Online discussion and chat forum of Premier Christian Radio
The Greatest Show, a brief book review
I have so far only read the book through once and in this review, I simply want to discuss how RD uses the evidence for evolution that has been used before.
I did learn some new things from this book, as you would expect from a scientists book which is 470 pages. There were several things that gave me 'pause for thought' and I did learn of some interesting experiments, but as for the so called 'convincing evidence', I will leave the 'believers' to let that cat out of the bag. I will just give a short introduction now :-)
RD starts off in his ‘Preface’ by stating that ‘this book is my personal summary of the evidence that the ‘theory’ of evolution is actually a fact-as incontrovertible a fact as any in science’...’Looking back on [my previous] books, I realized that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and this was a serious gap that I needed to close’ (His word is ‘those’).
So, first of all he acknowledges, that his previous books have not presented the ‘evidence’ and this book, a sort of ‘Dawkins of the Gaps’ ;-)
So before getting into the book’s chapters, let us cover in a general way how he deals with the ‘Icons of Evolution’ that have been used as evidence for evolution in the past, but have recently been criticised by the ‘history-deniers’
The Miller-Urey experiment. He makes a brief reference to this (P418,419), but does not use is as ‘evidence’ but simply states, “The ‘reducing’ atmosphere inspired the famous experimental attack on the problem of the origin of life, Stanley Miller’s flask full of ingredients, which bubbled and sparked for a week before yielding amino acids and other harbingers of life. Darwin’s ‘warm little pond’, together with the witch’s brew concocted by Miller that it inspired, are nowadays often rejected as a preamble to advancing some favoured alternative. The truth is that there is no overwhelming consensus. Several promising ideas have been suggested, but there is no decisive evidence pointing unmistakably to any one.” (emphasis added) later on the same page he admits, “We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, “
So in regards to the Miller-Urey experiment, he does not see it, or use it as an evidence of evolution.
Darwin’s Tree of life. Although RD does mention ‘a tree of life’, the Hillis plot P329
an example can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg
He does not, to my recollection anyway, discuss Darwin’s tree specifically.
He does use the phrase “This is a truly astounding fact, which shows more clearly than anything else that all living creatures are descended from a single ancestor” P315 (speaking of the DNA code) and similar phrases, to state that we can trace our origin back through a ‘tree’ to one ancestor, but he does not illustrate this, but only states it as a ‘fact’. I am sure that some people may want to discuss this, but I am pretty confident that they will not be able to present any ‘evidence’ to show that it is a fact, only that they ‘believe’ that it is a fact. RD does not present any evidence for it, though this seems to be the point of the book!
Homology in Vertebrate limbs. This is discussed, and perhaps some people will want to take some time to ‘discuss’ if it is valid, but perhaps one quote will give an idea of this subject. “In post-Darwinian times, when it became accepted that bats and humans share a common ancestor, zoologists started to define homology in evolutionary terms. Homologous resemblances are those inherited from the shared ancestor. The word ‘analogous’ came to be used for resemblances due to shared function, not ancestry. For example, a bat wing and an insect wing would be described as analogous, as opposed to the homologous bat wing and human arm. If we want to use homology as evidence for the fact of evolution, we can’t use evolution to define it.”
(P312,313)
Haeckel’s Embryos. This is not mentioned at all, and perhaps this is because he knows that they have been discredited, and should not be used. He admits this in his interview with Wendy Wright (part of which he quotes on pages 198-202) but as I have pointed out before, they are still being used in 2007 in a book which he later recommends! (Evolution- What the fossils say) see attached photo
The only mention in this book (that I can remember) of Haeckel is on page 308, where he says “Darwin would surely have admired Haeckel’s draughtsmanship”, when referring to an illustration of his printed on p309 of some ‘crustaceans’
`
Archaeopteryx: The missing link. This is mentioned, but only in a rather dismissive way as if there is no need to do so, as there are so many ‘intermediate’ fossils now.
“ ‘Produce your intermediates!’ Evolutionists often respond to this challenge from history-deniers by throwing them the bones of Archaeopteryx, the famous ‘intermediate’ between ‘reptiles’ and birds. This is a mistake, as I shall show. Archaeopteryx is not the answer to a challenge, because there is no challenge worth answering.” P151
Maybe, someone wants to discuss what ‘real’ intermediates there are, if there are any ;-)
Peppered Moths. As far as I can remember, they are not mentioned at all, though our texts books have included them as ‘evidence’ for so long, RD does not even mention them! Hopefully we have heard the end of this bad example of ‘evolution before our eyes’!
Darwin’s Finches. The phrase may have been mentioned, but only in passing, and they were not discussed as ‘evidence’. So hopefully we can live these behind in future discussions too ;-)
Four-winged fruit flies. Though, these have been touted in the past as an example of a ‘beneficial mutation’, there is no discussion about this, or the experiments that have been used in the past. The poor fruit flies are now reduced to the background, and the much discussed ‘beneficial mutations’ fare little better, as they are not illustrated as evidence in the book either.
