Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design

by Michael Shermer

A creationist-turned-scientist demonstrates the facts of evolution and exposes Intelligent Design's real agenda
Science is on the defensive. Half of Americans reject the theory of evolution and "Intelligent Design" campaigns are gaining ground. Classroom by classroom, creationism is overthrowing biology.
In Why Darwin Matters , bestselling author Michael Shermer explains how the newest brand of creationism appeals to our predisposition to look for a designer behind life's complexity. Shermer decodes the scientific evidence to show that evolution is not "just a theory" and illustrates how it achieves the design of life through the bottom-up process of natural selection. Shermer, once an evangelical Christian and a creationist, argues that Intelligent Design proponents are invoking a combination of bad science, political antipathy, and flawed theology. He refutes their pseudoscientific arguments and then demonstrates why conservatives and people of faith can and should embrace evolution. He then appraises the evolutionary questions that truly need to be settled, building a powerful argument for science itself.
Cutting the politics away from the facts, Why Darwin Matters is an incisive examination of what is at stake in the debate over evolution.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Evolution, Religion, Biology, Atheism, Philosophy

224 pages, Hardcover

First published August 8, 2006

About the author

Michael Brant Shermer (born September 8, 1954 in Glendale, California) is an American science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its magazine Skeptic, which is largely devoted to investigating and debunking pseudoscientific and supernatural claims. The Skeptics Society currently has over 55,000 members.

Shermer is also the producer and co-host of the 13-hour Fox Family television series Exploring the Unknown. Since April 2004, he has been a monthly columnist for Scientific American magazine with his Skeptic column. Once a fundamentalist Christian, Shermer now describes himself as an agnostic nontheist and an advocate for humanist philosophy.


more info:
http://us.macmillan.com/author/michae...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_...

Reviews

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Belief in god depends on religious faith. Acceptance of evolution depends on empirical evidence. This is the fundamental difference between religion and science. If you attempt to reconcile and combine religion and science on questions about nature and the universe, and if you push the science to its logical conclusion, you will end up naturalizing the deity; for any question about nature, if your answer is "God did it," a scientist will ask such questions as "How did god do it? What forces did god use? What forms of matter and energy were employed in the creation process?" The end result can only be natural explanations for all natural phenomena." (pg 123)

Michael Shumer is meticulous, thorough, and articulate. He first exposes the evangelical "Intelligent Design" philosophy for what it really is, then proceeds to dismantle it, brick by brick. Shumer writes about the not-so-hidden agenda of ID legislation and litigators, points out the flaws and falsehoods at its foundation, then proposes real world, constructive, fact-based solutions. This is not an attack on faith, it is an exposé on the idiocy of theocrats and other nefarious, self-righteous blowhards.

[Manny · Rating 3 out of 5]

[Original review, Jan 2010]

The bit I liked best in this book was his categorisation of the different shades of belief in the Intelligent Design/Creationism spectrum. I hadn't understood that there was such a lot of variety; points of view range from the straightforwardly loopy (the world was created in 4004 B.C. and there were dinosaurs on the Ark) to the very subtle (evolution happened, and so did the Big Bang, but God started the ball rolling), with plenty in between.

As you can see, I have no sympathy for one end of this continuum, but I don't see any clear arguments at the other extreme. My summary would be, simply, that no one knows. If the ID people moved further to the right and acknowledged the indisputable facts while sensibly debating the things that really are unclear, I might have to start taking them seriously. So far, though, I don't see any obvious signs of that happening.
______________________________________

[Update, Apr 2010]

I posted a review of The Ancestor's Tale earlier this morning, and within minutes was in the middle of another argument about Intelligent Design. For the record, here are my top objections to mainstream ID:

1. It shouldn't make a difference to a theory what specific labels you use for the key concepts. Quantum chromodynamics would be just as respectable if you replaced "red", "blue" and "green" with "sweet", "sour" and "salty". They're just names.

ID doesn't sound too bad if you say "God created the different species" or "Some higher intelligence did it". But if you paraphrase the theory as "Very long-lived, technologically advanced aliens have been messing with the DNA for the last several hundred million years", then people who like ID get all upset. Why? It seems to me that this is already a serious warning sign.

2. It's bad science, because it doesn't make any testable predictions. Or, to put it another way, proponents of ID refuse to put their money where their mouth is. They won't come out and name any specific thing we can check, that would be turn out to be true if their theory were correct.

How seriously would you take an investment analyst who never actually recommended that you buy or sell a particular stock? People get a reputation for being good because they've called it right enough times.

3. It's disrespectful to God. I don't myself believe in God - but, if I did, I would like to take seriously the idea that He is all-powerful. So I wouldn't much appreciate arguments along the lines of "Having thought about it for several minutes, I don't see how the human eye could have evolved by natural selection, so it must have been designed".

To me, the truly impressive demonstration of God's power would be to have been able to set things up so cleverly that the eye arose as a consequence of natural selection among creatures who initially didn't have eyes. I freely admit that I don't understand all the details. But it seems incredibly presumptuous to say that, just because my mortal mind is having a bit of trouble grasping this particular piece of the sequence, then it couldn't have happened. I think that this is a serious misreading of what the word "omnipotent" means.

I often have to review papers on computational linguistics and language engineering, and the ones I'm most impressed with are those in which some apparently simple idea turns out to have many subtle and unexpected consequences. I'm less thrilled by the ones where the author keeps having to invent special-purpose hacks to take care of every little problem.

