Customer Reviews

The Science of Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: Knowing What's Real and Why It Matters

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

 

 

Most books that teach the basics of evolutionary biology are fairly genteel in their treatment of creationism--they don't endorse it, of course, but they either ignore it, or more frequently now, they segregate off a chapter to deal with the major claims. There are also whole books dedicated to combating creationist myths, of course, but they're not usually the kind of book you pick up to get a tutorial in basic biology. In my hands I have an example of a book that does both, using the errors of creationism heavily to help explain and contrast the principles of evolutionary biology--it's fascinating. This is what we should do if we were to "teach the controversy" in the classroom; it's not what the other side wants, because teaching it honestly would mean the creationists would be the comic relief and endless whipping boy of the course, as they should be.

The book is The Science of Evolution and the Myth of Creationism by Ardea Skybreak. It's very good, but right up front I'll mention its flaw, and one reason few scientists write books from this perspective: the frequent comparisons with creationism mean we're also hoping the book will someday be hopelessly obsolete, if ever we can get those myths treated like the jokes they are. Scientists who are not engaged in the culture war are going to regard the book rather quizzically, since it does raise up nonsensical issues frequently; it really requires a peculiarly modern American context to make it all work. It's one of those books that, the more it is read, the less relevant its approach would become.

But it does work in that context. Skybreak covers all the key concepts, but does so in a passionate, refreshingly aggressive way. She doesn't hesitate to call a stupid idea stupid, and back up the charge with the evidence. If your interest in evolution isn't simply academic, this is an excellent book to simultaneously inform and instruct, and supply the reasoning to deal with creationist foolishness. It's also refreshing to see a book that isn't timid about pointing out that fundamentalist religion is the source of the problem, and that isn't afraid of offending creationists. It makes for an invigorating read, and I recommend it highly.

It's not too late to order it for Christmas! It's perfect for that person who wants to learn some solid biology, but also wants to be an activist for good science.

I do feel obligated to mention one thing that didn't disturb me at all, but some readers might be concerned about. The book began as a series of articles in The Revolutionary Worker. There are a few hints of sympathy for socialist ideals in a few of the sidebars and endnotes, a sympathy I share (perhaps with significant reservations not held by the author), but otherwise, this is not an ideological work. Read it for the good science and the healthy slams against creationism without reservations about the source.

A very interesting attack on creationism. Skybreak presents a very up to date scientific case for evolution and against creationism (including "intelligent design"), taking care to explain all of this in an accessible manner. This really is a book for the general public, with no trace of a dry textbook tone. What makes it particularly interesting is the way Skybreak does not shy away from attacking fundamentalist religion and politics, treating evolutionary science as an integral part of a strongly leftist political point of view. Most defenses of evolution tend to avoid politics and adopt a superficial liberal compatibilism where religion is concerned. Skybreak makes it clear that she has no use for the supernatural and that evolution is part of the reason, while acknowledging that many liberal religious people also oppose creationism. The result is a book well worth reading, both as an introduction to the debate and as a way to brush up for those already involved. Skybreak's Marxism is not too heavyhanded, and her overall approach is quite refreshing.

"Everyone needs to understand the basic facts of evolution as well as the essentials of the scientific method... When people are deprived of a scientific approach to reality as a whole, they are robbed of both a full appreciation of the beauty and richness of the natural world and the means to understand the dynamics of change not only in nature but in human society as well."

-Ardea Skybreak, "The Science of Evolution and the Myth of Creationism"

Ardea Skybreak's new book, "The Science of Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: Knowing what's real and why it matters" is a comprehensive treatment of creationism, in all of its forms, in relation to the practice and teaching of evolution and science in general. This book provides a point by point description of creationist arguments and refutation of those arguments, and a very usable summary of the related evolutionary concepts.

