|
|
|
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
|
|
|
|
The most helpful favorable review
| |
The most helpful critical review
|
21 of 47 people found the following review helpful:
required reading
The most prized Creationist writings are required reading for Evolutionists. Otherwise, we cannot refute all the latest falsehoods with which our Creationist brethren are being fed. Here are a few morsels from their latest hit--Of Pandas and People:
<<<<< Stanley Miller's experiment >>>>>
The authors discuss an experiment which sought...
Published 17 months ago by Robertson Thomas
|
› See more 5 star, 4 star reviews |
 |
676 of 764 people found the following review helpful:
Poor, incomprehensible science lives on
I finally got around to reading this book, and was astonished to find that nearly all of Michael Denton's impossibly wrong account of hierarchies in taxonomy was included as chapter six. Denton, in his "Evolution: A theory in crisis" bases the whole of his argument against common descent on a profound misunderstanding of the nature of molecular data. The error...
Published on January 29, 2004 by Matthew J. Brauer
|
› See more 3 star, 2 star, 1 star reviews |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
676 of 764 people found the following review helpful:
Poor, incomprehensible science lives on, January 29, 2004
I finally got around to reading this book, and was astonished to find that nearly all of Michael Denton's impossibly wrong account of hierarchies in taxonomy was included as chapter six. Denton, in his "Evolution: A theory in crisis" bases the whole of his argument against common descent on a profound misunderstanding of the nature of molecular data. The error is so egregious that, had he submitted it to any organismal biologist for review, it would have been obvious enough to warrant the cutting of the chapter. Denton himself has acknowledged the error, and retracted his attack against common descent.So what does it say that this "textbook" accepts with an uncritical eye the argument, verbatim, and makes it the foundation of its discussion on molecular systematics? Only that the authors were ill-informed about the field. It is unfathomable that any student will get anything of scientific substance from this book. The arguments are incoherent, and the data are woefully out of date. The representations of modern biology are laughably simplistic. As a propoganda tool, Of Pandas and People is of marginal value, as its muddy arguments are not likely to make much of an impression on thoughtful students. As a "science textbook" it is downright shameful.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
451 of 529 people found the following review helpful:
Where's the Science in this Book?, February 19, 2003
This book engages in simple false alternative negative argumentation against evolutionary theory and provides no positive arguments in support of intelligent design. The book opens stating, "...we will present interpretations of the data proposed by those today who hold the two alternative concepts: those with a Darwinian frame of reference, as well as those who adhere to intelligent design.", yet research scientist George Gilchrist of the University of Washington was able to find only 37 instances of the keyword "intelligent design" in over 6,000 scientific and academic journals worldwide. Of the 37, most were irrelevant dealing with computer software or hardware, architectural or engineering design, advertising art, literature, fertilizer manufacture, or welding technology. Only 7 had anything to do with biology, and of these, 5 were discussions of the debate over using the Pandas textbook by various school boards and 2 were comments on Behe's book in a Christian magazine. There is not a single instance of biological research using intelligent-design theory to explain life's diversity, and though both Davis and Keynon are professional scientists, neither has apparently published anything in the professional literature about their theory. This book is systematically dismantled by Robert T. Pennock in his book, "Tower of Babel" and has been criticized by creationist, Norman L. Geisler, professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, because the book "appeas[es our] enemies [by] avoiding the word 'creation' like the plague" and for not clearly distinguishing their view from that of "naturalistic (pantheistic) 'creationsits' who see the creator within the universe." Pandas is guilty of violating every fallacy of argumentation outlined in chapter six of David Kelley's book, "The Art of Reasoning" ...lessons learned by first-year philosophy students, and amounts to little more than vague and ad hoc negative argumentation based on a false dichotomy with frequent hyperbolic congratulatory statements epitomizing delusions of grandeur. Two stars because it makes an excellent example of what not to do when arguing in support of a theory, and makes excellent dissection material for students of the philosophy of science. It clearly illustrates the difference between the religious and scientific attitude: To hold on to belief come what may is a sign of religious virtue. Contrarily, science takes it to be a virtue that one withholds belief in the truth of a proposition until it is supported by the weight of evidence. And there's the basic theme of the book: To believe in Intelligent Design Theory in the absence of good evidence is a matter not of science, but of faith.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
