Customer Reviews

Evolution Controversy, The: A Survey of Competing Theories

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I think it fair to state my position: I'm trained in physical science, and until five years ago I accepted Darwin's theory blindly, and admired Dawking's books as the summum. Now I have my doubts: I find some of the objections levelled against Darwinism reasonable, although I recognize there's not as yet any competing theory: only, as I said, some objections, which might or might not prove true. On balance, I tend to be a theist with agnostic overtones, and I KNOW science has nothing to say about the general problem of existence.

I was uncertain how to rate this book. It's a very good intro to the subject; however, if you know something about the evolution controversy, large parts of it will sound very repetitive. So for beginners (only?):

Strong points:
1) It's written in a wonderfully civil style, which is a nice thing indeed, given that in most books on the subject and reviews of them one finds mostly an exchange of rancorous epithets, and no consideration at all for the genuine arguments the other side is trying to make (especially, I regret to say, from the naturalist camp): it has become an ideological and power contest, somewhat like string theory in physics.
2) It is written for the complete layman: it explains for example the conditions an hypothesis should fulfill to qualify as a scientific theory.
3) It has a systematic, if somewhat superficial, procedure for rating the competing theories.
4) It gives a (to my knowledge) unbiased presentation of Darwinism (oops! I meant the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis) with some of its variations -which it calls meta-Darwinism-, YEC and ID, separating to its credit the last two, although I think the conceptual difference could perhaps have been presented better, or more forcefully (although I admit nothing is easy in this controversy, where practically everybody has its slightly nuanced opinion on the facts of the matter). For me for example it was a surprise to learn that at least some YECs are trying to formulate scientific accounts of how the geological and fossil scenario came about. There's even a theory of physicist Walter Brown/CSC that the book says makes 31 falsifiable predictions, some or which have been verified. Prior to reading this, I had thought all YECs to be a nutty bunch. Now I must revise my opinion, even if the available evidence continues to be heavily slanted against their (alas multiple and incompatible) contentions, and if the concept of an inerrant sacred book strains credibility if you don't already belong to the faithful.
I was also very surprised to learn that the Director of the NCSE advises evolutionists not to debate creationists.
5) It has references to Internet links to several sites for each position discussed.
6) It's easy to read.

Weak points:
1) It doesn't make sufficiently clear that the controversy is really between a naturalist world-view (Darwinism and meta-Darwinism) and one that admits/requires -although not necessarily, see below- some type of divine intervention (YEC's and IDers).
2) It doesn't emphasize enough that science, by its very nature, cannot take into account teleological explanations. In that sense, science is justified in rejecting non-natural explanations: even if true, they are beyond its scope, and if scientists try to build a picture of reality, it MUST by definition be a strictly natural one.
3) It gives short thrift to Christian (and by extension also theist) evolutionism, implicitly equating it with a God-of-the-gaps approach. Really, if a Supreme Being exists, He could perfectly well have planned the laws and initial conditions of the Universe to produce life and humans, without any further intervention from His part (admittedly some Jewish's, Christian's and Moslem's conceptions of God present some problems with this view, better examined in a book on philosophy of religion). Also, I think it doen't mention that alternative when speaking about the ID movement, although I dimly seem to recall it's presented as a possibility in one of Behe's writings.
4) Some assertions are wrong (as for example Note 127 on page 233 of the PB edition, on Aspect's test of whether a hidden-variables quantum theory can be local) or wrongly stated, leaving open the doubt of what else might be.
5) It neglects to mention, when speaking of ID, the possibility that some intelligences might require a simpler substratum than our own carbon-based one (as for example suggested in Hoyle's science fiction classic "The Black Cloud"), and that therefore the infinite regress -who designed our designer, and who him, and so ad infinitum- might be avoided. Probably it's an outlook nobody in the ID camp actually holds, and for that reason it isn't mentioned, but it's an hypothesis certainly germane to ID in its less theistic (or atheistic, although I doubt anybody in the ID camp would accept the idea) form.

All in all, a good book. The less you know about the problems discussed in it, the more you'll like it and profit from it. You'll also probably become a convinced naturalist after having read it, since the evidence presented implicitly (and I would say ovewhermingly) favours that position, although in a neutral way (nominally, in the end, you'll have to make up your mind).