Skybreak describes and summarizes evolutionary theory focusing on the areas usually brought up by creationists (such as speciation, micro- vs. macro evolution, transitional fossils, etc.). She clearly positions anti-evolution arguments in a broader context as an "assault on science in the name of god" and she positions the "science of evolution" as fundamental to science itself. In her treatment of the most recent forms of creationism such as Intelligent Design Creationism, she makes the argument that IDC is largely just more of the same thing, but does not dismiss the specifics of the argument ... rather she address them. Then, of course, they are dismissed as the drivel that they are. You can expect this volume to serve as a reference tool in that it describes and carefully treats all the creationist "schools of thought" providing both convincing arguments (for fence sitters) and the tools an educator should have in addressing these issues. At present, this may be the most comprehensive discussion available, and it is certainly up to date.

The book is loaded with dozens of "supplemental" inserts, which you can think of as side-bars, on a variety of topics. For example, "Were We Bound to Evolve? -- The Role of Random and Non-Random Factors in Evolution;" "Humans and Dinosaurs?! Another Creationist Absurdity;" and "Rare Variants of the Almost Entirely Universal Genetic Code Are Evidence of Evolution, Not Design."

The author could possibly be characterized as a nontheist or atheist with Marxist or progressive leanings. Her treatment of the religious aspects of creationism's attack on evolution is crisp and dismissive. At the same time, her approach is not idealistic, but rather, appropriately materialistic and straight forward. Her philosophical comments are limited to the obvious condensate from the interaction between incredibly stupid ideas and basic science. I don't think Skybreak's book requires rejection of religion to accept evolution, but if you are looking for a way to reconcile religious belief with scientific reality, you won't (thank god) find it here.

I think you could use this book in a college biology class, because it covers the basics of evolution, along with well chosen examples. If you are interested in teaching students evolutionary biology and at the same time giving them the tools to address creationism as it rears it's ugly head in social, educational, and political contexts, then add this inexpensive and well written volume to your reading list. The book is organized in such a way that various chapters and side-bars (supplementals) can be linked to the usual reading material in any introductory or intermediate course on evolution. One could argue that setting up any straw man is good pedagogy if done correctly. This volume does a good job at teaching evolution by using creationism in its various forms as a kind of Swiss Army Knife of Straw Men.


This is the only book I have read that has encomia from both leading experts in the field as well from guys in prison... oh, and from one high school student.

Great book for just about anybody wanting to know about evolution and how life really works. Also tells about all the religions and how they evolved and spread and how some are attacking science especially in America. For anyone wanting to know the world around them and those who want to learn more this is well written and easy to comprehend.

Skybreak is solid on her biology, and the passion in her writing really helps to carry it through. The science is solid and up-to-date; for example Tiktaalik roseae, published in 2005, is one of her examples of a transitional fossil.

Skybreak takes on the Creationist claims against evolution without blinking, and also exposes their underlying (and lying) political and cultural agenda. Skybreak's own far-left political cant only shows through in brief moments.

A few small criticisms: There's a photo secion in the middle, but the book would be better if the pictures had been integrated with the text. Example: if you're explaining the few small deviations known in the gentic code, a table of codons would show just how minor these changes are. Highlighted sections that are not part of the regular text run on too long; anything that takes over a page ought to be integrated into the main text to aid continuity. Chapter 8 reiterates arguments made earlier in the book, rather than summarizes them, so it drags a bit. Up until then the book flows pretty well. Skybreak refers to evolution as "proven." This is appropriate for common language, but inside the world of science, nothing is ever "proven", only supported by overwhelming evidence. And the evidence is overwhelming, indeed.

I see a few reviews claiming this book is full of scientific mistakes; I challenge those reviewers to provide examples, because I didn't notice many at all. (I am a molecular biologist.) "The Professor" claims that the 95 - 99% conservation between the human and chimp genomes represents 150 million - 60 million base pair differences. Do the math and realize how many unchanged base pairs that means. He's playing loose with the numbers.

