Darwin's House of Cards: A Journalist's Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates

by Tom Bethell

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.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Audiobook, Evolution, History, Philosophy, Christian

296 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2016

About the author

Tom Bethell is a senior editor at the American Spectator. He has contributed to many publications, including the New York Times magazine, Atlantic Monthly, Harper’s, Crisis, and National Review. He writes often on science. Tom Wolfe has called Bethell “one of our most brilliant essayists.”

Bethell was born and raised in England and graduated from Oxford University in 1962 with a degree in philosophy, physiology, and psychology. He lives in Washington, D.C.

Reviews

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really solid overview of the current state of the debate. The conclusion is pure gold.

[Tadas Talaikis · Rating 1 out of 5]

Evolution - the gradual development of something. Meet the Axolotl, a amphibian with the developed legs:



OK, if that's not enough of a link, science alert from 2017: "A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen"

And more, but honestly, answering each statement of this book (why they are wrong) is tedious task, I don't have time for that. It should be enough to read more about the author. He promotes denial of the existence of man-made global warming, AIDS denialism, and here - denial of evolution. Man is either crazy or just found the market with the bunch of idiots, so I;m putting it on B.S. shelf.

Problems with such books are purely behavioral (see Daniel Kahneman) - people tend to not imagine big numbers and trends (see cognitive biases). Despite the fact that we don't know much and have a lot of missing pieces in our knowledge, the very long gradual change (doesn't matter whether through DNA or other factors) is much more probable than some mythic world creation myths.

P.S. Bizarre-looking 'fish with legs' found in New Zealand

[Kellen · Rating 1 out of 5]

I picked out this book to challenge my beliefs, and going in uninformed like I did certainly made me question evolution. The book presents science as a field that is deceiving the rest of the world by making large assumptions based on little evidence, as well as stifling those who dare come forward with different ideas than established doctrine. It criticizes scientists' dedication to materialism, and cites countless resources (25% of the book is a bibliography in fact). The fact that the author was supposedly a journalist gives the arguments even more weight. When I finished reading this, I was very conflicted about my beliefs in science and evolution. While the systematic suppression of conflicting ideals and the concealment of a lack of evidence were unlikely, I was certainly willing to entertain this prospect in the interest of fairness. I was still not convinced entirely, however, as the book omits some pretty important aspects that would otherwise have made it much more convincing. The idea of comparative anatomy (similar structures found across the animal kingdom) is dismissed in a hand wave, and seems to betray the lack of a rebuttal. I also was waiting for him to address vestigial traits. He never so much as mentions tailbones or appendices in humans, or the cave dwelling fish with suspicious bumps right where their eyes used to be. There was also a very conspicuous lack of evidence for the intelligent design hypothesis that this book was supposedly supporting. Not that it had little evidence, it had no evidence at all, or even an attempt at evidence. As I was mulling this over, I did a cursory search of Tom Bethell on Wikipedia. I had thought he was a journalist who reported on a large scope of scientific matters with an unbiased mind, and was providing an account of what he found, given the book description. Turns out, he writes for an very conservative paper called The American Spectator. He also has been involved with multiple conspiracy theories over the years. I'm neither conservative or liberal, and I view the extremes on either side with suspicion. I then searched "intelligent design", and what I saw was extremely enlightening, giving context to the whole situation. Many of the arguments in Darwin's House of Cards are unintentionally addressed by the article, and sources that he cited and scientists that he quoted, such as Michael Behe, are present in the article. It addresses the distancing from creationism that had taken place, also mentioned in the book, and even explains the purpose of the Discovery Institute, which was cited as a scientific authority. The most compelling thing I found in the article was the court case that officially ruled intelligent design as a pseudoscience. In short, if you are thinking about reading this book, I implore you to read about Tom Bethell and intelligent design on Wikipedia. It gives the whole book a lot better context to be read in, no matter where you currently stand in you beliefs. This book gets one star because it is misleading when read without the knowledge in those articles, and it spreads scientific untruths. If this is the best that intelligent design can come up with in the form of arguments, I'm frankly not surprised that they are taken with so little seriousness.