This book is a technical, well-organized, and critical overview of the controversy's history, issues, rhetoric, evidence, arguments, and counterarguments on all major sides, without taking sides. It is quite informative and fair, in my opinion, and sorely needed.

Reading through reviews, it looks like some people criticize this book because of its inclusion of ideas by people they disagree with, or its failure to stake a position that agrees with their own (or to even stake a position at all). I think some have misunderstood the authors' intent in writing this book. Some perhaps did not actually read the book's content all the way through. Before you buy this book and then complain that it wasn't what you would prefer in a book on evolution, read the following. (And before you review the book, please read it first.)

WHAT THIS BOOK IS AND IS NOT:

This book IS:
- an information resource on a controversy
- an attempt at a neutral survey of the available evidence, various arguments, and sides in a current controversy
- a starting point for those wanting a better grasp on the issues at stake
- an attempt at proposing criteria to be used by thoughtful readers in analyzing arguments for themselves
- an attempt to focus discourse on the scientific aspects of a scientific question

This book IS NOT:
- an argumentative discourse on what side in the controversy is right or wrong
- an apologetic work on Darwinism
- an apologetic work on Creationism
- an apologetic work on Intelligent Design
- a condemnation or dismissal of Darwinism, Creationism, or Intelligent Design
- an attempt to claim that all sides in the controversy have equally valid positions
- an attempt to deny the possibility that any particular side can be right
- a Christian book
- an atheistic book

If you are seeking a book which takes a strong position on the evolution controversy, a book which tells you what you ought to conclude, a book which supports your own views on the controversy, a book which champions Darwinism and discredits Creationism,a book which champions Creationism and discredits Darwinism, or a book which exposes Intelligent Design as a Creationist trojan horse, this book is NOT what you are looking for. There are other books that would suit you better.

If you seek a broader grasp of the evidence and questions at stake in the controversy and the arguments made by opposing sides, so that you can better understand the claims, news, and discourse that you encounter on the subject and make conclusions for yourself, you found the right book.

The work gives creationists (those currently most prominent) involved in the "evolution controversy" a fairly neutral hearing, which one doesn't often find outside the Christian/creationist press. But creationism has many very different streams, and authors are inconsistent in lumping them and separating them. And they go overboard in places when working to deflect criticism away from creationists. For example, they accuse a prominent evolution supporter of "propaganda" and trying to "smear" creationists with the label of flat earthers and geocentrists. Consulting the text they cited for the claim shows this is to be a patently false and grossly unfair accusation. The author made it quite plain creationists with those views were on the extreme fringe, very few in number remaining any more (though they aren't extinct yet!), a different breed from the young earth creationists and inconsequential in the modern evolution debate. Authors also overstate the influence of today's more scientifically rigorous creationists as well, and minimize the influence their slip-shod brethren in the movement still hold. Tsk tsk. The information put forth by the most prominent and influential spokespersons in today's creationist circles has changed little in the last twenty or thirty years.

This book starts with the massive credibility problem faced by Darwinian theory. Despite the prolonged ascendancy of Darwinian evolution in high school and college biology classes, the controversy over Darwin's theory gets hotter with every passing year. A majority of the scientific community accepts it, but a majority of American citizens does not.

The Evolution Controversy addresses this dilemma primarily from the scientific point of view. It provides an impartial examination of the several schools of scientific thought regarding human origins. It covers the presuppositions of each school, the explanatory scope of their respective theories, the data marshalled both for and against, the legitimate inferences to be drawn, the predictive success of each theoretical model, and the degree to which each theory is falsifiable, which is an important criterion for valid scientific work.

Daniel Kuebler is a professor of biology at Franciscan University of Steubenville and Thomas B. Fowler is a physicist, a senior information technology engineer, and a philosopher. Their combined authorship gives them a strong claim to be able to treat the complex topic they have chosen.

The first part of the book provides a history of evolutionary thought, a brief review of the available evidence, and an explanation of the principal points in dispute. The second part dispassionately examines the evidence and inferences, strengths and weaknesses of the four major scientific schools of thought in contemporary debates over evolution. These schools are Neo-Darwinism, Meta-Darwinism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design.

