What do you think?
Rate this book
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Explains how rapidly accumulating evidence is threatening the basic assumptions of orthodox Darwinism.
368 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1985
19 people are currently reading
946 people want to read
About the author
Michael Denton
28 books63 followersMichael Denton holds an M.D. from Bristol University, as well as a Ph.D. in biochemistry from King’s College in London. A Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, Denton has had a critical impact on the debate over Darwinian evolution.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
November 15, 2008
Like all cultures, ours has a dominant origin myth (using the word in the sociological sense, which connotes nothing about its truth or falsity): in this case, the mythos of accidental evolution, the emergence and development of the universe and all life in it by blind, random chance through the purposeless interaction of matter and energy, which are defined a priori as the only realities in the universe. Like all origin myths, this one has universal implications for how all areas of life are lived; confers cultural power on the intellectual elite that upholds it; is taught as fact and automatically accepted by most people as a given that needs no examination, and engenders passionate loyalty on many levels independent of rational argument. And like all origin myths, it rests on no eyewitness testimony; the origin of the universe and of life had no humans to record it historically or photographically.
A significant difference between this mythos and many others, though, is its theoretical appeal to empirical evidence. Though the origin is itself unobservable, the physical realities of the universe supposedly provide enough circumstantial evidence to "prove" the mythos. That this proof exists is a postulate most people accept, in practice, on the authority of tradition, social consensus, and "expert" say-so; pressed to explain it, most could not. But the appeal to evidence as the ostensible basis of the belief system is significant --because evidence is supposed to be able to withstand informed examination. This is where Denton's book comes in.
An Australian molecular biologist, Denton has impeccable scientific credentials. (He is also a theistic evolutionist, but here he makes no reference to religious revelation or philosophical reasoning; his case is developed strictly from empirical scientific observations.) He begins by outlining the origins of Darwin's theory and the arguments for it, and traces the history of its rise to a position of dogma. Then, chapter by chapter, he examines the present state of various areas of circumstantial "evidence" for the mythos, and the circumstantial evidence against it. The latter vastly outweighs the former.
There is a great deal of content and information in this book, most of it clearly understandable to intelligent laymen (the chapter on cell biology might be challenging). Two of the most salient points can be summarized as follows. First, we know a great deal more about the actual mechanisms of heredity through DNA than was known in Darwin's day (which was essentially nothing). Everything we know and have observed about the structure and transmission of DNA suggests that it is mutable up to a point --but it is not infinitely mutable. Empirical evidence refutes the fixity of species (a typical straw man Darwinists like to knock down) --but it does suggest the relative fixity of broad kinds of living things, and here the fossil record is completely in harmony with the evidence of biochemistry. Second, most highly developed organs and systems of living things exhibit "irreducible complexity" --that is, their development by small accidental mutations would have required a vast number of them, but none of them would have had any adaptive value at all until the complete development was done, and some would actually have temporarily greatly reduced the ability of the organism to survive. Much earlier, Peter Stoner, in Science Speaks, demonstrated accidental evolution to be a "statistical monstrosity" from the standpoint of probability theory; Denton demonstrates it to be a biological monstrosity as well.
This book is carefully researched and documented, clearly argued, and cogent. It is a pleasure to recommend it to anyone who genuinely wants to understand the "blind chance vs. ultimate purpose" debate.
A significant difference between this mythos and many others, though, is its theoretical appeal to empirical evidence. Though the origin is itself unobservable, the physical realities of the universe supposedly provide enough circumstantial evidence to "prove" the mythos. That this proof exists is a postulate most people accept, in practice, on the authority of tradition, social consensus, and "expert" say-so; pressed to explain it, most could not. But the appeal to evidence as the ostensible basis of the belief system is significant --because evidence is supposed to be able to withstand informed examination. This is where Denton's book comes in.
An Australian molecular biologist, Denton has impeccable scientific credentials. (He is also a theistic evolutionist, but here he makes no reference to religious revelation or philosophical reasoning; his case is developed strictly from empirical scientific observations.) He begins by outlining the origins of Darwin's theory and the arguments for it, and traces the history of its rise to a position of dogma. Then, chapter by chapter, he examines the present state of various areas of circumstantial "evidence" for the mythos, and the circumstantial evidence against it. The latter vastly outweighs the former.
There is a great deal of content and information in this book, most of it clearly understandable to intelligent laymen (the chapter on cell biology might be challenging). Two of the most salient points can be summarized as follows. First, we know a great deal more about the actual mechanisms of heredity through DNA than was known in Darwin's day (which was essentially nothing). Everything we know and have observed about the structure and transmission of DNA suggests that it is mutable up to a point --but it is not infinitely mutable. Empirical evidence refutes the fixity of species (a typical straw man Darwinists like to knock down) --but it does suggest the relative fixity of broad kinds of living things, and here the fossil record is completely in harmony with the evidence of biochemistry. Second, most highly developed organs and systems of living things exhibit "irreducible complexity" --that is, their development by small accidental mutations would have required a vast number of them, but none of them would have had any adaptive value at all until the complete development was done, and some would actually have temporarily greatly reduced the ability of the organism to survive. Much earlier, Peter Stoner, in Science Speaks, demonstrated accidental evolution to be a "statistical monstrosity" from the standpoint of probability theory; Denton demonstrates it to be a biological monstrosity as well.
This book is carefully researched and documented, clearly argued, and cogent. It is a pleasure to recommend it to anyone who genuinely wants to understand the "blind chance vs. ultimate purpose" debate.
September 15, 2015
This is an unusual book. First, it is unusual because it is a book about evolution that manages to avoid the theological polemics (on both sides!) so common whenever the topic of evolution arises. Second, it is unusual because it is a 30 year old book about the science of evolution that is still relevant today. It is the book about evolution that I wish I had read 30 years ago. My background is computer software design so my understanding of biology has not come easily to me. I started studying the subject about two years ago and the details still challenge me. And so I appreciated that the author kept the discussion at the level of basic science with few forays into the minutia of molecular biology. When he did need to present technical material, he explained it with analogy and sufficient definition, so that the lay reader could understand his points.
The book is still relevant today because the core contradiction in evolution has not been solved. That is why Denton calls it a crisis. He does not mean that evolution is wrong. He means that there are “inconvenient facts” that do not fit cleanly into the theory. His first point in the book is that experts know about these facts, but most take the conservative view that ultimately the inconsistencies will be fully explained by the core theory. But Denton is writing the book for the minority who think the core of the theory needs to be revised. He is calling for a “paradigm shift” in the popular terminology introduced by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolution (1962).
