Search
Calendar
Clock
November/December 2003
The first choice I have made for my Book of the Month is "Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science" by Massimo Pigliucci. At first glance, the title of this book might seem a bit strange, especially to people involved in the discussion of evolution and creationism. It almost looks like Pigliucci might be a creationist, but its a bit misleading. Pigliucci is an evolutionary biologist that teaches at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. He chose this specific name for the book at the suggestion of Michael Shermer. Pigliucci feels that the term "creationist" isn't a satisfyingly accurate name for the people that deny evolution; he feels a more fitting name would be "evolution deniers" much like people that deny that the Holocaust of WWII happened are commonly called "Holocaust Deniers." In many respects I agree with this, because the word "creationist" can really be applied to people on both sides of the issue, since many people that accept evolution also believe in some form of creation event.
Personally, I've been involved with the discussion of evolution (at least at the time of this posting) for almost 6 years. In the course of that time, I've read quite a few books about evolution and creationism, mostly by authors defending evolution against creationists. The reason why this book stands out from the other books, is that while the other books focus on the claims made by creationists, this book attempts to get at the meat of why there is an argument in the first place. Another unique aspect is that Pigliucci pulls no punches from either position; he has issues to address with both creationists and scientists that accept evolution. Many other authors tend to focus on where the creationist arguments are incorrect, but they sort of set up a false image of science being the answer for everything (scientism). Scientism, according to Pigliucci, is every bit as dangerous as the misleading arguments put forth by the creationists, and after having read this book I would agree with him. In order for this to be a decent review, however, let me get to how he has laid this book out, and why I think you should read it.
One appealing thing about this book is that it's short and easy to read. Pigliucci doesn't let his text get muddled up with scientific jargon that you would have to ordinarily look up in order to understand what he is saying. He also states very clearly in his Prologue: or How I Got into this Mess what his intention for the book is: to educate the reader on why this argument exists. He starts off in his first chapter giving a brief history of the evolution/creation debate, starting with its early history in England, just after Darwin introduced his Origin of Species and the debates following it, and brings it right up to 1982, when Judge WIlliam Overton ruled against a proposal that would require equal treatment given to both evolution and creation in public schools. (To read Judge Overtons ruling, click here.) The important part of illustrating the history is that it gives insight into how evolution within the scientific community over time has changed, or evolved, as it were. Originally, the validity of evolution was a very controversial subject, and it is interesting to see how, given enough study, it became a field in science that is very well established. In this time frame, evolution moved out of the scientific discussions, and into a philosophical debate on both sides of the Atlantic. Noting this transformation lends great insight into why the discussion still persists.
Having established the history of the nature of the debate, Pigliucci shifts to the next chapter discussing the modern groups that are concerned with evolution. Using a graphic and description developed by Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), Pigliucci illustrates the wide spectrum of beliefs that exist that can be found among both sides of the issue. He does this to show that there isn't a clear-cut distinction as the creationists would have you believe: either you believe in God and accept creationism, or you don't believe in God and accept evolution. This is a very important thing to consider. After detailing each position on this spectrum, he also talks about key participants in each group, such as Duane Gish and Jonathan Wells, and what they are really about. Pigliucci dedicates a lot of time and effort to this section, and it is well worth the read. The most significant portion of this chapter talks about the real goals of the neo-creationist camp: The Wedge Strategy. In short, this outlined plan, which can be found here, states that the real agenda for neocreationism, or Intelligent Design as its adherents call it, is to remove scientific materialism and "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." In other words, they want to completely change what science is and does.
In the third chapter, Pigliucci details the development of the anti-intellectualism movement, which has had its part in promoting the popularity of creationist beliefs and tenets. The importance of this chapter is that it shows just why belief in creationism, or the denial of evolution, persists: people have much disdain for the educated. Many would dismiss the notion that there is an active movement against education, and Pigliucci does an excellent job of showing that it does indeed exist, why it does, and its implications by existing. He ends it with a brief section on what can be done about anti-intellectualism.
Chapter four jumps to the other side of this discussion on evolution and creation: the scientists. Scientists generally cover a wide variety of belief systems; from Hindus to Catholics, Jews to Muslims, and everything in between. While most tend to keep their religious beliefs relatively separated from their science research, there are a few people that are somewhat religious about science in general, and have developed a fundamentalist view of science called scientism. This view is largely materialistic in its form, but in addition to it, holds that science has, or will have an answer for everything, much in the way that some religious fundamentalists of faith believe that they answer for everything is God. It might even be said that these people have made science their "God." I liked this chapter a lot, because most books in this arena only deal with the creationist (evolution deniers!) side. Compared to the rest of this book, this was probably the most eye-opening chapter. I had never considered before this that there could be people as fervent in their dedication to scientism as those that are dedicated against evolution. Keeping this in mind, after having read this chapter, I had a dramatic shift in how I talked about evolution. Pigliucci pretty much says its okay to admit that science can't answer everything, because it isn't meant to. He also points out some (mostly) untrue beliefs about science, which I will briefly discuss here.
