Scan barcode
alanyoung's review
3.0
The contributors to this book are able scientists with impressive knowledge of their specialist areas. Yet to me they seemed consistently to squeeze their scientific understanding into a particular manner of interpreting the early chapters of Genesis. Furthermore however ably one exposes evolution's Achilles heel it does not necessarily mean that the one alternative view is the correct one.
edders's review
2.0
It is hard to read books such as this one and harder still to think about how to rate them and how to describe them. Evolution's Achilles' Heels is a Creationist attack on general evolutionary theory from lots of different angles, and in places it steps beyond criticising evolution and atheism and promotes creationism instead. There were eight main chapters each focusing on a different area of evolutionary theory or evidence for it, one of which was entirely focused on morality and ethics. Overall different chapters provoked very different responses in me:
1) some chapters made me angry. I do not have a problem with strong criticisms of popular belief, and actually I see no reason not to criticise evolution. I didn't think evolution was technically a scientific theory before reading this book, since though it might make predictive claims it cannot by definition be replicated in a lab - certainly not the purported billions of years of change. However, I often felt that the authors of the different chapters of this book overstepped themselves and opened themselves up to counter-arguments. Evolution is sometimes set up in this book as thought to be perfect, thought to be brilliantly scientific and already fully explained and coherent. I didn't think this was the case anyway. Then, having shown that evolution is not perfect, they make the leap that the only other possible scenario is a 6,000 year old world and specifically a Judeo-Christian God. I find this jump unconvincing generally and was not swayed this time around either.
2) some chapters just went over my head. That's not criticism and it's not complaint: it just means I can't judge them. I don't know enough about radiometric dating to have my own stance on it, and to be presented with circular arguments about it - or given a very detailed attack on its use to promote evolution and a very old universe - made me feel uncomfortable.
3) some chapters are convincing. The way they are presented is clear and what they are talking about really does seem to challenge evolution. That's great. I like that the origin of life is something they want to scrutinise, and I don't have an issue with their pointing out that to an extent believing in evolution is just that, belief, rather than some masterful objective stance the logical scientist naturally arrives to. I just think that, as said above, sometimes they overstate evolution precisely so they can then knock it back. Overall I think more points to them and the scientific community in general, assuming everyone involved in the debate respect each other and are arguing in good faith with one another
4) the chapter on morality and ethics was probably the weakest of them all in my opinion. By departing from clearer experimental claims against evolution I think they lose lots of impact. I don't think moral absolutism is right, in part because so many groups of people seem to insist at the top of their voices "I'm right! Not all those others saying they're right - they're wrong - I'm the one that's got it right!" This really irritates me. In addition, they make arguments that moral relativism and Darwinism were strong influences on famous leaders such as Stalin, Hitler and Mao, and that their evolutionary worldview and their atheism and their lack of adherence to Christian dogma was central to their evil and the millions of deaths they caused. Why? How do they know that? They make very strong claims on the role of Darwin's theories in, for instance, Nazi ideology, school shootings and increased youth suicide. I personally think it very arrogant and maybe ignorant to take circular logic and belief in your 'objective' superiority as your fundamental worldview, which is something that all monotheistic religions do by definition. Christianity was linked to a huge amount of, for instance, colonialism, and the authors make no attempt to address this. They make the argument that we all have an in-built moral compass because God made us in his image and he created our notion of righteousness and justice, but then say that now we have all turned away from any fixed notion of good and evil. You cannot have it both ways - but maybe I am simplifying their arguments. I appreciate morality and ethics are no doubt dealt with more subtly and more skilfully elsewhere - but I think this last chapter of the book should be taken with a pinch of salt, because there are lots of jumps and spurious claims in it, especially in comparison to the other chapters.
Overall I feel I was probably unfair to this book since I do not support the worldview on which it is based; however on the other hand I am prepared to have my own worldview challenged and have tried to be fair. As they suggest, we should all be able to make up our own minds on issues such as these.
1) some chapters made me angry. I do not have a problem with strong criticisms of popular belief, and actually I see no reason not to criticise evolution. I didn't think evolution was technically a scientific theory before reading this book, since though it might make predictive claims it cannot by definition be replicated in a lab - certainly not the purported billions of years of change. However, I often felt that the authors of the different chapters of this book overstepped themselves and opened themselves up to counter-arguments. Evolution is sometimes set up in this book as thought to be perfect, thought to be brilliantly scientific and already fully explained and coherent. I didn't think this was the case anyway. Then, having shown that evolution is not perfect, they make the leap that the only other possible scenario is a 6,000 year old world and specifically a Judeo-Christian God. I find this jump unconvincing generally and was not swayed this time around either.
2) some chapters just went over my head. That's not criticism and it's not complaint: it just means I can't judge them. I don't know enough about radiometric dating to have my own stance on it, and to be presented with circular arguments about it - or given a very detailed attack on its use to promote evolution and a very old universe - made me feel uncomfortable.
3) some chapters are convincing. The way they are presented is clear and what they are talking about really does seem to challenge evolution. That's great. I like that the origin of life is something they want to scrutinise, and I don't have an issue with their pointing out that to an extent believing in evolution is just that, belief, rather than some masterful objective stance the logical scientist naturally arrives to. I just think that, as said above, sometimes they overstate evolution precisely so they can then knock it back. Overall I think more points to them and the scientific community in general, assuming everyone involved in the debate respect each other and are arguing in good faith with one another
4) the chapter on morality and ethics was probably the weakest of them all in my opinion. By departing from clearer experimental claims against evolution I think they lose lots of impact. I don't think moral absolutism is right, in part because so many groups of people seem to insist at the top of their voices "I'm right! Not all those others saying they're right - they're wrong - I'm the one that's got it right!" This really irritates me. In addition, they make arguments that moral relativism and Darwinism were strong influences on famous leaders such as Stalin, Hitler and Mao, and that their evolutionary worldview and their atheism and their lack of adherence to Christian dogma was central to their evil and the millions of deaths they caused. Why? How do they know that? They make very strong claims on the role of Darwin's theories in, for instance, Nazi ideology, school shootings and increased youth suicide. I personally think it very arrogant and maybe ignorant to take circular logic and belief in your 'objective' superiority as your fundamental worldview, which is something that all monotheistic religions do by definition. Christianity was linked to a huge amount of, for instance, colonialism, and the authors make no attempt to address this. They make the argument that we all have an in-built moral compass because God made us in his image and he created our notion of righteousness and justice, but then say that now we have all turned away from any fixed notion of good and evil. You cannot have it both ways - but maybe I am simplifying their arguments. I appreciate morality and ethics are no doubt dealt with more subtly and more skilfully elsewhere - but I think this last chapter of the book should be taken with a pinch of salt, because there are lots of jumps and spurious claims in it, especially in comparison to the other chapters.
Overall I feel I was probably unfair to this book since I do not support the worldview on which it is based; however on the other hand I am prepared to have my own worldview challenged and have tried to be fair. As they suggest, we should all be able to make up our own minds on issues such as these.
More...