So what is the core paradigm of evolution theory? First of all, the core paradigm applies mainly to what is called “macroevolution.” Macroevolution refers to the large scale changes in living species that accrue over long periods of time and to the creation of new species. In contrast, microevolution is the evolution that can be observed over short periods of time, in the laboratory and in the field. Microevolution is subject to experimental verification and nobody doubts that it exists and is an accurate representation of the changes that all living populations undergo.
The problems arise when microevolution is extrapolated to macroevolution. The issues are traceable to Darwin and his insistence that “nature does not make a leap” (“Natura non facit saltum”). This expression was the common wisdom of Darwin’s time. Darwin might have first encountered the expression in Linneaus’ Philosophia Botanica (1778) or perhaps in his gatherings with the Linnean Society. But even if he didn’t encounter it there, the idea was common in the science of his times. Leibniz (1646—1716) used it as did Newton (1642—1727) in their co-invention of the calculus.
Math was not Darwin’s strong suit, but he was very knowledgeable about the Principles of Geology (1830--1833) written by Charles Lyell, the first volume of which accompanied him when he set sail on the HMS Beagle in late 1831. But it was Lyell’s second volume, which arrived in the fall of 1832 when Darwin was in South America that raised the question that would preoccupy Darwin after his return to England. Lyell raised the question of whether plants and animals changed along with the Earth’s geology. Lyell’s answer was “no,” but he had planted a seed. And Lyell’s insistence on gradualism must have made an impression on Darwin: it was key to Lyell’s theory that “causes now in operation,” in the terminology of his subtitle, can be used to explain the past.
Science applied to past events is very different from research into current phenomenon. One cannot observe the past or run repeated experiments on past phenomenon. But if the forces of nature are gradual, continuous, and uniform, then current forces of nature can be reasonably applied to past events. In other words, nature does not make jumps. And Natural Selection was a current force of nature. Darwin had seen it in action in the breeding of sheep—one of his uncles was a leading sheep breeder — although in that case the selection was intentional.
Some historians say that Darwin insisted on the principle of gradualism for theological reasons. The creationists of Darwin’s day invoked catastrophe theories to explain creation and the social movements in the 19th century were moving against the power of the church. Catastrophism relied on supernatural forces and Darwin certainly wanted to avoid any taint of supernaturalism. But, whatever the origin of the idea of gradualism, the science of evolution took a path that Darwin could not have anticipated.
In the late 19th century the mystery about how traits were inherited was partially clarified by the discovery of genetics. And in the 20th century the molecular basis of genetics was discovered in the structure and function of DNA. This meant that the science of evolution could be very rigorous about microevolution; it could be studied in detail at the molecular level. With these advances, macroevolution had to be extrapolated anew from the detailed understanding of microevolution. The answer was that genetic mutations were gradual. They had to be otherwise the reasoning about current forces could not be applied to past events! This translated into random mutations generally thought to be the result of copying errors as DNA is replicated.
In this book, Michael Denton focuses like a laser on this basic foundation of Darwinian Evolution: nature does not make jumps. He rigorously examines the gaps in nature and what they might mean for the theory. These gaps are well known. There are gaps in the taxonomy of species because species do not flow continuously from one to the other. Mammals have hair, birds have feathers, reptiles have scales, etc. The best representation for the different species is something called a “nested hierarchy.” In other words, species can be rigorously categorized by their features. The discontinuous categorization of species is supported by DNA evidence.
Secondly, there are gaps in the fossil record. Some of the nodes in the nested hierarchy can be associated with actual fossils, but most cannot. The fossils are missing. These gaps in the fossil evidence led Stephen J. Gould (1941—2002) and one of his students to propose a theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. In this theory, evolution of new species happens quickly but then each species stays constant for long stretches of time. Punctuated Equilibrium, if it is true, is neither uniform nor gradual evolution.
Finally, the genetics implied by random mutation cannot reasonably be expected to act quickly enough to produce the adaptive variations that we actually find. With over 3 billion letters in human DNA, if each mutation has an equal chance of occurring at each letter then the chance of an adaptive mutation is vanishingly small. Even the smallest bacterial organism needs about one-half million DNA letters. Adaptive mutations are as rare as the proverbial needle in a haystack based on the assumption of random mutation.
While the treatment of possible non-random processes for mutation was beyond the scope of the book, let me quote from University of Chicago microbiologist James A. Shapiro in his book, Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (2011):
Author Lee M. Spetner has proposed a theory of non-random evolution whereby environmental factors influence genetic change. This idea is based on the growing research into epigenetics.
In conclusion, Denton summarizes that the foundational assumption about nature not making jumps is flawed. There is no known law of nature that makes this assumption true. In fact, beginnings are known to be discontinuous. The universe had a discontinuous beginning 13.7 billion years ago and life is thought to have a discontinuous beginning over 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Quantum theory requires nature to make jumps, albeit at small intervals. Cataclysmic forces are thought to have created Earth’s moon. There is no requirement for nature to be continuous, particularly nature applied to living organisms, all of which will ultimately cease to be alive.
However, until a new theory comes along, Darwinian Evolution is the best we’ve got. But in order for there to be a new theory, a paradigm shift has to occur. When this book was written in the 1980’s, too many specialists believed in random mutation for that to change. Perhaps Denton is at his best in explaining how scientific paradigms turn into dogma:
30 years later perhaps we are beginning to see this change as more specialists like Dr. Shapiro begin to question the dogmatic underpinnings of traditional evolution theory. In view of the ongoing criticism of the traditional theory, perhaps Denton’s book can even be called prophetic.
The book is still relevant today because the core contradiction in evolution has not been solved. That is why Denton calls it a crisis. He does not mean that evolution is wrong. He means that there are “inconvenient facts” that do not fit cleanly into the theory. His first point in the book is that experts know about these facts, but most take the conservative view that ultimately the inconsistencies will be fully explained by the core theory. But Denton is writing the book for the minority who think the core of the theory needs to be revised. He is calling for a “paradigm shift” in the popular terminology introduced by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolution (1962).
So what is the core paradigm of evolution theory? First of all, the core paradigm applies mainly to what is called “macroevolution.” Macroevolution refers to the large scale changes in living species that accrue over long periods of time and to the creation of new species. In contrast, microevolution is the evolution that can be observed over short periods of time, in the laboratory and in the field. Microevolution is subject to experimental verification and nobody doubts that it exists and is an accurate representation of the changes that all living populations undergo.
