Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
It's a jolly good read,
By Paula Gilliver (New Zealand) - See all my reviews
This review is from: The monkey business: A scientist looks at creationism (Paperback)
I read this book a while ago, and unfortunately lost it in a trade with a gentleman who had given me a creationist book to read. The book itself is very accessible, easily read and quite fascinating, particularly if you are interested in finding out just how creationists attack evolutionary theory. Yes, he supports evolution (he and Niles Eldredge presented the world with punctuated equilibria - of course he does), but he does give credit where it is due and does not completely treat creationists as ignorant or stupid - quite the opposite in some areas. However his frustrations do show thru in portions, as do his fears of creationism taking a greater hold in schools - mainly due to lack of understanding of the scientific process and/or scientific theory not only in the general populace - but within the science teacher population as well. The book also is useful for gaining some insight into the operation of scientific theory, and addresses some misconceptions. It is however, *not* a scholarly work - it lacks the depth and the volume one would expect for that. It won't convert anyone - I don't think that was the intention. It is a good introduction, quite "chatty" and informal. In that respect it succeeds.
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
someone who has actually read the book -for a change,
By
This review is from: The monkey business: A scientist looks at creationism (Paperback)
At the outset I will say I have given the book 5 stars so that it's overall rating is not unfairly affected by the 3 previous commentators, who are cleary making 'interventions' and don't appear to have even read the book - they certainly make no actual reference to its content. I am really getting tired of this hack political activism from lazy people who simply paste a slab of slanted quotes onto a page, then insult our intelligence by masquerading them as "reviews". This is the internet equivalent of interrupting people in a street cafe and shoving pamphlets under their noses- it is disrespectful, boorish... and its design is anything but intelligent.
As for the book, Eldridge writes clearly and with engagement. He is a passionate and vocal champion, not only of evolutionary theory generally, but of a particular position within it, as the co-founder of the theory of "puncuated equilibrium". Due to Eldridge's background, there is a strong emphasis on the use of the fossil record as the evolutionist's primary tool and therefore on natural selection as a process in which organisms' environments exert strong selective pressure. Writing from personal experience, it is a vivid introduction to anybody wishing to understand the world of the rock-hound. It is worth remembering that fossil's are exceedingly difficult to study; the paleontologist needs to be part anatomist, behaviourist and very much a detective. I enjoyed Eldridge's account. He builds his argument clearly and logically. However, some of the sharpest responses to the I.D. argument from irreducible complexity are not featured, as they owe more to very recent developments in genetic and molecular theory - an area of biology with which Eldridge has tended to have an uneasy relationship. A more multidisciplinary approach is required to understand how exactly evolution works, in particular the ways that genes affect embryo development and the means by which structured complex organs are controlled by specialised genes working in a heirarchy etc. To that end, I recommend Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" for a broader view; Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish" is also great, as well as McNamara and Long's "The Evolution Revolution". Finally, it is appropriate to point out that Eldridge explicitly takes issue with the notion that science must equate to atheism. He criticises the confusion of scientific principles with values and argues that science and religion need not be in conflict. (further evidence that only 2 reviewers here have actually read the book.)
7 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
A look at some myths about scientists,
By Sir Joshua (I-95) - See all my reviews
This review is from: The monkey business: A scientist looks at creationism (Paperback)
One of the most common ideas that people have is that creation science is somehow more biased, more 'one-eyed' than 'real science'. After all, creationists begin with the Bible, so how can they be objective, like other scientists are? Many creationist writings have already pointed out the impossibility of dealing with the past directly, without having some sort of beginning bias. This review will not repeat any of that, nor will it again point out the essentially religious nature of evolution. Instead, it will deal directly with the powerful myth that scientists are somehow neutral and super-objective in their approach to evidence. In doing this, one is not being anti-science or anti-scientist; the findings apply to all scientists, including those of creationist persuasion. We are just facing up to the fact that scientists are as human as anyone else. A 1980 sociological research paper surveyed scientists on their attitude to the most common traditional beliefs about themselves and their profession.[1] Some of the interesting results: (1) Belief: Science is organized scepticism. This means that '. . . no scientist's contribution to knowledge can be accepted without careful scrutiny, and that the scientist must doubt his own findings as well as those of others.'[2] About three-quarters of the scientists surveyed disagreed with this, and said that in fact it was not abnormal to accept what fits your own conception on a subject, and doubt that which does not. We read that the history of science demonstrates'. . . that scientists often operate in a subjective way and that experimental verification is of secondary importance compared to philosophical arguments, at least in some of the major conceptual changes that have occurred in science.'[3] (2) Belief: Emotional Neutrality. This means that a scientist should not have an emotional commitment to particular ideas or theories. This was very strongly rejected by a great majority of the scientists surveyed. Referring to another study,[4] the author states that 'the myth of science being a passionless enterprise, carried out by objective detached men, does not hold.' And further, that 'the image of the objective emotionally disinterested scientist is taken seriously only by the layman or by young science students.' The interesting thing about this and similar surveys is not only that the popular image is wrong, but that the professionals know it to be so, and accept this as normal. It seems that the classical view of the scientific endeavor may not even be regarded as an ideal to strive for, since the respondents did not even try 'to live up to the idealized image of the objective, critical, disinterested truth seeker who shares his discoveries and information with his colleagues.' All this is, of course, only what one would expect from what Stephen J. Gould calls a 'quintessentially human activity' (referring to science). And as humans, the vast majority remain deeply emotionally committed to a view of origins which allows them to escape responsibility to their Maker and Redeemer, and which seems to do away with the ideas of sin and judgment. Hopefully, with this information in mind, one can better evaluate claims from evolutionists feigning scientific objectivity (creationists at least will acknowledge their starting bias). REFERENCES: [1] Nina Toren, 'The New Code of Scientists', 1333 Transactions on Engineering Management, Volume EM-27, No.3, August 1980. [2] N.W. Storer, The Social System of Science, Holt, Rinehart, Winston, New York, 1966, p.79. [3] S.G. Brush, 'Should the History of Science be Rated X?' Science, Volume 188, March 22, 1974, p.183; T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1970. [4] American Sociological Review, Volume 39, August, 1974, pp.579-95.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