It seems to me that the ID people are saying that God couldn't come up with any clean, elegant way to create life because it was too technically demanding, so He had to resort to a bunch of special-purpose hacks. Guys, I hate to be the one to point it out to you, but that's called blasphemy.
______________________________________

[Update, Nov 2014]

I discover, on reading Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, that he expressed the above thought over two hundred years ago in a rather more elegant way. It is particularly impressive that he did so before the concept of evolution had even been discovered:

It surely argues more power in the Deity to delegate a certain degree of power to inferior creatures than to produce every thing by his own immediate volition. It argues more wisdom to contrive at first the fabric of the world with such perfect foresight that, of itself, and by its proper operation, it may serve all the purposes of Providence, than if the great Creator were obliged at every moment to adjust its parts, and animate by his breath all the wheels of that stupendous machine.

[Nandakishore Mridula · Rating 2 out of 5]

Didn't like it. Even though I agree with all his points about evolution, I felt the style was overly prolix and repetitive.

And the way he used the theory of evolution to justify capitalism towards the end really sucked.

[Scott Lerch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent short and concise explanation of why creationism/ID is crap and dangerous to teach as even close to real science.

[Tanja Berg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I lost my review and now I’m annoyed.

Anyway, Darwin matters because he presented a theory of how the natural world has developed that has been repeatedly and consistently confirmed since. There is no god or intelligent design required, despite what the fundamental creationist in the United Stares might think. The rest of the west has completely accepted the naturalistic view of the world.

[Heather · Rating 1 out of 5]

For anyone who has not read Michael Shermer's column, Skeptic, in Scientific American, he has a chip on his shoulder larger than Vatican City itself. Here's a guy who used to be a stanch creationist, reading and following some of the "back woodsy" types of creationists only to find that he has seen the "truth" and the "truth" has set him free...that truth being Darwinism. There are a miriad of reasons to hate this book - I can't stand authors that quote themselves for no good reason than to quote themselves; being belittled because religious people are just children who can't handle real life; or the shear sarcasm, audacity and arrogance that drips from every page. Read his column instead of this book, it's only a page, so you can get done with it soon enough to digest before laying in bed with heartburn.

[Manish Sinha · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is probably one of the finest books to pick up, in case you were confused about Creationism or Intelligent Design controversy. It’s not as much of a controversy in the scientific world as we are taught, but we all know controversies can be manufactured and the biggest victim of this manufactured controversy is Darwin’s theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

The Author Michael Shermer is former self-declared creationist who spent a big deal of his young adult life enthusiastically spreading creationism. Later in his life he saw reason and realized that the creationism movement was not portraying evolution correctly. Having been in that movement, he understands how creationists and Intelligent Design (ID)advocates think and push their agenda.

One of the great things of this book was the way he explained how our body is not exactly intelligently designed because it evolved through natural selection which isn’t intelligent. He mentioned a few of them: male nipples, male uterus, anomalous thirteen ribs, tail bone, wisdom teeth, appendix, body hair, goosebumps etc. All these are remnants of our ancestral apes and since existence of any of these doesn’t affect our survival rate, these traits don’t get extinct.

Shermer provided a very simple explanation why people don’t accept Evolution. It feels too simplified, but given that most of evolution denial is religiously motivated, it’s not a broad generalization

This [morality] is what bothers people about
evolution theory, not the technical details
of the science. Most folks don’t give one
whit about adaptive radiation,
allopathic speciation, [….] punctured 
equilibrium and the like. What they do
care is about whether teaching evolution
will make their kids reject God, allows
criminals and sinners to blame their
genes for their actions and generally
cause society to fall apart.

There is a pretty good explanation of the Scopes trial and in general pretty un-intelligent movement called “Intelligent Design”. The members of ID would claim in court that their theory [sic] has nothing to do with religion and outside the court they would profess their love for God and link ID with God without caring that their statements are being recorded in public. It would be surprising if such people who are anything but intelligent cant come up with the Intelligent Design explanation of existence of life.

The fruitless debates
Shermer explains how Creationism/ID vs Evolution debates are kind of fruitless because one relies on faith whereas other relies on evidence. Even though it is fruitless, refusal to take up the debate challenge can be seen as weak of insecurity of the scientists. The goal of the debates are to target the fence sitters as the hardcore creationists won’t change their mind as they consider their unmoved faith as a virtue and there is no point in targeting the scientific minded people as it would be preaching to the choir.

Either-Or-Fallacy
Shermer goes on the explain another fallacy of the ID movement (as there is a shortage of fallacies) where they consider only two explanation — evolution or ID. If science is not able to explain something, then it is an implicit proof that ID is right. The fallacy lies in the fact that there can be more than two answers for a question. Another fallacy which Shermer didn’t emphasize enough is that ID needs to explicitly prove it’s validity. Lack of scientific explanation doesn’t automatically make ID valid. This fallacy is also known to us as Gods of the Gaps.

Science disproving religion
This was probably the most important chapter of the book. Sherman provides three models in which science and religion can exist

* Conflicting world model: A model where findings of science are considered a threat to religion and the ideas of religion are considered dangerous to science. It is a model in which “evidence” clashes with “faith”.
* Same-world model: A model which holds that science and religion are two ways of observing the world
* Separate-World model: In this model, science and religion are not compatible or mutually exclusive, but serve different purposes. It explains how religion takes care of emotions, friendship, societies whereas science takes care of knowing the world.

Shermer left this question mostly unanswered without providing any solid hint if he choses any of these models. If I had to choose, my bet would be on Seperate World model. It is useless and waste of time to explain people why religion does not explain the world. Religion has been used as a shield for horrible things in the past, but if we can channel belief into something constructive, then it should be a much sought after option.

