In this provocative history of contemporary debates over evolution, veteran journalist Tom Bethell depicts Darwin’s theory as a nineteenth-century idea past its prime, propped up by logical fallacies, bogus claims, and empirical evidence that is all but disintegrating under an onslaught of new scientific discoveries. Bethell presents a concise yet wide-ranging tour of the flash points of modern evolutionary theory, investigating controversies over common descent, natural selection, the fossil record, biogeography, information theory, evolutionary psychology, artificial intelligence, and the growing intelligent design movement. Bethell’s account is enriched by his own personal encounters with of some our era’s leading scientists and thinkers, including Harvard biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin; British paleontologist Colin Patterson; and renowned philosopher of science Karl Popper.
Darwin’s House of Cards: A Journalist’s Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates
Of course, no real skeptic will want to read this book.
Published by The Discovery Institute Press Evolution News and Views is all over it.
Not a religious apologist or a cheerleader for any competing view, but rather an old-fashioned skeptic, Bethell has been doubting Darwin since he was an undergraduate at Oxford University.
Who do they think they are fooling, right?
He concludes that while confidence in the pillars of Darwinism — common descent and innovation through natural selection — hit their high-water mark at the celebration of the Origin of Species in 1959, the evidence has steadily and increasingly gone against the theory. The whole edifice rested on a 19th century faith in Progress, propped up by a dogmatic commitment to materialism. As the former falters, the whole structure is in danger of collapse.
And an anti-anti-ID PRATT Bombshell?
A unique feature of the book is its interviews. Philosopher of science Karl Popper, for example, spent time at the Hoover Institution at Stanford when Bethell was there and explained that despite reports, he never really recanted his rap on Darwinism (“…not a testable scientific theory,” “There is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this”).
And of course over at Uncommon Descent, News weighs in.
Get your copy before it gets burned in some stupid anti-Trump frenzy!
Great. The DI barfs up another book by a religiously motivate non-scientist with the usual misrepresentations and outright lies about evolutionary theory to sell to other scientifically illiterate Fundies. Mung must be so proud.
I am!
When I post a new OP I often watch for comments by other members that I have on Ignore, because I believe in redemption.
More often than not they go right back on Ignore. Take Adapa, for example. LoL!
He also wrote “Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary?” (2009) Vales Lake Publishing, LLC.
War on science. wink wink wedge
Defending lies and willful ignorance is nothing to be proud of, unless your name is Mung. It’s pretty funny how Mung has stepped up in the last week to defend Joe G’s abject stupidity. Even the other IDiots won’t sink that low but that Mung, he’s always a trend setter. 🙂
Oh. So Bethell has realized that “Darwinism” is going to collapse any day now, like a house of cards.
Of course, he’s been saying that for years. Online, you can find the text of an article he wrote on evolution for Harpers in … wait for it … 1976. See it here. Of course, collapse was imminent then too, a mere 41 years ago.
He’s also into HIV and relativity crackpotting.
HIV/AIDS “skeptic” as well. Not unlike Phillip Johnson in that sense.
Yes, he’s an old and appalling crank who has learned nothing, and he keeps on babbling the same worthless claptrap over the decades.
Glad he belongs to the IDiots. They deserve him.
Glen Davidson
Great post Mung. Opportunity to expand our skepticism. Where is he on the moon landing / germ theory of disease / flat earth? I want to go full skeptic!
Let me see if I understand the logic.
Patrick said X [not OUR Patrick mind you], and X was false, therefore nothing Patrick says [not OUR Patrick mind you] can be trusted.
Is that the logic?
Mung,
No.
I have limited resources.I can’t judge a book by reading it before I buy it, so I’m going to make an assessment based on his domain qualifications (non) and previous work (batshittery). My money is an endorsement, to some degree. You see where this is going.
And he was right.
Next week – Mung shares interesting theories from man who lives in van by the river.
But not having actually read the previous work Richie has no idea what level it is. Qualifications? For discussing one’s journey through the Darwin debates? Seriously?
See, it’s easy to be a “skeptic” when you won’t even consider what people actually say.
+1
Bethell? Tom Bethell, of all people?
Christ, Mung.
Not Christ. Tom Bethell.
From the OP:
Of course, no real skeptic will want to read this book.
Mung,
Keep backing it Mung. Double down. He’s a batshit crackpot.. but he got this one right.
No one interested in honest scientific discussion would offer up such a steaming pile of horseshit in the first place.
It’s ok Richardthughes.
Keep dissing it without having read it. That’s what allows you to identify with all the other “skeptics” here at TSZ. It’s a trait you all have in common. Inherited from grandma Lizzie. You can’t help it. It’s in your genes. The chemicals in your brains. What ever excuse you need.
Mung,
Assuming you’re dim enough to pay actual money for the book, let us know if Bethell still thinks — 40 years later — that evolutionary theory is a tautology.
Pssst…hey Mung…the Amazon link lets you read the intro and the first four chapters. I did read them. There’s enough anti-science stupidity to give batshit77 a run for his money.
But you don’t care. You’ve earned your this week’s quota of Get Into Heaven points by doing your Liar For Jesus duty. You’re covered.
Mung,
Have you talked with the man by the river?
Again, for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Mung,
Even though you are off to a very strong start, you will never break my record for a thread of off-topic comments. 😎
Why should I assume you have your facts right?
Poor Mung. You didn’t even know, did you?
keiths,
But.. it came from the Discovery Institute! And News told him!
So, Mung — you’ve posted a review of the book by someone other than yourself. You seem pretty self-righteous towards those who say they won’t read it.
