Book Review: Why Evolution is True

Author:	Jerry A. Coyne	Rating:	***** (3)
Date read:	May, 2010
Evolution vs. Creation Book:	5

My perspective on this book is that overall it is more emphatic than analytic. Many subjects are covered, and the author brushes over, or more frequently completely ignores, any evidence contrary to the points being made, including problems known and acknowledged by other evolutionist authors. Simply stating emphatically that things are thus and so, and the evidence obviously proves such-and-such beyond any doubt does not substitute for in-depth analysis. One exception to this tendency is the chapter on biogeography, which the author states up front is somewhat of a specialty for him, and his favorite part of evolution to teach. This subject is covered thoroughly and comprehensively, at least in my uneducated viewpoint.

Coyne follows what is becoming a familiar pattern in the “pro-evolution” literature, which is insulting creationists and more generally anyone that espouses religious beliefs. Some examples:

“The battle for evolution seems never-ending. And the battle is part of a wider war, a war between rationality and superstition. What is at stake is nothing less than science itself and all the benefits it offers to society.”

“On the Origin of Species turned the mysteries of life’s diversity from mythology into genuine science.”

“Matchbooks resemble the kinds of creatures expected under a creationist explanation of life. In such a case, organisms would not have common ancestry, but would simply result from an instantaneous creation of forms designed de novo to fit their environments.”

“Now, science cannot completely exclude the possibility of supernatural explanation. It is possible — though very unlikely — that our whole world is controlled by elves.”

It seems from what I have read in other places that there is somewhat of a consensus that the fossil record overall shows stasis within species over time, and sudden changes rather than gradual ones. If this were not the case, why would alternate theories such as “punctuated equilibrium” and its predecessors have been developed by evolutionist biologists? Coyne does not mention this at all (except in a very brief mention of the Cambrian explosion at the end of the book, blending it in with other unrelated questions about mechanisms of evolution that are not well understood). Instead he insists (emphatically, of course) that the fossil record unfailingly and universally demonstrates gradual changes in species and gradual divergence of living forms into new species. Since there is no know genetic mechanism that could produce these relatively sudden changes, ignoring that such changes exist in the record lets the author off the hook of explaining how they could happen. Coyne states, “…the fossil record gives no evidence for the creationist prediction that all species appear suddenly and then remain unchanged. Instead, forms of life appear in the record in evolutionary sequence, and then evolve and split.”

Another example of ignoring contradicting facts where they are inconvenient is his use of Java man in the explanation of human evolution. Java man was discredited as a fraud only a few years after its discovery, and this has been admitted by evolutionists. Peking man, also cited without reservation by Coyne, is shrouded in mystery, as the bones were confiscated and hidden before rigorous scientific study could be performed. Such clear cases of playing fast and loose with the facts cause me to ask myself in how many other cases with which I’m not familiar has the author included information as “evidence” which is either questionable or outright false. Not a good way to inspire belief and acceptance of the points propounded in the book.

The philosophical approach to the study of evolution is present in this book as in other similar works. For example: ”How do we know that creationists are wrong when they say that selection can make small changes in organisms but is powerless to make big ones?  But first we must ask: What’s the alternative theory? We know of no other natural process that can build a complex adaptation.” No other “natural” process is known, therefore natural selection must be responsible, even though we have no clue how this might have worked. The same old philosophical approach, i.e., “true science” denies the possibility of any not “natural,” in other words, supernatural, influence or even existence in the universe. Therefore only natural explanations can be considered. Here’s more:

“Naturalism is the view that the only way to understand our universe is through the scientific method. Materialism is the idea that the only reality is the physical matter of the universe, and that everything else including thoughts, will, and emotions, comes from physical laws acting on that matter. The message of evolution, and all of science, is one of naturalistic materialism.”

“But supernatural explanations like these are simply never needed: we manage to understand the natural world just fine using reason and materialism. Furthermore, supernatural explanations always mean the end of inquiry: that’s the way God wanted it, end of story. Science, on the other hand, is never satisfied: our studies of the universe will continue until humans go extinct.”

There are a few things wrong with this last quote. First, it puts reason and materialism together as if they are inseparable. As the study of Christian apologetics and other philosophical approaches to fundamental questions about life show, it is possible through reason and logic to arrive at the existence of the supernatural. Second, we don’t understand the natural world just fine with a purely materialistic approach. For example, why does the universe (and why do we) exist? And what started the evolutionary chain of events (abiogenesis)? And why is there this driving force of survival as exemplified in natural selection? If evolution is true, why does it happen? Where did the natural laws come from? Why do they work the way they do? Third, supernatural explanations do not automatically mean “the end of inquiry.” Go down the list of well known scientists through the ages who have made significant contributions to knowledge about our universe. Many of them were creationists, with firm beliefs in the supernatural. This didn’t seem to prevent them making the discoveries that serve as the foundations of modern science.

In summary, this book provides a thorough and convincing explanation of how discoveries in the area of biogeography fit very well with darwinist teachings regarding evolution. This is an area of evolution which, so far, I have not seen any creationists answer. In the beginning of the book, the author states that he has written this book partly with the intention of providing a convincing argument to open-minded creationists. In my opinion, he has failed in that mission. Much of the book is too superficial to truly convince one who is not predisposed to acceptance of evolution; and besides that the book frequently throws out insults of those with religious beliefs–not exactly motivating skeptics to accept the author’s viewpoint.