The Evolution Controversy: A Survey of Competing Theories [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

This book is a technical, well-organized, and critical overview of the controversy's history, issues, rhetoric, evidence, arguments, and counterarguments on all major sides, without taking sides. It is quite informative and fair, in my opinion, and sorely needed.

Reading through reviews, it looks like some people criticize this book because of its inclusion of ideas by people they disagree with, or its failure to stake a position that agrees with their own (or to even stake a position at all). I think some have misunderstood the authors' intent in writing this book. Some perhaps did not actually read the book's content all the way through. Before you buy this book and then complain that it wasn't what you would prefer in a book on evolution, read the following. (And before you review the book, please read it first.)

WHAT THIS BOOK IS AND IS NOT:

This book IS:
- an information resource on a controversy
- an attempt at a neutral survey of the available evidence, various arguments, and sides in a current controversy
- a starting point for those wanting a better grasp on the issues at stake
- an attempt at proposing criteria to be used by thoughtful readers in analyzing arguments for themselves
- an attempt to focus discourse on the scientific aspects of a scientific question

This book IS NOT:
- an argumentative discourse on what side in the controversy is right or wrong
- an apologetic work on Darwinism
- an apologetic work on Creationism
- an apologetic work on Intelligent Design
- a condemnation or dismissal of Darwinism, Creationism, or Intelligent Design
- an attempt to claim that all sides in the controversy have equally valid positions
- an attempt to deny the possibility that any particular side can be right
- a Christian book
- an atheistic book

If you are seeking a book which takes a strong position on the evolution controversy, a book which tells you what you ought to conclude, a book which supports your own views on the controversy, a book which champions Darwinism and discredits Creationism,a book which champions Creationism and discredits Darwinism, or a book which exposes Intelligent Design as a Creationist trojan horse, this book is NOT what you are looking for. There are other books that would suit you better.

If you seek a broader grasp of the evidence and questions at stake in the controversy and the arguments made by opposing sides, so that you can better understand the claims, news, and discourse that you encounter on the subject and make conclusions for yourself, you found the right book.

I think it fair to state my position: I'm trained in physical science, and until five years ago I accepted Darwin's theory blindly, and admired Dawking's books as the summum. Now I have my doubts: I find some of the objections levelled against Darwinism reasonable, although I recognize there's not as yet any competing theory: only, as I said, some objections, which might or might not prove true. On balance, I tend to be a theist with agnostic overtones, and I KNOW science has nothing to say about the general problem of existence.

I was uncertain how to rate this book. It's a very good intro to the subject; however, if you know something about the evolution controversy, large parts of it will sound very repetitive. So for beginners (only?):

Strong points:
1) It's written in a wonderfully civil style, which is a nice thing indeed, given that in most books on the subject and reviews of them one finds mostly an exchange of rancorous epithets, and no consideration at all for the genuine arguments the other side is trying to make (especially, I regret to say, from the naturalist camp): it has become an ideological and power contest, somewhat like string theory in physics.
2) It is written for the complete layman: it explains for example the conditions an hypothesis should fulfill to qualify as a scientific theory.
3) It has a systematic, if somewhat superficial, procedure for rating the competing theories.
4) It gives a (to my knowledge) unbiased presentation of Darwinism (oops! I meant the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis) with some of its variations -which it calls meta-Darwinism-, YEC and ID, separating to its credit the last two, although I think the conceptual difference could perhaps have been presented better, or more forcefully (although I admit nothing is easy in this controversy, where practically everybody has its slightly nuanced opinion on the facts of the matter). For me for example it was a surprise to learn that at least some YECs are trying to formulate scientific accounts of how the geological and fossil scenario came about. There's even a theory of physicist Walter Brown/CSC that the book says makes 31 falsifiable predictions, some or which have been verified. Prior to reading this, I had thought all YECs to be a nutty bunch. Now I must revise my opinion, even if the available evidence continues to be heavily slanted against their (alas multiple and incompatible) contentions, and if the concept of an inerrant sacred book strains credibility if you don't already belong to the faithful.
I was also very surprised to learn that the Director of the NCSE advises evolutionists not to debate creationists.
5) It has references to Internet links to several sites for each position discussed.
6) It's easy to read.

Weak points:
1) It doesn't make sufficiently clear that the controversy is really between a naturalist world-view (Darwinism and meta-Darwinism) and one that admits/requires -although not necessarily, see below- some type of divine intervention (YEC's and IDers).
2) It doesn't emphasize enough that science, by its very nature, cannot take into account teleological explanations. In that sense, science is justified in rejecting non-natural explanations: even if true, they are beyond its scope, and if scientists try to build a picture of reality, it MUST by definition be a strictly natural one.
3) It gives short thrift to Christian (and by extension also theist) evolutionism, implicitly equating it with a God-of-the-gaps approach. Really, if a Supreme Being exists, He could perfectly well have planned the laws and initial conditions of the Universe to produce life and humans, without any further intervention from His part (admittedly some Jewish's, Christian's and Moslem's conceptions of God present some problems with this view, better examined in a book on philosophy of religion). Also, I think it doen't mention that alternative when speaking about the ID movement, although I dimly seem to recall it's presented as a possibility in one of Behe's writings.
4) Some assertions are wrong (as for example Note 127 on page 233 of the PB edition, on Aspect's test of whether a hidden-variables quantum theory can be local) or wrongly stated, leaving open the doubt of what else might be.
5) It neglects to mention, when speaking of ID, the possibility that some intelligences might require a simpler substratum than our own carbon-based one (as for example suggested in Hoyle's science fiction classic "The Black Cloud"), and that therefore the infinite regress -who designed our designer, and who him, and so ad infinitum- might be avoided. Probably it's an outlook nobody in the ID camp actually holds, and for that reason it isn't mentioned, but it's an hypothesis certainly germane to ID in its less theistic (or atheistic, although I doubt anybody in the ID camp would accept the idea) form.

All in all, a good book. The less you know about the problems discussed in it, the more you'll like it and profit from it. You'll also probably become a convinced naturalist after having read it, since the evidence presented implicitly (and I would say ovewhermingly) favours that position, although in a neutral way (nominally, in the end, you'll have to make up your mind).

The work gives creationists (those currently most prominent) involved in the "evolution controversy" a fairly neutral hearing, which one doesn't often find outside the Christian/creationist press. But creationism has many very different streams, and authors are inconsistent in lumping them and separating them. And they go overboard in places when working to deflect criticism away from creationists. For example, they accuse a prominent evolution supporter of "propaganda" and trying to "smear" creationists with the label of flat earthers and geocentrists. Consulting the text they cited for the claim shows this is to be a patently false and grossly unfair accusation. The author made it quite plain creationists with those views were on the extreme fringe, very few in number remaining any more (though they aren't extinct yet!), a different breed from the young earth creationists and inconsequential in the modern evolution debate. Authors also overstate the influence of today's more scientifically rigorous creationists as well, and minimize the influence their slip-shod brethren in the movement still hold. Tsk tsk. The information put forth by the most prominent and influential spokespersons in today's creationist circles has changed little in the last twenty or thirty years.