Ardea Skybreak's work is one of the best books on evolution written for a lay audience that I have read (and I've read quite a few). Her detailed explanations describing the many different evidences for evolution by means of natural selection provide both the non-scientist and scientist reader a clear overview of the topic. Also, her breakdown of the many creationist groups and their methods of operation are very helpful in understanding what the fundamentalists believe despite massive evidence to the contrary and the efforts they will go to to discredit evolutionary theory. Her book is a powerful and incredibly blunt rebuttal to the creationist movement. However, this is also where the book is incredibly frustrating!

It appears Skybreak hates creationists. She seems to go out of her way to ridicule believers and virtually groups all believers as fundamentalists. This, of course, is not true and is a common tactic of militant atheists (see Richard Dawkins, another excellent science writer whose vitriol against believers is harmful to his cause). Does Skybreak not realize that the overwhelming number of people who have ever lived were/are believers of some sort? Where do militant atheists get such chutzpah? The atheist may be correct in believing that no supernatural being created the universe but he/she has no more proof of that than the religious believer who accepts Jesus Christ or Allah.

Skybreak's obvious disdain for President George W. Bush was very distracting and incredibly silly. This review is written in September 2009, Barack Obama is President of the United States. I can tell you, with history on my side, that the United States did not become a theocracy due to the evangelical Christian 43rd President. This idea was always a ridiculous notion of the radical left and certainly should not have been included in a book on evolution! I also wonder, when Skybreak was criticizing the "criminal" funding policies of the "current Christian fundamentalist-influenced U.S. government" in Africa why did she not mention the fact that, due to President Bush, more money was given to Africa to combat the AIDS crisis than all of the previous administrations combined! It has been estimated that as many as 10 million Africans received life saving HIV drugs. This little fact did not fit with her very slanted political ideology so it gets left out. Of course, as stated earlier, political ideology has no place in a book on evolution, which brings me to my final complaint.....

MARXISM! Are you freaking kidding me? Why is it that so many academics that have come out of the Vietnam era became Marxists? How is it possible that one so bright in one subject can be so stupid in another? Are they not aware of the tens of MILLIONS who have perished as a result of a Marxist regime and/or dictator? Do they not know that the political ideology they admire can only be imposed by a totalitarian state? Do they not recognize that the political philosophy has failed in every country that has imposed it? At most importantly....what the hell does Skybreak's twisted political ideology have to do with the Science of Evolution and why do these ideas make it into her book? At least Stephen Jay Gould (perhaps the finest populizer of science) kept his Marxist ideas to himself (for the most part).

An excellent book that is nearly ruined by the author's vitriol towards believers and her insistence on injecting her radical political views into it.

This book includes many topics that the school systems like to avoid, but are good to know. It shatters some basic misconceptions about the nature of science and the definition of a theory. It represents what american society in particular considers "unwanted knowledge." I would reccomend this book to anyone who still wonders why monkeys are stil around if evolution exists and who are apathetic about accepting scientific explinations for national phenomina. It acts as a good supplement for what textbooks leave out.

As someone passionately concerned with the direction of science education, and is bitterly opposed to creationism of any form in the classroom, I not only cannot recommend this book, but advise responsible educators to steer far clear away from it, because it's only more ammunition for the science-haters. The laudatory reviews try to pretend that the author's explicit Marxist views are subtle, but they're not: she wears them very clearly on her sleeve, and uses them to make outrageous statements and ludicrous hyperbole that ranks with the worst of Kent Hovinid or Jack Chick. She gets the science right, but she makes the mistake of using it to justify preconceived political views, something which no responsible scientist does. When she starts denying Mao's purges, she demonstrates either complete historical ignorance, or complete moral vacuity. This is the type of book the lunatic creationist fringe will embrace in order to push their idiot notion that evolution is somehow a "communist plot", Lysenko be damned. Worse yet, it will only serve to turn away those who most need to be informed about evolution and the scientific method.

I found this book extremely offensive and abusive. I felt that every tactic she accused the creationists of using to promote their beliefs (some of her accusations are justifiable) was used by Skybreak in this book. If you like to attend pep-rallies for your high school team, you will like this book. If you want a book filled with hyperbole and venom, you will like this book. If you want a book that really talks about the issues, find a different book.

