Download Audio Books from Audible.

Customer reviews

5 star		70%
4 star		14%
3 star		6%
2 star		3%
1 star		7%

How are ratings calculated?

Review this product

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Tarik D. LaCourTop Contributor: Philosophy

Darwin Matters Because Science Matters

Reviewed in the United States on September 18, 2016

Verified Purchase

As a devout evolutionist and Darwinian, I have often struggled with friends who are enthusiasts about so called Intelligent Design Theory. Often I remind them that the theory is not science because it does not follow the scientific method and is more of a philosophical than a scientific argument. Second, it is abundantly evident that the so-called Intelligent Designers are basically just a bunch of Christians who want to get a form of creationism into the scientific curriculum. I have had the discussion enough that I thought I would eventually write a book about it. Luckily, I do not have too.

Historian of Science Michael Shermer in his book Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design masterfully and amusingly takes the Intelligent Design theorists to task and shows how, in large measure, the Intelligent Designers do not have a case and how religious people can both believe in God and also accept scientific evidence.

The book begins with Shermer and a colleague exploring the Galapagos Isles; the same Isle's that Charles Darwin explored before authoring On the Origin of Species. He notes that the Isle's are difficult to get around, and are very threatening to certain kinds of life, and that over time he saw how animals that were on the Isle's during Darwin's journey there had changed and adapted to be better suited to survive. As he puts it "There can be no doubt: evolution happened."

Shermer then goes on the defensive, showing that evolution is a historical science; you don't see it while it is occurring as much as you do after it has occurred. He also points out that not only biology gives us evidence of evolution, but paleontology, geology, anthropology, and so forth. So, we can have a strong conviction of evolution and it is because various sciences and studies converge to the exact same conclusion. If evolution did not happen, it would be very odd for people of many disciplines to all converge to the same general framework.

Next, Shermer gives the various reasons people don't believe in the theory, and shows they are ill founded or have been countered. In large measure, part of the problem is about words, which as an analytic philosopher I would say most problems come from. When people hear the word theory, generally they take that to mean that this is someones idea that their acceptance or non-acceptance of will be of little difference. In science, a theory is based on empirical evidence, and is used to interpret the evidence. So, evolution is a theory based on evidence, and is able to explain life and complexity more than satisfactorily. For this reason, it is universally accepted in the scientific community, but people outside of it do not understand the meaning of the term, so they feel that Darwin's theories are of no more importance than those of Mary Baker Eddy. Newsflash: Darwin was right and Eddy was... well I don't want to go there but you get my point.

After explaining Darwin's theory, Shermer gives the arguments from the Intelligent Design side. He points out that most of them are just asking a question rather than making an argument. For instance, Intelligent Design theorist Stephen C. Meyer points out that the Cambrian Explosion is incompatible with Darwinism because these animals just appeared rather than descending from prior known forms of life, and states that even Darwin himself was perplexed by this. Shermer then points out that the current fossil record shows that the Cambrian Explosion was not really an explosion and that it is explainable by natural selection and random mutation. I must say, for a Cambridge philosophy graduate, Meyer makes me ashamed to be a philosopher. Yikes!

Shermer concludes by talking about the conflict between science and religion (which is not a conflict at all as far as I am concerned), and invokes the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria; which is that science and religion are about two different things, the former is about the empirical world, and the other is about morals, values, and so on.

Here I must disagree with Shermer and Gould. First, there is an overlap in some religions with science because some religions believe in miracles which are by definition "A violation of the laws of nature" as Scottish philosopher David Hume stated. Also, I am not sure that religion has its own magisteria to claim if it is solely about ethics; there are many moral philosophers, psychologists, and theorists who engage in these questions everyday, and some do it better than those who are religious. It would be better to say that religion is not interested in the same questions as science, and that there really is no conflict unless we make it into one.

I will close with this quote from Shermer's book, which sums up the whole debate and problem very beautifully:
"Darwin matters because evolution matters. Evolution matters because science matters. Science matters because it is the preeminent story of our age, an epic saga about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going."
Because science matters and because many in America are uniformed about these matters, I strongly recommend that you pick up Shermer's book and educate yourself. If we are going to have a conversation that is constructive, we must be informed.

J. Marlin

A fine primer on the science for non-initiates

Reviewed in the United States on March 17, 2013

Verified Purchase

A witty chap in the Chronicle of Higher Education commented a few years back that the Christian fundamentalist ideas of Creationism and Intelligent Design are something like Frankenstein's monster in the movies -- it doesn't seem to matter how many times you kill it, but it keeps coming back, and back, and back.

This book won't prove the death knell of those movements, for sociological reasons, but maybe it will hasten it on. Written by a one-time Evangelical, it's the sort of book that ought to be read by adherents of Intelligent Design, etc., with an open mind. Sadly, that's unlikely to happen, again, for those sociological reasons involving the mindset and culture of American Christian fundamentalism, a remnant of whom will cling to Biblical inerrancy until the end of days, I'm afraid.