[Booketeer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book makes you wonder why anyone is not a Darwin skeptic. At least, as a scientific belief. There IS an argument for it that Bethell finds in Darwin himself: materialism is true therefore all life must have developed over time by accident. But as a scientific theory, there's no evidence of mutations piling up to create a new species. There is only counter-evidence of species reverting "to the mean." To call such fluctuations or changes "micro-evolution" serves no purpose except to create the impression that macro-evolution is credible. The fossil record shows extinct species but it doesn't show one changing to another. We are told that a dolphin's dorsal fin is hydrodynamically perfect, but no fossils of dolphin ancestors that have the fin anywhere else. A lot of other stuff covered, like bogus claims about extinction rates and the myth that we are able the create artificial intelligence.

I recommend reading this with _Why Evolution if True_ by Jerry Coyne.

[Roni · Rating 5 out of 5]

“...there is remarkably little evidence for Darwinism. Universal common descent has been disputed; it is mainly a departure from Darwin’s theory, not a physical observation; ‘indefinite departure from the original type’ has never been observed; natural selection merely multiplies existing varieties, and as C. S. Lewis guessed, it more easily accounts for the disappearance of old forms than the appearance of new ones.”

“As Karl Popper said, irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.”

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are many good books on this subject, but this is one of the best because it covers a broader spectrum of ideas and arguments, though some in less detail due to the breadth of the book. Topics covered here include not only the commonly discussed Lensky experiments and finches, but topics such as the Fermi paradox and the replacement of the 19th century idea of progress, which was probably the major driving force behind the acceptance of Darwinism, with environmental misanthropy. It also covers the long history of debate within the scientific community about the problems with Darwinism. I will probably listen to this one again.

[Seth · Rating 5 out of 5]

My full review (also a podcast episode!) is here: www.closemindedpodcast.com/5

Darwinism is a fascinating topic on many levels. On one hand, it's recognized throughout the world as the leading--perhaps the only acceptable--theory of how earth and its inhabitants came to be. Its assumptions permeate the media, popular culture, and the scientific community. Yet at the same time millions of people remain unconvinced of its explanatory power; some even reject it outright--for reasons theological, philosophical, and even scientific.

Evolution. Natural Selection. Common Descent: the press write stories on hundreds of topics in ways that assume a monolithic consensus on these issues among the scientific community. This is often totally innocuous--the media needs a basic canvas of shared assumptions on which to paint, and so a boring and uncontroversial scientific consensus provides that for the story at hand. Yet the truth is thankfully far more interesting and intricate. The scientific conversation over these issues is not like a peaceful pool of undisturbed water, but rather a roiling cauldron of critique and counterattack, not always friendly and certainly not always intellectually honest.

And so I highly recommend Darwin's House of Cards by Tom Bethell. With the eye of an investigator and the explanatory prose of a seasoned journalist, Bethell takes a look at Darwinism from multiple vantage points. He packages a very readable and engaging overview of the battle fronts in the scientific community--past and present--regarding multiple facets of the Darwinian paradigm. What follows is a brief overview of some of the topics he covers, the inconsistencies he points out, and the conclusions we both draw.

My full review (also a podcast episode!) is here: www.closemindedpodcast.com/5

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A JOURNALIST OFFERS A LARGELY “NON-RELIGIOUS” CRITIQUE OF DARWINISM

Journalist Tom Bethell wrote in the Introduction to this 2017 book, “the validity of evolution as science is the key question to be addressed in this book. I hope to do so with minimal regard to religion… keeping [religion and science] separate has never been easy. The main reason Darwin’s supporters are eager to blur the distinction. Often they resemble inquisitors, hunting for a heretical motive whenever criticism of evolution is raised.” (Pg. 11-12)

In the first chapter, he states, “Darwinism was once a well-fortified castle, with elaborate towers, moats, and battlements. It remained in that condition for well over 100 years---from the publication of ‘The Origin of Species’ in 1859 to the Darwin Centennial and then for perhaps three decades after that. Today, however, it more closely resembles a house of cards, built out of flimsy icons rather than hard evidence, and liable to blow away in the slightest breeze.” (Pg. 20)

He explains “the focal point of what I have called ‘Darwin’s Mistake’: … Without evidence, Darwin’s supporters today still accept that intergenerational differences accumulate, eventually transforming their phenotype, or bodily form. But such a transformation has never been observed. No species has ever been seen to evolve into another. What scientists do observe is something quite different: reversion to a mean… But Darwin’s theory perceives intergenerational changes as something more resembling an incessant journey. In short, Darwin’s mistake was one of extrapolation. Although extrapolation can be a legitimate procedure in scientific analysis, it is always a risky one, and if done without due care can lead to erroneous conclusions.” (Pg. 25)