Fossil horses. These are briefly mentioned, as is the ‘evidence’ of the whale evolution, but they are brief mentions and the fossil evidence in general in the book is very ‘poor’ and indeed, he simply reprints a illustration of whale evolution directly from ‘Evolution –what the fossils say’, p171 and advises that you get that book. (You know, the one with the Haeckel’s embryo’s ;-) Of course he has to admit that the illustration does not show whale evolution, but ‘suggests’ that whales are descended from a ‘cousin of Ambulocetus’ The illustration is simple a line drawing, as our most of the ‘fossil evidences’ and they are only the ‘opinions’ and ‘interpretation’ of the author, and his illustrator. There are several mentions of ‘new fossil evidence’ recently discovered, but of course, we cannot take them as evidence, as the interpretation given to them is open to discussion at the moment and they have not even been agreed yet.
From ape to human This is discussed in chapter 7, the one in which he quotes Wendy Wright. Though she was obviously not a scientist, and this is probably the reason why he was willing to have an hour long conversation with her, as she was not able to reply to him as ‘a scientist’. It was interesting that he does not have an hour long interview with any of the ‘historydenier’ scientists, who may be better qualified to answer him.
I will be happy to discuss the ‘evidence’ presented in this chapter
Anyway, this is just a brief overview of what RD has said about the former ‘Icons of Evolution’ which apparently RD does not feel are good enough to be repeated in this latest book. Perhaps the ‘historydeniers’ have made some impact after all ;-)
I will start to prepare a more detailed review of the book, and go over the chapters one by one. If anyone thinks that I have been unfair in anything I have said here, I will be happy to rectify, or clarify
Brian
I did learn some new things from this book, as you would expect from a scientists book which is 470 pages. There were several things that gave me 'pause for thought' and I did learn of some interesting experiments, but as for the so called 'convincing evidence', I will leave the 'believers' to let that cat out of the bag. I will just give a short introduction now :-)
RD starts off in his ‘Preface’ by stating that ‘this book is my personal summary of the evidence that the ‘theory’ of evolution is actually a fact-as incontrovertible a fact as any in science’...’Looking back on [my previous] books, I realized that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and this was a serious gap that I needed to close’ (His word is ‘those’).
So, first of all he acknowledges, that his previous books have not presented the ‘evidence’ and this book, a sort of ‘Dawkins of the Gaps’ ;-)
So before getting into the book’s chapters, let us cover in a general way how he deals with the ‘Icons of Evolution’ that have been used as evidence for evolution in the past, but have recently been criticised by the ‘history-deniers’
The Miller-Urey experiment. He makes a brief reference to this (P418,419), but does not use is as ‘evidence’ but simply states, “The ‘reducing’ atmosphere inspired the famous experimental attack on the problem of the origin of life, Stanley Miller’s flask full of ingredients, which bubbled and sparked for a week before yielding amino acids and other harbingers of life. Darwin’s ‘warm little pond’, together with the witch’s brew concocted by Miller that it inspired, are nowadays often rejected as a preamble to advancing some favoured alternative. The truth is that there is no overwhelming consensus. Several promising ideas have been suggested, but there is no decisive evidence pointing unmistakably to any one.” (emphasis added) later on the same page he admits, “We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, “
So in regards to the Miller-Urey experiment, he does not see it, or use it as an evidence of evolution.
Darwin’s Tree of life. Although RD does mention ‘a tree of life’, the Hillis plot P329
an example can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg
He does not, to my recollection anyway, discuss Darwin’s tree specifically.
He does use the phrase “This is a truly astounding fact, which shows more clearly than anything else that all living creatures are descended from a single ancestor” P315 (speaking of the DNA code) and similar phrases, to state that we can trace our origin back through a ‘tree’ to one ancestor, but he does not illustrate this, but only states it as a ‘fact’. I am sure that some people may want to discuss this, but I am pretty confident that they will not be able to present any ‘evidence’ to show that it is a fact, only that they ‘believe’ that it is a fact. RD does not present any evidence for it, though this seems to be the point of the book!
Homology in Vertebrate limbs. This is discussed, and perhaps some people will want to take some time to ‘discuss’ if it is valid, but perhaps one quote will give an idea of this subject. “In post-Darwinian times, when it became accepted that bats and humans share a common ancestor, zoologists started to define homology in evolutionary terms. Homologous resemblances are those inherited from the shared ancestor. The word ‘analogous’ came to be used for resemblances due to shared function, not ancestry. For example, a bat wing and an insect wing would be described as analogous, as opposed to the homologous bat wing and human arm. If we want to use homology as evidence for the fact of evolution, we can’t use evolution to define it.”
