I personally enjoy Dawkins clever writing and all his rabbit chasing, and the passion for the subject that he can not hide, so personally I didn't enjoy this book as much as The Greatest Show on Earth. But it's a very good general-interest overview of the science of evolution.
Reading these two books together, I realize how much my education as a child failed me, largely because my science teachers were clearly afraid of wrath of the religious influences in our community if they really taught the facts of evolution. To me that this is still going on is a travesty. Since I started the quest for a book that I could share with young-earth creationists, I've realized the search is a futile one.
Once you realize where creationists begin their argument, you realize there's no point in trying to have a reasoned conversation with them. They start by stating their hypothesis is fact, and indeed is revealed through God's own words. Then they work in reverse. Anything that doesn't support this conclusion is suspect, and is thrown out, or otherwise ignored. They aren't looking at the evidence to see where it leads, they are looking at the evidence to figure out how to discredit it, or how they can possibly warp it into a way in which it might lend some kind of credibility to what they already believe.
Their minds are already made up. They have no respect for the scientific process, and consider the academic process of peer reviewed publication--probably one of the greatest things to happen to the process of learning--to be a conspiracy. I don't know how I forgot this, but i'm grateful for the reminder. Far greater minds than me have been unable to get these people to see how flawed this worldview is.
It's certainly not something I'm going to cure. So I think this book concludes my quest. I don't think it will sway many minds that are already made up, But if you're someone out there just looking for a great overview so you can learn more about about the massive evidence used to understand the process that got us here, or if you genuinely don't know what to believe, because science education in this country has failed you miserably, this is a great place to start.
One more thought. I think he should have left the final chapter out. I understand why he feels like he needs to assuage fears that if society in general accepts evolution is true, we'll quickly de-evolve into a pack rabid dogs, but i don't think the argument is something that can be tacked on to this conversation and dealt with fairly in a few pages, and I don't think it has any place in a book about the science itself. It's the job of science to excavate the truth about how the world around us works.
It's up to philosophers and religious leaders and the like to figure out what to do with that information. I think the fear of evolution destroying religious world views is about as rational as the fear that the entire universe doesn't revolve around the earth will end the Christian world view. When religion and science spar, historically, religion always loses, and it always finds a way to bounce back. I think the best way to forward for science is to continue to present the evidence and let the religious leaders work out how they're going to work it into their wordview, though I see why Coyne and Dawkins and others feel that to this point, that approach hasn't worked out so well.
Still I think the important point that should be hammered relentlessly is that science makes no commentary on faith. Evolution makes no true commentary on God. It isn't even a theory on origins, merely a theory on how life adapted over time. Faith deals with the super-natural. Science stops at the natural world. I think the scientific world would make better progress if they continue to make this point with the religious communities.
View all 7 comments. May 07, Kevin rated it it was amazing Shelves: anthropology , reviewed , biology , science , evolution , own , non-fiction.
Coyne is direct and no-nonsense. Evolution is not a belief, it's a science. It's a science supported by years of research and literally mountains of evidence. And, like any true science, the timelines and conclusions have been tweaked and recalculated with the introduction of new data.
In the end, everyone will draw their own conclusions. Either the theological nar Coyne is direct and no-nonsense. Either the theological narrative of the origin of life is not entirely accurate or the sciences of paleontology, anthropology, astrophysics, genetics and evolutionary biology are bogus and irrelevant.
View all 26 comments. Aug 06, Douglas Wilson rated it it was ok Shelves: apologetics-evangelism. Coyne admittedly had the uphill struggle of trying to prove something that is not true. View all 29 comments. Aug 13, Richard rated it it was ok Shelves: creation-evolution-id , science. I'd give it 2. Seeing how I think he's wrong, though, I'll downgrade rather than upgrade.
I'm not going to try to untangle all the mixtures of agreement and disagreement.. Coyne succeeds in presenting a case for neo-darwinian evolution I'd give it 2. Coyne succeeds in presenting a case for neo-darwinian evolution. By which I mean, he successfully explains observations in light a modern evolutionary theory. He paints a fairly complete systematic understanding of the history of life. I recommend the book to everyone for this reason.