- Science leads to Truth
This notion prevails even in sand is grossly erroneous. In summary, science is a tool to reach provisional conclusions, not absolute or immovable truths.ome scientists, as Pigliucci points out.
- Science proves things
With my personal experience, many people expect that the purpose of science is to prove things about the universe. Pigliucci makes it clear in his book that "neither science nor any other known human processes can prove truths about the natural world (as opposed to some logical proofs)." The reason for this is very important. In math and logic where the term proof is used, it has a definitive meaning, and proofs are reached through a process of deductive reasoning. Science and the scientific method is a process largely consisted of inductive reasoning, so the only thing science can do is disprove something. I like Pigliucci's analogies using Sherlock Holmes, so I'll paraphrase it here: Holmes could never prove that Dr. Moriarty committed any crime, but he can show that other people did not commit them, given enough evidence. With that evidence, Holmes can build a case that would lead to the provisional conclusion that the most likely person that would have committed the crime would be Dr. Moriarty.
- Science can only be done with direct experimental manipulation
This is the notion that in order for something to be valid scientifically, you have to conduct an experiment. He mentions two historical sciences, geology and astronomy, both of which make many predictions that can not be directly tested. An example that I can provide from astronomy is how the Sun "burns." Most astronomers agree the Sun emits energy as a result of nuclear fusion. (I'm hard-pressed to find any that don't!) The process of nuclear fusion is rather straightforward: two hydrogen atoms randomly zipping around the Sun are fused together by the intense heat and pressure found in the middle of the Sun. This fusion creates helium, and a little bit of mass is lost. This lost mass is converted into massive amounts of energy, which subsequently is emitted by the Sun in various forms (visible light, x-ray, etc.) This concept has been worked out mathematically, and all of the gathered data seem to support it even though no one has ever been to the center of the Sun to witness it, or conduct an experiment of it directly.
- Scientists constantly replicate experiments done by others
It seems that this is something that is largely fueled by some in the scientific community. Pigliucci tells us here that instead of people repeating the same exact experiment someone else has performed, when someone puts forth a paper, he/she illustrates how they conducted the experiment so that if someone were interested, they could repeat it or at least reach the same conclusion. I like how he phrases it in this sentence specifically: "The basic idea is that if a hypothesis or theory does shed new light on the underlying reality of a phenomenon, similar lights shown from different angles should illuminate the same reality."
- Science needs to consider everything
It was hard to find an accurate description of this fourth and final misconception Pigliucci writes about, so I took a stab at it. In short, this is an argument in support of Occams razor, which says that the most simple explanation for a phenomenon is usually the right one. He uses the example of evolution (after all, that is what this book is about, right?). As he states, the theory of evolution is in direct contradiction of a literal interpretation of the Bible. Despite this contradiction, evolution does not deny that a God exists, rather that the evidence shows that the inclusion of God to explain an aspect of evolution is unnecessary and can "provisionally exclude a deity from consideration."
The next portion of this book talks about the limits of science itself. A brief outline of what Pigliucci says follows:
Science is not about final (ultimate) answers.
Science cannot draw conclusions about things it cannot measure, such as aesthetics or art.
Science is supposed to be objective and as unemotional as possible.
Science is a limited, bounded enterprise.
You might have already noticed that I have spent a considerable amount of time on just this chapter; as I said earlier, this portion of the book had the most profound affect on me, and I feel that anyone that chooses to read this book will be similarly affected. Pigliucci talks about alternatives to science following the section on the limits of science. So I don't spoil it for you, I'll leave description of it out, to encourage you to read this book.
As with any book concerning the evolution/creation discussion, Pigliucci adds a chapter on the different fallacies employed by creationists. Most of these fallacies are typically addressed in other books, and say pretty much the same things as Pigliucci does. His intention for this book wasn't to try and cover the same ground, so he lists a few fallacies, and describes them briefly and discusses why they are fallacies in the first place. Here is a listing of them:
Science Must Be Ethical, or It Is Not True
Scientific Discussions Are a Sign of Internal Crisis
"It's Just a Theory"
Natural Phenomena Mean Randomness
The World Can Be Understood by Common Sense
We Win by Default
Living Beings Are Obviously Designed
It's a Debate about Origins
Scientific Findings Are Independent of Each Other
Education Must Be Democratic
Science is a Religion
Chapter six entails what are commonly used as major controversies that somehow go against evolution, namely the Second Law of Thermodynamics, discussions of Origins (Where do we come from?), and the so-called Cambrian Explosion. Pigliucci recognizes that all of these topics have been covered in many other books, but devotes some time to each. Most of his arguments are run of the mill; anyone with a decent background in this discussion will likely have seen these arguments before. Pigliucci's unique addition is a conceptual summary at the end of each of the "controversies" that take each position (creationism or evolutionism) and paraphrase what he has argued. He arranges them in a point by point fashion, so you can easily access the evolutionary explanation for a creationist claim about each successive "controversy."