I would not buy the argument that science and religion can coexist for the same topic. If take for example — origin of life. Science has made it very clear that the answer to our best of knowledge is Evolution by Natural Selection (along with Artificial Selection). What about stars? In this case, we have two answers provided by each — The gas cloud collapsing on itself, which is provided by science and “God/Designer did it” by Creationism/ID. In this case, I would have to choose evidence over faith.

Science does not deal with all the things which religion deals with. Morality, for example is something which we humans accept as a part of the culture which has very little to do with science. Some religious people claim that morals come from God/scriptures whereas other people who disagree with that claim don’t say “It comes from science”. Science is currently absent from the field of morality. In case you think science should have an answer, then you should read The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values by “Sam Harris” where he claims that science can answer moral questions, even though admitting his ideology isn’t complete and needs more work to even qualify as any kind of scientific theory.

[Book Shark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why Darwin Matters: The Case against Intelligent Design by Michael Shermer

Why Darwin Matters is a solid, very accessible, concise book that refutes Intelligent Design (ID). It also provides lucid arguments in support of evolution. The book is composed of the following nine chapters: The Facts of Evolution, Why People Do Not Accept Evolution, In Search of the Designer, Debating Intelligent Design, Science Under Attack, The Real Agenda, Why Science Cannot Contradict Religion, Why Christians and Conservatives Should Accept Evolution, The Real Unsolved Problems in Evolution and a very interesting Appendix .

Positives:
1. One of the main reasons Michael Shermer is a very good author is because he understands his audience. He understands that this book is intended for the masses and he succeeds at providing the masses what it needs. A clear understanding of Why Darwin in fact matters and the facts about evolution, in an accessible manner.
2. Mr. Shermer is also a very likeable and intelligent man and this comes through in his writing style which is straight forward, easy to follow yet profound. It's the perfect gift for someone who wants to know the facts from fiction regarding evolution and ID.
3. It clearly shows why ID is not science by going over their arguments.
4. Explains to the layman what constitutes scientific work.
5. The concept of convergence of independent lines of evidence leads to the very compelling and single conclusion, that life evolved.
6. Love the use of lists throughout the book, such as: vestigial structures, reasons why people resist the truth of evolutionary theory, seven strongest predictors of belief in God, reasons to engage in the debate between evolution and ID, arguments for ID, six cosmic numbers of the Anthropic Principle, ten "icons" of evolution,
7. Mr. Shermer knows how to get to the point and does a wonderful job with lists and other interesting tidbits. So much is covered succinctly in less than 225 pages.
8. A good section on science under attack and a discussion on important court cases.
9. The truth behind the people behind the ID movement and their ultimate agenda.
10. An interesting chapter on what the real unsolved problems in evolution truly are.
11. A truly enjoyable introduction to evolution written in an accessible manner for all levels to enjoy.
12. Extensive notes and the links work well.

Negatives:
1. Not as technical as other books on the topic but provides great references for those who want to dig deeper.
2. Table of contents work fine but you can't access it from the menu.
3. I think the weakest part of the book is when Mr. Shermer tries to extend an olive branch of sorts to believers "Evolution makes for good theology." Didn't really buy this argument. You can't allow faith to get in the way of the facts, no matter what they are.

In summary, this book is another great addition to my evolutionary collection. I also recommend the following books on evolution: "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne (my favorite book on this topic), "Your Inner Fish..." by Neil Shubin, "The Making of the Fittest" by Sean B. Carroll, "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr, "Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution" by Nick Lane and of course you have your pick of books from the master Richard Dawkins his most recent book on evolution is "The Greatest Show on Earth".

[Robu-sensei · Rating 3 out of 5]

Why Darwin Matters, by well-known skeptic author Michael Shermer, is an excellent introduction to the science, and lack thereof, behind the "controversy" between evolution and "Intelligent Design" (ID) creationism that has jeopardized science education in the USA. Those who are seeking an in-depth criticism of current ID arguments, however, will find this book lacking in particulars.

Shermer begins with a concise survey of what evolution really is, and masterfully sets the historical stage in which evolution is pitted against Christian fundamentalism. He accurately pinpoints the major logical fallacies characteristic of ID creationists' arguments, and briefly surveys the "best" arguments put forth in favor of ID, touching on the flaws in each. Finally, he reveals some disturbing facts about the true motives of the ID movement. All in all, the book is beautifully organized and extremely well written.

Nonetheless, it is not until the Coda—after the Epilogue—that Shermer drives home the central argument against ID, that it is scientifically vacuous: "The problem with the supernatural explanations of Intelligent Design is that there is nothing we can do with supernatural explanations. They lead to no data collection, no testable hypotheses, no quantifiable theories: therefore, no science." Moreover, Shermer does an admirable job explaining the key role of evolution in modern biology, yet somehow fails to mention its enormous potential to improve human health, as geneticists and molecular biologists have already begun to unravel the secrets of the human genome, drawing crucial information from the genomes of the chimpanzee and other animals. To the average American, that's why Darwin matters.

The battle-hardened scientist or science teacher already embroiled in the "controversy" will learn little from Why Darwin Matters—but will still enjoy reading it. And for any up-and-coming defender of science, this book makes a perfect springboard from which to explore the politico-religious phenomenon of ID in greater depth.

[Gendou · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book doesn't go into the medical, biological, and zoological importance of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. It exposes the "Intelligent Design" movement as nothing more than non-scientific Creationism dressed up in a bed sheet like a Scooby-Doo ghost.