The problems arise when microevolution is extrapolated to macroevolution. The issues are traceable to Darwin and his insistence that “nature does not make a leap” (“Natura non facit saltum”). This expression was the common wisdom of Darwin’s time. Darwin might have first encountered the expression in Linneaus’ Philosophia Botanica (1778) or perhaps in his gatherings with the Linnean Society. But even if he didn’t encounter it there, the idea was common in the science of his times. Leibniz (1646—1716) used it as did Newton (1642—1727) in their co-invention of the calculus.
Math was not Darwin’s strong suit, but he was very knowledgeable about the Principles of Geology (1830--1833) written by Charles Lyell, the first volume of which accompanied him when he set sail on the HMS Beagle in late 1831. But it was Lyell’s second volume, which arrived in the fall of 1832 when Darwin was in South America that raised the question that would preoccupy Darwin after his return to England. Lyell raised the question of whether plants and animals changed along with the Earth’s geology. Lyell’s answer was “no,” but he had planted a seed. And Lyell’s insistence on gradualism must have made an impression on Darwin: it was key to Lyell’s theory that “causes now in operation,” in the terminology of his subtitle, can be used to explain the past.
Science applied to past events is very different from research into current phenomenon. One cannot observe the past or run repeated experiments on past phenomenon. But if the forces of nature are gradual, continuous, and uniform, then current forces of nature can be reasonably applied to past events. In other words, nature does not make jumps. And Natural Selection was a current force of nature. Darwin had seen it in action in the breeding of sheep—one of his uncles was a leading sheep breeder — although in that case the selection was intentional.
Some historians say that Darwin insisted on the principle of gradualism for theological reasons. The creationists of Darwin’s day invoked catastrophe theories to explain creation and the social movements in the 19th century were moving against the power of the church. Catastrophism relied on supernatural forces and Darwin certainly wanted to avoid any taint of supernaturalism. But, whatever the origin of the idea of gradualism, the science of evolution took a path that Darwin could not have anticipated.
In the late 19th century the mystery about how traits were inherited was partially clarified by the discovery of genetics. And in the 20th century the molecular basis of genetics was discovered in the structure and function of DNA. This meant that the science of evolution could be very rigorous about microevolution; it could be studied in detail at the molecular level. With these advances, macroevolution had to be extrapolated anew from the detailed understanding of microevolution. The answer was that genetic mutations were gradual. They had to be otherwise the reasoning about current forces could not be applied to past events! This translated into random mutations generally thought to be the result of copying errors as DNA is replicated.
In this book, Michael Denton focuses like a laser on this basic foundation of Darwinian Evolution: nature does not make jumps. He rigorously examines the gaps in nature and what they might mean for the theory. These gaps are well known. There are gaps in the taxonomy of species because species do not flow continuously from one to the other. Mammals have hair, birds have feathers, reptiles have scales, etc. The best representation for the different species is something called a “nested hierarchy.” In other words, species can be rigorously categorized by their features. The discontinuous categorization of species is supported by DNA evidence.
Secondly, there are gaps in the fossil record. Some of the nodes in the nested hierarchy can be associated with actual fossils, but most cannot. The fossils are missing. These gaps in the fossil evidence led Stephen J. Gould (1941—2002) and one of his students to propose a theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. In this theory, evolution of new species happens quickly but then each species stays constant for long stretches of time. Punctuated Equilibrium, if it is true, is neither uniform nor gradual evolution.
Finally, the genetics implied by random mutation cannot reasonably be expected to act quickly enough to produce the adaptive variations that we actually find. With over 3 billion letters in human DNA, if each mutation has an equal chance of occurring at each letter then the chance of an adaptive mutation is vanishingly small. Even the smallest bacterial organism needs about one-half million DNA letters. Adaptive mutations are as rare as the proverbial needle in a haystack based on the assumption of random mutation.
While the treatment of possible non-random processes for mutation was beyond the scope of the book, let me quote from University of Chicago microbiologist James A. Shapiro in his book, Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (2011):
It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant nonrandom patterns of change, and genome sequence studies confirm distinct biases in location of different mobile genetic elements.
Author Lee M. Spetner has proposed a theory of non-random evolution whereby environmental factors influence genetic change. This idea is based on the growing research into epigenetics.
In conclusion, Denton summarizes that the foundational assumption about nature not making jumps is flawed. There is no known law of nature that makes this assumption true. In fact, beginnings are known to be discontinuous. The universe had a discontinuous beginning 13.7 billion years ago and life is thought to have a discontinuous beginning over 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Quantum theory requires nature to make jumps, albeit at small intervals. Cataclysmic forces are thought to have created Earth’s moon. There is no requirement for nature to be continuous, particularly nature applied to living organisms, all of which will ultimately cease to be alive.
However, until a new theory comes along, Darwinian Evolution is the best we’ve got. But in order for there to be a new theory, a paradigm shift has to occur. When this book was written in the 1980’s, too many specialists believed in random mutation for that to change. Perhaps Denton is at his best in explaining how scientific paradigms turn into dogma:
As the years passed after the Darwinian revolution, and as evolution became more and more consolidated into dogma, the gestalt of continuity imposed itself on every facet of biology. The discontinuities of nature could no longer be perceived. Consequently, debate slackened and there was less need to justify the idea of evolution by reference to the facts.
Increasingly, its highly theoretical nature was forgotten, and gradually Darwinian concepts came to permeate every aspect of biological thought so that today all biological phenomenon are interpreted in Darwinian terms and every professional biologist is subject throughout his working life to continued affirmation of the truth of Darwinian theory.
The fact that every journal, academic debate and popular discussion assumes the truth of Darwinian theory tends to reinforce its credibility enormously. This is bound to be so because, as sociologists of knowledge are at pains to point out, it is by conversation in its broadest sense of the word that our views and conceptions of reality are maintained and therefore the plausibility of any theory or world view is largely dependent upon the social support it receives rather than its empirical content or rational consistency. Thus the all pervasive affirmation of the validity of Darwinian theory has had the inevitable effect of raising its status into an impregnable axiom which could not even conceivably be wrong.
30 years later perhaps we are beginning to see this change as more specialists like Dr. Shapiro begin to question the dogmatic underpinnings of traditional evolution theory. In view of the ongoing criticism of the traditional theory, perhaps Denton’s book can even be called prophetic.
November 22, 2014
I found the science compelling, though a lot of it I already knew, so I was able to breeze through quite a bit. Still, it did provide me with additional information, and the author properly builds up his arguments step by step.
I find it mind-boggling that there are people who state categorically that Darwinian macro-evolution is a proven fact, especially scientists who are supposedly open-minded, but we know from history that, being human, they aren't always open to being shown that what they believe could be wrong.
I find it mind-boggling that there are people who state categorically that Darwinian macro-evolution is a proven fact, especially scientists who are supposedly open-minded, but we know from history that, being human, they aren't always open to being shown that what they believe could be wrong.
