Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science

by Massimo Pigliucci

Denying Evolution aims at taking a fresh look at the evolution–creation controversy. It presents a truly "balanced" treatment, not in the sense of treating creationism as a legitimate scientific theory (it demonstrably is not), but in the sense of dividing the blame for the controversy equally between creationists and scientists—the former for subscribing to various forms of anti-intellectualism, the latter for discounting science education and presenting science as scientism to the public and the media. The central part of the book focuses on a series of creationist fallacies (aimed at showing errors of thought, not at deriding) and of mistakes by scientists and science educators. The last part of the book discusses long-term solutions to the problem, from better science teaching at all levels to the necessity of widespread understanding of how the brain works and why people have difficulties with critical thinking.

Genres: Science, Evolution, Philosophy, Biology, Skepticism, Nonfiction, Reference

275 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 2002

About the author

Massimo Pigliucci is an author, blogger, podcaster, as well as the K.D. Irani Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New York.

His academic work is in evolutionary biology, philosophy of science, the nature of pseudoscience, and practical philosophy. His books include How to Be a Stoic: Using Ancient Philosophy to Live a Modern Life (Basic Books) and Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk (University of Chicago Press).

His new book is Beyond Stoicism: A Guide to the Good Life with Stoics, Skeptics, Epicureans, and Other Ancient Philosophers (The Experiment).

Reviews

[Marc · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book that the every neutral non-specialist should read. It is written in plain language and is quite funny in places, sometimes unintentionally. The arguments are thorough; no intellectual stone is left unturned, and I often read people's reviews on books etc. that a put off by this. Some people even suggest that this approach is alienating neutrals and the non-combatant public.

Balderdash! I don't think we can make the arguments too thorough. We are dealing with a very crafy, deceptive and dishonest counter-argument establishment. The non-rational nonsense they put up as logic is pervasive-just take a look at Canada's Prime Minister (Harper).

Readers will also possibly enjoy Tower of Babel, by Robert T. Pennock but this is a somewhat more academic read.

[Charles · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent look into the "why's" of the anti-evolution movement. Most of it has little if anything to do with the science, and more to do with emotions and, of course, religion.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 3 out of 5]

one of the few people to actually admit that a lot of scientists engage in scientism and crappy philosophical arguments

I tend to think some people don't know the difference between the facts and their personal opinions, which is why science is on the decline.

///

close minded reductionists don't help

turning complex problems, and complex views into oversimplified bullshit, and steamroller their cookie-cutter oversimplifications

It's what fourth-rate scientists and doctors do endlessly, and there's a lot of them

///

scientism

an excessive believe in the power of science and it's techniques

shitty claims backed up with absolute certainty

///

here's an interesting quote

It turns out that Mr Dawkins’ view of “Scientism” is that it is a “dirty word used by people who are critical of scientists” — so that was a relatively brief part of the conversation.

////

The Folly of Scientism

Why scientists shouldn’t trespass on philosophy’s domain
Austin L. Hughes

When I decided on a scientific career, one of the things that appealed to me about science was the modesty of its practitioners.

The typical scientist seemed to be a person who knew one small corner of the natural world and knew it very well, better than most other human beings living and better even than most who had ever lived.

But outside of their circumscribed areas of expertise, scientists would hesitate to express an authoritative opinion.

This attitude was attractive precisely because it stood in sharp contrast to the arrogance of the philosophers of the positivist tradition, who claimed for science and its practitioners a broad authority with which many practicing scientists themselves were uncomfortable.

The temptation to overreach, however, seems increasingly indulged today in discussions about science.

Both in the work of professional philosophers and in popular writings by natural scientists, it is frequently claimed that natural science does or soon will constitute the entire domain of truth.

And this attitude is becoming more widespread among scientists themselves.

All too many of my contemporaries in science have accepted without question the hype that suggests that an advanced degree in some area of natural science confers the ability to pontificate wisely on any and all subjects.

////

one big sign of flaky
people like Dawkins who'll just look at philosophy and frown, saying it's meaningless

and Harris and Pinker are just total nutbags
and the skeptics are the barf bag movement for the decline of civilization

And the hard determinists with no free will are great loons.

because i had no choice in deciding on triple pepperoni with pineapple, or to order triple pepperoni with bacon and pineapple.