[Corinne Edwards · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have come to the conclusion that the subtitle should actually be the title of this book. Sometimes I felt like I was in court and Intelligent Design was the defendant - Shermer's purpose was to lay down the facts regarding evolution is such a way as to explain why Intelligent Design is a scientific impossibility. Or, the fact that, in his opinion, Intelligent Design is not scientific at all.

I rarely read books that are so thoroughly scientific. I'm not going to lie: sometimes I had to skim over the most in-depth parts about RNA and mitochondria and the more nitty gritty aspects of evolutionary theory. But there was much that was interesting about studies that have been done and anecdotal stories about evolutionary science - these were very accessibly written. I feel like I now have a sense for what both sides of the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate assert and that I'm more able to have an informed discussion about the topic.

I liked how the book was set-up, the chapter headings and sub-headings really guided my reading and often answered questions that came up as I read, especially this: is it possible to reconcile a faith in God as a supreme being/creator and knowledge of evolutionary theory? He goes into this in depth, obviously, as he separates the theory of evolution from theological discourse. I appreciated that he acknowledged that yes, it is totally possible to be reconciled to both - but I also felt, and this bothered me, that he tended to be condescending regarding those who DID believe in Intelligent Design. Actually, the whole tone of the book felt a bit condescending to me - and even though he presents an excellent case and I don't even disagree with his point - I just wish he'd been less patronizing.

This book got me thinking, that's for sure. I can't pretend this is the perfect summer beach read or that everyone will want to pick it up, but it helped me use my brain for a while, got me to sort through how I feel about a multitude of issues and for the most part, it did entertain me. So, take from that what you will.

[Jim Razinha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book, well-documented, well-reasoned and goes on the "must read" list for our homeschoolers, if only to learn from Shermer in how to frame and refute the arguments.

It's not a long read, and covers much material previously published, but I like that Shermer is willing to engage the purveyors of non-science, for while I agree with Dawkins et al that engaging in debate legitimizes what is absurd, someone needs to cogently demonstrate such absurdity.



He does a good job explaining why science cannot disprove religion but also how religion cannot conscript science to support its aims, for science easily disproves such attempts if that door is opened..

[Dyary Abubakr · Rating 3 out of 5]

“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.”

[KitCat · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book did not change my mind but it did broaden my understanding of the range of people that believe in intelligent design and the range of beliefs that center around this theory. I do not experience mental conflict between believing that there is a God and also accepting scientific exploration and findings.

For those friends who I know experience the conflict between faith and science, they probably won't read this but I have recommended it to them nonetheless. I, at least, understand their point of view a little better.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

In "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, reviews succinctly both the overwhelming evidence in support of contemporary evolutionary theory and the pseudoscientific religious nonsense known as Intelligent Design, and then, discusses "the real, unsolved problems in evolution". Shermer, for example, has ample space to describe briefly Ernst Mayr's theory of allopatric speciation, and its relationship to punctuated equilibrium, the evolutionary paleontological theory developed by American invertebrate paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. But he also devotes ample space to dissecting Intelligent Design concepts like William Dembski's "Law of Conservation of Information", noting its irrelevance to both current mathematical information theory and the transfer and accretion of information - via DNA - in living biological systems. He offers an elegant overview of the origins and history of the so-called "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate", devoting ample time to the existence of the infamous "Wedge Document" and the trial proceedings of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial and, of course, the harsh verdict rendered by Federal Judge John E. Jones III against both Intelligent Design and the Dover Area School District board.

Shermer's terse tome is noteworthy for several reasons. First, he recognizes the necessity for engaging Intelligent Design advocates like Michael Behe and William Dembski, among others, in debates between themselves and knowledgeable critics on behalf of genuine science like Shermer, if only to educate public audiences on the nature of scientific inquiry, the ample facts obtained from genuine scientific research, and the disingenuous lies, half-truths, and omissions promoted zealously by Intelligent Design advocates. Second, he makes a most persuasive case explaining why evolution ought to be accepted by conservatives, as the agent ultimately responsible for the origins of morality in humans, and that "survival of the fittest" could be seen as a biological application of Adam Smith's concept of laissez faire free market economics. Last, but not least, Shermer contends that science should be viewed as being complementary towards spirituality, by engendering a "sense of awe" in viewing, for example, distant galaxies; therefore evolution can and should be seen in this very light. For these reasons, Shermer's terse tome deserves a place on the bookshelves of as wide a readership as possible.

(Reposted from my 2008 Amazon review)

[Scott Holstad · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book isn't necessarily tremendously original, but it IS pretty good in that good arguments are made, facts are laid out, idiocies are exposed -- again -- and thus it's one more nail in the coffin of religion and most especially Abrahaminic theism, particularly as practised by most Christians (and especially evangelicals and fundies in America). Having grown up in that tradition, being steeped in it, having played leadership roles, been a missionary, was Billy Graham's youngest counselor, went to a Presbyterian college, etc., I know full well how Christians neither know their holy book nor take it seriously, as all of them cherry pick out what's most convenient to support their own personal beliefs while trashing the rest of it as merely a product of its times and no longer relevant, or worse yet, don't have the foggiest clue about most things in that book, such as which of the two creation stories in Genesis to believe, how Moses was able to write about and vividly describe his own death, where he was buried, etc., how the two gospel genealogies literally don't match up at all, and it's basically irrelevant anyway as the Messiah was supposed to come from the line of David and Jews count their lineage through their mothers, not their fathers, which is still even more irrelevant because even if Joseph had descended from the line of David, he was NOT the blood father of Jesus -- no human was (assuming the Christian Jesus even existed, for which there's no first century independent proof, records, anything at all), and one wonders if Joseph even existed at all (if any of them did) as once the babe was born, he basically disappears from the text and is never seen again, four totally different resurrection stories, etc. And on and on. I don't need to write a book; plenty enough have already been written. So, the concept of "intelligent design" is a hilarious fraud masquerading as "science," although virtually no actual, real scientists acknowledge it as legitimate since it doesn't stand up to the scientific method, among many other reasons, and thus back to Darwin. Again, not the first or best book on the subject, but not bad and again, just another nail in the coffin of a failed and inhumane prehistoric myth. Recommended.