September 24, 2009
The only conflict between God and science is our own arrogance. There should not be an unification of science and religion: one asks how and the other asks why; one deals with facts and the other deals with the soul; one enhances our understanding of the universe, the other enhances our understanding of ourselves.
I applaud the author's effort in proving that an "Intellegent Designer" exists. Perhaps the de facto text book on Intelligent Design, this book introduces an omnipotent entity, whom supposedly has nothing to do with any particular religion, however the first chapter, named "Genesis Rejected," reveals the fact that the "Intelligent Designer" is just the Christian God in disguise. The argument that what Darwin and the Theory of Evolution cannot explain can only be explained by the "Intelligent Designer" (or as a matter of fact, God) is a fallacy that one should always keep in mind while reading this book.
I applaud the author's effort in proving that an "Intellegent Designer" exists. Perhaps the de facto text book on Intelligent Design, this book introduces an omnipotent entity, whom supposedly has nothing to do with any particular religion, however the first chapter, named "Genesis Rejected," reveals the fact that the "Intelligent Designer" is just the Christian God in disguise. The argument that what Darwin and the Theory of Evolution cannot explain can only be explained by the "Intelligent Designer" (or as a matter of fact, God) is a fallacy that one should always keep in mind while reading this book.
August 16, 2017
It is highly recommended to understand the presuppositions before studying any scientific theory. The adoption or rejection of the theory of evolution depends on the choice of paradigm, a paradigm that always precedes the theory.
The best chapters in this book are chapter 5 and 6, from pg. 250-350 when he criticize the ability of "random mutation in the natural selection" with solid ground of evidence devoid of religious opinion which making it independent of the holistic view of the intelligent design.
It is one of the most important books that criticized Darwinist theory, providing detailed, in-depth, comprehensive criticism.
The best chapters in this book are chapter 5 and 6, from pg. 250-350 when he criticize the ability of "random mutation in the natural selection" with solid ground of evidence devoid of religious opinion which making it independent of the holistic view of the intelligent design.
It is one of the most important books that criticized Darwinist theory, providing detailed, in-depth, comprehensive criticism.
October 6, 2007
Denton's strength and originality lies in his sections on molecular biology, which whilst now dated, still make valuable and valid reading (in fact his case is stronger now as he anticipated).
His principle argument is that far from bolstering the case for Darwin as is too often idly claimed, comparison of gene and proteomic sequences strongly confirms the typology of Darwin's opponents. Why? Because no ancestral pathways are found between anatomically similar species, in fact there is an almost mathematical beauty to genome separation between them.
His writing is lucid, persuasive and well illustrated. A good antidote to Gould or Dawkins's myth spinning.
His principle argument is that far from bolstering the case for Darwin as is too often idly claimed, comparison of gene and proteomic sequences strongly confirms the typology of Darwin's opponents. Why? Because no ancestral pathways are found between anatomically similar species, in fact there is an almost mathematical beauty to genome separation between them.
His writing is lucid, persuasive and well illustrated. A good antidote to Gould or Dawkins's myth spinning.
August 30, 2016
An atheist rejects the neo-darwinian synthesis based on scientific grounds.
January 15, 2018
For many people, myself included, this book was the initial clarion call demonstrating the scientific flaws within the paradigm of evolution. While the intellectual roots of Intelligent Design go back quite further than this book, this book is the moment when such thoughts entered the intellectual mainstream [1], much to the chagrin of those who are in denial of the scientific evidence even to this day. What strikes me as particularly noteworthy about this and other books is that different people have different approaches to the crisis of evolution but in general they all end up with the same conclusions, demonstration of the immensely troubled nature of the theory and the desperation its adherents have in avoiding competition and protecting their theory by any means possible because the alternative(s) are so unpalatable. One almost has sympathy for the unfriendly readers of this and other books like that cannot deal with the facts of the matter nor are unwilling to accept how beleaguered their paradigm is, but who feel it necessary to lash out against those who would trouble their sleep and remind them of truths that they are unwilling to accept. Needless to say, I found this book an immensely enjoyable read.
In about 350 pages or so, the author deals with the crisis of evolution by exploring various lines of argument and evidence. The first few chapters of this book give the historical context for evolution, for Darwin's initial ideas as well as for the way that Darwin went from an embattled theory with a lot of gaps and blank spaces to a dogma whose problematic nature was papered over with triumphalist rhetoric. After this the author talks about typology, looking at it as an approach and looking at its viability in contemporary cladistics. After that the author looks at the failure of homology, the discontinuous nature of the fossil record, the way that evolutionists bridge the gaps in their imagination through hopeful monsters and a deliberate ignorance of the absence of ancestral or transitional forms. As the book winds to a close the author talks about molecular biology, the problem of abiotic evolution, the probablistic impossibility of evolution, and the importance of the paradigm in better understanding the facts of science as they present themselves through investigation and experimentation. Each chapter contains a great deal of resources, showing that the author has indeed done his homework in this magnum opus.
If Behe is better known for his in-depth discussion of biochemistry and Philip Johnson is more notable for his discussion of tactics and strategy, Denton's area of expertise here is in the philosophy of science as well as gross anatomy and the fossil record. If you want to know about the implications of typology on the hierarchy of nature and its resulting discontinuity, this is a great place to go. The author deserves a lot of credit for putting a wide variety of deep and thus far unsolved problems before the public eye, bringing the house secrets of paleontology and other disciplines to a wider awareness and increasing skepticism about evolution in the public discourse. The way the author trolls evolutionists with references to discredited theories of the past is also deeply entertaining for this reader. In reading a book like this, a sympathetic reader gets a sense of the deep problems of continuous solutions and how those problems work on a large scale across wide areas of science, which have given later writers a lot of avenues to work with in expanding the ground laid by the author. This is a well-deserved classic book that deserves being reread and reflected upon as the crisis of evolution is no less serious now than it was when Denton wrote, and all too impossible to ignore.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2012...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
In about 350 pages or so, the author deals with the crisis of evolution by exploring various lines of argument and evidence. The first few chapters of this book give the historical context for evolution, for Darwin's initial ideas as well as for the way that Darwin went from an embattled theory with a lot of gaps and blank spaces to a dogma whose problematic nature was papered over with triumphalist rhetoric. After this the author talks about typology, looking at it as an approach and looking at its viability in contemporary cladistics. After that the author looks at the failure of homology, the discontinuous nature of the fossil record, the way that evolutionists bridge the gaps in their imagination through hopeful monsters and a deliberate ignorance of the absence of ancestral or transitional forms. As the book winds to a close the author talks about molecular biology, the problem of abiotic evolution, the probablistic impossibility of evolution, and the importance of the paradigm in better understanding the facts of science as they present themselves through investigation and experimentation. Each chapter contains a great deal of resources, showing that the author has indeed done his homework in this magnum opus.