Michael Shermer is not a practicing scientist, but is a rather experienced journalist on a number of aspects of science, and this work makes evident his deep and broad understanding of both the evangelical/fundamentalist camp (of which he was once a part) and the key concepts surrounding creation and evolution as they have been developed by physicists and biologists. He explores not only matters surrounding Creationism and Evolution, but also speculative work by physicists and cosmologists on "multiverses" and other consequences of astrophysics in its present state. His explanations are clear and are well documented with numerous citations and notes -- an important aspect of his presentation as it gains him a good bit of ethos.

His refutations of Intelligent Design are strong, well-evidenced, and expressed with clarity. While they really don't exceed what I teach in Phil100 these days, they are well developed and well put for a mass audience. Moreover, Shermer writes with an engaging voice that made me want to stay in the text until it was finished.

Elsewhere I've taken to task a book that touches on this matter by John Loftus ("Why I am Not a Christian"), but I entirely agree with him in that students at Evangelical Protestant colleges need to read books that challenge their world view. This, I think, is one of the books that might be gainfully assigned to that end. This book seems clearly aimed at that kind of audience (of the kind Shermer has addressed frequently, as his notes indicate).

That said, I read this in juxtaposition with Anthony Flew's "There is a God" (I tend to read books opposed to each other in pairs like this, when I can). Flew musters much of the same evidence Shermer uses to argue for what he calls the "Argument toward design" for a designing deity (rather than from design, a useful distinction). Of course Flew is not arguing for the fundamentalist idea of God, but something more like Aristotle's "prime mover," and he ends in something more resembling 18th-century deism than the Christianity of the inerrantists. But this juxtaposition shows what happens when you remove the question of "what Genesis says" from the argument, and that's a useful thought move that Shermer might consider.

I would close by adding that the Creationism/Evolution argument at the moment seems to be one simply between Evangelical Protestants (at least for those who believe in Biblical inerrancy) and most of the rest of the world. One wonders if this argument is soon to expand to include fundamentalist Muslims as well, which would be the strangest dance card in religious history. As a liberal Protestant, I and my ilk gave up things like inerrancy and Creationism a long while ago; the same is true of the bulk of North American Roman Catholics, as well as the Eastern Orthodox, Hindu, liberal Jewish, and Sikh believers I know. For most, religious belief really doesn't stand or fall on the question of Evolution, but for those for whom it does, well -- they should read and think about this book.

An important and well-written book

Reviewed in the United States on December 17, 2007

Verified Purchase

For nearly a century, the conflict between those who accept the theory of evolution by natural selection and those who believe in some variety of creation by design has been raging in the US. Oddly, the US and some fundamentalist Muslim countries are the ONLY places on earth where this debate is still in progress. Michael Shermer's book explains why that is so and-- more importantly-- why acceptance of Darwin's theory matters.

The arguments for each position have been endlessly rehashed, so I won't deal with them. The importance of Shermer's book lies in the way he makes clear the central weakness of the creationist/intelligent design position: It is not science. This is because it relies on the actions of an unknowable supernatural being or power. This means that it is untestable in a scientific sense. As Shermer makes clear, this is not to say that there is no God; rather, it means that a theory that explains how species differentiate and change that relies on the operations of a supernatural power cannot be science.

Shermer is a former evangelical creationist who now edits The Skeptic. It would have been easy for him to descend into sarcastic ranting in an attempt to belittle the ignorant rubes who don't understand science. He does not do that. This makes him very unusual, given today's scorched-earth style of public debate. Shermer instead maintains a respectful, civil tone at all times. He argues that those who reject evolutionary science are mistaken, not stupid or dishonest. In fact, they can and should accept evolution on scientific and theological grounds.

This is a short, readable book about an important topic, and I recommend it highly.

Top reviews from other countries

Translate all reviews to English

naturalpreservation

Evolution is not Darwin, and vice versa

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on April 12, 2011

Verified Purchase

There are a range of books from both science and from creation(isms) explaining their position and what is really required is a book that tries to speak beyond the converted as it were. In this goal Shermer's is as good as any although Kenneth R. Miller's position as a noted biologist, debunker of intelligent design and a person of faith positions him in prime real intellectual real estate in being able to really get people thinking and re-thinking about the issues of design, meaning and purpose.

I bought the book and it was good value. A criticism I have with Shermer is that along with a lot of evolutionary minded thinkers situational, contingent (and especially regarding humans) cultural factors are underplayed in the assertion that evolution is the process that can provide the dominant narrative for all life, including human life. Since 1859 there has been no accepted theory of culture from the evolutionary presective despite 10+ schools trying to generate such a theory of the social world of humankind. While this remains the case humans (in a very real sense) will be beyond the complete grip of the evolutionary model. Evolutionary theorists Boyd & Richerson have said that a failure for evolutionary theory to account for culture would undermine the entire Darwinian revolution. I think this is a gross over-exaggeration. The theory of evolution is the telling theory of biological and botanical evolution in the nature setting. Darwin noted several times that natural selection was much diminished in civilised societies but evolutionary theorists are quite defensive at the notion that evolutionary theory (strong in the nature setting) is another partial theory of the social world of humankind.