[Pankaj Singh · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant and detailed, albeit a bit short discussion of the evolution vs creationism/ID debate.

Shermer is extremely respectful towards the creationists, but still firm enough when demonstrating how wrong they are. The longest chapter in this book gives space to the ID arguments. Shermer describes in detail what ID proponents claim, and then tears each argument down beautifully.

Of course, a book on a topic like this is bound to attract creationists who just love one starring. The funniest reason I read for disliking this book was " Shermer quotes himself". Well, if you have published tons of books and papers, you have the right to quote yourself. I just feel sorry for all the people who dismiss evolution before understanding it. As Shermer points out, by claiming God conjured humans like a cheap magic trick, one takes away credit from God. Creationism and intelligent design are not just terrible science, they are bad theology.

[Sara Van Dyck · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most of this book actually doesn’t examine why Darwin matters. but rather focuses on how evolution works. and, more helpfully, on why the creationist and intelligent design arguments don’t. It might be useful for the "Fence Sitters," as Shermer calls them, those who aren't clear as to what the debate is all about. Shermer isn’t against belief in God, just certain versions of him (or her, they, it) and asserts that Christians can accept evolution as one source of moral values. The most interesting part of the book to me is chapter 9, where Shermer discusses what he calls the”real unsolved problems in evolution,” such as where life began, what causes major shifts in evolution, and what is the target of natural selection. Title aside, this is still a short, readable summary and clarified for me just what it is that people object to in evolutionary theory.

[Tyler Malone · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book to give to a Bible believing Baptist. It's easy to read and the ideas are stripped down. There are a few passages that attempt to bridge real science with those who believe that the Bible's creation story is factual. I choose to merit this book for what it tries to do -- reach the ignorant, not what I think it should be.

[Byron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent overview of the how evolution is among the most tested and observed hypothesis in natural science and how it dovetails (or not) with the various theories of creationism and intelligent design. Recommended. I have read other books by Shermer who write technical subjects with interest and clarity.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 1 out of 5]

Amzone

Why Shermer is mistaken

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.

John Buck

---

An accumulation of defective reasoning

In his October column in Scientific American the author replicates part of this book, ending with: "The senseless conflict between science and religion must end now...". Quite a dictatorial way to settle the issue, in favor of Darwin's theory of evolution, of course, as that article professes.

The saying goes that there is no greater zealot than a convert, which appears true of the author, formerly religious. He without reservation repeatedly proclaims evolutionary theory true, an attitude odd for a self-proclaimed, and perhaps the best known, skeptic. Skeptics in the widest sense retain doubts about any accepted fact, and even in the narrow religious sense Mr. Shermer accepts some religious statements without question.

He quotes approvingly (p.43) the "deep and honest theology" of Paul Tillich: "God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him." Does this make sense outside the lofty verbiage? Ironically, the author admires Aquinas (p.124) as one "of the greatest minds in the history of philosophy and theology", although it is that thinker who, in his "five ways", argued most that God exists.

But let us turn to the argumentations in the book. A weakness shared in science generally is reliance on the "hypothetico-deductive method" (e.g. p.21). A plausible theory is formulated, to see how predictive it is, and if it leads to observed results, it is tentatively accepted. The tentativeness, to note, seldom means the theory will be fully rejected, but only that it may be modified. The weakness is that if a theory, A, leads to certain facts, B, then B does not imply that A is true. The fallacy is called "affirming the consequent" and is committed in evolution when undirected natural selection, on finding it to (seemingly) imply adaptation in organisms, is inferred true. Neglected is that a directed force may likewise lead to the adaptation.

Another display of the author's particular logical incompetence is his talk about an "Either Or Fallacy" (e.g. p.50) which limits things to "A and B". There appears no such known fallacy--there is the "law of excluded middle", "either A or not-A", which rightly used is valid. But anyone knows there are more than two different things, black and white, or red and green. In the discussion cited on that page, an opponent defended his position by claiming "The impossibility of the contrary"--true or not, this is sound by the law of excluded middle, and it is the author who interprets it falsely.

A further lapse in logic by him is perhaps the most glaring. By his definition, "Science is what scientists do" (pp.88,94). It is a definition, in an evolution/creationism case, by a judge, who evidently had no knowledge of logic. More should be expected from the author reviewed, but he doesn't even seem to know about the fallacy of begging the question, of circularity. A word ("science") cannot be explained by another form of it ("scientists"). What then explains "scientists"? "Those who do science"?

Similarly, the author strenuously tries to show that God is unprovable, as by confronting the word "natural" with "supernatural". He says (p.124), "The attempt to use nature to prove the supernatural is...an attempt to make reality unreal."(?) This is wrangling about words. One can speak of "reality" as anything that can be substantiated regarding any realm. If one can determine that certain natural events imply a power (call it supernatural or not) that defines a supreme being, one determines a further reality.

