Customer Reviews

The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creation

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

 

 

I read this book many years ago, when the fantasy-worlders and their ghost stories were being marketed as an extension of the backwardness of the Reagan adminstration. This was a great primer for confronting the lunacy of creationism.

I haven't read it since, and I don't know if it's been updated to address the newest form of creationism slyly renamed 'intelligent design'. It really doesn't matter, I guess. If you are a true believer, you'll ignore reality to prop up your medieval world view.

I just finished reading another book on the subject, "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!" by Duane Gish and Eldredge's book is better, but not a whole lot better.

Both books fit into the same category, they too often wander off their intended point to bash the other side's opinion. One of the reasons I give this book 3 stars and Gish's book 1 star is that Eldredge says more to justify his views of evolution than Gish ever does to justify his views of creation.

As an example, Eldredge uses words like "pathetic" and "puny" to describe creationists opinions. I don't care if the opinions are puny or pathetic, give me the facts and leave out the creationist bashing. Eldredge speaks far too much in general terms about creationists (they tend to use the following arguments) and far too little with specific points. Gish at least looks specifically at certain points about evolution, liberally quoting evolutionary biologist and other scientists, even if he is off the mark more often than not. Eldredge seldom quotes creationists, he usually just talks about them.

In the end, most of what Eldredge says is pretty good information, but won't do anything to sway a creationist who is reading the book. Because it lacks weight (in size and content), it ends up being a comfort book for evolutionist and little more.

It seems like everytime I pick up a book by an evolutionist attempting to discredit creation science, the evolutionary proponent almost inevitably results to name-calling and ad hominem attacks to make a point. This book is no different.

Mr. Eldredge attacks creationists and creation science calling them names like puny, while attempting to bolster the case for his view in the process. If he would have interacted more with actual factual evidence and quoted from creationist literature, then shown where the evolutionist's disagree, he would have been more successful in making a stronger case for his views. This book lacked clear, concise and convincing argumentation, and relied more an mud-slinging and name calling to win the day. I believe this shows that evolutionary advocates are using every possible tactic to prevent creation science from being taught. They are afraid to admit the possibility that another view will compete with theirs and that people may be swayed by such an argument. Heck, Mr. Eldredge states in the beginning of his book that creationists usually win creation/evolution debates against evolutionary supporters. Yet, he can't make it sound as if the creation camp's argument is more factually correct and more sound, so he says that most victories are the result of theatrics and crowd-pleasing and also because evolutionary supporters are misinformed and do not understand the material as well as they should.

Yet, I do have to give Mr. Eldredge credit where credit is due. I do understand the arguments he is trying to make against teaching creation science in the science classrooms. Creation science isn't really science at all because you can't test any of the theories to see if they are correct and you can't measure them against any observable evidence. Creationists just have to say that God did it this way, outside of the set laws of nature, and that's the way it is. This is definitely not science and should not be taught to kids as science. Furthermore, as Mr. Eldredge argues our entire society is predicated on the findings and benefits that moderns science provides. He uses the examples of engineering plants and labratory science as two examples. These programs are a direct result of modern science and are related to the science of biological evolution.

Nevertheless, I think the situation in America has done a complete 180. In the early 20th century most of the American establishment was against the prospect of teaching evolution in the classroom. The 1925 Scopes Trial was the most public and virulent manifestation of such a situation. Yet, now the tables appear to have been turned. Instead of the having Biblical creationists bitterly oppose the views of evolutionists, you have evolutionists bitterly opposing and fighting against the views of creationists. I believe this shows how hyppocritical both sides have been and still can be today. The evolutionary camp has illustrated that it is no better or no more altruistic than the staunch creationists of the early 20th century. They will will fight, claw, scratch and complain that they should be the only model taught in the school system. Although I agree with the evolutionists that the model of creation science being espoused by men like Duane Gish is not really science and a result of fundamentalist Christian thinking, I do not believe this should eliminate creation thinking from being removed from the classroom. It is possible to present the idea that the Universe developed either by 1.)Random Chance or 2.)Intelligent Design simultaneously in the same classroom. Furthermore, it is possible to argue for intelligent design without getting overtly religious or faith specific; Just arguing against one system because it is diametrically opposed to your own will not cut it; Even worse, is engaging in this kind of activity and not providing any solid argumentation of defense of your view. The Bible does not have to be interpreted ultra-literally as most creation scientist do today. There are other Christian scientist's at work today who believe in the scientific data supporting the earth's age, they accept the fossil evidence as accurate. They do all of these while simultaneously holding the Geneis model as accurate. Just because some creation scientists hold views that are incompatible with this evidence, does not mean that the rest of the establishment should be punished or kept from the classroom.

This book is a one sided tirade polemic against the view that God had a role in creation. It is an example of the fact that the Darwinian scientists are now going to an extreme in shutting off debate in this area. As a biology professor at a state college, I have learned to help students grow without turning them off to science. By the way, about 95% of my biology students are creationists of some type (YEC, OEC, ID etc.). We need to realize this and move on and teach biology. I stress that they must know evolution theory but that I am not in the business of changing beliefs (at least in religious areas) and let them do research on their own. Even if they do not believe in Darwinism, they must understand what the theory is all about. I also allow (actually encourage) criticism of the theory in class. I know many professors who do not permit students to present any information in class that opposes Darwinism. No wonder so many students are turned off by science! We must learn to be tolerant, and this book will not help in this goal.

The best critic is one who earnestly seeks to study and understand the reasons someone holds a position. At the other extreme is the fanatic, the insecure caricaturist who does not even care to understand his subject matter before tearing into it. I'm sorry to say that this book is in the latter category.

Eldredge demonstrates no significant grasp of his subject matter (creation science, the interpretation of natural science data in a framework based on Genesis), the result being a work that should shame a freshmen college student, much less the co-author of punctuated equilibrium! He stoops to blatant falsehoods and absurdities, such as claiming no creationist scientist has ever published in a science journal. While admitting that they win all the debates early in his book, he chalks it up to theatrics, which is surely an insult to the intelligence of audiences at origins debates.

In one of his two quotes from creationary material in the entire book he claims creationists quote out of context - and then quotes a creation scientist out of context to support his claim. His other quote of a creationist is equally bizarre: taking a section of text in which the term "kind" of animal is used in the same casual context context we use in everyday conversation, he imputes a technical meaning to it based on the Hebrew term baramin that is rather obviously not applicable to even the more casual and uninformed reader.

Probably the most usable portion of his book is the section based on his own expertise in the study of trilobites. But anyone with an interest in this subject would surely be better served reading books more directly applicable to that specialty. His book closes with a chilling appeal to evolutionists to work together to suppress academic freedom and toleration for dissenting viewpoints under the rubric of "defending science."

Creation science could be well-served by thoughtful, informed critiques of its' models and theories. Some evolutionists do occasionally produce these and they are to be commended for rising above the fray and refraining from the kind of behavior characterized by this book. But as it is, I realized that if the co-author of "punk eek" could only do such a poor job of criticizing creation and defending evolutionism, the evolutionary worldview had indeed become indefensible. May the future offer better!