He suggests, “Darwin might well have been dismayed if the meager evidence for natural selection, assembled over many years, had been presented to him 150 years after ‘The Origin’ was published. ‘A change in the ration of pre-existing varieties? That is all you have been able to come up with?’ he might reasonably have asked. It is worth bearing in mind how feeble this evidence is, any time someone tells you that Darwinism is a fact.” (Pg. 79)

About the evolution of the vertebrate eye, he comments, “[Richard] Dawkins’s underlying method is revealed by his repeated assertions that something must be, must have been, had to be true. What this shows is that his science is subordinate to his philosophy. Since (in his view) evolution is true, and since complex organs like eyes certainly exist, it follows that they must have been accumulated bit by bit. Darwinism itself obliges us to believe that. We don’t even have to study the evidence. Dawkins’s armchair philosophy tells him what must be true before he is under the obligation to observe anything. Dawkins does claim that evidence show us dozens of eyes ‘working serviceably’ and ‘dotted independently around the animal kingdom.’ But … they do not even remotely form a parent-offspring chain. That is why Dawkins inserted the word ‘independently.’” (Pg. 79-80)

He points out, “[Douglas] Futuyma’s is one of the leading college textbooks in the field. There are many such intermediates, he said; animals called therapsids, for example, were intermediates between reptiles and mammals… One problem is that the morphological sequence of therapsids does not match the temporal sequence; the fossils expected to be the most reptile-like should come earlier, but there are several inconsistencies… But as [William] Dembski and [Jonathan] Well commented, it mammals arose from just one of those lineages, then the others were not ancestral. In that case, why should the similarity of characters be treated as evidence for ancestry?” (Pg. 131)

He recounts a conversation with evolutionist Colin Patterson: “I asked Patterson what he thought about his talk [in 1981 at the American Museum of Natural History] and the reaction to it. He answered: ‘… Almost everybody except the people at the British Museum objected… One has to live with one’s colleagues… They hold the theory very dear. I found out that what you say will be taken in ‘political’ rather than rational terms.’ Patterson told me that he regarded the theory of evolution as ‘often unnecessary’ in biology. ‘In fact,’ he said, ‘they could do perfectly well without it.’ Nevertheless, he said, it was presented in textbooks as though it were ‘the unified field theory of biology… Once something has that status… it becomes like religion.’ When I asked him if he ‘believed in’ evolution himself, he replied: ‘Well, isn’t it strange that this is what it comes to, that you have to ask me whether I believe it, as if it mattered whether I believe it or not. Yes, I do believe it. But in saying that, it is obvious that it is a faith.’” (Pg. 148-149)

Of the experiments to teach apes Sign Language, he observes, “animal language research fell into disrepute when ‘talking’ chimps like Washoe and Nim Chimpsky was exposed as unintentional frauds. Scientists found strong evidence that the chimps had simply learned to please their teachers by contorting their hands in various ways. The trainers, straining to find examples of linguistic communication, though they saw words… Eventually much of the research funding was withdrawn because the science was not credible… Nim Chimpsky’s trainer … concluded… There was no evidence that chimps had acquired a generative grammar---the ability to string words together into sentences of arbitrary length and complexity.” (Pg. 218-219)

He concludes, “Darwinism was propped up by the worldview of Progress that dominated the West from the Enlightenment on… But one still-widespread philosophy does lend support to Darwinism, and that is materialism, or the belief that mind is reducible to matter and that the universe consists of molecules in motion and nothing else… Whether Darwinism sill survive the loss of the faith in Progress and the introduction of more careful scientific scrutiny … is something that should become apparent before too long. At the moment, I believe, the science of Darwinism amounts to little more than the ‘wedding’ of materialism and Progress… materialism if highly implausible and has been widely challenged… As a result, the break-up of Darwinism seems likely in the years ahead.” (Pg. 257)

This book will be of great interest to those looking for critiques of evolution that aren’t dependent on religious ideas (e.g., the Bible).

[Randall O. Watkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: Materialism is a religion and if materialism is to be accepted as true then Darwinian Evolution MUST be true irregardless of the scarcity of data to substantiate it.

Journalist Tom Bethell does a brilliant job of providing the context (MATERIALISM and the philosophy of PROGRESS) and history in the almost immediate acceptance of Darwinian Evolution after the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859 by Charles Darwin; Enlightenment thought and the Age of Reason had helped pave the way.