Chapter seven lists fallacies made by scientists, or at least some of them. Since these are a lot less frequently addressed, I'll elaborate more than I did about the previous chapter. The first one Pigliucci has listed under "Of Whales, Bacterial Flagella, and the Big Bang." Again, some of these argument are probably familiar to someone actively involved in the discussion of creation and evolution, but the importance here isn't the argument Pigliucci is presenting, but the fallacies scientists can make in addressing the creationist position. This first fallacy pretty much is summed up as saying that it is fallacious to just dismiss a creationists argument simply because it is obviously wrong. This fallacy is perpetuated by scientists dismissing an argument, and forming the "pretense that we have the full answer when at most we have a few (tantalizing) clues." What I get from this is that just because an argument is obviously wrong, shouldn't mean that it needn't be addressed.
The next fallacy addresses Hoaxes and Blunders. The fallacy here is that many scientists would rather not discuss certain events within the context of the development of evolutionary theory, simply because they have turned out to be grossly inaccurate, or just plain wrong. Creationists love to introduce Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man in the guise that these frauds or blunders are somehow damaging to evolution. Furthermore, when they are mentioned, scientists seem to shy away from these "arguments" without explaining their importance in evolution. Neither Piltdown Man nor Nebraska Man need be an embarrassment to evolution; on the contrary both should illustrate why evolution is so strongly supported. For example, creationists will cite that Nebraska Man was based entirely on the basis of a fossil pig tooth. What they leave out is that the tooth, belonging to a type of pig known as a peccary, was a molar. Furthermore, the molars of pigs look a lot like molars of hominids and other primates. Nebraska Man was a media construct that was created by loosely interpreting a description of a tooth that resembled that of a hominid. From the start, the tooth was highly controversial, not because it was supposed to be from a human, but because it was from a primate in North America, at a time when primates in North America were relatively unknown. After a lot of study, and the subsequent discovery of the rest of the animal that the tooth came from, was it determined to not be a primate, but a peccary. In other words, science was done the way science should have been done, and something that could have been problematic for evolution was discovered not to be a problem at all.
Pigliucci heads the next fallacy as "Science as a Social Activity." It seems that the main point of this is to reemphasize that scientists are still human, and can still be subject to the same biases of society as anyone else. This shouldn't seem like it would need to be addressed, but I think Pigliucci has a great point in doing so. As noted earlier when talking about anti-intellectualism, I mentioned that some people have a bit of disdain for the educated, and some of that might be rooted in some scientists that have taken the position that since they are scientists, they must be objective, and cannot be affected by emotion. Which is completely wrong. The scientific method is the most objective part to the work that any scientist does, but scientists can be a mish mash of objectivity and subjectivity. While most scientists strive to be as objective as possible, that has the potential to be lost when trying to publish or announce something that could be profound in their field. Scientists, in being human, can be influenced by many things: social standing within their community, race, religion, even gender. But the enterprise of science as a whole is comprised of a variety of individuals which can help collectively make the practice of the scientific method as objective as possible.
The last chapter is called "What Do We Do About It?," and I think his message here is pretty clear. Pigliucci has a lot of ideas for what needs to be done to help overcome the hurdle that science is facing. He starts off by directly addressing a more recent list of assumed "Icons of Evolution" put forth by Jonathan Wells, of the Discovery Institute. Since Pigliucci does a decent job of addressing and dismissing Wells' "Icons" I don't see point to add them here, but sure enough I will likely have a page set up to address them in my own words. After dealing with Wells, Pigliucci talks about how science is currently taught. He notes that many instructors spend so much time on teaching the facts of the sciences, they overlook the history and methods of discovering why the facts are significant. Teaching in this format makes science look boring and tedious, which probably leads many people away from science early on. Following this, he discusses how science, in his view, should be taught, and how it could help to address the lack of interest in science for the general population. He also points out that this issue isn't solely about evolution, or about creationism, but is rooted much deeper in people lacking the requisite critical thinking skills that would allow them to make a more informed decision. Next comes a discussion of how the brain works, and how it learns, and how changing methodology to meet how the brain learns can help with education. Lastly, Pigliucci writes out a formal plan that is itemized and descriptive on what he feels should be done in schools.
Summary
This book caught me by surprise. I thought that I would be reading yet another book about evolution vs. creationism, and might be lucky to find a new analogy or differently arranged argument. Instead, this book helped broaden my understanding of the entire discussion in general, and has helped me rethink how I approach this subject with others. For anyone that is actively involved with the discussion of evolution and creationism, I would submit this book as a must read. For anyone interested in science education, I would also highly recommend this book.
RSS Feed
Credits
Special Thanks to Advanced Network Hosting, for making this page possible. Design and text edited by Ryan Robinson.
Some CSS elements were modified from those provided by Stu Nicholls, and can be found at his website CSSplay. JavaScript elements were modified from the content found at Lokesh Dhakar's website Lightbox JS v2.0