159 of 192 people found the following review helpful:
Goat's Eggs and Duck's Milk, May 13, 2003
This book is a pseudoscientific masterpiece. Laudatory reviews from the authors' own corner musn't mislead us into giving this book anything less than two-thumbs down. The authors have used many tools of bad reasoning to establish their deliberately flawed theory - for instance presenting the Cambrian Explosion as an instantaneous event; rather than an 'explosion' in cosmic timescale. So the typical high-schooler who has little idea of the scope of cosmic time (in which a million years is mere table stakes) will deduce that the Cambrian Explosion is evidence of instantaneous Intelligent Creation! Voila! How fabulous! To develop a substantial understanding of the Cambrian Explosion one has to read much more beyond an Undergrad text book - one has to comb thru a 100 papers and at least 3 textbooks on evolution. Only then will one understand that the Cambrian Explosion happened over several millions of years and it in fact is one of the strongest bodies of evidence that supports evolution. The sections on molecular biology are so incorrect that it is virtually useless. "Creationism" sympathisers derive their opinions from such pseudoscientific tracts and swallow the incorrect criticisms therein and make statements like, "there are serious flaws and yawning gaps in explanations of evolution..." instead of taking the time and trouble to read through the voluminous scientific literature on the subject or at least going through a good text book in their library. But then who is interested in the pursuit of knowledge?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 of 119 people found the following review helpful:
At least get your quotes right...., August 18, 2005
One doesn't have to open this book to appreciate how eager the authors are to make their point, even at the expense of truth and respectable scholarship. The blurb they wrote to attempt to get their work into the schools under guise of a textbook offers "in 1980 Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould pronounced the "neo-Darwinism synthesis" to be "effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."
Anyone who has ever read Stephen Jay Gould (as opposed to merely fishing for anti-Darwin quotes out of context) would know that he is one of the most devoted proponents of evolutionary theory in the world today. Books such as "the Panda's Thumb" (ironic title given this book, eh?) blow to pieces the usual arguements about "structure of the eye", and similar complex biological structures, that are so often raised by creationists to discredit Darwin. In its place he presents the facts supporting a theory so elegant, logical, and just downright correct that the more we learn about biological systems, the more we see evolutionary theory supported down to the smallest microbe.
What Gould and many other scientists have long acknowledged was that while Darwin's basic theory of evolution is cleary correct, the fine points of the mechanism of genetic change are not yet fully understood. Gould points out the flaws in Darwin's original assumptions on this count, and analyzes the fossil record and other scientific evidence in a SCIENTIFIC manner to offer up what is now one of the leading modern theories to explain this mechanism...Punctuated Equilibrium. In doing so he never ceases to support Darwin's original premise, but goes about questioning the details of the original theory in a scientific, logical manner, and arrives at deductions which continue to support Darwin's greater theory. The quote given above is not a denial of Darwin's theory as a whole, but of a particular school of thought regarding how it is to be applied.
(His theory, BTW, blows out of the water 99.99% of all the creationist arguments against Darwin. Well worth reading, if you really care about this issue.)
Anyone wishing to understand the workings of evolution, and the *facts* so often misquoted in pseudo-scientific works such as this, are recommended to read "ever since Darwin" and "the Panda's Thumb" by Gould. There you will see how a *scientist* handles the kind of "questioning" and "controversy" rightfully covered in a science class. You will also likely come away moved by his own belief that Darwin's theory is wholly compatible with God, that science and religion compliment one another, and that faith need not require setting science aside...nor does it excuse writing shamefully dishonest "textbooks" that feign scientific method, while not even being honest enough to quote a scientist in the proper context.
Shame on the authors for abusing the writings of a great man to sell their book. Given how they handled that quote, I would not myself trust one other word they ever wrote, on anything.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
87 of 103 people found the following review helpful:
baaaaaaaad science, August 14, 2005
This review is based on the original 1989 edition. I have not seen the later revised edition.