If Behe is better known for his in-depth discussion of biochemistry and Philip Johnson is more notable for his discussion of tactics and strategy, Denton's area of expertise here is in the philosophy of science as well as gross anatomy and the fossil record. If you want to know about the implications of typology on the hierarchy of nature and its resulting discontinuity, this is a great place to go. The author deserves a lot of credit for putting a wide variety of deep and thus far unsolved problems before the public eye, bringing the house secrets of paleontology and other disciplines to a wider awareness and increasing skepticism about evolution in the public discourse. The way the author trolls evolutionists with references to discredited theories of the past is also deeply entertaining for this reader. In reading a book like this, a sympathetic reader gets a sense of the deep problems of continuous solutions and how those problems work on a large scale across wide areas of science, which have given later writers a lot of avenues to work with in expanding the ground laid by the author. This is a well-deserved classic book that deserves being reread and reflected upon as the crisis of evolution is no less serious now than it was when Denton wrote, and all too impossible to ignore.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2012...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
Want to read
November 12, 2013Author rehashes the antiquated and conveniently unproveable "clock must have a clockmaker" hypothesis, essentially contending a divinity tinkered with the balance of nature to create a universe that can support life. A divine power may not have created life, but certainly made the conditions right for it. This seems to support a hypothesis of a universe filled with an innumerable number of failures (and perhaps other universes with laws that resulted in complete system collapse) brimming with hazards that serve as a constant threat to the only instance of success we know. Ironically, if this divinity has had the patience to remain interested in the progress of its creation, it must be annoyed to the point of desertion that its most successful living form seems determined to exterminate itself.
June 16, 2014
Brilliant. Well written and persuasive.
February 16, 2025
THE FAMED BIOCHEMICAL CRITIQUE OF "ORTHODOX" DARWINISM
Michael John Denton (born 1943) is a British-Australian author and biochemist, who is a current Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture; he has also written 'Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe.'
He wrote in the Preface to this 1985 book, "one can adopt the conservative position and view the difficulties [in evolutionary theory] as essentially trivial... Alternatively, one can adopt a radical position and view the problems... as counterinstances or paradoxes which ... [are] indicative therefore of something fundamentally wrong with the currently accepted view of evolution... In this book I have adopted the radical approach... I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework..."
He says, "although [Archaeopteryx] had certain reptilian characteristics, its wing possessed normal flight feathers and may have been as capable of powered flight as a modern pigeon or crow... between reptiles and Archaeopteryx there was still a very obvious gap." (Pg. 57-58) He adds later, "one could continue citing almost ad infinitum complex defining characteristics... [which] are not led up to in any way through a series of transitional structures. Such a list would include ... the vertebral column of vertebrates... the pentadactyl limb of tetrapods, the spinneret and male copulating organ of spiders, the wing of a bat... the neck of the giraffe, the male reproductive organs of the dragonfly, and so on..." (Pg. 107)
He argues, "The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have shown that homologous structures were specified by homologous genes and followed homologous patterns of embryological development... But it has become clear that the principle cannot be extended in this way." (Pg. 145)
He points out, "taking into account all the modifications necessary to convert a land mammal into a whale---forelimb modifications, the evolution of tail flukes, the ... reduction of hindlimbs, modifications to bring nostrils to the top of the head... specialized nipples so that the young could feed underwater... one is inclined to think in terms of possibly hundreds, even thousands, of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales." (Pg. 174) He observes, "The central difficulty with all gradual schemes for the evolution of the feather is that any aerofoil constructed out of feathers will only work if the feathers are strong, capable of resisting deformation and capable of forming an impervious vane. Moreover, there has to be a sufficient number of feathers to provide a sufficient surface area to achieve the requisite degree of lift." (Pg. 207-209)
He notes about bird lungs, "Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually ... is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes." (Pg. 211-212)
About 'quantifiable' evidence from biochemistry (e.g. "man and chimp DNA differ by only 1 or 2%"), he explains, "each particular protein had a slightly different sequence... Cytochrome C... varied less between species than haemoglobin... While the hemoglobin sequences of man and dog differed by 20%, their cytochrome ... varied by only 5%." (Pg. 276)
He adds. "There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: cyclostome-fish-amphibian-reptile-mammal. Incredibly, man is as close to lamprey as are fish!" (Pg. 294) He adds, "But although such a [molecular] clock is perfectly capable of accounting for the observed equal divergence of, say, all vertebrate cytochromes from those of insects, no one has been able to explain in precise terms exactly how such a time constant process could work... the hypothesis of a molecular clock is really a tautology..." (Pg. 296)
Although Denton is most often cited by creationists (notwithstanding that he accepts non-Darwinian evolution), his book will be "must reading" for anyone interested on evolutionary theory.
Michael John Denton (born 1943) is a British-Australian author and biochemist, who is a current Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture; he has also written 'Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe.'
He wrote in the Preface to this 1985 book, "one can adopt the conservative position and view the difficulties [in evolutionary theory] as essentially trivial... Alternatively, one can adopt a radical position and view the problems... as counterinstances or paradoxes which ... [are] indicative therefore of something fundamentally wrong with the currently accepted view of evolution... In this book I have adopted the radical approach... I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework..."