So on the one hand we have evolutionary minded thinkers and theorists like Shermer, Dawkins, Dennett, & Co asserting that Darwin(ism) can explain it all and on the other hand we have this other position of intelligent design stating that evolutionary theory is not the whole story in the state of nature. What we can say for sure at this time is that evolutionary theory is not the whole story when it comes to the social world of humankind. In Shermer's 'The Mind of the Market' he calls consciousness the hard problem, and culture 'the really hard problem' and yet all too often he and others slips into the overly defensive of Darwin mode. Shermer undermines his own argument slightly, and notably when he writes:

"Darwin matters because evolution matters. Evolution matters because science matters. Science matters because it is the preeminent story of our age, an epic saga about who we are, where we came from and where we are going."

If Shermer had omitted the first five words then I'd agree, but he didn't and in naming the book the title he does he (like others) over personalises his/other's position to levels it doesn't need to be. When we align and associate a theory so intimately with a person, any person then this can only result in an emotional connection over and above any cognitive connection which is what the debate and argument should be concerned with. There is something noteworthy when you are accusing the other side of being too stubborn in allegiance to the idea of a personal God, when Shermer is (again, like others) often stubborn in allegiance to their personalisation and reification of evolutionary theory as 'Darwinism'.

If we go back in history the effect that the "Newtonian" view had on the understanding of the physical world was a factor in it taking over 300 years to sophisticate further his theory of gravitation by Einstein. Applying this to the present argument over culture and the position of intelligent design, there is surely a position required that can chart the underlying principles of how culture works beyond evolutionary theory without undermining the science position and being accused of intelligent design by the back door. Dawkins and Dennett themselves have in the last few years in interviews and lectures acknowledge that humans are "the first intelligent designers on the tree of life" so 'design' is not the central question in understanding culture, as it was in understanding nature. That question concerns meaning to unlock and deepen our awareness of the social sciences, arts and humanities.

Knowledge matters and what we do with it. Proponents of ID have a right to express their view but this should be done in the religious education class, not the science class. For Shermer & Co there should be an admission that despite considerable attempt(s) evolutionary theory remains short on explaining culture, and therefore what it is to be a human being. All the while this goes on there are millions, even billions of people around the world who find some scientific explanations of humankindness unsatisfying while they receive something more satisfying through their religious faith.

So in terms of knowledge and what we do with it, evolution matters much more than Darwin matters but when it comes to selling books, 'Darwin Matters' grabs an audience more I guess. So read this, and read other books related to this and if you can even a book from the other side(s) of the argument. If we all keep reading and thinking then hopefully we won't have to wait 'the Newtonian period' of 300 years to understand the seeming social gravitation of meaning that evolutionary theory can't explain. Shermer is currently working on a book called 'The Believing Brain'. You can bet it's a book about humans, but keep this in mind. He won't be referring to the accepted evolutionary theory of culture and mind because there is none. There will be a lot of metaphor and evolutionary-like language but the central idea that humans engage with the world not through the prism of biology but belief underlines how different culture is from nature and how we have to understand that emergence from the evolutionary process some (including Shermer) have.

That matters too.

Donna from T'ranna

It could be worse.

Reviewed in Canada on June 24, 2016

Verified Purchase

Shermer does what Shermer does: being "popular", widely distributed, and published mainstream isn't the worst thing in the world. A book worth reading for anyone who wants to try to understand the mind-set of so-called "Creationists".

Amazon Customer

Excelente

Reviewed in Brazil on August 13, 2016

Verified Purchase

Excelente livro, como sempre, Michael Shermer é fantástico. Deveria, obviamente, ser traduzido para o português, mas as "prioridades" no Brasil são outras.

PiccoSquare

For all to see and understand

Reviewed in Canada on February 5, 2016

Verified Purchase

For all ages.

John Buck

Why Shermer is mistaken

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on July 17, 2010

Verified Purchase

I am puzzled by the positive reviews of Dr Shermer's book because it seems to me to be full of "Aunt Sallys" and faulty reasoning. Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of the latter is on page 83, where he refers to a computer program which supposedly simulates the effects of natural selection on the ability of a monkey to type the first thirteen letters of Hamlet's soliloquy TOBEORNOTTOBE. In this program the letters typed into the system were 'selected' for or against and it took an average of only 335.2 trials to produce the required sequence.
The obvious fallacy here is that the desired outcome was programmed into the computer at the start so that letters could be selected "for or against" this target. This bears absolutely no resemblance to the supposed process of evolution by means of random genetic mutations and natural selection, in which there is NO preconceived target against which the mutations can be 'selected.'
Dr Shermer states in his Prologue that during his studies he "mastered one of the languages of science: statistics." If this is so, it beggars belief that he did not spot the elementary statistical fallacy at the heart of his example.

See all reviews

Customer reviews

Review this product

Customer images

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Top reviews from other countries