Bethell highlights the 150+ years of scientific discovery since publication of Darwin's seminal work. Scientists are now very skeptical about the origin of life on planet earth through chemical biogenesis. Materialists must turn to theories of panspermia (life seeded from elsewhere in the cosmos). Furthermore, the standard pathway of Darwinian evolution, mutation and natural selection, has been found to have extreme limits. Organisms can adapt over time but only to a certain degree. Organisms cannot indefinitely continue to adapt and engineer themselves over time creating new information, body plans, and species.

I would recommend this well-researched book to anyone that wants a comprehensive overview of the history and current state of the materialist/Darwinistic science industry.

[Sue · Rating 4 out of 5]

“It is clear then the Darwinism was propped up by the worldview of progress of the dominated the west from the Enlightenment on, particularly in the middle to late 19th century. Today, that same worldview is disparaged by the environmentalist, most extreme of who think that humans are a plague on the planet.”
Though I was up to my neck in this one, this book looked at the Theory of Evolution from every angle, and came to the conclusion that the theory is a sinking ship. Excellent and quite technical. The author constantly quotes from leading scientists, both ardent Darwinians and those scientists who hardly dare say they believe in intelligent design. I only wish I’d had such a book when I was doing undergraduate studies, but then that was long enough ago that genetics had scarcely begun its amazing discoveries about the complexities of the cell.

[Joe Oaster · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well researched

I have read many perspectives on the evolution debate by many of the great thinkers both past and present. This was an excellent and fair treatment of both sides. He looks at not only the great arguments but the original source documents of Darwin and looks at each argument from both perspectives. A good book for anyone interested in the debate of ID, creationism or evolution.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't have much room for sneaky titles and covert operations from the publisher and author of books. The subtitle sounds like this book would be similar to Lee Strobel, where a reporter/journalist would look into a particular issue from a neutral/unbiased standpoint and reach a conclusion based on the data that is presented. In truth, this was put out by the Discovery institute, the primary organization that teaches Intelligent design, and the the author has been a long-time science denier who was anything but unbiased in this work.

That said, there are some valuable nuggets here. To be sure, naturalism and Darwinism are patently false. I'm all for a good ribbing against either one of those ideologies, despite the fact that these types of books have flooded the Christian book market years ago. One disappointing thing about the young earth creationist movement is that they are incessantly writing and talking about darwinism, appearing to be completely unaware that nobody believes in today's scientific world what Darwin held to in his day. We certainly appreciate the ground that Darwin turned, setting in motion a lot of experimentation to develop what we hold to today. However, Darwin was wrong about a lot. Much changes in 200 years and Darwin was only correct on a very rudimentary basis. Writing about how darwinism is wrong and that Darwin is the face of evolutionary biology would be like an atheist writing that Joel Osteen is the face and sum and substance of the Christian religion. Osteen is only correct on the very rudimentary things, and essentially nothing else. So, I would like to see the YEC movement actually address the current scientific foundation that we have today.
Darwin's house of cards fell to the ground well over a century ago.

[Richard Klueg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read a number of books on this subject, and this one is unique. Although there is a decent amount of scientific information included, the main point is to evaluate the philosophical presuppositions of Darwinism. The author demonstrates that the system of Darwinism is plagued by faulty logic, flights of fantasy, and feeble evidence.

Bethell draws from Darwin's writings (including personal correspondence) along with other thinkers up to the present, many of whom he has personally interviewed. He points out that Darwinism was proposed in the 19th Century when the prevailing worldview was that of progress. This optimistic philosophical mindset found ready acceptance in a cultural context that saw human progress as a given. Along with this came the widespread acceptance of materialism, i.e., the view that all reality is found in matter alone.

Now the idea of progress is giving way to pessimism regarding mankind. Since Darwinism has always been a philosophy desperately hunting for hard evidence (and finding precious little), Bethell is optimistic that the current orthodoxy will sooner or later collapse, despite the continued efforts to shut down any dissent. One can only hope.

[Janis · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Darwin's House of Cards" argues against the conventional wisdom of evolutionary theory on the basis of scientific methodology, logic and evidence. Bethell expressly excludes any religious arguments.
I especially enjoyed the allusion to Karl Popper's philosophy of science as grounds to criticize the fundamental unfalsifiability and lack of predictive power inherent in the criterion of fitness in natural selection.
The problem of induction can also be seen in the extrapolation of small changes observed today to the origin of species over the course of millions of years.
That evolution is ultimately derived from a necessity arising from materialist philosophy was an additional powerful point the author put forth.
My primary reason for discontent is that author often doesn't try to represent the arguments in favor of evolution in a strong and sincere manner, making it easier for him to rebut them. One should tackle honestly and in detail why evolution is such a convincing and successful theory in order to offer any meaningful refutation.