He says, "although [Archaeopteryx] had certain reptilian characteristics, its wing possessed normal flight feathers and may have been as capable of powered flight as a modern pigeon or crow... between reptiles and Archaeopteryx there was still a very obvious gap." (Pg. 57-58) He adds later, "one could continue citing almost ad infinitum complex defining characteristics... [which] are not led up to in any way through a series of transitional structures. Such a list would include ... the vertebral column of vertebrates... the pentadactyl limb of tetrapods, the spinneret and male copulating organ of spiders, the wing of a bat... the neck of the giraffe, the male reproductive organs of the dragonfly, and so on..." (Pg. 107)
He argues, "The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have shown that homologous structures were specified by homologous genes and followed homologous patterns of embryological development... But it has become clear that the principle cannot be extended in this way." (Pg. 145)
He points out, "taking into account all the modifications necessary to convert a land mammal into a whale---forelimb modifications, the evolution of tail flukes, the ... reduction of hindlimbs, modifications to bring nostrils to the top of the head... specialized nipples so that the young could feed underwater... one is inclined to think in terms of possibly hundreds, even thousands, of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales." (Pg. 174) He observes, "The central difficulty with all gradual schemes for the evolution of the feather is that any aerofoil constructed out of feathers will only work if the feathers are strong, capable of resisting deformation and capable of forming an impervious vane. Moreover, there has to be a sufficient number of feathers to provide a sufficient surface area to achieve the requisite degree of lift." (Pg. 207-209)
He notes about bird lungs, "Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually ... is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes." (Pg. 211-212)
About 'quantifiable' evidence from biochemistry (e.g. "man and chimp DNA differ by only 1 or 2%"), he explains, "each particular protein had a slightly different sequence... Cytochrome C... varied less between species than haemoglobin... While the hemoglobin sequences of man and dog differed by 20%, their cytochrome ... varied by only 5%." (Pg. 276)
He adds. "There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: cyclostome-fish-amphibian-reptile-mammal. Incredibly, man is as close to lamprey as are fish!" (Pg. 294) He adds, "But although such a [molecular] clock is perfectly capable of accounting for the observed equal divergence of, say, all vertebrate cytochromes from those of insects, no one has been able to explain in precise terms exactly how such a time constant process could work... the hypothesis of a molecular clock is really a tautology..." (Pg. 296)
Although Denton is most often cited by creationists (notwithstanding that he accepts non-Darwinian evolution), his book will be "must reading" for anyone interested on evolutionary theory.
August 5, 2017
Dévoile bien les présupposés avant toute théorie scientifique. Soit une vision continue ou une vision discontinue des espèces. L'adoption ou le rejet de la théorie de l'évolution dépend du choix de paradigme, paradigme qui précède toujours la théorie. Les meilleurs chapitres (peut-être les seuls que je conseille de lire) sont les chapitre 5 et 6.
October 24, 2013
Simply the most important book to be published on the subject of evolution, still true three decades on. In the decades to come, long after Dawkins is forgotten, this will be remembered as highly significant and ahead of its time.
July 19, 2023
wiki
Reviews by parties within the scientific community were vehemently negative, with several attacking flaws in Denton's arguments.
Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both — and it may be very hard to decide which is the case" and that his "arguments turn out to be flagrant instances of the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion."
---
Biologist Walter P. Coombs writing in Library Journal said:
Denton details legitimate questions, some as old as Darwin's theory, some as new as molecular biology, but he also distorts or misrepresents other 'problems'" and that "much of the book reads like creationist prattle, but there are also some interesting points.
---
Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California, Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review" because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as bald assertions accompanied, more often than not, with scorn."
---
Denton suggested that these data undermined the notion that fish were ancestral to frogs, which were ancestral to reptiles, which were ancestral to birds and mammals. If they were, then wouldn't the difference in cytochrome C structures be increasingly different from carp to frog, to reptile, to mammal? How could the cytochrome c amino acid sequences for such a wide range of species all be "equidistant" from the sequence for bacteria?
Molecular biologists quickly pointed out the fallacy in Denton's argument. Just as there is no such thing as a "living fossil", and all modern species are cousins, so too, the amino acid sequences for all living species have been evolving since the time of their divergence from a common ancestor.
A modern carp is not an ancestor to a frog; frogs are not ancestors to turtles; turtles are not ancestors to rabbits.
Similarly, the variations in eukaryotic cytochrome c structure with respect to bacteria are all due to mutations taking place since divergence from the common ancestor of these different organisms.
It thus is not surprising that they show a similar level of divergence and equidistance of this type was even predicted and confirmed by researchers as early as 1963.
---
Denton did understand this reply, but claimed that it was implausible to assume that such a molecular clock could keep such constant time over different lineages.
Those familiar with molecular clocks did not agree, since calibration with fossil records shows the cytochrome clock to be surprisingly reliable, and also found his suggestion that molecular equidistance was instead evidence of some sort of evolutionary "direction" to be a more implausible assumption than the one to which he was objecting.
Critics found it difficult to accept a "directed" mechanism for changes in cytochrome C that were neutral, producing different proteins whose action was the same.
---
Denton's conclusions have been called "erroneous" and "spurious" and marine biologist Wesley R. Elsberry states that all the observations in question can be explained within the modern framework of evolutionary theory.
Reviews by parties within the scientific community were vehemently negative, with several attacking flaws in Denton's arguments.
Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both — and it may be very hard to decide which is the case" and that his "arguments turn out to be flagrant instances of the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion."
---
Biologist Walter P. Coombs writing in Library Journal said:
Denton details legitimate questions, some as old as Darwin's theory, some as new as molecular biology, but he also distorts or misrepresents other 'problems'" and that "much of the book reads like creationist prattle, but there are also some interesting points.
---
Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California, Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review" because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as bald assertions accompanied, more often than not, with scorn."
---
Denton suggested that these data undermined the notion that fish were ancestral to frogs, which were ancestral to reptiles, which were ancestral to birds and mammals. If they were, then wouldn't the difference in cytochrome C structures be increasingly different from carp to frog, to reptile, to mammal? How could the cytochrome c amino acid sequences for such a wide range of species all be "equidistant" from the sequence for bacteria?
Molecular biologists quickly pointed out the fallacy in Denton's argument. Just as there is no such thing as a "living fossil", and all modern species are cousins, so too, the amino acid sequences for all living species have been evolving since the time of their divergence from a common ancestor.
A modern carp is not an ancestor to a frog; frogs are not ancestors to turtles; turtles are not ancestors to rabbits.
Similarly, the variations in eukaryotic cytochrome c structure with respect to bacteria are all due to mutations taking place since divergence from the common ancestor of these different organisms.
It thus is not surprising that they show a similar level of divergence and equidistance of this type was even predicted and confirmed by researchers as early as 1963.
---
Denton did understand this reply, but claimed that it was implausible to assume that such a molecular clock could keep such constant time over different lineages.
Those familiar with molecular clocks did not agree, since calibration with fossil records shows the cytochrome clock to be surprisingly reliable, and also found his suggestion that molecular equidistance was instead evidence of some sort of evolutionary "direction" to be a more implausible assumption than the one to which he was objecting.
Critics found it difficult to accept a "directed" mechanism for changes in cytochrome C that were neutral, producing different proteins whose action was the same.
---
Denton's conclusions have been called "erroneous" and "spurious" and marine biologist Wesley R. Elsberry states that all the observations in question can be explained within the modern framework of evolutionary theory.
