nature of science than many creationism advocates have, since many of them are trained in a naive absolutist epistemological view, according to which ideas can be proved completely, can be taken to be THE truth about the world, a picture of reality as it is. If this naive epistemological view is not displaced, then there will be problems to understand science and its product, scientific knowledge. Finally, I should say that the most accepted view in evolutionary biology today is still darwinist, but not the views of Darwin himself (theories change throughout history!), and certainly not the kind of naive radical gradualist view that advocates of intelligent design, such as Behe in his black box, fights. They are fighting against strawmans, built for the sake of winning debates, that damn thing which has nothing to do with science!

I recommend this book to both beginners and veterans of the Creation vs. Evolution Wars. I often debate creationists on the Internet and I count Massimo's book as one of my most important references. It is easy to read with just the right dash of humor. Contrary to the comments of another reviewer, his book is not about "bashing" or portraying Creationists as buffoons. He approaches Creationists with compassion and understanding and states that they are often quite intelligent and educated. He also takes aim at scientism, in which science is valued as the only means of understanding reality. Contrary to Richard Dawkins, who refuses to debate Creationists lest Creationism be seen as being on an equal par with science (one can certainly sympathize with this point of view), Pigliucci thinks it is important to keep the debate going. Whether anyone is initially swayed to the evolution side or not, he feels that such a debate causes audiences to think seriously about the subject. While "Denying Evolution" has the requisite explanation of the process itself, the main point of the book is to illuminate the seemingly growing phenomenon of denying evolution. This cannot be done without a critical look at the deniers, examining both the reasons for the denial and proposing solutions. There is more to be said about both evolution and its deniers, but "Denying Evolution" provides the background and perspective necessary to give the reader a solid grasp of each. In light of the recent court decisions regarding the repackaging of Creationism under the guise of Intelligent Design, this book couldn't be more timely.