Wilson is correct when he writes in the blurb on the back that this is a "clear, well-written explanation of evolution. That's a major drawback of the book A further detriment is the apparently intentional strawman portrayal of creationists. There is an endnote on page 33 that explains the creationist position as allowing for microevolutionary change within biblical 'kinds'.
But this is the only place in the book creationists are treated this honestly. Everywhere else 'special creation' is caricatured as a special creation event for each and every species of organism. It is dishonest and, once again, takes away from the argument of the book. The final failure of the book I will mention is the last chapter, where Coyne attempts to deal with philosophical and metaphysical implications of evolution.
It is a sad attempt You can't. View all 33 comments. Jun 30, David rated it liked it Shelves: science. First of all, this is a very well-written book that powerfully makes the case for Darwinian evolution. The author is well-versed in the subject. I would recommend this book to anyone who, like me, has little knowledge of the actual science of evolution but wants to learn.
That said, I am not really bothered by evolution and I am an evangelical Christian, though not a creationist. Yes there are theological challenges that the science of evolution brings to scripture.
I don't think these challen First of all, this is a very well-written book that powerfully makes the case for Darwinian evolution. I don't think these challenges are as much in Genesis 1. Genesis 1 comes across poetically and I highly doubt whomever wrote it was intending to write modern science. The bigger challenge comes in Genesis 2 and 3 which presents Adam and Eve as the first humans and of course, Paul speaks of Adam as the first human in parallel to Christ as the new human.
But even there, many Christians have found a way to reconcile evolution and faith. The rest of this is not so much a review of the book as my thoughts on the real questions at the heart of the debate which are philosophical, not scientific, questions I think part of the problem in the whole debate is the rhetoric both sides use.
Throughout the book Coyne attacks creationists. To some degree this is necessary as creationists are the ones most opposed to evolution. But such rhetoric tends to put people on the defensive. I mean, I think everyone has been in an argument where they knew they were wrong but kept arguing anyway to save face. The fact is that whether evolution is true or not is irrelevant to the question of whether God exists.
A parallel to other sciences may help make my point. The Bible talks often about God sending rain and sunshine. Yet when meteorology explains how weather patterns occur naturally, no one blinked an eye. People of faith continued to see that behind those natural processes, God is still involved in the weather. There is no battle to get a creationist view of meteorology taught in schools. But I imagine when you read a meteorology textbook there are no slams on God, there is no argument that because we know how weather arises naturally we know God has nothing to do with it.
When we get to evolution, the dialogue changes. Again, this is not a knock on Coyne for he is specifically defending evolution against creationists, so of course he will attack them. I just wonder how the debate would change if both sides admitted that the science of evolution does not prove God does not exist.
Maybe I am idealistic, but if we heard more people in the middle believers who accept evolution, nonbelievers who accept evolution but admit it does not rule out God and less extremes both Richard Dawkins and Ken Hamm see evolution as ruling out God perhaps the debate would change. Coyne manages to mostly avoid the problem of moving from science into philosophy.
In the last chapter he writes: "How can you derive meaning, purpose, or ethics from evolution? Evolution is simply a theory about the process and patterns of life's diversification, not a grand philosophical scheme about the meaning of life" In the next paragraph he notes that finding meaning, purpose and moral guidance are outside the domain of science.
But by the end of the chapter Coyne is talking about "deriving your spirituality from science" That seems muddled. Right before this, he writes: "The world still teems with selfishness, immorality, and injustice. But look elsewhere and you'll find innumerable acts of kindness and altruism.
There may be elements of both behaviors that come from our evolutionary heritage, but these acts are largely a matter of choice, not of genes. Giving to charity, volunteering to eradicate disease in poor countries, fighting fires at immense personal risk - none of these acts could have been instilled in us directly by evolution" Then where did they come from?
Not science. He goes on to say evolution acts in a "purposeless, materialistic way" This is okay, because people find meaning in all kinds of places, including religion Then he gets to spirituality from science, ending up with a quote from an author lamenting the failure of science to replace conventional religion He ends by assuring us that accepting evolution will not cause us to behave like beasts because, well, look how much great art and literature humans have made.