(P312,313)
Haeckel’s Embryos. This is not mentioned at all, and perhaps this is because he knows that they have been discredited, and should not be used. He admits this in his interview with Wendy Wright (part of which he quotes on pages 198-202) but as I have pointed out before, they are still being used in 2007 in a book which he later recommends! (Evolution- What the fossils say) see attached photo
The only mention in this book (that I can remember) of Haeckel is on page 308, where he says “Darwin would surely have admired Haeckel’s draughtsmanship”, when referring to an illustration of his printed on p309 of some ‘crustaceans’
`
Archaeopteryx: The missing link. This is mentioned, but only in a rather dismissive way as if there is no need to do so, as there are so many ‘intermediate’ fossils now.
“ ‘Produce your intermediates!’ Evolutionists often respond to this challenge from history-deniers by throwing them the bones of Archaeopteryx, the famous ‘intermediate’ between ‘reptiles’ and birds. This is a mistake, as I shall show. Archaeopteryx is not the answer to a challenge, because there is no challenge worth answering.” P151
Maybe, someone wants to discuss what ‘real’ intermediates there are, if there are any ;-)
Peppered Moths. As far as I can remember, they are not mentioned at all, though our texts books have included them as ‘evidence’ for so long, RD does not even mention them! Hopefully we have heard the end of this bad example of ‘evolution before our eyes’!
Darwin’s Finches. The phrase may have been mentioned, but only in passing, and they were not discussed as ‘evidence’. So hopefully we can live these behind in future discussions too ;-)
Four-winged fruit flies. Though, these have been touted in the past as an example of a ‘beneficial mutation’, there is no discussion about this, or the experiments that have been used in the past. The poor fruit flies are now reduced to the background, and the much discussed ‘beneficial mutations’ fare little better, as they are not illustrated as evidence in the book either.
Fossil horses. These are briefly mentioned, as is the ‘evidence’ of the whale evolution, but they are brief mentions and the fossil evidence in general in the book is very ‘poor’ and indeed, he simply reprints a illustration of whale evolution directly from ‘Evolution –what the fossils say’, p171 and advises that you get that book. (You know, the one with the Haeckel’s embryo’s ;-) Of course he has to admit that the illustration does not show whale evolution, but ‘suggests’ that whales are descended from a ‘cousin of Ambulocetus’ The illustration is simple a line drawing, as our most of the ‘fossil evidences’ and they are only the ‘opinions’ and ‘interpretation’ of the author, and his illustrator. There are several mentions of ‘new fossil evidence’ recently discovered, but of course, we cannot take them as evidence, as the interpretation given to them is open to discussion at the moment and they have not even been agreed yet.
From ape to human This is discussed in chapter 7, the one in which he quotes Wendy Wright. Though she was obviously not a scientist, and this is probably the reason why he was willing to have an hour long conversation with her, as she was not able to reply to him as ‘a scientist’. It was interesting that he does not have an hour long interview with any of the ‘historydenier’ scientists, who may be better qualified to answer him.
I will be happy to discuss the ‘evidence’ presented in this chapter
Anyway, this is just a brief overview of what RD has said about the former ‘Icons of Evolution’ which apparently RD does not feel are good enough to be repeated in this latest book. Perhaps the ‘historydeniers’ have made some impact after all ;-)
I will start to prepare a more detailed review of the book, and go over the chapters one by one. If anyone thinks that I have been unfair in anything I have said here, I will be happy to rectify, or clarify
Brian
- Attachments:
-
-
embryology eivdence.JPG, 823 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Steven Carr on -
Atheists often blow their own trumpet. After Antony Flew abandoned atheism, he declared himself to have been the world's most notorious atheist. Forget Stalin or Pol Pot, Flew was the world's most notorious atheist.
Of course, people have to read The God Delusion for themselves, as they wil then check the accuracy of Robertson, somebody who cannot even spell my name correctly more than 1 time in three, yet claims to be able to read books and decide if they have intellectual substance.
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Tweed on -
Hi Steven,
I think you are right about atheists liking to blow their own trumpet.
I recently came across a site which claims to be The UK's leading atheist page (see attached)
He or she must be a really reasonable and rational person.
Brian - Attachments:
-
-
uk leading atheists.JPG, 14 KB
-
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Tweed on
-
Hi David,
I just joined the RD site a few days ago, and I saw the comment from RD himself telling why you were sin-binned, as apparently you disrupt interesting and meaningful discussions!!
Just as a point of interest, I am with the Open University, and that girl, you know the one that give such a trouncing to your book ;-). Let's call HER PAUL K, ( don't get too upset if you can't spell a name correctly, at least when you mis spell it you don't change their sex as some people have done)
Paula K was the moderator of the OU Atheist forum up until last week. She resigned as moderator, because of all the fighting and bickering going on amongst all the OU STUDENT atheists.