Did you read it yourself? Are you conversant in what it says? Why should anyone discuss it with you?
He gets dismissed the same way you do – a batshit back-catalogue of inanity: Ticks on melons, dragonflies playing, pyramid power, H2O2…
“Yes I have programmed and used GAs to find solutions to encryption issues.”
“Name ONE GA expert here- besides me (yes I have used and written them) ”
“Look at it this way- Star Trek: Next generation- Lt Data was able to rewire his neuro networks due to the algorithms INSIDE OF HIM”
“My IQ is only 150.”
“Yes, my IQ is much higher than fat Felsenstein’s”
“The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.”
“Who the fuck are you to say there is no point of keeping track of the LKN?”
“Ya see, as I have said before, designing agencies, successful designing agencies anyway, usually do have the capabilities to design what it is they are designing.”
” Anyone who is aware of my physical condition (Thanks Iraq) knows I cannot jump up & down.”
“That doesn’t count the experiments I conduct in my basement. Some labs would be jealous of the equipment I house & use there.
For example I now know that ticks are more attracted to watermelon rinds then they are to orange peels or orange slices. I also know that dragonflies play.”
“The same place I have lived for years.
If you want to visit me I can be found at 550 Main St in Keene, NH. Just ask for Joe G.”
“Junk DNA has been abandoned ”
Isn’t that their core competency? It’s not like they do experiments and discover things. Yammering to the rubes is kinda all they got.
Mung,
Is that the only reason you can think of that people will not want to read this book?
Actually I’m more afraid of people like you and KF when it comes to book burning.
While I know these subjects it looks like a great book from another famous author attacking evolutionism. Every year brings this gift.An embarrassment of riches.
It should reach folks not normally reached. Plus being by a polished WRITER helps in these things. On all sides average or below, like mine, writing ability interferes with regular people who only give some attention to great ideas in science.
Not many “science’ theories get this opposition. There must be something about the quality of evidence for evolutionism.
i think its the complete lack of biological scientific evidence , of weight, that undermines a biological theory(so called).
Perhaps posters here could start threads on important, or novel, main points he makes.
Those who are wrong should be open to being corrected.
I’m open to the option of being wrong. yet no one makes a intelligent case.
So evolutionism has not 20 years left , i think, at this rate of critical attrition. these modern times bring corrections fast and furious. not the old days anymore.
Another anti-science DI book written by a journalist. What could possibly go wrong?
Part of the OP appears to be an a straight lift of text from the Discovery Institute site. That, at the very least, should have been in quotes. I’m also wondering if Mung has read the book that he is shilling for.
I just went a-searchin’ for my favourite list of quotes heralding the death of ‘Darwinism’, a game that has been in train for 160 years. A gem unearthed on the way: “A Scientist With Two PhD’s Tells Why He Believes Evolution Is A Hoax.”.
Two PhD’s!
I kind of assume I already know what’s in it … not very open minded of me I know. I mean, a 30th go-around of the same arguments might change my mind, right?
HA!
Did he have a sweater he found in the dumpster behind a truckstop?
I’d like to pose a question.
A friend wants to learn in an unbiased way about Roosevelt and the New Deal and is asking advice on whether to read a book he found about the New Deal by an amateur historian. Should he read it?
You do a search and find out that the historian denies that the Holocaust happened and thinks its a conspiracy put forward by the “World Zionist Order” The historian also believes the WTC was not brought down by plane impacts but by explosives put in its base by CIA and Mossad agents. Now do you recommend he read the book keeping in mind these 2 topics have nothing to do with the New Deal?
If your answer is no, now you understand why Bethell has disqualified himself from writing about science.
I save double time by not reading Mung.
I do realize that Mung is smart and well read, and gosh darn it, he can program, but what a waste of talent.
Or you might actually formulate an argument to refute them.
But what if your answer is yes?
More to the point, many of us have read some of his anti-evolutionary rubbish, and somehow think that the fact that cladistics works without directly referencing evolutionary theory is hardly an argument against the latter.
Or, at UD his whine that the nodes of the tree of life are missing is brought up. Oh no, the tree is there but the least likely to be preserved parts (and difficult to identify anyhow) weren’t preserved! Whatever shall we do?
Bethell could be right on everything else, and his lack of understanding of evolutionary matters alone would disqualify him from discussing the issue. That he gets much else wrong isn’t exactly surprising for anti-evolutionists, although he’s even more exuberant than most of them at adopting additional unsupported claims.
Glen Davidson
I ordered the book before posting the OP. If I had known a kindle version was available I would have purchased that and would have started reading it already.
Not yet. But I will be. More than anyone else here from the looks of it.
I’m betting they won’t even read it, much less discuss it.
Mung,
Kee-rect. Tom “AIDS is a made-up disease” Bethell.
Everything from the DI site is in quotes Alan. And I provided links to anything that isn’t my own comments. Is this the best you can do. Seriously?
I appreciate your honesty.
We can hope. 🙂
Darwinism isn’t science.
I’ll take the accusation of closed-minded intransigience, if it please your worship to level it. But really, whenever I see someone talking critically about something that is not their field, but is one I know reasonably well, all I ever see is a Gordian knot of misunderstanding. It’s never a stunning new perspective, just the same old same old. It’s fun to pick it apart … for a while.
Mung,
It appears to me that many scientists that follow evolution are abandoning Darwinism an explanation of life’s diversity including Larry Moran. Do you agree?
The first paragraph isn’t.
Minor detail- LoL!
The first paragraph is NOT from the DI and Mung provided a link to it, just as Mung said.