Another try against possible arguments for God is the author's effort to show that such arguments lead to some endless need for continued arguments. He says (p.39), "a deep-seated flaw...undermines the entire endeavor" of arguing that since "the world...looks intricately designed...there must be an intelligent designer". "[S]hould we not then infer that an intelligent designer must itself have been designed?...Ad infinitum", he says. We know, however, no particulars about the designer's look, unlike about the world. But this is irrelevant. If we establish the cause of something, we are not obligated to establish the cause of that cause, and then of its cause, etc., for the knowledge to stand.

The author also asserts, with others, that organic design is not so intelligent. Regarding the eye he says (p.17) "it is built upside down and backwards", but doesn't explain. A partial explanation, as photographers know, is that straight light-rays turn a scene upside down in the eye or camera. The author, nonetheless, goes on describing the intricate path ending in vision, without explaining why this is unintelligent.

He there and elsewhere declares that things correspondingly "useless" in organisms "make sense only if natural selection built [organisms] from available materials, and in the...configuration of the ancestral organism's pre-existing...structures." But the adaptation can equally be conceived so achieved from pre-existing material by intention, for reasons of greatest economy.

Concerning more, let me add some comments as a Holocaust survivor. The author made a comparison (p.175) between Holocaust-deniers and evolution-deniers, and even wrote a book on this which I shall not read. I intensely resent that comparison, and hold Darwinism in its "survival of the fittest" a major cause of those events. To go into some specific, the Holocaust is not a theory, and each individual tragedy counts. In contrast, evolution depends on the cohesion of countless instances, and its supposed process can be another one as indicated.

Lastly I turn to the title of the book, considered at the end of its epilogue (p.161). There it is stated: "Darwin matters because evolution matters. Evolution matters because science matters. Science matters because it is...an epic saga about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going." The persistent question of whether Darwinian evolution is scientific fact makes this conclusion dubious, and it is not as hopeful as the tone suggests. Stephen Jay Gould bemoaned the "pain of death", and religion may have a better explanation than speculated (ca. pp.130-3)--hope of salvation.

Paul Vjecsner

---

A Little Biased
4/10

This is really an excellent book as far as explaining the issue; it is not, however, as objective as it purports to be.

Shermer is correct in pointing out the various agendas of the ID "Science" thinkers; but I do not recall seeing an admission that scientists have an agenda of doing away with God.

Shermer's own position is a bit different; he just wants a very quiet God, one who does not interfere with science. At one point he stoops to a school yard threat:

"If you attempt to reconcile and combine religion and science on questions about nature and the universe, and if you push the science to its logical conclusion, you will end up naturalizing the diety; for any question about nature, if your answer is "God did it," a scientist will ask such questions as "How did God do it?" ... The end result of this inquiry can only be natural explanation for all natural phenomena. What place, then, for God?" (page 123)

Translation:

"If you evangelicals keep pushing us scientists by challenging our theories, will come right out say there's no God; and then you'll go home cryin' - so how bout them apples?"

Yet another low point comes in Chapter 8: "Why Christians and Conservatives Should Accept Evolution" when Shermer tries to tell Republicans that they should believe in evolution because it supports Reaganomics and survival of the fittest.

In other words, after claiming that Darwinism does not entail Social Darwinism, Shermer appeals to the same to persuade evangelicals that they should accept evolution.

Elsewhere the author indicates that a God who has to tinker to create life is no more impressive than a highly advanced ET. Shermer believes that creating a cosmos is no big deal, any clever ET can do it. Then we are told that evolution is "good theology" because it upholds the transcendence and omnipotence of God. I just can't figure out how. All the same design flaws exist whether God created or life evolved without God's intervention.

Some of the solutions he gives to evolutionary problems seem dubious to this amateur. Punctuated equilibrium just seems like nonsense to me.

To think that species evolve into other species so fast that the transitional species leaves no footprint in the fossil record just doesn't seem plausible; certainly it isn't a convincing argument.

Shermer uses the example of dogs; not all the many breeds leave a fossil to be discovered. But this is an example of intelligent intervention into biology, and as such does not support his case. Elsewhere he mentions the work of a personal friend who designed a computer program to create a particular nonsense word by selecting letters, not randomly but in a way that emulates a natural selection process; and, of course, the desired result is obtained: the computer created the desired term through a semi-random process. The problem being that the entire system was designed to do just this.

By page 38, Shermer is discussing "intellectual attribution bias."

That's is to say, he believes we all find our own views to be rational, but look for irrational factors in the beliefs of others. I find it ironic that he fails to see his own attribution bias; yet much of the text is dedicated to showing how creationists and ID advocates exhibit attribution bias.

In the very next paragraph, he explains that evolution has "designed us to see design"; beings with the ability to recognize order had an advantage in the evolutionary struggle for existence.

In other words, those of us who believe God played some role in evolution just aren't quite smart enough to see that we have a biologically embedded attribution bias for finding "design" in the world.

I'm wondering if Shermer can see that his own materialist mindset could also be a built in attribution bias?

I think he does realize that he could at least be accused of having an attribution bias; which is probably why he merely insinuates that Dembski and company don't really believe what they teach and argue, coming right out and saying so would make his attribution bias too obvious.

I do not believe in ID or any form of creationism. I do believe the ID scholars need to be taken seriously because unguided evolution does not adequately explain life. I feel like Shermer has picked an easy target.

What about other theories? What about panentheism? Could their be an intelligence - personal, impersonal or transpersonal - wired into the cosmos? Might such an Intelligence find itself working against the forces of chaos?

This would explain why there is so much teleological and not teleological about the universe and life.