The two Darwinisms tend to be identified with mechanistic or even atheistic scientists, though this is not necessarily the case. Neo-Darwinism is the prevailing school of scientific thought, a modification of Darwin's original theory which posits that random genetic mutations coupled with natural selection is the sufficient and exclusive engine for the evolution of everything from lifeless matter to man. This depends on a very old earth and vast stretches of geological time. The Meta-Darwinian school accepts much of Darwin's theory but believes it is insufficient by itself to explain certain features of the evolutionary record, such as relatively explosive periods for the appearance of new life-forms. Therefore this school argues that various other contributing causes have also been at work.

The other two schools of thought tend to be associated with people of Faith, but again not necessarily so. Creationism, which is sometimes but not always tied to the theory that the earth is actually very young, posits that God must have created the basic categories of living beings, but accepts certain forms of evolution within these broad categories. For the past half-century, Creationists have sought to provide purely scientific evidence for their position. Finally, Intelligent Design argues that the irreducible complexity of some features of nature make it impossible for random processes and natural selection to have produced them. The theory seeks to provide a means of effectively identifying those things which clearly possess such complexity. In other words, the Intelligent Design schools seeks to provide actual scientific evidence for the necessity of design.

The third part of the book covers the public policy implications of the evolution controversy and provides a convenient summary and assessment of the controversy as it currently stands.

With respect to most past discussions of evolution, The Evolution Controversy is a critical missing link. The authors demonstrate a masterful command of both scientific evidence and legitimate inference; they have no particular axe to grind; and they are able to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the various schools of thought with a dispassionate clarity which serves three vital purposes. First, it is a tour de force of education about origins theory. Second, it gives a wonderful example to all sides of how legitimate scientific inquiry ought to proceed. Third, it provides a much-needed model for teachers of biology who would like to do a more even-handed and, in fact, better job of presenting the science of origins.

Most people have a tendency to draw conclusions about evolution based on certain philosophical and even theological insights. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a very incomplete thing. It is much more satisfactory also to have a firm grasp of what the various scientific schools have to offer. Because Fowler and Kuebler are able to group their technical information around the precise points at issue in each theory, the reader is never lost in the details; rather he finds himself able to go far more deeply into the topic than before.

The quarrel over evolution is a centerpiece of modern culture. The Evolution Controversy enables non-specialists, perhaps for the very first time, to gain the fascinating education necessary to begin to resolve the issue.

I began reading this without trying to characterize the author, and I was favorably impressed by the initial relatively even-handedness of the accounts of the "competing theories." Very quickly however I began to be frustrated by the slant I started to perceive in the way the arguments are made.

The cast of characters here are two schools of scientists and two schools of (let's just be honest here) Christian apologists.

The scientists in this story consist of (1) hardcore neo-Darwinians who emphasize the ultimate predictive power of selection and mutation over time, and (2) "metas" who are essentially scientists who criticize the prevailing neo-Darwinian synthesis in particular areas and want to expand the synthesis in some sense.

The distinction is a familiar one for those used to tabloid accounts of controversies and debates over evolution, but I think it is in some ways a manufactured appearance that overemphasizes their differences and conceals their greater commonalities. Biologists don't really fall neatly into Darwinists and Critics, since the "metas" really believe they are Darwinists who have specific technical points about particular theories within the Darwinian synthesis. In general they share to varying degrees the central defining characteristics of the "hardcore" Darwinists, the appreciation for the power of selection as an explanatory principle. When they propose new principles, these are generally additional simple natural principles, "cranes" rather than "skyhooks" to use Dennett's catchy metaphor.

The apologists are those that promote the literal Creation account, and those that argue that evidence of design in nature is evidence a (seeming unavoidably humanoid) designer. The schools are laid out fairly well, I think, compared to other non-scholarly accounts I've seen. And that is perhaps the greatest strength of this book. The authors here don't simply pretend that evolutionary science is some sort of giant atheist propaganda scheme, as some apologist authors have done. However that's perhaps faint praise.

Let's face it, though, the notion that the Biblical Creation account, is a "competing theory" in any sense with just about about anything else is tough to get past for many of us, whether we believe it or not. You pretty much either buy it or you don't, I think, in the sense that Creationism intends. Any story placing it alongside textbook science on equal footing seems very suspect from the start, even when the authors are clearly trying hard to be even handed.

