Top critical review
43 people found this helpful
One deceit trying to fight another
on June 23, 2004
This is an interesting book for a number of reasons. I try my best in all my reading to cover all sides. I have read the "evolutionist" doctrine from one side. I have also read the "creationist" doctrine from the other. The author has obviously read about paleoanthropology, and has provided a clear and concise viewpoint. However, from the very beginning, as an explanation of that viewpoint, the author has decided what works for him and what doesn't.
There is much contentious evidence in the science. Paleoanthropologists will all agree with this. There is also a huge amount of consistent evidence. However, the author has written what amounts to an "encyclopedia of the contentious evidence in evolution". The bulk of significant and objective data has been ignored to prove a point. And although he tends not to state it to much, his viewpoint is purely one of religion.
I agree with some of what this book says. Many arguments thrown forward by paleoanthropology (and other sciences for that matter) have often not been as solid as the science would require for more credibility. However, the science itself does recognize this and is being far more self-critical than it has ever been. This is not to say that paleoanthropologists are becoming creationists. It merely says that they realize now that this is a far deeper conundrum than they previously thought. They are humble enough, at least, to question the doctrine that has been put before them by their predecessors. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the creationists
The problem so often with religions institutions is that it believes the sciences it wants to (i.e.. The ones that support what the religion agrees with), but discounts any that it simply does not like. However, the basis is purely one of choice. There is never reasoning as to whether a science is "good" or bad". Though a casual observer can easily guess whether a science would be considered "good" or "bad", simply by deducing whether that science disagrees with religions claims. If it does, it is "bad". This, however, is not thought and reasoned by the followers of the religion, but is told to them by a hierarchy.
There is certainly a great argument to say that life was created. The seed of life on this planet cannot be explained at this point. It is quite possible that it was created. Whatever was capable of creating the beauty and endurance of nature and the almost perfect plan by which it endures is worthy of a great deal of respect and note. However, it is only the arrogance of people that they cannot accept that we are only a part of that larger process of diversity. We are not a culmination of anything at all, but a step in the greater plan of nature to provide possibilities for development
1) The author criticizes paleoanthropology for being subjective and yet selling itself as real. However, his own argument is weak for the same reasons.
2) Everyone has the right to believe what they wish. To try to educate fairly and objectively is a task for us all. However, to hard-sell criticism (of evolutionism or creationism) to meet the aims of yourself and those that already agree with you is not fair. At the point we stand now, evolutionists are striving to consolidate the evidence they have into consistent theories. Sadly, the same cannot be said for religious institutions.
3) Latin names are not created so that they sound official. It's called "binomial nomenclature".
4) Decide for yourselves.