Shermer says this destroys the transcendence of God, that a transcendent God has no connection to the physical workings of the universe.

He says the only way to keep our belief in God safe is to take him out of the cosmos where he is beyond the purview of science. I find this to be a tactical move.

The next step is telling us that God did not set the initial conditions either; in fact, physicists are already telling us this.

In which case there is no God or God merely drifts alongside the universe. If this line of reasoning goes unchallenged, in a hundred years religion will probably be dead.

Drew

[Costin Grigore · Rating 5 out of 5]

Analiza a incercarilor de a introduce religia in scolile publice: pasi, agende politice, argumentatie, creationism, design inteligent.

Printre altele am inteles de ce Discovery Channels ne bombardeaza cu pseudostiinte si magie: sunt parte a Discovery Institute promotor al Designului Inteligent. Ei predau controversa!!

[The other John · Rating 2 out of 5]

The conflict between evolution and intelligent design is one of the warmer issues of the day. Since reading Darwin on Trial , I've been in the design camp, but I've never been completely comfortable there. There's been too many times when a person whose opinions I respect blasts into intelligent design and I fumble about looking for an excuse for my position. And when some ardent supporter of my side starts laying on the propaganda, I likewise wince. So while I was back overseas, one thing I decided I should do upon my return to the land of the free and home of the public library was do some more digging on evolution. Specifically, I wanted to get some more info on how a supporter of evolution would respond to the main arguments of the design side. Well, this book was my first attempt at getting more info. Mr. Shermer was helpful in clearing away some of the confusion in my mind, but didn't draw me any closer to the evolution camp. The biggest favor that Mr. Shermer did was point out that the leading proponents of intelligent design are really creationists trying to sell their beliefs in a new package. I don't care for sales pitches regardless of who's doing the selling. That's the main reason why I would rate the book as waiting room material, despite the useful information it contains. Mr. Shermer has his own agenda to promote. As for the meat of the debate, I get the impression that, like the abortion conflict, the problem lies in the conflict of two different issues. By definition, science excludes the supernatural. If you can't observe it, measure it, study it, then you can't assume it exists. To bring divine revelation, namely, the Bible, into the science classroom, is a violation of the scientific method. I think what happened over the years in Western society is that many people have started to consider the scientific method the only source of authoritative knowledge. So while any good scientist will tell you that any scientific law or theory might be proven wrong some day, they will proceed to live as if the accepted laws and theories are the truth. Just as I live as if the Bible is the truth. So where does this leave me? Well, I wouldn't mind digging up some more info on evolution. I'm curious about the fossil record and just how many of the bones in the skeletons are real and how many have been imagined to fill in the gaps. But I also realize that I'm never going to have a simple, irrefutable argument as to why we should believe we're created. In the end, only the Creator can prove He exists.

[Emma · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book isn't about "Why Darwin Matters", it's an overview of what Intelligent Design is, how it's been used as a Trojan horse to try and sneak creationism into science, what its arguments are and why they're easy to debunk, etc.

Shermer includes a lot of little factoids that are simplified to the point of being wrong, such as defining sexual selection as nothing more than female choice (although he does at least mention that other aspects of sexual selection exist in a later chapter) and saying things like "ever since Darwin, [people have had an idea that was around long before Darwin]".

In a chapter focused mainly around why Christians shouldn't turn to intelligent design (because most of the "Intelligent Design" groups are run by evangelical Christians), he goes off on a random tangent about monogamy in which he projects his personal opinions onto nature with no evidence from biological research and demonizes men in the process (I know people throw around empty accusations of "demonizing men" whenever someone brings up sexism or toxic masculinity, but Shermer actually does it, along with infantilizing women and misinterpreting a study of college students in order to perpetuate the "coy females" stereotype that's been sneaking into biology for a while). Then, in the same chapter, he throws in a section about conservatives for some unknown reason (?) and starts rambling about Adam Smith and seems to argue for Social Darwinism, and makes up some nonsense about how evolution supposedly promotes some Malthusian, social Darwinist, extremely anti-Christian views (in the same chapter where he's trying to recruit Christians). There's no possible way this argument was written in good faith, because he's obviously done enough research to know that Darwinism isn't the same as Social Darwinism -- and even if it were, it's not something you should be promoting. Trying to get people to accept evolution by telling them that it will let them make up a pseudo-scientific argument in favor of whatever they already want to do, whether it's monogamy or laissez-faire economics or eugenics or anything else, is not an argument for evolution.

Some parts of this book are pretty good as a basic overview of the topic (which is "what's the Intelligent Design debate all about?", not "why does Darwin matter?"), but there are far better sources out there for this information, and I can't think of a reason to read this book when you could read almost anything else on the topic.

[Winston Jen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why Facts Matter

Why Darwin Matters is an immensely readable book about a very complicated and crucial subject: evolution. Beginning with Shermer's account of an archaeological dig for fossils and a description of how the Earth is most certainly NOT fined tuned for life. Even if we disregard the array of predators that would sooner make a meal of us than be our companions in life, the environment itself is hostile to human breeding, let alone flourishing. Unintelligent design is also rampant and obvious even after a cursory analysis. The appendix, male nipples and the remnants of a uterus in men are just three.

Evolution is the most well-supported scientific fact. There is a larger body of evidence vindicating it than there is to show that gravity is true (which should tell readers something).

Chapter 2 details the Scopes Monkey Trial, and how opposition against the theory of evolution is primarily based on a fear that evolution will lead to agnosticism, then atheism and hence a total moral vacuum. The surfeit of theistic evolutionists is testament against this lie.