"Intelligent Design" and its humanoid Creator or equivalent alien being doesn't fare any better, in spite of its greater sophistication and more veiled Biblical foundation. That's because it clearly always comes back to a Creator with intentions toward us, rather than just the obvious fact that nature is not random. The leap from seeing a wondrous world before us to inferring a detailed account of the Creator is a big kidney stone to embed in anything like a scientific theory. Even a reconciliatory account should appreciate this important distinction between evidence for design and evidence for all manner of assumptions about a Creator. Stripped of the putative Creator, Intelligent Design is just a subset of the usual scientific project of looking for patterns in nature, looking for particularly sophisticated patterns, but not neccessarily making any special inferences about the properties of a creating intelligence.

It is the argument for a Creator, as a "skyhook" explanation, not the existence of design, that is the distinguishing issue between the two main camps here, and this important point in particular is obscured by the definitions used in this book. The distinction of "supernatural" that the authors rely upon to distinguish the apologists from the scientists would be meaningless unless it revolved around an intentioned Creator. There is a red herring here about the supposed duality of nature and supernature, when in actuality the issue is over whether we think there is meaning in the world that comes from a deity.

Ultimately, for me, the argument here for equal consideration for these "competing theories" is the usual one. It comes down to the standard theological argument that the premises of "metaphysics" are unprovable, therefore we can't reject miracles and supernature out of hand, and so textbook science is based on faith of a sort. The argument just doesn't wash for me, it seems to me that we have to make important distinctions between different kinds of "faith" epistemologically.

The difference between this book and most reconciliatory accounts is that the authors do give more credit to the explanatory and predictive power of evolutionary dynamics than most. They seem to have more scientific and mathematical sophistication than many other religious authors.

Still, if you cut to the chase here, the authors depend heavily upon the common intuition that a scientific worldview can never quite capture the depths of reality, and the common perception that "evolution" can't be the final answer.

For me, explaining the properties of living things through the existing traditions and ideals of science, which hold principles like selection in very high esteem, seem far more promising than any theological story, and far more compatible with the evidence of our most detailed and systematic observations.

I realize that theological explanations like Creationism and Intelligent Design will always have a stronger intuitive hold on us, at least initially, than the details of complex mathematics required for powerful predictive theories. So it may be that books like this are important to educate people as to the real value of the scientific theories, without rejecting their frequently cherished and often more intuitive beliefs about prior design by a caring designer in nature.

Further reading on the critics of Darwinism:
Darwinism and its Discontents

A classic philosophical discussion of the predictive power of selection, evolution as a kind of engineering:
Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life

Further thoughts on the relationship of Darwinism and Christianity:
Can a Darwinian be a Christian?: The Relationship between Science and Religion

This is a book that is difficult to rate, because it varies so in quality. Most of it is very good, and I think that I have learned a lot from reading it. With the reservations that follow, I would recommend it to anyone with a serious interest in the evolution controversies, and more generally to people interested in scientific issues associated with evolution. The authors have included a bibliography organized by subject as an aid to those wanting to read further. It is perhaps unfortunate that one tends to be briefer in praise than in criticism, perhaps because in the former case the work speaks for itself. Please do not let the length of my criticisms overwhelm my genuine praise for the work.

The authors bravely set out to examine the scientific arguments, and those only, of four camps in the evolution disputes: Neo-Darwinists, the overwhelming majority of naturalistic scientists; creationists, here meaning only Young Earth Creationists (YEC); Intelligent Design; and Meta-Darwinists, meaning naturalistic scientists who think that natural selection may be over-rated as the engine of evolution. It may seem redundant to speak of naturalistic scientists, but the subject calls for clarity and precision. For the most part, they have done a creditable job at this difficult task, which makes it a very worthwhile read. Theistic evolutionists and Old Earth Creationists (OEC) are excluded on the grounds that they do not propose different scientific methods, but believe in non-naturalistic mechanisms supplementing the scientific processes.

It is easier for me to critique the chapter on Intelligent Design (ID), as it is less technical than the others. The authors do not deal with another criticism that I have read of Dembski's filter; that is necessity, chance, and design do not necessarily function discretely in the real world. Where would one place natural selection (which IDers often accept to a degree) on the filter given that it functions through the interaction of chance and necessity? Neo-Darwinism is not the only naturalistic system that the authors need to consider; Meta-Darwinism offers mechanisms that avoid requiring a function to be built stepwise. One must keep in mind that according to naturalistic explanations, most individuals don't reproduce and most experiments fail. To take the authors' example, if organisms developed a light-sensitive patch, some might swim toward the light, some might swim away from it, and some might do a little dance. The organisms whose reaction was most useful would produce more of the next generation. The authors don't address the question of precisely what we have said if we say something is designed, although they note the problem of presenting positive evidence. The IDers have argued that it is possible for the non-naturalistic to be considered in science, but we are left wondering how they propose to do this.