[Sue · Rating 4 out of 5]

“It is clear then the Darwinism was propped up by the worldview of progress of the dominated the west from the Enlightenment on, particularly in the middle to late 19th century. Today, that same worldview is disparaged by the environmentalist, most extreme of who think that humans are a plague on the planet.”
Though I was up to my neck in this one, this book looked at the Theory of Evolution from every angle, and came to the conclusion that the theory is a sinking ship. Excellent and quite technical. The author constantly quotes from leading scientists, both ardent Darwinians and those scientists who hardly dare say they believe in intelligent design. I only wish I’d had such a book when I was doing undergraduate studies, but then that was long enough ago that genetics had scarcely begun its amazing discoveries about the complexities of the cell.

[Slobodan · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is a very thorough book, making you think about everything you're supposed to know about evolution and how everything that we know is based on just speculation, stories that "make sense" but nothing is based on scientific proofs and if evolution is taken seriously without any proof than so should other stories that are also based on nothing. But that's not the case in the scientific community and they've made Darwin's theory the new religion.

Personally I don't know what the answer is but what I do know now is that we should look for alternatives based on scientific proofs because what we did is to replace Judeo-Christian religious explanation with Darwin's religious explanation. Science does not work this way!

I highly recommend it to critical thinkers

[Hank Pharis · Rating 4 out of 5]

(NOTE: I'm stingy with stars. For me 2 stars means a good book or a B. 3 stars means a very good book or a B+. 4 stars means an outstanding book or an A {only about 5% of the books I read merit 4 stars}. 5 stars means an all time favorite or an A+ {Only one of 400 or 500 books rates this!).

The great news is that I can listen to a book a day at work. The bad news is that I can’t keep up with decent reviews. So I’m going to give up for now and just rate them. I hope to come back to some of the most significant things I listen to and read them and then post a review.

Another great hammering of history's greatest house of cards.

[Kristjan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good review of the philosophical underpinnings of the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, it will probably not convince any evolutionists, because when you assume materialism to be true, you have no other option but to accept evolution and defend it by any possible means.

The main drawback is that it covers a lot of ground, so it doesn't go far beyond philosophical considerations on each issue.

[Sara Kreps · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid criticism of the theory of evolution with historical arguments backing it. Several of the statements countering evolution were thoughts if already had but many I hadn't considered. This isn't a Christian book, although it quite often gets classified as such since many people can't handle the concept of a non-religious, scientific argument against this sacred cow.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding expose of the Darwinism. Those who are staunch proponents of natural selection will of course scoff at this book, but if they are intellectually honest, they may just find the answers they have been searching for all along...

[Gavin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tom Bethell's recent passing occasioned me to finally read his Darwin expose. Far deeper listening than I expected, but he makes a lot of interesting, but good arguments. Ones that aren't always easily refutable to a novice like myself, but I'm sure that someone could clear that up for me.

[Timothy R · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good historical overview

An overview of the major philosophies and proponents of Darwinism, Materialism and Evolution with their shortcomings. Humanity is the same today as a millenia ago.

[Steve Herreid · Rating 5 out of 5]

Undoubtedly the best book I have ever read on the problems with evolution written for the general reader. Awesome.

[Rick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb historical critique of Darwinism by a journalist who has followed the subject for many years and interviewed leading thinkers on both sides multiple times.

[Shane Hill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fine read from a Intelligent design perspective exploring the weaknesses of Neo-Darwinism!

[Neonreader]

atheists on suicide watch

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Are you secure enough in your belief in the foundations of evolutionary theory to see what a skeptic has to say?

[Devin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I fully expected to be disappointed. Other reviews I’ve seen claimed that Bethell doesn’t adequately deal with scientific claims people use to support Darwinism.

Those reviews were wrong. Throughout is a disciplined tour of old and new challenges to Darwin’s theory. Bethell demonstrates that most of these challenges gone unmet. Modern Darwinists have explanations without answers, circular reasoning instead of evidence.

Darwin was caught up in the zeitgeist of his day, a marriage of Progress and Materialism. Those two pillars, not biology, are the driving motivation for the continued promotion and adoption of evolutionary theory.