Customer Reviews

Why Evolution is a Fraud: A Secular and Common-Sense Deconstruction

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

As a someone who has studied the History of Science, Botany, and Zoology at the University of Wisconsin, I take issue with the premise and content of this book. This is not how most researchers act, behave, or think. Most biologists I've met are careful, thoughtful, and engaging people as well as kind, caring, and compassionate.

The data presented in this book is piecemeal, often hinging on old arguments, and shows an obvious selection bias. Evolutionary theory is better understood at this point (e.g. in many ways, we know more about evolution than the theory of gravity) and supported by more different kinds of evidence than just about anything else in modern science . Save yourself time and skip this FRAUD.

Unlike many evolution opponents who criticize scientific books they never read, I took the time to read this one, thinking that at least it might present some new arguments from the creationism side (since it claims to bring a secular perspective to the anti-evolution argument). Unfortunately, it brings absolutely nothing new to the table, and merely consists of the same old tired religious arguments stripped of religion, basically boiling it all down to personal incredulity, which of course is not the same as doing good science. A worthless read, and now I want my 3 hours back.

Double-whammy against it: over $20 for a paperback??? And a shoddy one at that. If you feel you MUST read this book, check it out from your local library. But again, I advise against wasting time on this dreck.

It reads like a political diatribe. He manages to accuse 'evolutionists' of being Stalinists, Hitler supporters, and the cause of the Columbine massacre, while at the same time showing either his ignorance of what evolutionary theory actually has to say or his willingness to lie about it. In his first chapter he repeats the hoary old lie that evolution is all about randomness and chance. And the lie that Kettlewell glued moths to trees (has he never read a book written by a supporter of evolution to see what they actually say, or checked the Kettlewell story - if he'd read the book he quotes he would have discovered he was wrong?). He gets all excited about the fact that Haeckel's 1866 theory that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has long been rejected, and for some reason thinks that this proves evolution wrong (it doesn't). He makes the ludicrous claim that a "common theme of evolution" is "Monkeys and apes resemble humans so we must share a common ancestor." And he manages to accuse supporters of evolution as racists while at the same time complaining that primitive man is not depicted as blue-eyed, blond-haired anf fair skin (hardly a recipe for survival in Africa).
If you want to read something whose main message is a political one, eg his statement "When we stand by and allow the truth to be perverted by politically-correct, God-hating socialists, we bear some responsibility for the poisoned fruits that ripen as we sat idle", this is the book for you. If you want to read something objective about evolution, avoid this book like the plague.
And guess which one of the reviewers praising is apparently the author?

This book contains 119 pages and cited 33 books in its bibliography. Is this a learned scholarly book? The subject "evolution" is an important and wide-ranging one. The purpose of the book from its full title has an immediate and urgent appeal because of the importance and advancement in science. Religious and non-religious people will want to know if the author has something there that will start them thinking and re-evaluating their views whichever side of the divide they might be. Not much time would be wasted reading it because it is a short book, and not much money would be lost because it is not expensive. If, however, the reader wishes to know whether he would expend any time at all or any money at all for the sake of this book, I should point out that a passage that sums up the author's knowledge of this subject: "by now you know that evolution is not a science, but a humanistic philosophy that is based on hatred for God and an ignorance of legitimate science. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics, chemistry and mathematics can easily puncture the flimsy facade of evolution." (at pg.103) We can infer that he thinks biology is not appropriate for the purpose of evaluating the theory of evolution.

Mr. Sutcliff is a fine writer and most people with an interest in the topic will enjoy this book (there's a fair bit of unintentional comedy in it). Unfortunately, Mr. Sutcliff's not much of a thinker or reader. The core arguments in this book are weak and have been addressed by people with far greater credibility and academic standing.

The core audience for this book appears to be bible-thumpers, the type who rarely let reason get in the way of what they already know.

Ultimately this book doesn't do much for the evolution argument either way, but it does add support the old saw about "common sense being an uncommon thing."

It never ceases to astound me the hoops that some who believe fervently in some religious or mythical idea will jump through to try to deny the facts in front of their eyes. And then write a book about it...

People giving this ridiculous book a positive review should read(or reread) Francis Bacon's "Novum Organum", Descarte's "Discourse on Method", and Darwin's "the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Here is the critical paragraph from the concluding chapter to Darwin's book:

That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, -- that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct, which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind, -- that all organs and instincts are, in ever so slight a degree, variable, -- and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed.

As you'll notice he doesn't use the word "evolution". If you want to critique Darwin's book SCIENTIFICALLY you really have to do so using the scientific methods as formulated by Bacon and Descartes. "Why Evolution is a Fraud" is itself a fraud since it purports to offer scientific refutations of Darwin's theory but doesn't even provide a SCIENTIFIC argument, not even a poor one.

The title of the book claims "A Secular & Common-sense Deconstruction" of evolution. However, the author's title quote for his first chapter is from Dennis Prager, who is a right-wing religious talk show host! What an irony; the quote, to start the book, reveals the 'non-scientific' and slanted view of the author. My question is this: why don't people, who are not scientists and don't know much about science (not their slanted version of it), leave science alone and attend to their own illusionary perceptions of the world? Supernatural-oriented people tend to get stimulated by science, especially the parts of science that threaten their "faith", and find it their business to attack Darwinian evolution. When people write about the things that they don't understand (or don't want to understand), they are, in fact, discrediting themselves. Science is about reliable and valid observations and data. Heresay, gossip, envy, ignorance, distotion, bias, and wishful thinking cannot put any dents to science. If the author has any scientific evidence against evolution, he should bring it forward. Otherwise, he should be ashamed of himself, for meddling with something that is beyond his grasp (at least emotionally, if not intellectually). One cannot think scientifically if he is already indoctrinated (biologically or culturally) in a paranormal and suspicious fashion. Science is about facts, flexibility and change. Faith is about rigidity and status quo (of the past). Rigidity cannot make any comments about flexibility.

I haven't actually read this book, but from the introduction, the authors apparently haven't read anything about evolution, either, so I don't feel too guilty. Same tired logical fallacies, lies and false equivalences. If you're going to lie, at least be more creative!

This is a poorly written book. It's basically pseudoscience and self-fulfulling profecies for $20. Not a good read.