I do wonder though, earlier he talks about infanticide among lions If humans are just a part of nature, then why is infanticide wrong for us? Likewise, he seems to lament humans introducing foreign species into habitats that then kill native animals off But if humans are part of nature, are we not just playing a role in natural evolution where some animals survive and others do not? It appears like on one hand he is saying the science of evolution says nothing about religion for science only talks about how.
On the other hand, if only we could get rid of religion and just have science. But back to the first hand, science alone gives us no meaning and purpose. Thus, we have some vague "spirituality from science", whatever that is.
To me, it seems muddled. Overall, this is a good book to learn about the science of evolution. But whether this science is true or not and Coyne makes a strong case that it is reveals little to nothing about the questions of meaning, purpose and God's existence. View all 47 comments. Jan 04, Jesse rated it it was ok Shelves: science. This one is like the Beak of the Finch: it shows impressive work on Natural Selection, but it doesn't prove that the little changes must lead to the huge changes between people and animals.
This book also illustrates how scientists are trying to be historians--a kind of integrating of subjects--and they are failing miserably. If any historian tried to pass of these kinds of arguments as history they wouldn't survive the laughter.
Evolutionists reason like this: if these two bone structures look This one is like the Beak of the Finch: it shows impressive work on Natural Selection, but it doesn't prove that the little changes must lead to the huge changes between people and animals. Evolutionists reason like this: if these two bone structures look alike they must be related; therefore one must have come from the other. That's like an historian saying Alexander the Great and Charlemagne were both kings; therefore one must have come from the other.
Evolutionists assume a system and then fit everything into it, but they seem to think that they are not making assumptions. Some how they are assumption free. View all 8 comments. Oct 26, Udit Nair rated it really liked it Shelves: evolution , atheism , non-fiction. The author has successfully build a convincing case for evolution.
As the introduction suggests this book has gathered all the evidences from paleontology, molecular biology, anthropology, geography and many more threads. The book actually is a answer to many of the misconceptions around evolution and more like a case made against creationism and intelligent design.
The author does admit in the end that all these evidence wont really convince a faithful person because faith is precisely ignoranc The author has successfully build a convincing case for evolution. The author does admit in the end that all these evidence wont really convince a faithful person because faith is precisely ignorance to facts and evidences. Also people have problems accepting evolution because it somewhere hampers the special human identity which we tend to make ourselves believe.
Charles Darwin had beautifully conveyed this " We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities… still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin. It should be more like one evolution story of all beings including humans. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect supports the idea that species have evolved from common ancestors including humans.
Also despite innumerable possible observations that could prove evolution untrue, we dont have a single one. And all of this fits in with what geologists see by way of plate tectonics and continental drift. Creationists love to try to pick apart evolution, looking at minor details in isolation and saying it doesn't make sense. But they're wrong: evolution is a beautiful tapestry, a complex fabric of countless threads woven together into a grand picture of life on Earth.
And it all holds together. I strongly recommend this book to anyone with even a passing interest in evolution, or the manufactured controversy of creationism.
Coyne's work is complete and convincing, slamming the door firmly closed on young-Earth creationism. If you have to deal with creationists in your life, this book is something you should keep very handy. Grothe interviewed Coyne on his podcast Point of Inquiry. And I'll leave you with this, Coyne's perfect summation of the situation from pages of the book :. Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature I wish I were as hearty as her at that age.
What a name! He went on to become a successful coach and then died in This was taken, I believe, with a strong. Not one of them made it back to base. In , Tojo shot himself in the chest as American soldiers tried to arrest him.
He missed his heart, was restored to health, and then tried and hanged in They were apparently apprehended in the U. I see but one woman. The Nose was once thought impossible to climb, but Harding and his mates did it. It took them four days. Lynn Hill , a woman, free-climbed it the first ascent like that in less than a day. Several readers sent me this cartoon. Over at Twitter, the beat goes on. I'd be impressed but this is coming from the "genius" who promoted Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid.
Reasonable question. Please provide a link if you have, Bret. I would be overjoyed to credit you for an appropriate pivot. Don't miss it. Miranda Lynch gammagirllab November 10, First, an entire sperm whale is preserved in plastic:. Seen on a toilet door.