September 30, 2022
evolution: a theory in crisis= التطور نظرية في إزمة
كتاب رائع بحق د.مايكل دنتون قام بكتابته منذ 35 سنة حينما كان بعمر 42 سنة و هو في كامل قوة العقلية و نضجه فلا نستطيع القول أنه شخص حديث السن يهرف بما لا يعرف قدم دنتون في هذا الكتاب بعض الإنتقادات المعتبرة لنظرية التطور بلغة يغلب عليها الإستحياء و الترقب و هذا الأمر سيتغير بعد 35 سنة تكمن أهمية رد دنتون أنه اعتمد في نقواده هذه على إساس علمي مادي بحت فالرجل كان و مايزال معتنقاً للاأدرية كام كان داروين فهو و في هذا الموضع يقف على الحياد بين المؤيد و المعارض على إساس أيدولچيا عقائدية فالكتاب أجد في الكلام العلمي و بأسلوب منسق و متناسق جداً تجعلك تقرأ بشغف كل سطر و تستمتع بقراءة الكتاب لا عجب في أنه كان الملهم لدكتور مايكل بيهي في جعله يخرج للعالم بفكرة مصيدة الفئران " التعقيد الغير قابل للتبسيط"يعرض في د.نتون في صفحاته الأول بعض من علاقة داروين بالعلوم الأخر مثل الأقتصاد و نظريات لامارك الرأسمالية و ينظر في حجج الدعامه لداروين وهي أن التشبه بين الكائنات هي أحد أهم الإثباتات على أنه انحدارت من سلف مشترك و أنه لا يمكن تفسير هذا بأي شيء إلا عن طريق التطور فقط لكن يبدأ د.دنتون بسرد تصور علم الإنماط الذي كان سائداً قبل داروين و يوضح أنه ليس بالضرورة أن يتم التفسير هذا التشبه بالنموذج الداروين فالنموذج القديم مازال بحالة جيدة لكن يحتاج لبعض التحسينات و يأكد على أنه ليس كل من كان يعارض داروين في القرن 18 هم رعاية الكنيسة الذين كان يعتقدون أن الإرض و أنهم إن هم إلا شخصيات تحركها الإيديولوجية الدينية العمياء بل كان هنالك علماء ولهم أراء معتبرة يعرض بعد ذلك نظرته حول بعض الإشياء مثل الحلقات الوسيطة وبعض الأشكالت التي تجعل منه فعلاً حلقات وسيطة ثم يشير لفكرة التعقيد الغير قابل للتبسيط و أظن من هذا الجزء أخذ بيهي الدفع نحو أظهر فكرته الكتاب يغلب عليه أسلوب I'don't care فهو يتكلم بنوع من الحرية بدون النظر لأيّ نوع من القولبات ولعل هذا ماجعل الموضوع لهوا صدّ واسع للكتاب فيصعب حسب دنتون على قسم المدينين أو المؤمنين فهو لا يتهم بوجود إله من عدمه هو فقط يقول ما يراه و يوفق قناعته وحسب الكتاب ممتاز يستحق 5 نجوم
كتاب رائع بحق د.مايكل دنتون قام بكتابته منذ 35 سنة حينما كان بعمر 42 سنة و هو في كامل قوة العقلية و نضجه فلا نستطيع القول أنه شخص حديث السن يهرف بما لا يعرف قدم دنتون في هذا الكتاب بعض الإنتقادات المعتبرة لنظرية التطور بلغة يغلب عليها الإستحياء و الترقب و هذا الأمر سيتغير بعد 35 سنة تكمن أهمية رد دنتون أنه اعتمد في نقواده هذه على إساس علمي مادي بحت فالرجل كان و مايزال معتنقاً للاأدرية كام كان داروين فهو و في هذا الموضع يقف على الحياد بين المؤيد و المعارض على إساس أيدولچيا عقائدية فالكتاب أجد في الكلام العلمي و بأسلوب منسق و متناسق جداً تجعلك تقرأ بشغف كل سطر و تستمتع بقراءة الكتاب لا عجب في أنه كان الملهم لدكتور مايكل بيهي في جعله يخرج للعالم بفكرة مصيدة الفئران " التعقيد الغير قابل للتبسيط"يعرض في د.نتون في صفحاته الأول بعض من علاقة داروين بالعلوم الأخر مثل الأقتصاد و نظريات لامارك الرأسمالية و ينظر في حجج الدعامه لداروين وهي أن التشبه بين الكائنات هي أحد أهم الإثباتات على أنه انحدارت من سلف مشترك و أنه لا يمكن تفسير هذا بأي شيء إلا عن طريق التطور فقط لكن يبدأ د.دنتون بسرد تصور علم الإنماط الذي كان سائداً قبل داروين و يوضح أنه ليس بالضرورة أن يتم التفسير هذا التشبه بالنموذج الداروين فالنموذج القديم مازال بحالة جيدة لكن يحتاج لبعض التحسينات و يأكد على أنه ليس كل من كان يعارض داروين في القرن 18 هم رعاية الكنيسة الذين كان يعتقدون أن الإرض و أنهم إن هم إلا شخصيات تحركها الإيديولوجية الدينية العمياء بل كان هنالك علماء ولهم أراء معتبرة يعرض بعد ذلك نظرته حول بعض الإشياء مثل الحلقات الوسيطة وبعض الأشكالت التي تجعل منه فعلاً حلقات وسيطة ثم يشير لفكرة التعقيد الغير قابل للتبسيط و أظن من هذا الجزء أخذ بيهي الدفع نحو أظهر فكرته الكتاب يغلب عليه أسلوب I'don't care فهو يتكلم بنوع من الحرية بدون النظر لأيّ نوع من القولبات ولعل هذا ماجعل الموضوع لهوا صدّ واسع للكتاب فيصعب حسب دنتون على قسم المدينين أو المؤمنين فهو لا يتهم بوجود إله من عدمه هو فقط يقول ما يراه و يوفق قناعته وحسب الكتاب ممتاز يستحق 5 نجوم
March 12, 2019
Une critique du Darwinisme qui consiste principalement à souligner le fait que tout dans la nature nous indique qu’elle est discontinue.
Michael Denton montre les problèmes logiques de la théorie de l’évolution. Il conclut qu’elle est si peu crédible que la seule raison pour laquelle elle est maintenue est l’absence de théorie scientifique alternative purement naturaliste. En effet, le Lamarckisme, le creationnisme ou la pensée de Teilhard de Chardin doivent faire appel aujourd’hui à des forces « surnaturelles ».
En analysant la biologie moléculaire, les données fossiles, l’histoire et la logique, il montre que de nombreux systèmes complexes n’ont pas pu, même conceptuellement, être atteints par une évolution graduelle et progressive.