I thought in the 80s wow psychology is dying with pop fluff psychology, and philosophy started saying there's not much more to write since the mid-late 80s, unless you're a total ethics crank, and then it's like only the vegans, progressives, and libertarians explode with shitty books.

And Science has taken a decline, i think i had a sniff of that when i was so underwhelmed with Hawking's pop science best seller which was really a dog.

Mind you, i don't believe in superstrings, and i'm a hard core Wheelerite when it comes to my physics, or even a Feynman, or anything else with physics between the days of post-Aether to dynes and kilocycles and Keith Symon's Mechanics and Kleppner and Kolenkow's Introduction to Mechanics and Quick Calculus... and the decline of science and textbooks probably in the 70s-80s-90s... though i think the only solution is 50% old science and math books and 50% new ones.

Pop Science, why is ONE TWO THREE infinity by that marvellous mega-drunk George Gamow, like 7000x better than all these shitty books on pop-science today, i don't think i've enjoyed a lot since Paul Gribbin and Paul Davies and only a sparse handful since then....

But Education has declined since 1950-1985, and politics, science, philosophy, music and economics has been taken over by the dummies and losers.

Don't get me started on those incompetent oafs like DeGrasse Tyson, i got more faith in the Professor on Gilligan's Island.

At least he could build an Interocitor.

[Maik Civeira · Rating 4 out of 5]

Massimo Pigliucci es un pensador muy interesante. Inició su carrera como biólogo evolucionista, pero más tarde tomó el camino de la pedagogía y la filosofía de la ciencia y de la educación. Es una de esas mentes tan valiosas cuan inusuales, cuya erudición abarca tanto las ciencias naturales como las humanidades.

Más allá de sólo destrozar las falacias con las que los creacionistas confunden al público, Pigliucci decide analizar las causas y los orígenes de este debate y sus implicaciones para diversos aspectos del quehacer humano. Pigliucci advierte que el creacionismo no es una propuesta científica, ni siquiera filosófica, sino un movimiento ideológico que tiene sus raíces en el más férreo de los conservadurismos religiosos de derechas. Los dos primeros capítulos nos hablan del origen y la evolución (el juego de palabras es del autor) de este supuesto debate.

El autor hace una breve historia de cómo el anti-intelectualismo se ha cimentado como parte de la cultura norteamericana, donde son admirados los atletas, las estrellas de la farándula y los magnates multimillonarios, pero no los científicos ni los intelectuales. Señala que el anti-intelectualismo ha sido blandido tanto por la izquierda como por la derecha, y que en su base está una extraña forma de anti-elitismo: "esa gente que piensa y estudia se cree mucho, no es como usted y yo, gente común y trabajadora del pueblo".

Es aquí donde entra la postura del postmodernismo anticiencia, que sostiene que la visión que tenga un astrónomo sobre el cosmos no es más válida que la tenga la señora de la tiendita de la esquina. Para este postmodernismo, argumentar lo contrario es una forma de apoyar las estructuras jerárquicas. Pigliucci rebate tales argumentos con gran facilidad y hasta humor.

[Alan Fuller · Rating 2 out of 5]

Neo-Darwinian evolution and Creationism are compared. One’s ideological commitments color one’s perception of the world. Evolution is proven by random purposeless processes, like junk DNA. Intelligent Design is considered part of Creationism, which is a form of anti-intellectualism, fundamentalism, and literalism. During the nineteenth century the millenarian movement of the 1830s and 1840s (so called in reference to the expectation of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the ensuing thousand years of his reign), was a contributor.

“It is important to realize, however, that mathematics is simply a very convenient, yet arbitrary, language. It is a toolbox invented by humans to think about complex problems better than they can with their “natural” language.” P.126,

The author advocates using your brain better, and drinking water instead of coke.

[Muzzlehatch · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a solid primer on the evolution/creationism debate, though it is not always the easiest thing to read -- not because of any real difficulty in the author's explanations (which anyone with a high school education ought to be able to understand) but mostly because of the repetitiveness of the book's structure. Great material, but not all that well edited if you ask me, and the author is certainly not as magnetic in his writing as such science popularizers as Sagan or Gould; nonetheless, essential if you don't already know much (or anything) about this important debate which has bearings on the continuing and delicate state of rational thought in our ignorant society.

[Alisse Metge · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't agree with all of the author's opinions, but he provides excellent summaries of the key issues and positions. I have read most of the book, but not quite all of it.