Just a few days after she resigned, the fighting got so bad, the the controller closed the forum.
So much for MATURE , rational and reasonable, atheist students LOL
Brian
-
Permalink Reply by Edward Sulivan on -
I'm reading this book, and am thoroughly enjoying it. It presents reams of evidence for evolution and natural selection, although if you choose to willfully ignore it all, I suppose that's your privilege. Dawkins is certainly not shy about confronting anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution, but has had lots of experience talking to brick walls, so I understand his weariness with arguing with someone who refuses to listen and think.
Look, if you're a committed Christian, you can't really give rationality (and scientific thought, and scientific theories, and even many demonstrable facts) a chance, or else everything comes crumbling down, like when as a kid you first started to wonder how Santa actually managed to tour the whole world in one night.
-
Permalink Reply by Mr McStizzle on -
So if youre a committed Christian, you can't present a statement in justification for your belief and actions, you can't present a premise for an argument, you can't think or argue in a logical manner, you can't form conclusions, judgements and inferences from facts or premises, you can't support with reasons, you can't acknowledge the empirical method, you can't believe in gravity and you can't believe in anything you see ("facts")? That's what you're saying? So to be Christian is to be completely devoid of intellect? To be Christian is to more or less be inhuman as all human beings have the inherent capacity for all of the above, otherwise everything comes crumbling down?
Honestly, what complete and utter rot. By all means, give rationality a chance and actually examine what you have just said. Furthermore, are you aware that the empirical scientific method was devised by Christians and based on biblical principles? I.e. scientists began to examine nature in the same way they examined scripture. How bout that? But no, of course if you're a "committed Christian" this is somehow impossible. Certainly a paradox I would say ;)
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on -
Brian
You oversimplify science both in its method and history.
There is no one method of science and the methods have changed and it can be said that parts of erlier science are now dead science.
Further the vast variety of scientific methods have many roots, Greek, Egyptian, Christian Muslim and of course the Enlightenment. So we cannot say that the method of science (non-existent) is built on biblical principles anymore than it is built on the Quran
-
Permalink Reply by Mr McStizzle on
-
I am not Brian, Michael.
I am talking about our modern scientific method :)
Have a read:
http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
Sorry MCSTzzzz
I get confused. However there is not ONE modern scientifc method but several to the embarressment of YECs.
I read Safati's article whch misread's Peter Harrison's work and is his usual substandard argument.
Sorry to dissappoint you, but it is best to live in the real world and not a parallel YEC universe
-
Permalink Reply by Mr McStizzle on
-
That's alright.
And by all means I would love to read your correction of the article.
What makes you think im disappointed? You've offered nothing that refutes my point.
It's odd that you keep saying there are several scientific methods when where ever I look, it is the SCIENTISTS (Not just YEC's) who say that the method is that which is represented in the image.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
Mr McStizzle
I dont know where you got your flow chart on THE scientific method but it is feeble and not correct.
It assumes you must have an experiment. Much science is not experimental and there are other ways of testing. It also excludes epidemicolgical surveys which are statistical as well as historical science.
Also it is almost impossible to prove your hypothesis to be true, as at best it may appear to be true until something comes along to disprove it or modify it
Where is it from?
-
Permalink Reply by Fergus Gallagher on -
"Test with an Experiment" should be generalized to "Try to falsify Hypothesis". That covers MrM's criticism, I think.
-
Permalink Reply by Andy Clitheroe on
-
I know I'm supposed to be waiting until I have read the book too, but I just couldn't let this one slide by:
How these random mutations were able to know how the insects saw them and was able to ‘select’ this type of ‘mutation’ over time to build up this nice runway is not fully explained, or understood, I suspect.
Brian, you are already in possession of all the necessary information, and are at least two orders of magnitude smarter than one strictly needs to be to extrapolate the answer. I know you can do it. So how about it? Why don't you explain to me what drove the process? :)
Advertisement
Report an Issue
Have you seen any offensive content? Or abusive postings? Help us make this a safe and friendly environment. Please let us know! We have also established certain rules for using this social site.
If any of the discussions or topics on Premier Community have affected you please contact Premier Lifeline. Lifeline is a confidential Christian helpline there for you from 9am until midnight, 365 days of the year. A fully trained team are ready to offer a listening ear.
A Listening Ear
If any of the discussions or topics on Premier Community have affected you please contact Premier Lifeline. Lifeline is a confidential Christian helpline there for you from 9am until midnight, 365 days of the year. A fully trained team are ready to offer a listening ear.
Amazon at Premier!
FEATURED EVENT:
Click here to book your tickets for only £7.50
Badge
© 2010 Created by Premier Christian Media