Michael Denton montre les problèmes logiques de la théorie de l’évolution. Il conclut qu’elle est si peu crédible que la seule raison pour laquelle elle est maintenue est l’absence de théorie scientifique alternative purement naturaliste. En effet, le Lamarckisme, le creationnisme ou la pensée de Teilhard de Chardin doivent faire appel aujourd’hui à des forces « surnaturelles ».
En analysant la biologie moléculaire, les données fossiles, l’histoire et la logique, il montre que de nombreux systèmes complexes n’ont pas pu, même conceptuellement, être atteints par une évolution graduelle et progressive.
December 3, 2020
I picked this up to use in a Philosophy essay and quoted Denton a couple of times when discussing the argument from design. The book was complicated, I’m not a biologist so it was hard going, but the evidence he puts forth is good, unfortunately we are ticking down to the point in which the advancement of scientific research will probably find an explanation for these ‘signs of design’ and then these arguments will need to be thrown out and re-written.
July 28, 2024
This is the ur-text of modern intelligent design. In the nearly four decades since its publication the case against evolution has become ever more ironclad yet Darwinian orthodoxy continues to reign as an unquestionable paradigm. The disconnect between science as rational quest for truth and science as social engineering project has never been greater than it is today. Michael Denton could help heal this divide, if only people read him.
August 25, 2017
Pathetic.
January 20, 2019
One of the best science books I have ever read. Masterful, calm, non-religious critique of Darwinism. Must get hold of the recent “sequel”.
November 8, 2022
An excellent book by a non-Christian molecular biologist and a medical doctor. Dr. Denton shows how the theory of evolution breaks down - especially at the biochemical level.
October 8, 2014
Not a particularly easy read but fascinating. The author, who was a molecular biologist, observes that, while Darwin's special theory--that a new species can arise from an existing one--has been amply proved by observation, his general theory--that all life has evolved from a single organism over billions of years--survives only by virtue of its status as the reigning paradigm in science. Darwin was acutely aware of the lack of evidence from, say, the fossil record but hoped that with time and research, this evidence would emerge. This hope has not been realized. Moreover, the cell, regarded as a simple blob of protoplasm is now recognized to be a structure of incredible complexity and mechanical precision.
An obvious objection to the author's position that the general theory of evolution is scientifically utterly implausible and at greatly at odds with empirical evidence is that if the case against it were truly so bleak, science would have abandoned it long ago. After all, is it not science well known and respected for its insistence on self-correction in the face of contrary evidence?
The author points out that, in fact, science has a history not abandoning a paradigm in the face of opposing evidence but positing increasingly strained ad hoc speculations to account for the evidence *within* the paradigm. The general theory of evolution is the dominant paradigm of the vast diversity and history of life on earth, and there is no scientific alternative. Therefore, in spite of the absurdity of the cell arising by chance, in spite of the persistent and glaring gaps in the fossil record, evolution is thoroughly embraced and its difficulties and contradictions acknowledged but not considered cause for abandonment.
An obvious objection to the author's position that the general theory of evolution is scientifically utterly implausible and at greatly at odds with empirical evidence is that if the case against it were truly so bleak, science would have abandoned it long ago. After all, is it not science well known and respected for its insistence on self-correction in the face of contrary evidence?
The author points out that, in fact, science has a history not abandoning a paradigm in the face of opposing evidence but positing increasingly strained ad hoc speculations to account for the evidence *within* the paradigm. The general theory of evolution is the dominant paradigm of the vast diversity and history of life on earth, and there is no scientific alternative. Therefore, in spite of the absurdity of the cell arising by chance, in spite of the persistent and glaring gaps in the fossil record, evolution is thoroughly embraced and its difficulties and contradictions acknowledged but not considered cause for abandonment.
July 26, 2011
After affirming the credibility of species adaptability through natural selection, Denton argues that the mutation of one species into another via the same means is not credible. In regard to their morphological differences, species do not appear to have any intermediates, either living or fossilised which suggest 'macro-evolution', each comprising 'complete' biological entities. On a microscopic level, the organisation of genetic code appears to indicate discrete rather than transitional forms, whilst the early appearance of the something so complex as the cell in Earth's geologic history is also difficult to explain in terms of Darwin's guiding premise that 'nature does not make jumps'.
No doubt, some objections to Denton's views will be made on the basis of his (presumed) religious agenda, however if it there is one it is not pushed. Indeed, it is perhaps a mark of scientific integrity that Denton is willing to admit that he has no alternative theory which might usurp the paradigm of 'macroevolution'. I am not aware of whether Denton's objections have been refuted on a scientific basis, nor as yet looked, however I found it a readable and reasonable critique which does not indulge the sensationalist and fantasist tendencies that counter-theorist writings can be susceptible to.
No doubt, some objections to Denton's views will be made on the basis of his (presumed) religious agenda, however if it there is one it is not pushed. Indeed, it is perhaps a mark of scientific integrity that Denton is willing to admit that he has no alternative theory which might usurp the paradigm of 'macroevolution'. I am not aware of whether Denton's objections have been refuted on a scientific basis, nor as yet looked, however I found it a readable and reasonable critique which does not indulge the sensationalist and fantasist tendencies that counter-theorist writings can be susceptible to.
January 4, 2011
I read this for a Bio honors course and it was pretty good. Honestly I probably wouldn't have picked it up if it weren't for school. I have to say it was a very complicated and hard book to read. I understood enough of it, but it's mostly scientific terms. If you like science I would go for it. It took me about 3 months to finish it though. xD It's a good book if you were looking for ways to argue against evolution, and it explains a lot in regard to evolution.
September 1, 2011
Denton's book is an insightful critique of Darwinian evolution. Quite frankly, scientists should not be afraid to criticize a theory, any theory; they're supposed to be skeptical. Or so I'm told, by reading what other scientists have written. To be blacklisted or harassed for not believing a particular theory makes scientists look no better than the Catholic inquisitors of the Dark Ages. So much for dogmatism being prevalent amongst only religious people.
May 10, 2010
This book was a very, very, very deep exploration into the theory of evolution. Very deep. It is such a detailed exposition on molecular biology, history of life, and biological systems... I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who doesn't have a good background in life science studies. I did appreciate it's clarity and the overall message.
October 28, 2019
Most books are rated related to their usefulness and contributions to my research.
Overall, a good book for the researcher and enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
Overall, a good book for the researcher and enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
April 17, 2012
Good exposition of evidence against Darwin's general theory, from a non-Christian
January 6, 2018
This was a required text for a Creationism vs. Evolution class I took in high school (as taught by a physicist). I then went on to major in biology in college, where I learned In detail everywhere creationism is in the wrong. I suppose this book is a nice artifact for someone studying history and philosophy of science.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews