|
Review Summary: Simply Not So |
Date: 2008-03-30 |
|
| |
Details: The author is a fundamentalist Christian. This doesn't in itself prove the book is bad, of course, but should put one on one's guard, since there are so many more bad science books written by fundamentalist Christians than good science books, especially on evolution. Is this book an exception?
The answer is, alas, no. It is--once again--an attempt by a creationist to attack evolution by using the same old, exploded creationist arguments--in this case, (mostly) the "what good is half an eye?", the "God of the gaps" argument,and the "and God created it and it was good" arguments. The problem is that all these arguments fail.
1). The "what good is half an eye?" argument is given in the usual form: claiming that many biological structures and systems (though not the eye in particular) are so complex they simply could not have have evolved gradually. This is simply not true; it has been shown repeatedly that many allegedly "irreducibly complex" system could and did evolve naturally.
2). The "Earth is fine tuned for life" argument. Well, Earth *is* fine-tuned for *earthly* life... because the truth is the other way around: earthly life is, naturally, fine-tuned for conditions on Earth! In any case this argument (known as the "anthropic principle") is merely a tautology: if Earth were *not* fine-tuned for life, then we would not be here in the first place wondering about why it isn't--just like there are (almost certainly) no Jupiterians wondering why God cursed them with such an uninhabitable planet.
3). The "God of the gaps" argument-in effect, that if we cannot explain how something occurred--the evolution of DNA, in this case--then God (or some other "intelligent designer") did it. First and foremost, this is simply not true: we *do* have quite a good idea how chemical evolution (starting with inorganic compounds and ending with DNA) could have occured. But, more significantly, it is irrelevant. For even if we didn't know how DNA evolved at all, it would just mean we are calling our ignorance "God". History is full of "miracles" that were shown to be perfectly natural phenomena, from lightning to earthquakes to comets. Just as lightning was no proof of God when people were ignorant of electricity, DNA is no proof of God even if we were ignorant of its evolution.
In sum, another creationist attempt to disprove evolution, which simply doesn't work. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Darwinism is a failed theory |
Date: 2008-03-28 |
|
| |
Details: [Note that Latham's book frequently attacks Richard Dawkins, and he devotes the last fifth of his book to demolishing Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker (1986). Dawkins published The God Delusion in 2006, the year after Latham. The anti-Darwin arguments in Latham's book are equally valid against the Darwinian position still defended in Dawkins' 2006 book.]
But Latham's essential target everywhere is Darwin and Darwinism.
The book tackles head-on the Darwinian theory that all life has evolved from a single source by gradual changes. Latham (p. 84) quotes Darwin in The Origin of Species: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". Latham comments immediately: "Darwinists must take these words very seriously because we are now at the stage when an accumulation of facts does in fact lead us to severely doubt that any such gradual process has ever produced complex organs. This is backed up by our knowledge of the inability of mutations to bring about such macro changes ... "
This is a splendid book. The author concludes: "If there is one thing I hope the reader will take on board it is the absolute lack of any clear model available to science which can explain the existence of life. Darwinism has been shown to be a totally inadequate explanation - apart from the micro-evolutionary level.... All the evidence that I have looked at has led me to believe that life has been designed and that all the major innovations have occurred in saltations, the like of which no Darwinist can explain. The evidence before us shows us that a creator has been active throughout." (p. 249).
Latham endlessly repeats the point that micro-evolution within species, e.g the famous Galapagos finches, is certain, scientifically, and must be accepted; but that there is no proof that macro-evolution, change outside the species group, ever happened by the cardinally required Darwinian method of "numerous, successive, slight modifications". Latham concludes: Darwin, faced with the further fossil and general scientific knowledge since his day, "as a scientist and a basically humble man ... would now be seeking a totally different solution" (p. 44). Making Darwin the speaker, "My theory has absolutely broken down".
I shall give two cases, out of many that Latham examines in great detail.
First, the first tetrapods. Latham concludes (pp. 76,77), after long examination of the data, both that there is an unexplained sudden leap [a saltation], from water to land locomotion and living, and that there is nevertheless a linkage between the first land animals and fish. "This [latter consideration] does not validate Darwinism, however. These [first tetrapods] are not `transitional' in the sense that Darwin meant and longed for. We see too much that is suddenly new to call the first tetrapods transitional. There is no gradual evolution here but we do see earlier forms being a sort of template for the creation of later forms. The appearance of tetrapods is sudden and is just one of the saltations (leaps of form) that characterize the fossil record ... there are indeed totally unexplained yawning gaps in the fossil record but ... also continuity between succeeding forms - hence the fish-like characteristics of the first tetrapods. They appear with all the attributes of land walkers, suddenly - but retain signs of their lineage. Darwinism requires smooth continuity always. We do not see this ... The transition [from fish to tetrapod] is sudden. Darwinists will put this down to inadequate fossil preservation, but this argument is now wearing thin. The challenge to the Darwinist is to show us even one case in the history of life where a macro change has occurred smoothly with well-defined, gradually transitional intermediate forms. Darwin waited and we still wait." Challenging stuff! No evidence exists, for Latham, that any macro change has been caused, ever, by a continuous series of micro-evolutions. Saltational leaps are demanded.
The second case concerns Homo sapiens, discussed in the must-read Chapter 6: hominids, Ardipithecus, `Lucy', Ramapithecus, Australopithecus, Homo erectus, orang-utans, gorillas, chimpanzees, Neanderthal man, et el. Latham says (p. 110): " ... what evidence we have indicates a massive saltational leap from the preceding Homo erectus [to Homo sapiens] and astounding changes in a brain which triples in size within just 3 million years. There is absolutely no evidence for gradual change". Latham again: "Are we descended from apes or not? It is clear that we are not in the sense that Darwin meant. It has definitely not been a question of gradual evolution. Saltations require something more than chance and selection: they require design and purpose." (p. 111).
Space is running out. Briefly:
1) Latham insists that selection does not ever produce `positive' evolution. Selection is only and always a blind sieve. It can only select changes that have already happened. Darwinism does not explain whence they come.
2) Latham significantly suggests (in chapter 14) that Darwin makes his system necessarily exclude by God from the universe. This could derive from the influence of Darwin's unbelieving grandfather and atheist Edinburgh friend Grant. This distancing of God excuses God from being in any way responsible for suffering and evil in the world. The theodicy of Milton's Paradise Lost (Darwin took a copy on the Beagle) is relevant.
3) Latham detects a swing among scientists now towards anti-Darwinism. "It is not that leading scientists do not realise these mistakes [in Darwinism]. It is just that they rarely feel free to openly say so." (p. 171). "There is enormous inertia in the Darwinian paradigm - but shift it will." (p. 245). Latham backs Intelligent Design. He says that Michael Behe's 1996 book, Darwin's Black Box, "may well be historic in the turning of the tide against Darwinism." (p. 129). Behe's follow-up volume, The Edge of Evolution - The search for the Limits of Darwinism, appeared in 2007.
4) Latham: "There are no mechanisms that we can see or even imagine in the genetics of life that will produce a creature such as a human. We are left with no alternative but to see another force at work - one which modern science does not feel comfortable with but with which we must reckon. We are made by design and purpose and by a power that we have no idea of. Let us rescue the real meaning of the word `creature'. Creatures are created." (p. 148).
Much still needs to be said.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: A good book to balance the 'Blind Watchmaker' |
Date: 2007-09-24 |
|
| |
Details: Like politics - the evolution debate is a topic where it is important to read material on both sides. I am fairly well read on this topic and so for me I didn't find that this book shook me by the throat. Nonetheless, as an introduction text it is pretty decent (on it's own for the pro-design argument) or even better if read along side and as a rebuttal of 'The Blind Watchmaker' (as it directly addresses this book in the final chapter). The book is well presented, balanced, thought provoking, reasonably engaging and entertaining in places. Personally, I would have preferred it if the author had not stated his personal Christian beliefs (a couple of times) as I very much like to stick to the hard science (although in fairness Dawkins pretty much announces he is an atheist in `The Blind Watchmaker' so I can hardly complain too much). Besides that I enjoyed reading it and rate it as a decent read.
Finally, I am pretty fed-up with crackpots yelling that the pro-design case is unscientific, uniformed or some fanatical fringe. Rather, it seems clear to me that there is a genuine case to answer and the jury is currently out considering its verdict. I suspect that the Darwinian side is screaming as to some degree they seem to be in real trouble. Regardless, I would really like to see more concrete point-by-point rebuttals rather than the usual "it's just rubbish" type of comments (i.e. such as books like `Evolution vs. Creationism' which I felt was as a good effort, on the right track but sadly not overly convincing).
|
| |
|
Review Summary: darwinism exposed |
Date: 2007-04-18 |
|
|
| |
Details: I am now reading "The Naked Emperor". It is very easy to read and written in a clear style. Although I think that this book is containing nothing essential new for me, it is interesting to follow Latham's research and development.
Writing in an informal and personal style, Dr Anthony Latham outlines a broad range of scientific problems for Darwinism...There is a particular focus on the work of Richard Dawkins, with a chapter by chapter critique of his book "The Blind Watchmaker
Dr. Anthony Latham,(MD)--- medicine in Trinity College Dublin
4 stars!!
|
| |
|
out of 4 Reviews