Skybreak skims over the so-called missing link between the reptiles and birds - the Archaeopteryx. When Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker talks (writes) about the Archaeopteryx in "What is Creation Science," they actually state BOTH sides of the debate and convince their audience of the plausibility of their argument. Also, where are all of the other "links" she claims exists?

Skybreak doesn't present both sides of the debate as far as embryonic development, either. The creationists present a good case that there is a definite need for the gill slits, the "tail bone" and "yolk sac" for fetus development and even present the evolutionists' argument to build upon their own. She only presents the other side saying they are leftover vestiges from evolutionary change which I found a very weak argument. Also, it is common thought that the appendix and the tonsils do serve a useful purpose, even if life can continue without them, just like life can continue without a gall bladder or spleen.

She did bring up the issue of peppered moths, but fails at convincing me that is evolution. I am still convinced they are and will continue to be peppered moths, no matter what coloring the majority have. Dogs are still canines even after thousands of years of domestication and still can mate with their ancestors--wolves. I liked when she brought up the issue of sickle cell anemia and malaria but failed to name any other mutation that could be considered beneficial for the organism. Again, she skimmed over the issue of homologous features, while claiming it proved evolution as truth.

I found it interesting that Skybreak did touch upon all of the issues the creationists are talking about and appreciated seeing the other side of the argument. I just found her vitriol too much to stomach while her attempt to explore the issues rather lacking. She used most of this book to throw jabs and blows to her opponents through condescension and mockery rather than debate her beliefs. After she started espousing Marxist politics and equated belief in a divine being with belief in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, I had enough.

I wanted an honest debate about the issues and Skybreak failed miserably in delivering this. I knew from the title it would be harsh on creationism and that was fine with me. I wanted an honest debate, but all she presented were weak, weak arguments supporting evolution and her frail subjective opinions about "the super-natural `designer.'"

This has got to be the worst book ever on this topic. Skybreak dichotomizes the origins issue, referring the Darwinism as "the truth" (page 3) and all theistic world views about origins as "myth" (page 15). She does admit her own bias; she left graduate school to devote herself "broader social and political commitments" (page 337) and became "a writer with a revolutionary communistic perspective" (page 338). Her book reflects this as she often directly or indirectly refers to her heroes, including Mao Tsetung (such as on page 280, 297, 299 and 325), Lenin (page 300), and Karl Marx (such as on page 22 and 299). She calls theistic evolutionists "creationists" (page 299) and openly defends "dialectical materialism" and the "communist" world view (page 299). She uses such examples as antibiotic resistance in bacteria as evidence of Darwinism and ignores the fact of fitness cost. I have taught microbiology for 20 years and every text we used did an excellent job covering this topic and none claimed that this complex adaptation system is evidence for neo-Darwinism. She notes that the difference between human and Chimp DNA is from 95 to 98 percent similar but ignored the fact that this represents between 150 million and 60 million base pair differences, an enormous chasm between the two creatures. She also neglects to discuss the many problems with these estimates and the fact that greater differences exist at the protein level. One cannot look at gene differences alone, but also the regulation system as well. She makes wild and irresponsible claims such as we could not deal with certain problems as antibiotic resistance without believing in neo-Darwinism, ignoring the fact that no small number of microbiologists, some who have make key discoveries in this area, are Darwin skeptics. I personally know of a handful. This is actually a favorite topic of, not only Intelligent Design advocates, but Creationists as well. She makes numerous medical claims that are worse than irresponsible, such as back problems are due to our evolution from quadrupeds when many quadrupeds have more back problems then humans. Back problems in humans today are largely due to lack of exercise, poor posture, improper lifting and our modern sedentary lifestyle among other reasons. I have never read a book with so much misinformation. I must admit this book is, for this reason, an interesting read. Almost every page has mistakes or misrepresentations on it. I just wonder, how in the world did she ever get this published??? Was there no review process?