Yesterday I finished Michael Shermer's book Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design, a book that I had been meaning to read for a while but I only now got around to doing (which seems to be the case for so many books, by the way). The subtitle says it all; Shermer, a frequent debater in the "conflict" between evolution and creationism, is out to destroy the notion of intelligent design.
It isn't hard. After years of being on the attack against science tooth and nail, with the Discovery Institute leading the way and funded by radical fundamentalists, proponents of this failed theology have been pushed back on nearly every front, laughed out of the courtroom in Dover, and have managed to publish exactly one peer-reviewed paper. That's right, one. Even that one wasn't about promoting Intelligent Design, per se, but it was a paper critical of a very specific idea in evolution.
In a valuable chapter, Shermer outlines the numerous evidences for evolution in brief. He continues on to tear the intellectual posturing of ID to shreds, as well it should be. It is not science, just a (poorly-conceived) theology dressed up in the trappings of science. The author does well in explaining just where an acceptance of ID would get us, and how the movement is not only unscientific at best but, at worst, would kill science as we know it.
The only problem I had with the book, and I suppose it was to be expected, was Shermer's attempt to show just why evolution should pose no problem for Christians and conservatives, the two groups most vocal in opposing evolution and supporting ID (take a glance at World Net Daily's website, for instance; any "science" there is vociferously anti-evolution, among many other things). Having read the theological reasons anti-evolution Christians given for why a literal Genesis matters, I don't think that Shermer's fuzzy theology is going to convince them to drop a six-day creation. Nor will it convince anti-evolution conservatives who have been steeped in a pervasive, anti-science culture.
For all that, Why Darwin Matters is a vigorous defense of the method and findings of science and a call to action against a religiously-motivated crusade to bring it to an end.
It isn't hard. After years of being on the attack against science tooth and nail, with the Discovery Institute leading the way and funded by radical fundamentalists, proponents of this failed theology have been pushed back on nearly every front, laughed out of the courtroom in Dover, and have managed to publish exactly one peer-reviewed paper. That's right, one. Even that one wasn't about promoting Intelligent Design, per se, but it was a paper critical of a very specific idea in evolution.
In a valuable chapter, Shermer outlines the numerous evidences for evolution in brief. He continues on to tear the intellectual posturing of ID to shreds, as well it should be. It is not science, just a (poorly-conceived) theology dressed up in the trappings of science. The author does well in explaining just where an acceptance of ID would get us, and how the movement is not only unscientific at best but, at worst, would kill science as we know it.
The only problem I had with the book, and I suppose it was to be expected, was Shermer's attempt to show just why evolution should pose no problem for Christians and conservatives, the two groups most vocal in opposing evolution and supporting ID (take a glance at World Net Daily's website, for instance; any "science" there is vociferously anti-evolution, among many other things). Having read the theological reasons anti-evolution Christians given for why a literal Genesis matters, I don't think that Shermer's fuzzy theology is going to convince them to drop a six-day creation. Nor will it convince anti-evolution conservatives who have been steeped in a pervasive, anti-science culture.
For all that, Why Darwin Matters is a vigorous defense of the method and findings of science and a call to action against a religiously-motivated crusade to bring it to an end.
Nice review, Brady...it IS a good book. And I fully agree, half-hearted efforts to bridge the gulf between religion and science are doomed unless one can truly hold two mutually contradictory ideas in one's mind simultaneously. Acceptance of an evidentiary approach to knowledge renders a faith-based approach incompatible. Scientists ought not to accept anything on "faith" but demand to see the evidence, and if evidence is not immediately available, demand at least to see the logic and internal consistency of the argument (all the while, seeking evidence). The situation with Einstein and relativity is a good example...the theory was widely accepted before the confirmatory evidence was obtained..but it was so because of the mathematical coherence and the elegance of the arguments. Even so, physicists were glad to see experiential support for the theory.
ReplyDeleteSo, what's with studying humanities, Brady? Come over to the light and join the Sciences.
ReplyDeleteBy Jove, Mr. Clemens, I dare say that that English "degree" is paying off. Well done. I look forward to reading your review -- should you write one -- on "George, Nicholas and Wilhelm: etc."
ReplyDeleteAh, being so close to the end of my two humanities degrees it would seem foolish to make another major in the sciences as well. It remains a great interest of mine, but one that I'll pursue outside of the classroom.
ReplyDelete