Click on the screenshot below:. The reason for the changes? According to the report below, the three individuals whose names are effaced, were involved in the eugenics movement—specifically, the Human Betterment Foundation HBF , which collected data on and advocated for compulsory sterilization of people whose reproduction was seen as undesirable.
I quote from both the article above and the report below. Rosenbaum, the Committee on Naming and Recognition CNR , and the Ruddock House Renaming Committee , has approved the following names to replace those on campus assets and honors that previously memorialized individuals affiliated with the eugenics movement:. Apparently the HBF did have some weight, as one paper argues that over 20, Californians in state-run homes and hospitals were involuntarily sterilized between and a full third of all Americans eugenically sterilized during this period.
Here are all the renamings. All of the replacement names of people were done to honor people who increased diversity, with the exception being geneticist E. Lewis, a Nobel Laureate:. During his tenure, Caltech did not hire a single woman to its faculty, nor did Millikan seem to believe the United States had produced a single woman physicist worth hiring in academia.
He held negative stereotypes about Jews, although he did not for the most part allow his anti-Semitism to prevent him from hiring stellar Jewish male faculty during his tenure. Chandler was also an active developer of Los Angeles whose projects were often plagued by controversy. He eventually became the largest real estate owner in the United States. Chandler was one of the individuals instrumental in recruiting Millikan to Caltech, and he also helped organize The Associates of the California Institute of Technology.
Albert B. Ruddock Ruddock was a businessman and diplomat who served as a trustee for many prominent organizations in the region, including the Board of Occidental College, the LA County Museum, and the Southern California Symphony Association.
Ruddock began his long affiliation with Caltech in as one of the men who founded The Associates of the California Institute of Technology. Ruddock remained a Caltech Trustee until , having served as Chair of the Caltech Board of Trustees from to In Ruddock was elected Chairman Emeritus of the Caltech Board of Trustees, the first person to hold that position at the Institute.
The name change is effective today, August 2, This is the first in a series of renamings that were authorized by the Caltech Board of Trustees in early to bring campus memorializations in line with Institute values. The legal process to change the names on the remaining buildings, assets, and honors is underway; additional updates will be provided when appropriate. For more information on efforts to create a more inclusive Caltech, visit the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion site.
The principles for renaming are here , and you can click on the screenshot below to see the page final report:. How do we judge these? Well, clearly criterion a. The problem comes with criterion b. How do we weigh the life of a scientist, a publisher, and a businessman against the involuntary sterilization of 20, institutionalized people?
One cannot argue that everyone was on board with sterilization back then, for there were many anti-eugenic scientists who opposed this, including my academic grandfather Theodosius Dobzhansky. Overall, then, I think Caltech is justified in these renamings.
By removing these names from campus assets and honors, the CNR does not propose that Caltech break its ties with Millikan or other problematic figures in its history. It urges that Caltech must not erase any of its history. It holds, instead, that Caltech should delve more deeply into its history, using it to launch initiatives constructed to inform and educate its community and public.
David Starr Jordan, another member of the HBF committee, was the founding president of Stanford and an ichthyologist who made seminal contributions to speciation.
And we have to remember that this is going on in Britain as well as the U. The difference is that in Britain there never was any eugenics practiced on people. Nor, I think, did British scientists who favored eugenics have much of an influence elsewhere. There may have been people who favored the practice like geneticist Ronald Fisher, whose eugenic sentiments were based not on race, but class , but they were not on committees that actually injured human beings.
Oy, a dunce cat! Two more. Roars come from bendy bones in the throat. Send in your photos, please! From the NYT: The politically and legally complex case was widely seen as a litmus test for whether the Justice Department would take an aggressive stance against one of Mr.
Sometimes dreams do come true. This is a breaking story; click on screenshot: What defense can he have? Anil Ananthaswamy. Robert Wright.
A Beautiful Question. Frank Wilczek. Design in Nature. Peder Zane and Adrian Bejan. The Deep History of Ourselves. Joseph LeDoux. We Have No Idea.
Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson. The Great Unknown. Marcus du Sautoy. A Tour of the Calculus. David Berlinski. Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. Ann Druyan and Carl Sagan. From Eternity to Here. Sean Carroll. Jim Al-Khalili. My Brief History. Stephen Hawking. The Beak of the Finch. Jonathan Weiner.
0コメント