Customer Reviews

Origins, Icons, and Illusions: Exploring the Science and Psychology of Creation and Evolution

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

 

 

This book reflects a process of discovery and learning by the author covering over fifteen years. Each and every year of effort and dedication is evident in the depth and breadth of knowledge and opinion brought together and interwoven in this volume. This book explores the complex relationships between data, extrapolation, and perceptions which underlie one of our most fundamental scientific endeavors, the understanding of our origins. This 500-page volume contains almost one hundred pages of accompanying notes to qualify and expand on the 18-chapter, 363 page in-depth examination of evolution and creation as a focus of scientific processes and attention. The author examines in tremendous detail the evidence underlying evolutionary theories and those aspects of science and psychology which have inculcated the domain of evolution with an almost unassailable mantel of truth, almost imbuing it with the status of scientific law. The author also introduces such explanatory insights as the principles of semantic illusion and the role such illusions play in assigning more credibility to science than might be deserved based on the data. This book is not your typical human factors book It is more bedrock in nature. The multidisciplinary perspective of the author as a human factors specialist, however, is reflected in the breadth of domains from which data, theory, and opinion are drawn. Beyond those interested in the evolution-creation dialogue, any researcher or practitioner of human factors and ergonomics, who, as a scientist, is interested in meta-science, the examination and understanding of fundamental concepts and tenets, processes and procedures of science and the scientific approach, this book is worthwhile. It is not a read for the faint-hearted. Like Godel, Escher, Bach or the writings of Thomas Mann, it is written for the effortful mind and is replete with data and reasoning which challenges the reader just as it clearly must have challenged the author to distill and organize it in such a cogent manner over so long a period of germination. Like the authors of such books as Tainted Truth or Lying with Statistics, Dr. Booher challenges scientists to take a step back and examine the relationship between data and truth in scientific endeavor. Pope John Paul II proclaimed that "Truth cannot contradict truth" and encouraged theists to embrace science as a tool in the search for truth. Dr. Booher offers the reader an opportunity to address some fundamental contradictions between scientific data, interpretation, perceptions, and beliefs which, when surfaced, force us to examine the rigor versus rigidity of our own scientific perspectives on the world and what we consider science and truth to be.

Booher's book is an important read for those who have any interest whatsoever in the evolution debate. Furthermore, he makes his points in a very decisive and convincing manner, echoing the growing chorus of scientists, researchers, scholars, teachers, and average citizens who are calling into question some of the extravagent claims made by hard-core naturalists.

At the heart of this book is a very serious and important question: What is science? Is science the measure of merely natural causes, or is it the search for the best explanation, the one which best fits the evidence? Why must we make the philosophical assumption that science can ONLY measure natural causes and not intelligent ones? Are naturalists saying that sciences such as Forensics and Archeology are really not scientific endeavours after all? Both those scientific fields are clear demonstrations of how the scientific method is used to discern natural causes from intelligent ones, but according to the naturalistic definition of science, they are endeavours which cannot possibly be labelled as science.

Whatever you currently believe on this issue, I encourage you to read Booher's book, examine his arguments, and decide for yourself what science can or cannot do. Don't let naysayers and critics convince you that this book is simply about science vs. creation. Nothing could be further from the truth. This book is really about the true definition and role of science, and, in that fashion, its an important and eye-opening book.

The author successfully dispels the myth that evolution is a proven scientific theory. As the author states, "no fossils whatsoever have ever been found that can be conclusively and unequivocally considered specific transitional forms." However, since there is no scientific alternative to offer, the power of this scientific essay may not penetrate minds predisposed toward the acceptance of Darwinian evolution. But we cannot continue looking under the lamppost for the missing links. What is particularly scholarly is the thoroughness with which he examines this question from many scientific disciplines. One way to test the merit of this book would be for the National Academy of Sciences to convene a panel of experts with representation from palaeontology, biology, psychology, anthropology, embryology, physiology, haematology, cytology, biochemistry, philosophy, linguistics, geochronology, cosmology, geology, and sociology to conduct a critical examination of the arguments as they are made through these various disciplines. If the book withstands such an excruciating analysis, then there ought to be a rather resounding proclamation that evolution still awaits the discovery of conclusive scientific evidence and, in the meantime, all scientific endeavors to account for our origins will be evaluated using the same scientific criteria.

This book is a fine example of the mental gyrations someone will perform to rationalize their preconceived notions.

Booher identifies four semantic methods used by authorities in science to supposedly fool the uninitiated. He then proceeds to use these same methods, and many others (eg: guilt by association, dissembling, misrepresenting, vilifying, and condescending), in a vain attempt to discredit generally accepted scientific theories. In there place, he proposes alternate creationist theories which he supports using the same semantic methods he earlier condemned.

In spite of his PhD, Booher demonstrates repeated misunderstandings of the basic scientist mentality (ie: skepticism), the scientific method, the body of scientific knowledge, the social-political authorities of science, and particularly the interrelationships of all these facets of science. The true skeptic believes every "fact" is questionable and every theory is possible. The scientific method does not prove or disprove a theory, it supports or discredits a theory through experimentation based on hypothesis. Scientific knowledge is gathered based on skeptical acceptance of theories supported by the scientific method, as well as the consistencies between accepted theories. The authority on science is not any single organization, but includes a wide array of people representing numerous countries, institutions, and specialties.

However, Booher's real contention lies between Naturalism and Creationism. He proposes a science which uses design within its hypotheses. Yet he ignores the skepticism inherent to science. Naturalism seeks answers without any supernatural agents while Creationism assumes a supernatural designer. Creationism is based on the Authority of the Bible, but Naturalism is skeptical of all authorities, including the Bible and the existing body of scientific knowledge. Science through Naturalism therefore includes a self-checking mechanism, but Science through Creationism does not. The creationists' stance is further confounded by the political separation of church and state. Booher's true goal appears to be the introduction of creationist theories into the public classroom under the guise of acceptable science.

I gave this book two stars because Booher at least did his homework, so it may serve as a semi-useful index. However, in the end he fails to support his point and in some areas of text he is virtually railing against the science establishment.