The penultimate chapter: "Public Policy Implications of the Evolution Controversy" is atrocious, and in many ways undercuts the careful work of the rest of the book. The discussion is generally shallow, and often involves broad, unsupported generalizations about large groups of people, which are often elsewhere contradicted. Theistic evolutionists and Old Earth Creationists may not have unique scientific arguments, but they are essential to make sense of evolution theory as a public phenomenon and should have been included more consistently here.

I will discuss only the section on education. The authors speak very vaguely about education without considering that what is appropriate may depend upon the level and time spend on the class. If high school students are going to spend a total of ninety minutes on evolution, or any other topic, there is no time to consider more than the most generally agreed-upon highlights. As an analogy, when I attend a several hour course on life-after-death at a friend's church, the teacher explained the basic beliefs; he did not review abstruse theological points, the beliefs of other sects, or general institutional problems of the church. Not everything that is useful or broadening can be taught in twelve years of basic education. Among the things that I did NOT learn in school are how to write a check; how to balance a bank account; how to do laundry; and, most germane in this case, non-Euclidean geometry. Given that most Americans don't believe in naturalistic evolution, the alternatives are widely available in society at large. Indeed, according to histories of the subject, the main reason that evolution is taught in school at all in many places is that Sputnik frightened the Federal government into emphasizing science, which the authors agree is very important in our society, and Neo-Darwinism is the most commonly held position by scientists, as the authors also admit. In addition, the authors do not consider what exactly would be taught as an alternative. On a scientific level, they credit Intelligent Design with few scientific achievements thus far; Creationist work deals more with astronomy and geology than evolution per se. In his book Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design, Michael Shermer lists at the end the variety of religious beliefs towards the formation of the universe, and variety of just Christian attitudes towards evolution. Young Earth Creationists may cheer on Intelligent Designers in attacking naturalistic evolution, but I suspect that if some sort of non-naturalistic theories were introduced, they would be at odds, not to mention what non-Christians would have to say. As students spend more time on a subject, especially as it becomes their profession, it becomes more appropriate and necessary for them study exceptions, fringe ideas, and criticisms. They could serve as a helpful stimulus to clarifying and understanding one's own views, at very least.

Moreover, the authors make the sweeping, and to my mind offensive, generalization that people who want to specify what type of evolution children learn, in this context meaning naturalistic science, take an anything-goes attitude towards ethics and morality. (p.335) Have the authors any data to back up this statement? I question the validity of this point of view, even if we were talking only about atheists like Richard Dawkins, but I find it unacceptable that the authors are ignoring the existence of theistic believers. Does this include that theistic evolutionist Pope John Paul II? How about two well-known Christian scientists Kenneth Miller and Simon Conway Morris? Are the authors implying that "liberal Christian" is an oxymoron? The authors have strayed from their intention of rising above insults and ad hominem attacks.

This book, in short, would be a lot better for being shorter.

A tour de force!

Though I was familiar with many concepts regarding evolution and Darwinism, this book opened my eyes to many, many other issues of evolution.

It read like a detective novel. As I went through each chapter, I would think, this must be the right theory. What can be the objections? Then, in the next chapter, I would think, "No. It's not the "butler", it must be the gardener." In each chapter, I felt the particular theory that was being discussed was handled objectively and without revealing the authors' own beliefs or prejudices.

The book explains the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. I, too, had thought they were in the same
camp, but after reading those chapters I realized that Intelligent Design does not deserve being tarred with the same brush as Creationism.

Mr. Fowler deftly handles so many disciplines: physics, chemistry, mathematics, bio-chemistry. There were many more sciences involved in studying evolution than I had known.

It has so many attributes that books don't any more. I think the prose is quite good. Nice balanced sentences, varied vocabulary. There seem to be so many subtleties and nuances in all this research. You also handle all the chemistry and physics adroitly and clearly. I never understood that there were some real leaps of faith in radioactive dating. Most writers make it sound like they can tell when Beethoven took his paino in for repair based on carbon-dating.

I have bought several copies and sent them to friends, after they expressed interest because of my enthusiasm and increased understanding.

Gary G.

I'm constantly confronted with a grand misconception among many evolutionists that Creationists (and/or those that believe in Intelligent Design) don't have a clue about evolution. Yet, it is possible to have a very thorough understanding of this issue and still reasonably disagree with it. The book "The Evolution Controversy" among other things, reveals the "reasonable disagreements" these informed people have, which should enlighten all readers. Every book has its new points, and this one does too. One major benefit this book did for me was to "comb," sort and categorize much that I was already aware of, so much so, that I am determined to read it again in the near future, just for this purpose.

Though covering most topics, there were still some important ones left wanting. Only a passing thought on the "deficiencies" of abiogenesis. Nothing on racemization, and nothing significant on genetic limits including mutation limits. Is there a sequel in the making?

No truthful, honest writing on evolution should ever portray unity among even the true Darwinians, and this book candidly professes their extreme viewpoints. Their feverous disputations are serendipitously overshadowed by inciting arguments toward creationism and ID.

At about a twelfth grade level, the book's comprehensibility is excellent. Print quality is alright, but the tables and charts (no color through-out the book) have very small type and are most challenging to read. The authors' explanations and descriptions on the varying facets of evolution are surprisingly clear. Though their intent is with "eschewing bias and prejudice", the authors' bias still shows through. Offering many possible explanations for evolution and restricting Creation/ID possibilities to a narrow few, is a method used by many authors on evolution (conscientiously or perhaps not) as far back as Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" or even earlier. The authors speak of "the sheer numbers of laypeople who reject the established theory (Neo-Darwinism)". After referencing both the "public" and Christians, a quote on page 274 says, "But science is not a popularity contest. In fact, common wisdom is often wrong when it comes to the truth of scientific theories." The public and Christians are wrong while scientists are right. Quite a bias and bigoted statement for a book trying to be "balanced". But there are many issues out there and this book, in an extremely categorical way, does handle most of the important controversies, from both sides, in the least biased and most enjoyable presentation I've read so far. It would be wisdom to have this book available in every school library. Read it!

This was a refreshingly balanced overview of the scientific aspects of four competing schools of thought: Neo-Darwinian, Creationist, Intelligent Design and Meta-Darwinian (punctuated equilibrium, hierarchical selection, exaptation, neutral theory, evo-devo, morphogenic fields, self-organization/complexity theory and endosymbiosis).

In addition to textual descriptions of the current scientific case for and against each school, there are summary tables of the position of each school on six disputed points (common descent, genetic information and random mutation, adequacy of random mutation/natural selection to account for change, age of the universe and of the earth, scope of naturalistic explanation, and employment of bona fide scientific methods and theory). The book also has a diagram of each school's logical structure (key explanations, postulates, core beliefs, and underlying assumptions) and tables of how each school stacks up against ten criteria of a genuine scientific theory (compactness, simplicity, falsifiability, verifiability, retrodiction, prediction, exploration, repeatability, clarity and intuitiveness).

The book concludes with summary tables of the accomplishments, issues and challenges for each school, a table of proposed tests to distinguish the four schools, and the authors' positions on the issues (not in a table).

I'm making it sound like the book is mostly tables, which isn't the case. Most of the tables are less than a page long, interspersed among 360 pages of text, along with other helpful tables and illustrations. The book does not explore theological issues, only scientific isues.

My only beef with the book is the authors' careless handling of Old Earth Creationism, which begins by referring to "a second Creationist camp, known as 'ordinary' Creationists" (p. 31) and ends by lumping Old Earth Creationists in with "Creationists" and then using the term "Creationist" when they mean Young-Earth Creationist (p. 92, p. 133, etc.). I gave the book five stars because it was otherwise very well done.

The authors provide a balanced and fair analysis of the current debates on origins. They offer a thoughtful and very readable assessmemnt of the strenghts and weaknesses of the major views in the context of a clear explanation of the scientific method, and a reasonable criteria for differentiating scientific and metaphysical arguments. I highly recommend the book for anyone who is interested in being current with the on-going origins debates.