The "science" in this book is extremely bad. For a school board member to recommend this book as a supplementary science text is evidence of incompetence.
One long example of this, which I am glad to see has been covered by other reviewers, is the account of taxonomy based on genetic sequence data. Their account of the standard evolutionary interpretation is wrong, wrong, wrong! Having also read Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", I know where they got this seriously incorrect understanding of evolutionary genetics. A correct understanding of evolutionary genetics would reveal that the sequence-based taxonomy is in remarkably good agreement with the fossil-based taxonomy.
In the acknowledgments, it is stated that "First came a round [of review] by scientists engaged in teaching and research, then a round by high school teachers, then a second round by scientists." Apparently by "scientists" they mean "Creation scientists", because it is clear that no one competent in molecular biology ever approved the content of this book.
Another error: "For instance, in skeletal structure, the North American wolf and the now-extincet Tasmanian wolf are nearly indistinguishable. If found as fossils, they would surely be counted as members of the same species." I am not a qualified paleontologist, so I asked one. They told me (as I expected), that this is just plain wrong. Find a qualified paleontologist and try this experiment yourself.
A shortcoming: the section on the origin of life gives short shrift to the RNA World Theory, which has held up remarkably well and which is backed up by evidence such as the discovery of catalytic RNA and the discovery that the core catalytic component of the ribosome consists of RNA.
Outdated: 'Arguments from ignorance' are used (science has yet to explain X, therefore the 'intelligent designer' must have done it), and some of these point out gaps in the fossil record (e.g. whale ancestor fossils) which have now been filled. Science marches on.
In addition to the factual errors, omissions and archaisms, logical errors are prominent, chiefly the 'argument from design'.
Boiling it all down, when the bad science and bad logic are excised, not much remains except for the cute picture of a panda on the cover. Really, it is cute.
I regret that the Amazon rating system does not allow the awarding of zero stars. One picture of a panda is not worth a whole star.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
105 of 125 people found the following review helpful:
A textbook without science?, December 15, 2004
I had hoped that the editors would have addressed more fully the impetus and reasoning for their advancement of "Intelligent Design" idea (not theory). But alas, the text is muddled and full of misquotes by evolutionary biologists, just as it is in the publisher's review on the Amazon.com page. Ask any natural scientist, and they can present several concrete examples of evidence that support the main ideas of evolution. The "disagreements" that scientists have with evolution are in the subtle nuances of the theory, like the various mechanisms and smaller points.
Scientists, like me, spend their whole life working for peanuts with little or no recognition. We would love to be the next Einstein or Salk; if anyone of us were to disprove or come up with any hard evidence against Darwin's basic principles, we would be instantly famous and world reknown. It hasnt happened, we DO try to disprove evolution, thats why it is so robust, enough as to believe it to be truth.
No conspiracy here, folks. -Just science.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
119 of 164 people found the following review helpful:
Grossly misleading to students of biology, January 10, 1999
By A Customer
As scientists, one would expect the authors to have a thorough grounding in biology. As authors of a textbook of biology for high school students, one would expect them to fully inform their readers of the intricacies of evolution and creation science. While their knowledge is evident, The authors use it to mislead and misinform their audience. For example, the Hardy Weinburg equilibrium, which says that gene frequencies remain constant from generation to generation under a strict set of guidelines, is used to support the impossibility of macroevolution. The authors neglect to mention what anyone with a high school education knows: that this is true only when the population is infinitely large, mating is random, and no genetic drift occurs. Since this never occurs in natural populations, the argument is invalid. Secondly, the authors point to the incredible odds against the correct sequence of genes coming together in one individual to create a giraffe. Think about the unlikely circumstances of your own birth. Any of millions of sperm could have fertilized your egg, and had you been conceived a month earlier, it would have been a different egg. The odds against your birth were trillions to one against you, yet here you are. It is not the odds of genes coming together, but the fact that they do that creates the incredible diversity of life. These examples are not vague evolutionary theories, but solid mathematical facts which have been mangled by the authors' biases. I would urge readers to learn the facts of biology before consulting this purposefully misleading propaganda diguised as a textbook.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
| | | |