They equate Darwinism with the Nazi "Ubermensch" regime, ignoring the fact that the Nazis believed in eugenics, a philosophy based on arrogance, racism and prejudice. Evolution, on the other hand, is based on facts, observation, experiments and testing. Sadly, Brian, the main antagonist against science, was not permitted to give his closing statements, but they are available online. A 90-minute documentary was also made on the subject.

Shermer follows the voluminous paper trail left by the Intelligent Design lobbyists. All of them, save one (a disciple of Reverend Moon) is an evangelical Christian. As they are so well-funded, organised and willing to waste so much time and taxpayer resources to force the lies of the ID movement into public schools, it is imperative that citizens concerned for the truth stand up and work against them. Teachers should be teaching proven scientific facts, not preaching from a state-funded pulpit through the intimidation of authority.

I am grateful to Shermer for following the facts where they led him, and not starting from an assumed and impervious conclusion before setting out on this didactic quest for knowledge and elucidation.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a nice introduction to the whole evolution/Intelligent Design "debate" and a nice introduction to the science and implications of biological evolution. I put debate in quotes because, after having had numerous discussions with Creationists and after having read substantial amounts of ID material, it is obvious that IDers/Creationists are not interested in rational debate; rather, they hold a faith-based position that they think is right, regardless of evidence...evidence which many discount out of hand as being fabricated by materialistic humanists (i.e., people like me).

For IDers, their beliefs are little more than the use of the language of science as a Potemkin Village for Creationism. Those assertions that are testable - like the idea have of irreducible complexity - have been shown to be at odds with well known data. Those that are not - like the notion that because the universe exists in a fashion allowing our form of life to exist there must be a designer who wanted us to exist - are just not germane to a discussion within the bounds of science.

You definitely would not want this book to be your only source of knowledge on evolution; it really is an introduction to the current attempt by religious elements in our society to destroy science and secular institutions and modes of thought (or godless materialistic humanism, if you wish). But it is a very good place to start.

Schermer is a very, accessible writer and the book is short enough to be read in an afternoon. It is jargon light, so anyone should be able to pick this up and understand everything Schermer is writing about. Check it out.

[Kim Olson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Once an evangelical Christian, Michael Shermer made the journey from creationist to evolutionist, as did Darwin himself, when his foray into the natural sciences left him overwhelmed by evidence of evolution. In this book, Shermer (now the publisher of Skeptic magazine) details several specific arguments made by those who believe in Intelligent Design (such as the belief that only micro- and not macro-evolution occurs). Then, one by one, he shows how each of these arguments fall apart at the most crucial point. In each case, he then provides the explanation provided by science/evolution. He sheds light on how little those who champion Intelligent Design (many of whom are influencing textbook content) seem to understand about even something as basic as the scientific method or the definition of "theory" in science.

After discrediting Intelligent Design, Shermer goes on to make one of the more elegant arguments I've heard about how one can both accept evolution and a creator (although not Intelligent Design), as many do. He makes attempts to explain why one might, but of course, must abandon intellectual rigor at this point. Still, the argument is eloquent and he does resolve the conflict. Proving the existence of gods, of course, is another matter, but that isn't his task.

[Halden · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am normally a fan of Michael Shermer’s mixture of wit and wisdom but Why Darwin Matters just fell a little flat for me. The book is well written and full of facts and wry wit but I found it read like a primer, only useful for those about to debate a proponent of Intelligent Design (ID). Now this maybe the goal of the book and if it is then it has accomplished it, but I was looking for more and this may have been where I went wrong.

The book goes over the basics of evolution and of the advances made in biology since Darwin, which was interesting but not very in depth. Much of the text is spent educating the reader on the history of Creationism, ID and the legal battles in the US to get them taught as alternatives to Evolution. The focus on US court battles is where Shermer begins to lose me, I care to learn about the science but the legal battles, not so much. Once again I am probably falling victiim to not being the core audience for this book.

Why Darwin Matters is a good book and I am sure it will find a receptive audience amongst American skeptics and freethinkers but I fear that it’s narrow look at evolution left me out of the loop and hoping for more.

[Steve Mitchell · Rating 5 out of 5]

This has now become one of my favourite science books. Shermer systematically takes all the arguments thrown at evolution by creationists and believers in intelligent design – or creationists to give them their proper name – and demonstrates the lack of science and the jargon used to blur the issue. Contrary to the popular belief of people like Ann Coulter, Darwinian evolution has withstood every criticism that has ever been thrown at it and is a robust scientific theory. Intelligent design is a nonsense attempt to get Biblical creationism into the science class by changing the name; but when you get down to the basics, the general view is that an invisible magic man did it!
Shermer began his academic life as creationist accepting the rebuttals of evolution at face value; then he actually looked at the science of evolution. As a convert to evolution, Shermer’s account here is all the more damaging to the cause of the intelligent design lobby as he highlights the sheer beauty and simplicity of Darwin’s theory.

[Catherine · Rating 5 out of 5]

I took me a few chapters to really get into this, but I love how Mike Shermer brings the ongoing debate between evolution and "intelligent design" to what I see as a logical conclusion. Because of the rigors of what it takes to move a hypothesis to being a theory and the willingness of scientists to uncover new truths about existing studies and new areas of exploration, science is always progressing. ID cannot be studied without science, and as such, should be a belief system for Christians to hold separately from 21st century intellectual education.

Due to Shermer's quotes form Carl Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World", I will be reading THAT book soon because of the sense of awe and wonder it conveys about what we have learned about our world and the universe so far.