Book Review: The Making of the Fittest

Author:	Sean B. Carroll	Rating:	***** (3)
Date read:	March, 2010
Evolution vs. Creation Book:	3

This book is about the interplay between genetics and evolutionary biology. I think it is a very important topic, and an excellent presentation of the topic, in the study of evolution. As I expected, much of the science presented in the book deals with microevolution. The function of DNA and the science of genetics is something I was not at all familiar with prior to reading this book. Also, I knew that proponents of evolution cited DNA and genetics as indisputable proof, but I had no idea what constituted such proof. So the book was very informative, and mostly interesting, even fascinating in parts.

I appreciated the explanations of gene duplication and insertion as a result of mutations, something of which many creationists are apparently unaware. Also, the description of what the author calls “fossil genes,” which are sometimes called “pseudogenes,” was new information for me, and very interesting. One of the parts of the book that I did not really buy into was the so-called Evo-Devo science, which uses embryology as explanation of and evidence for complex organisms evolving from simple organisms or single cells. The embryology itself is fascinating, but I saw no evidence that it parallels evolutionary development of species.

The description of the different types of eyes, the genes involved in eye structures, and the hypothetical evolution of all animal eyes from a distant, unknown ancestor was interesting, especially in that some parts of the DNA act as controllers of the actions or effects of other genes, rather than directly on physiology. Fascinating, and it illustrates that there is much complexity in DNA which we have yet to fathom.

One mistake the author made, in his attempt to convince me of the unreasonableness of evolution deniers, was to compare them to people who are against mass vaccination. There happens to be a large body of evidence indicating that vaccines, and in particular mass vaccinations, are doing more harm than good, especially when viewed from the perspective of the evolution of the human species. Many, many respected scientists and medical professionals oppose vaccinations. Interestingly, the author calls for opponents of vaccinations to produce double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. This is exactly what many of these scientists have been clamoring for, for the past several decades. In fact, virtually no double-blind, placebo-controlled studies have ever been performed to test the safety and efficacy of vaccines. The author deals specifically with chiropractors who are anti-vaccine, some for ideological reasons. I have no particular wish to defend the premises of chiropractic, but the author dismisses the whole practice as quackery, which is as narrow-minded and dogmatic as fundamentalist Christians denying evolution with no research into the supporting science. The author showing himself to be so dogmatic and narrow-minded does not make me likely to believe that his arguments in the rest of the book are completely objective.

Another thing that has bothered me, and continues to bother me after reading this book, is the implication that modern advances in life sciences (such as agriculture and medicine, maybe?) somehow would cease to exist without, or could never have happened without, or in some other way are derived from scientific discoveries of how evolution works. This statement is made, in so many words, near the end of the book, with no indications of why this is true. I tend to believe it is not true. I can understand the progress in the science of genetics has also led to greater understanding of evolution. There may actually be some advantages to human civilization and life that come from these advances in genetic science, but I’m not aware of it. Gene-based medicines overall have been a flop, and GMO crops are one of many profit-based trends that threaten to destroy the ecology of our planet. So where are the great scientific benefits that have come from our “understanding” of evolution? If you take out the part of biology that is actually focused directly on evolution, what breakthroughs in the rest of biology have resulted from that knowledge of evolution?

The last chapter of the book contains an description of the problems of over-fishing and pollution, and warns that we are headed for disaster. I’ve seen this in other places, and fully believe it. It is one of many areas in which we humans are actively working to destroy ourselves. There is an implication that the decisions being made in this area, obviously bad decisions considering the long-term implications, are somehow related to a disbelief in evolution. That is definitely a stretch.

Book Review: Darwin on Trial

Author:	Phillip E. Johnson	Rating:	***** (4)
Date read:	March, 2010
Evolution vs. Creation Book:	4

Excellent, logical treatment of evolution itself and the debates surrounding it. Johnson is not a “young earth” creationist, so the age of the earth is not treated in the book. This is an advantage, because it enables the argument to focus on the key point:  does the evidence support the claim of Darwinists that all forms of life we see today evolved from a common ancestor through gradual changes due solely to natural influences. This is exactly what I attempt to focus on in approach the subject of evolution: what is the actual evidence for or against, without getting into alternative belief systems.

