In any field marked by an endless proliferation of droning monographs and marred by polemical debates, a collection of honest and well-thought essays written by various authors is always refreshing. Each contributor has a unique perspective, and because the essay format allows each one only limited space in which to express his or her views, the writing tends to be clear and punchy. And if the collection is skilfully compiled, it can reveal a broad spectrum of viewpoints while baring the cutting edge of the field in full gleam. Uncommon Dissent realizes all of these advantages.
Uncommon Dissent is divided into four sections: (1) A Crisis of Confidence, (2) Darwinism's Cultural Inroads, (3) Leaving the Darwinian Fold, and (4) Auditing the Books. The oddly-numbered sections contain three essays each; the even ones contain four each. Section 1 deals with the question of why an increasing number of people question Darwinian premises and conclusions. Section 2 deals with the effect that these premises and conclusions have had and are having on society and culture, largely through the offices of public and higher education. Section 3 deals with the intellectual transformations of three contributors (Behe, Denton and Barham) who have embraced and rejected Darwinism at different times in their lives. Finally, Section 4 - in my opinion, the section of greatest scientific and philosophical interest - deals with the internal and external consistency of Darwinism, offering more detailed analyses of the profoundly circular relationship between Darwinian premises, models, and conclusions.
The highlights of the book will be different for everyone. For me, they are too numerous to list here. A few of my favorites: an interview with world-class mathematician Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger, whose intelligence positively glitters off the page as he succinctly explains the mathematical failings of Darwinism vis-a-vis the critical dependence of biological science on various branches of applied mathematics (Section 1); an eye-opening expose on the failings and inequities of peer review by physicist Frank Tipler (Section 2); the wars fought between religious faith and scientific orthodoxy in the minds and careers of Michael "irreducible complexity" Behe and Michael Denton (Section 3); and every one of the essays in Section 4. Of particular interest to me in Section 4 were Roland Hirsch's evaluation of findings from the Human Genome Project, and an uncommonly penetrating discussion in Chapter 13 (Christopher Langan) of problems and potential solutions in the modeling of causal processes.
Finally, I think it appropriate to caution potential readers against overly pejorative, polemical or dismissive reviews. The kind of person who could write that kind of review regarding this kind of book is the kind least likely to have given it a fair reading, or having read it, to have fairly evaluated its contents. Accordingly, the complaints and motives of anyone impugning the contributors' intellectual honesty or denying the scientific relevance of their analyses should be viewed with suspicion. Not only do some of its authors write eloquently and with stunning honesty regarding their personal intellectual journeys, but the book also contains original and deeply-thought analyses of the models, methods and reasoning processes commonly employed by Darwinian scientists. Such analyses are both original and scientifically relevant; if they are not classified as "science" in the most restrictive sense of the word, then the word should be rethought, and in fact this point is one of many that the book convincingly makes.
As those familiar with the evolution controversy are already well aware, the Darwinism-versus-ID debate is politically supercharged. As in all politically-charged debates, those with the heaviest axes to grind are often the first to leap onto their own side of the balance in hopes of flinging the other side right off the beam. Obviously, this is not how scientific or public opinion should be shaped; meaningful opinions are formed not through the preemptive closing of minds by those whose minds are already closed, but only after close attention has been paid by all concerned to all sides of the debate. It would be well to remember this before giving much weight to the opinions of people who are plainly attempting to discourage a fair hearing for the opposition, especially when some of "the opposition" do not so clearly fit that description.
This book is worth every one of the five stars I'm giving it. If I had to choose one book from the entire library of books written on the "anti-Darwinian" side of the evolutionary debate - and after reading chapter 13, for example, I'm not so sure that "trans-Darwinian" wouldn't be a better descriptor - this would be it. It offers the clearest writing, the greatest variety of perspectives, some of the deepest insight, and holds the reader's attention like few others in the genre. Very highly recommended.