I tend to view problems and questions logically and analytically, and so I appreciated and related to Johnson’s approach. He makes what I have felt is a key point, which is not clearly enunciated in the other books I’ve read, that if Darwinism were true, the fossil record should be full of transitional forms; i.e., there should be more transitional forms than anything. Darwin and contemporary evolutionists contend that all of life is in a continual transitional state. Richard Dawkins, in “The Greatest Story Ever Told,” states that there is enough evidence for evolution without the fossil record. The problem is that the fossil record is not missing; the fossil record provides evidence that contradicts Darwinism. What we see is stasis, which is not what we would expect to see if evolution were true. Even granting the handful of exceptional fossils that could be interpreted as transitional forms, some more believably than others, the overall record of fossils shows species appearing suddenly, going through directionless and non-substantive changes, then disappearing from the record. This is the opposite of what it should be, if evolution were true.

Johnson provides a very useful explanation of how the term “evolution” is used by evolutionists to describe a broad enough array of concepts so as to make it very difficult to say whether “evolution” is a fact or not. Obviously, there is plenty of evidence for micro-evolution: the guppies, the bacteria, the famous case of the black/white moths, the finches, etc. We can see it happening, and we can see evidence of it happening in the past. Johnson explains how the evolutionists often cite evidence for microevolution as evidence for Darwinism, that is, the evolution of all life forms from a common ancestor. And he explains very clearly why there is no evidence, neither in the fossil record, nor in genetics, that the known mechanisms such as natural selection and mutation can or ever have resulted in development of major organs or new biological types.

Towards the end of the book, the author discusses the philosophical issues involved with naturalistic evolution. He makes the point that it is essentially impossible to separate philosophical/religious concerns from a discussion of evolution, because naturalistic evolution as promoted and taught by evolutionists includes a strong atheistic philosophy. A key aspect of this discussion is that evolutionists start with the assumption that no supernatural forces are nor ever have been at work in the universe. Since all life forms we see have been brought into being by purely natural forces, Darwinism is the best explanation we have of how this could have occurred. Therefore, we accept it as fact. He also explains how evolutionists and their supporters have framed the argument in such a way that “science” refers only to natural forces, and “religion” represents only superstition and fantasy.

Johnson describes some positive interactions he has had with evolutionists, including debates and discussions, and even presentations to university classes. He explains that he frames the question as what he calls “The Blind Watchmaker Thesis.” And he attempts to expose the philosophical, as opposed to evidentiary, approach to the question taken by evolutionists. Some evolutionists agree with him on this question, understanding that evolutionists tend to be dogmatic and guided by assumptions, reacting to criticism in ways that reflect this mindset and approach.

In summary, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the evolution debate, whether tending toward the creation or evolution side. There is lots more worthwhile material in the book that I have not covered in this brief review.

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.

Book Review: Darwin’s Black Box

Author:	Michael Behe	Rating:	***** (4)
Date read:	May, 2010
Evolution vs. Creation Book:	6

Behe makes a good case that Darwinism does not account for complex biochemical processes, i.e., molecular-level structures and processes within cells. He describes several examples in detail, showing the interaction and interdependencies among different components. Very interesting to me, having close to zero previous knowledge of biochemistry. Along with these examples, Behe also looks at the literature to see what biologists and other scientists have discovered or proposed as explanations of step-by-step development of these structures and processes, and finds there is virtually nothing there. The topic is not addressed in the literature in any meaningful sense at all.

Key quotes:

The English biologists Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders complain as follows: “It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian synthesis was formulated. A great deal of research has been carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the minutiae of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths; while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place.” 

In fact, none of the papers published in JME over the entire course of its life as a journal has ever proposed a detailed model by which a complex biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual, step-by-step Darwinian fashion. Although many scientists ask how sequences can change or how chemicals necessary for life might be produced in the absence of cells, no one has ever asked in the pages of JME such questions as the following: How did the photosynthetic reaction center develop? How did intramolecular transport start? How did cholesterol biosynthesis begin? How did retinal become involved in vision? How did phosphoprotein signaling pathways develop? The very fact that none of these problems is even addressed, let alone solved, is a very strong indication that Darwinism is an inadequate framework for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems.