What do you think?
Rate this book
Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species
On the surface, the Christian view of Genesis might seem hopelessly outdated and antiquated. The skeptic might ask, ?Why are we still debating a question that Darwin settled over 150 years ago? On how many other scientific questions of the 19th century do intelligent people still withhold judgment? Why is the church dragging its feet on technology and scientific progress?? To the evolutionist, the church needs reformation?on the scientific side?toward a ?modern,? enlightened view. Is this true?
336 pages, Hardcover
Published October 9, 2017
161 people are currently reading
444 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
November 13, 2017
Jeanson holds a PhD in Cell and Developmental Biology from Harvard University. His undergraduate work was in molecular control of photosynthesis and his graduate work was around molecular and physiological control of adult stem cells. After obtaining his degree in 2009 he went to work for the Institute for Creation Research and now is employed by Answers in Genesis. Dr. Jeanson is among a growing number of evangelical Christians who have decided to pursue advanced degrees in the sciences for the express purpose of defending young earth creationism.
The book consists of ten chapters divided into four parts with an introduction and afterword. Included are 40 pages of color plates that are referenced throughout the text.
In chapter one Jeanson frames his work within the context of a jigsaw puzzle and the importance of having the edge pieces to be able to effectively understand the puzzle. He argues that Charles Darwin only had a few pieces of the jigsaw puzzle and none of the edge pieces. He then presents genetics in chapter two as the source of the origin of traits (hence, the basis for the origin of species). Jeanson's thesis is that genetics is the edge pieces of the puzzle that Darwin didn't have. I'm inclined to argue that Jeanson has it backwards that indeed evolution is the edge and corner pieces and that genetics is a part of the more detailed center pieces.
Jeanson does give a nice overview of the history of genetics from Mendel to Watson and Crick and shows how each contribution was made to our understanding of inheritance of genetic traits.
In chapter three Jeanson dives into the inner workings of the cell, pivots to a discussion about the process of development and how cells encode information and then concludes with a discussion of the ENCODE project and non-coding DNA. On this last point he nowhere indicates that there has been some controversy in the scientific community about many of the conclusions of the ENCODE project nor has he mentioned that ENCODE had to clarify some of its statements.
For Jeanson DNA differences "set the hard limits and constraints on a potential explanation for the origin of species," so we can begin to see where he is going with his line of argument, and here he brings back in the analogy of the jigsaw puzzle, as these "differences" become the edge pieces of the puzzle.
The next section contains many pages of various color plates some containing explanations while others didn't. These plates are discussed throughout the text of the book and are a nice contribution.
Chapter four begins with Jeanson discussing the fact that science is about inductive reasoning and how that was the basis for Darwin's theory. He then proceeds to discusss the geographical distribution of animals concluding that migration and speciation explains how most of the animals got to their respective locations.
Up to this point the book hasn't been all that bad, maybe a few occasional snarky remarks about evolution. Chapter five however took a major turn for the worse. The chapter begins with an interesting discussion about Linnaean classification and how it represents a nested hierarchy but then Jeanson invokes a typical creationist comparison with automobiles and other types of transportation as another form of nested hierarchy. He then discusses various vestigial structures and concludes that Darwin's discussion in the Origin about breeds and species is better explained by modern creationism and that Darwin's thesis didn't eliminate modern creationist views.
In a number of paragraphs he talks about the Book of Genesis and how it should be interpreted and how those interpretations have impacted modern creationist views of science. The book would have been better served if the biblical material was in a separate chapter discussing some of the issues of interpretation and its impact (or lack of) on science, rather than bringing it into the conversation so far into the book.
Also, despite decades of denial from various anti-evolutionary creationists that there are no transitional fossils, Jeanson not only admits they exist, he says they are consistent with evolution and specifically common ancestry. Of course he thinks the nested hierarchy of modes of transportation is the answer to transitional forms, namely, that God designed them that way.
Jeanson begins chapter six with a discussion of timescales and mentions Charles Lyell, but rather than dealing with the issue head on he goes down a different path and introduces the concept of rapid speciation. He again brings up the breeds-species comparison and references the fact that breeding began by humans about 12,000 years ago and spends much of the chapter talking about speciation rates of different species and how so many have arisen over the past 12,000 years. It seems that Jeanson is taking the breeds and species comparisons much too far especially since the concept of breeds is not technically a term in classification but rather a subset of species based around specific characteristics that the breeder values.
At the beginning of Jeanson's book Darwin is said to not have an adequate understanding of the origin of species because so many species were yet unknown, but in this chapter we are told that Darwin had a large sampling of species. It would seem that the large sampling was sufficient enough for Darwin (in conjunction with other lines of argument) to formulate his theory of evolution. So, it would appear that the earlier criticism is really unjustified.
Chapter seven is the largest in the book and begins with a discussion of mutations and mutation rates. Jeanson explains that genetic comparisons of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) form branching patterns or nested hierarchies that fit exactly what evolution would expect. He then rejects that idea and explains that nested hierarchies are expressing functional roles in each family and that families (meaning the biological classification of family) was directly created. He references many of his articles that were published in Answers Research Journal for further justification.
Indeed, much of the chapter is Jeanson arguing that evolutionary predictions of the number of mtDNA mutations are too great when comparing the differences among various organisms such as humans, Chimpanzees, Neanderthals, roundworms, fruit flies, water fleas, baker's yeast, etc. to actual mutation rates. He then argues that when comparing these various rates in timescales of 6,000 years that the young earth creationist predictions are confirmed. The problem is that Jeanson's claims fall in the face of many studies related to molecular clocks, both nuclear and mtDNA, all show that the so-called "evolutionary timescales" are in fact justified. One review of Jeanson's Answers Research Journal articles show that he has manipulated the results of various studies to come up with his greatly increased mutation rates than the ones that mainstream science has settled on. Further, modern studies of the human mtDNA tree has divided that tree into three haplogroups referred to as L, M, and N. Jeanson attempts to associate these groups with the three wives of Noah's sons from the Ark.
One of the frustrating things Jeanson does in this chapter is make statements about contemporary science such as that the universe "evolved 13 to 14 billion years ago," that the earth "formed around 4 to 5 billion years ago", that "plate tectonics suggests that there was a supercontinent millions of years ago," etc. for each of these he simply references Douglas Futuyma's 2013 edition of his textbook Evolution without any page numbers leaving the interested reader having to do their own search to find the relevant information. Although these topics are covered in Futuyma's text these are not the primary focus of his book. So why not refer to works that deal with that particular area of science? When talking about the age of the Earth he could just as easily reference the primary work by G. Brent Dalyrimple or any number of standard textbooks on geology or paleontology. This may be nitpicking but it kind of left me scratching my head.
Jeanson also claims that without the assumptions of the rates of salt flow in the oceans, radiometric dating, tectonic plate movement, the speed of light, etc. "the geologic and astronomical arguments for millions and billions of years collapse." He then talks about the fact that young earth "geologists" think that the universe and the earth are actually in the range of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, that all species formed in that timeframe, and Noah's flood was an historical and global event that dramatically altered "global rates of geologic change." Although these ideas are all underlying assumptions to Jeanson's attempt at "replacing Darwin," none of them are taken seriously by the scientific community and for good reason.
Whereas chapter seven discussed mitochondria DNA, chapter eight reviews nuclear DNA. And just like mtDNA Jeanson admits that nuclear DNA also falls into nested hierarchical patterns. Jeanson makes the astounding claims that 1) both evolution and young earth creationism expect nested hierarchies, and 2) that the consideration of nested hierarchies does not eliminate either position from consideration. Both of these claims are contested by science.
Jeanson makes the claim, that "across diverse species, preexisting nuclear DNA differences looked like they might be required to produce more nuclear DNA differences via mutation." He goes on to explain that when it comes to the number of actual nuclear DNA differences in human-chimp and human-human comparisons with predicted expectations from both an evolutionary timescale and a creationist one (6,000 years) that both underestimate those numbers substantially. He then says that evolutionists merely explain those differences as pre-existing at the time of the human-chimp split from their prior ancestry, while for the creationist the pre-existing differences were created that way in Adam and Eve.
Jeanson concludes chapter eight returning to the jigsaw puzzle analogy and states that like mtDNA, nuclear DNA differences represent another corner piece of the puzzle, giving additional contraint on the overall picture of the diversity of life.
The heart of chapters seven and eight regards mutation rates and divergence times specifically between evolutionary timescales and creationist timescales and Jeanson's challenge that evolution be able to make testable predictions regarding mutation rates that match long timescales and actual DNA differences. His claim is that evolution is unable to do this while creationism is able to make such predictions and has a better explanation for those differences that don't meet the prediction.
In chapter nine Jeanson makes the intriguing statement, "[i]f human breeders can do so much with so little genetic potential, and if much more genetic potential exists in the wild, then a natural 'substitute' for humans is almost unnecessary — natural processes need to accomplish so little." This is astounding because for so long creationists have attempted to argue that natural processes were not enough to produce the diversity of life, and yet, here we have Jeanson making that very claim.
It is also in this chapter that Jeanson lays out his model of rapid speciation and repopulation of all species after Noah's Flood. He ties in his discussions of DNA differences from chapters 7 and 8 with that of migration from chapter 4 to claim that populations could have grown from the numbers that were on the Ark to what we see today.
Jeanson concludes chapter nine with laying out the main differences between the evolutionary and creationist (or as Jeanson dubs it, the preexisting genetic diversity model) views of speciation. The first is the source of DNA differences or heterogyzosity, from the evolutonary perspective mutations are the ultimate source, but Jeanson wants to claim that mutations are not enough. From the creationist side he claims that the source of the differences are preexisting and are that way because God designed it to be so from the beginning of creation. The second regards the formation of species of which he frames the evolutionary view as one of individual mutants being able to survive in various scenarious, but for the creationist since diversity is already built-in and preexisting then natural selection, migration, genetic drift, etc is sufficient for the diversity.
In these later chapters Jeanson is concerned with the amount of nuclear DNA differences. From an evolutionary perspective those differences are explained because of mutations through extended generations over deep time. Jeanson cannot have deep time, he only has 6,000 years, so for him the differences are preexisting and had to be that way from creation itself. In essence, its a form of front loading. God creates the potential and ability of diversity upfront, so that diversity occurs naturally, but in the case of YECism, over a relatively short period of time.
Chapter 10 concludes the main body of the book with a discussion of speciation of various families of species looking at the number of known species with the number of species who have published mutation rates and outlining the number of mtDNA differences. The conclusion is that biological patterns in those studies match "linear patterns of speciation within families." The essence of the argument is that species are becoming less diverse, are moving from heterozygous to homozygous. In essence Jeanson is arguing that genomes are deteriorating.
Jeanson conclusions with his jigsaw puzzle analogy and argues that the puzzle is incomplete because there are millions of species whose mutation rates have yet to be documented. He further claims that in reality there isn't just one puzzle but many based around the family or perhaps the genus.
Lastly, Jeanson brings his book to a close with an Afterword attempting to place his book within a philosophical and religious framework. He begins by making a rather dubious claim that for the last 130 years there has been a polarized clash between the "two sides," but seeing that young earth creationism is outside mainstream science and is fundamentally tied to religious faith, there is no "two sides" at all. Mainstream science encompasses people who hold to a wide spectrum of views on politics, economics, morality, religion, and a host of other topics and issues. So, from the perspective of the scientific community, there is no dispute over the reality of biological evolution. On the other hand, there is the current culture wars being waged by those who hold to fundamentally different beliefs about the world. That's where young earth creationism dwells.
Jeanson goes on to make the false association of evolution with atheism. This is a logical fallacy of poisoning the well and ignores the fact that a great many religious believers hold to the scientific theory of evolution. He then proceeds to discuss theistic evolution with the claim that evolution and the Bible cannot be reconciled, missing the point that he is assuming a literalistic interpretation of the Bible and that one can reconcile faith and evolution by recognizing that the Bible need not be approached from an overly simplistic literalism. The rest of the chapter is a discussion about God and his attributes and becomes essentially a mini-sermon appealing to the reader for ultimate conversion.
Let me conclude with several observations.
One of the major flaws with Jeanson's work is his attempt at a comparison between his "creationist model" with that of the "evolutionary model." There are many problems with his approach including the fact that these are not the only two ideas out there and more importantly they are not on an equal footing. The creationist model as understood by Jeanson is based on 1) a particular approach and interpretation of the Bible as an historical narrative and literal history; 2) the idea that the age of the Earth is in the range on only 6,000 years; and 3) that most of the geological strata are the result of a singular global flood approximately 4,500 years ago. Each of these are problematic in and of themselves and yet Jeason's entire edifice is built on all of these being true.
Another problem with Jeanson's work, one that tends to plague all young earth literature, is that the data is made to fit the conclusion. Just an overview of the history of science especially since the late eighteen century shows us how natural philosophers came to specific conclusions based on mounds of evidence. We see this when Hutton realized that the nature of the rock strata showed that it took much longer than a few thousand years to produce what we see today and this idea of an old Earth was collaborated at the turn on the twentieth century with the discovery of radiometric dating. We see this again with Charles Darwin and his realization that the evidence pointed to biological evolution rather than fixity of species. Another example is plate tectonics that revolutionized the geological sciences. In each case conclusions were reached based on mounds of evidence. Jeanson is simply unable to overcome the fact that he is stretching things in order to reach a certain conclusion. All of the evidence for an ancient Earth and biological evolution are simply dismissed in the hope that he can make data fit the young earth paradigm.
I also wonder who the intended audience is for this book. I'm guessing that Jeanson is attempting to reach a general audience, but also wants scholars to read it as well. I bring this up because the book does start off with some good historical and introductory material, but by the time you reach chapters 7 and 8 you are in the thick of genetics discussions related to mitochondrial and nuclear DNA mutation rates and this is simply over the head of most readers. Sure, it will give the lay audience the feeling that they are reading something amazing and scholarly, but in reality they have no real ability to know or evaluate the claims being made. It would seem that much of the more technical discussions could have been simplified and the technical details either placed in appendixes or in endnotes or just simply refer to the relevant articles as he did in many places.
Throughout the book Jeanson discusses how he obtained information from various databases, doing his own manipulation of the data, which is to be expected since that is his area of expertise. The problem is that most readers are not geneticists or other type of professional biologist who have the expertise to evaluate his conclusions, especially since Jeanson is making his case outside of mainstream science. To his credit Jeanson does outline his methodology so anyone who does have the knowledge set can review the work.
All in all, this is an intriguing work and shows that young earth creationists are seriously wanting to do research, unfortunately their disposition towards a particular ideology (evangelical fundamentalism) constrains their work and often leads to cognitive dissonance.
Also, for those who want additional information about Jeanson's work, especially from chapters 7 through 9 can consultant his five main articles that are freely available from the Answers Research Journal that are published online at the Answers in Genesis website.
The book consists of ten chapters divided into four parts with an introduction and afterword. Included are 40 pages of color plates that are referenced throughout the text.
In chapter one Jeanson frames his work within the context of a jigsaw puzzle and the importance of having the edge pieces to be able to effectively understand the puzzle. He argues that Charles Darwin only had a few pieces of the jigsaw puzzle and none of the edge pieces. He then presents genetics in chapter two as the source of the origin of traits (hence, the basis for the origin of species). Jeanson's thesis is that genetics is the edge pieces of the puzzle that Darwin didn't have. I'm inclined to argue that Jeanson has it backwards that indeed evolution is the edge and corner pieces and that genetics is a part of the more detailed center pieces.
Jeanson does give a nice overview of the history of genetics from Mendel to Watson and Crick and shows how each contribution was made to our understanding of inheritance of genetic traits.
In chapter three Jeanson dives into the inner workings of the cell, pivots to a discussion about the process of development and how cells encode information and then concludes with a discussion of the ENCODE project and non-coding DNA. On this last point he nowhere indicates that there has been some controversy in the scientific community about many of the conclusions of the ENCODE project nor has he mentioned that ENCODE had to clarify some of its statements.
For Jeanson DNA differences "set the hard limits and constraints on a potential explanation for the origin of species," so we can begin to see where he is going with his line of argument, and here he brings back in the analogy of the jigsaw puzzle, as these "differences" become the edge pieces of the puzzle.
The next section contains many pages of various color plates some containing explanations while others didn't. These plates are discussed throughout the text of the book and are a nice contribution.
Chapter four begins with Jeanson discussing the fact that science is about inductive reasoning and how that was the basis for Darwin's theory. He then proceeds to discusss the geographical distribution of animals concluding that migration and speciation explains how most of the animals got to their respective locations.
Up to this point the book hasn't been all that bad, maybe a few occasional snarky remarks about evolution. Chapter five however took a major turn for the worse. The chapter begins with an interesting discussion about Linnaean classification and how it represents a nested hierarchy but then Jeanson invokes a typical creationist comparison with automobiles and other types of transportation as another form of nested hierarchy. He then discusses various vestigial structures and concludes that Darwin's discussion in the Origin about breeds and species is better explained by modern creationism and that Darwin's thesis didn't eliminate modern creationist views.
In a number of paragraphs he talks about the Book of Genesis and how it should be interpreted and how those interpretations have impacted modern creationist views of science. The book would have been better served if the biblical material was in a separate chapter discussing some of the issues of interpretation and its impact (or lack of) on science, rather than bringing it into the conversation so far into the book.
Also, despite decades of denial from various anti-evolutionary creationists that there are no transitional fossils, Jeanson not only admits they exist, he says they are consistent with evolution and specifically common ancestry. Of course he thinks the nested hierarchy of modes of transportation is the answer to transitional forms, namely, that God designed them that way.
Jeanson begins chapter six with a discussion of timescales and mentions Charles Lyell, but rather than dealing with the issue head on he goes down a different path and introduces the concept of rapid speciation. He again brings up the breeds-species comparison and references the fact that breeding began by humans about 12,000 years ago and spends much of the chapter talking about speciation rates of different species and how so many have arisen over the past 12,000 years. It seems that Jeanson is taking the breeds and species comparisons much too far especially since the concept of breeds is not technically a term in classification but rather a subset of species based around specific characteristics that the breeder values.
At the beginning of Jeanson's book Darwin is said to not have an adequate understanding of the origin of species because so many species were yet unknown, but in this chapter we are told that Darwin had a large sampling of species. It would seem that the large sampling was sufficient enough for Darwin (in conjunction with other lines of argument) to formulate his theory of evolution. So, it would appear that the earlier criticism is really unjustified.
Chapter seven is the largest in the book and begins with a discussion of mutations and mutation rates. Jeanson explains that genetic comparisons of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) form branching patterns or nested hierarchies that fit exactly what evolution would expect. He then rejects that idea and explains that nested hierarchies are expressing functional roles in each family and that families (meaning the biological classification of family) was directly created. He references many of his articles that were published in Answers Research Journal for further justification.
Indeed, much of the chapter is Jeanson arguing that evolutionary predictions of the number of mtDNA mutations are too great when comparing the differences among various organisms such as humans, Chimpanzees, Neanderthals, roundworms, fruit flies, water fleas, baker's yeast, etc. to actual mutation rates. He then argues that when comparing these various rates in timescales of 6,000 years that the young earth creationist predictions are confirmed. The problem is that Jeanson's claims fall in the face of many studies related to molecular clocks, both nuclear and mtDNA, all show that the so-called "evolutionary timescales" are in fact justified. One review of Jeanson's Answers Research Journal articles show that he has manipulated the results of various studies to come up with his greatly increased mutation rates than the ones that mainstream science has settled on. Further, modern studies of the human mtDNA tree has divided that tree into three haplogroups referred to as L, M, and N. Jeanson attempts to associate these groups with the three wives of Noah's sons from the Ark.
One of the frustrating things Jeanson does in this chapter is make statements about contemporary science such as that the universe "evolved 13 to 14 billion years ago," that the earth "formed around 4 to 5 billion years ago", that "plate tectonics suggests that there was a supercontinent millions of years ago," etc. for each of these he simply references Douglas Futuyma's 2013 edition of his textbook Evolution without any page numbers leaving the interested reader having to do their own search to find the relevant information. Although these topics are covered in Futuyma's text these are not the primary focus of his book. So why not refer to works that deal with that particular area of science? When talking about the age of the Earth he could just as easily reference the primary work by G. Brent Dalyrimple or any number of standard textbooks on geology or paleontology. This may be nitpicking but it kind of left me scratching my head.
Jeanson also claims that without the assumptions of the rates of salt flow in the oceans, radiometric dating, tectonic plate movement, the speed of light, etc. "the geologic and astronomical arguments for millions and billions of years collapse." He then talks about the fact that young earth "geologists" think that the universe and the earth are actually in the range of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, that all species formed in that timeframe, and Noah's flood was an historical and global event that dramatically altered "global rates of geologic change." Although these ideas are all underlying assumptions to Jeanson's attempt at "replacing Darwin," none of them are taken seriously by the scientific community and for good reason.
Whereas chapter seven discussed mitochondria DNA, chapter eight reviews nuclear DNA. And just like mtDNA Jeanson admits that nuclear DNA also falls into nested hierarchical patterns. Jeanson makes the astounding claims that 1) both evolution and young earth creationism expect nested hierarchies, and 2) that the consideration of nested hierarchies does not eliminate either position from consideration. Both of these claims are contested by science.
Jeanson makes the claim, that "across diverse species, preexisting nuclear DNA differences looked like they might be required to produce more nuclear DNA differences via mutation." He goes on to explain that when it comes to the number of actual nuclear DNA differences in human-chimp and human-human comparisons with predicted expectations from both an evolutionary timescale and a creationist one (6,000 years) that both underestimate those numbers substantially. He then says that evolutionists merely explain those differences as pre-existing at the time of the human-chimp split from their prior ancestry, while for the creationist the pre-existing differences were created that way in Adam and Eve.
Jeanson concludes chapter eight returning to the jigsaw puzzle analogy and states that like mtDNA, nuclear DNA differences represent another corner piece of the puzzle, giving additional contraint on the overall picture of the diversity of life.
The heart of chapters seven and eight regards mutation rates and divergence times specifically between evolutionary timescales and creationist timescales and Jeanson's challenge that evolution be able to make testable predictions regarding mutation rates that match long timescales and actual DNA differences. His claim is that evolution is unable to do this while creationism is able to make such predictions and has a better explanation for those differences that don't meet the prediction.
In chapter nine Jeanson makes the intriguing statement, "[i]f human breeders can do so much with so little genetic potential, and if much more genetic potential exists in the wild, then a natural 'substitute' for humans is almost unnecessary — natural processes need to accomplish so little." This is astounding because for so long creationists have attempted to argue that natural processes were not enough to produce the diversity of life, and yet, here we have Jeanson making that very claim.
It is also in this chapter that Jeanson lays out his model of rapid speciation and repopulation of all species after Noah's Flood. He ties in his discussions of DNA differences from chapters 7 and 8 with that of migration from chapter 4 to claim that populations could have grown from the numbers that were on the Ark to what we see today.
Jeanson concludes chapter nine with laying out the main differences between the evolutionary and creationist (or as Jeanson dubs it, the preexisting genetic diversity model) views of speciation. The first is the source of DNA differences or heterogyzosity, from the evolutonary perspective mutations are the ultimate source, but Jeanson wants to claim that mutations are not enough. From the creationist side he claims that the source of the differences are preexisting and are that way because God designed it to be so from the beginning of creation. The second regards the formation of species of which he frames the evolutionary view as one of individual mutants being able to survive in various scenarious, but for the creationist since diversity is already built-in and preexisting then natural selection, migration, genetic drift, etc is sufficient for the diversity.
In these later chapters Jeanson is concerned with the amount of nuclear DNA differences. From an evolutionary perspective those differences are explained because of mutations through extended generations over deep time. Jeanson cannot have deep time, he only has 6,000 years, so for him the differences are preexisting and had to be that way from creation itself. In essence, its a form of front loading. God creates the potential and ability of diversity upfront, so that diversity occurs naturally, but in the case of YECism, over a relatively short period of time.
Chapter 10 concludes the main body of the book with a discussion of speciation of various families of species looking at the number of known species with the number of species who have published mutation rates and outlining the number of mtDNA differences. The conclusion is that biological patterns in those studies match "linear patterns of speciation within families." The essence of the argument is that species are becoming less diverse, are moving from heterozygous to homozygous. In essence Jeanson is arguing that genomes are deteriorating.
Jeanson conclusions with his jigsaw puzzle analogy and argues that the puzzle is incomplete because there are millions of species whose mutation rates have yet to be documented. He further claims that in reality there isn't just one puzzle but many based around the family or perhaps the genus.
Lastly, Jeanson brings his book to a close with an Afterword attempting to place his book within a philosophical and religious framework. He begins by making a rather dubious claim that for the last 130 years there has been a polarized clash between the "two sides," but seeing that young earth creationism is outside mainstream science and is fundamentally tied to religious faith, there is no "two sides" at all. Mainstream science encompasses people who hold to a wide spectrum of views on politics, economics, morality, religion, and a host of other topics and issues. So, from the perspective of the scientific community, there is no dispute over the reality of biological evolution. On the other hand, there is the current culture wars being waged by those who hold to fundamentally different beliefs about the world. That's where young earth creationism dwells.
Jeanson goes on to make the false association of evolution with atheism. This is a logical fallacy of poisoning the well and ignores the fact that a great many religious believers hold to the scientific theory of evolution. He then proceeds to discuss theistic evolution with the claim that evolution and the Bible cannot be reconciled, missing the point that he is assuming a literalistic interpretation of the Bible and that one can reconcile faith and evolution by recognizing that the Bible need not be approached from an overly simplistic literalism. The rest of the chapter is a discussion about God and his attributes and becomes essentially a mini-sermon appealing to the reader for ultimate conversion.
Let me conclude with several observations.
One of the major flaws with Jeanson's work is his attempt at a comparison between his "creationist model" with that of the "evolutionary model." There are many problems with his approach including the fact that these are not the only two ideas out there and more importantly they are not on an equal footing. The creationist model as understood by Jeanson is based on 1) a particular approach and interpretation of the Bible as an historical narrative and literal history; 2) the idea that the age of the Earth is in the range on only 6,000 years; and 3) that most of the geological strata are the result of a singular global flood approximately 4,500 years ago. Each of these are problematic in and of themselves and yet Jeason's entire edifice is built on all of these being true.
Another problem with Jeanson's work, one that tends to plague all young earth literature, is that the data is made to fit the conclusion. Just an overview of the history of science especially since the late eighteen century shows us how natural philosophers came to specific conclusions based on mounds of evidence. We see this when Hutton realized that the nature of the rock strata showed that it took much longer than a few thousand years to produce what we see today and this idea of an old Earth was collaborated at the turn on the twentieth century with the discovery of radiometric dating. We see this again with Charles Darwin and his realization that the evidence pointed to biological evolution rather than fixity of species. Another example is plate tectonics that revolutionized the geological sciences. In each case conclusions were reached based on mounds of evidence. Jeanson is simply unable to overcome the fact that he is stretching things in order to reach a certain conclusion. All of the evidence for an ancient Earth and biological evolution are simply dismissed in the hope that he can make data fit the young earth paradigm.
I also wonder who the intended audience is for this book. I'm guessing that Jeanson is attempting to reach a general audience, but also wants scholars to read it as well. I bring this up because the book does start off with some good historical and introductory material, but by the time you reach chapters 7 and 8 you are in the thick of genetics discussions related to mitochondrial and nuclear DNA mutation rates and this is simply over the head of most readers. Sure, it will give the lay audience the feeling that they are reading something amazing and scholarly, but in reality they have no real ability to know or evaluate the claims being made. It would seem that much of the more technical discussions could have been simplified and the technical details either placed in appendixes or in endnotes or just simply refer to the relevant articles as he did in many places.
Throughout the book Jeanson discusses how he obtained information from various databases, doing his own manipulation of the data, which is to be expected since that is his area of expertise. The problem is that most readers are not geneticists or other type of professional biologist who have the expertise to evaluate his conclusions, especially since Jeanson is making his case outside of mainstream science. To his credit Jeanson does outline his methodology so anyone who does have the knowledge set can review the work.
All in all, this is an intriguing work and shows that young earth creationists are seriously wanting to do research, unfortunately their disposition towards a particular ideology (evangelical fundamentalism) constrains their work and often leads to cognitive dissonance.
Also, for those who want additional information about Jeanson's work, especially from chapters 7 through 9 can consultant his five main articles that are freely available from the Answers Research Journal that are published online at the Answers in Genesis website.
January 23, 2018
From the back cover: “Charles Darwin’s ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES is considered one of history’s most influential books and has become the foundation of evolutionary biology. But what if Darwin was looking at the same evidence today using modern science; would his conclusions be the same?“
This book is not an easy read. It took me quite a while to get through it, but it was worth the effort. I felt like I was back in biology class studying genetics. As I was reading, I spent time rereading and studying the text. Had Darwin known what we now know, I think Darwin’s conclusions would have been far different.
This book is not an easy read. It took me quite a while to get through it, but it was worth the effort. I felt like I was back in biology class studying genetics. As I was reading, I spent time rereading and studying the text. Had Darwin known what we now know, I think Darwin’s conclusions would have been far different.
March 8, 2019
Honestly, it was tough getting through this book. I’ve read my fair share of technical books, but this one took the cake for being as extended as possible. Also, the puzzle analogy at the beginning of every chapter was tedious. I really wanted to give it only 3 stars, but the last third of the book had some redemptive qualities. You have to get to about halfway or so through chapter 7 before some really interesting information starts to be included. What I found to be most interesting was the explanation of species trees and mtDNA. I think the book is a somewhat useful piece of reference material, but it honestly wouldn’t be my first choice or suggestion.
April 1, 2018
The author gives a fascinating, logical review of species origins in the context of recent discoveries in the field of genetics, a field that didn't even exist when Darwin wrote his influencial book. The tone throughout the book is logical and respectful to both sides of this highly polarized issue. The writing style is unremarkable, but clear and not too technical for audiences with some basic scientific knowledge. For those who want to delve deeper into the technical, the work is extensively cited in the footnotes. Enjoy!
February 3, 2023
It's really good but goes over my head. After trying to read thoroughly I skimmed a lot of it and finally had to shelve it. Otoh, my scientifically minded son read it, understood it and learned a lot.
July 20, 2020
I am amazed that a PhD from Harvard would propose that the Earth is 6000 years old. Dr. Jeanson provides fantastic genetic evidence of a genetic event 6000 years ago. He does not mention Gobekli Tepi dated at 12000 years . Nor the ice core samples from Greenland at 800000 years old . No mention of Wooly Mammoths and their carbon dating or how the flightless Moa bird got to New Zealand. To invoke Noah is absurd. To say that speciation occurred 4000 years ago is absurd. To suggest the fossil record is 4000 years old is ridiculous and to suggest the continents separated 6000 years ago is foolish nonsense. To suggest Adam had MtDNA from a mother he never had is absurd. I like to read books on Intelligent Design and Evolution but I will never read a book by Young Earth Creationists again. The MtDNA clock is intriguing and the science is formidable. But the insistence on 6000 years for all life on Earth is very problematical. Hence 3 stars.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 3, 2018
Jeanson uses the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle to connect the science of mtDNA clocks, nuclear clocks and the genetics of populations. Jeanson has a PhD in cell and developmental biology from Harvard and is actively engaged in research. This book is a challenge for the lay person to follow but nevertheless intriguing and compelling.
November 3, 2020
Great book but here is what you NEED to know. This version was made for educators, not the public. Make sure to buy "Replacing Darwin Made Easy". THAT book was written to be fun and easy. This book doesn't even start off till maybe chapter 6 or 7.
November 3, 2020
I bought it, but the other book he wrote is better and easier to read. This one is SLOW
November 20, 2024
AN ARGUMENT FOR 'DNA CLOCKS' DETERMINING THE AGE OF HUMANITY/THE EARTH
Author Nathaniel Jeanson wrote in the first chapter of this 2017 book, “This book makes a bold claim---that the events of the last 130 years have rewritten the history of life on this planet. On the surface, this statement might seem outrageous. A development this provocative would create as much upheaval as Darwin’s publication did. Yet, upon deeper reflection… in the wider context history of biology, you could argue that both paradigm shifts were inevitable.” (Pg. 9)
He continues, “[Darwin] observed the world for 73 years… in those 73 years, he was subject to the technology of the 1800s… Yet Darwin tried to tackle one of the biggest questions in biology. Since 1859, we’ve had time to reevaluate his picture… A community of millions of scientists can pool their resources and build on one another’s work… The cumulative observations of these scientists have built an unprecedented body of knowledge on the diversity and operations of life. Consequently, the puzzle image has changed.” (Pg. 11)
He goes on, “Three developments have led the way. First, after Darwin wrote ‘On the Origin of Species,’ an entire field of science [genetics] was born---and then matured. Second, premature conclusions were corrected… Third, in the last few years… Several remarkable scientific discoveries were made---ones entirely unanticipated by the trajectory of discoveries prior. Individually, each of these discoveries carried minor significance… Together, they produced a compelling picture of how species came to be. To be sure, large chunks of the puzzle still need to be filled in… Much work remains to be done… Nevertheless, the puzzle picture that we possess today is far different from the one that Darwin created. And it is far superior… This book tells the story of how this picture came to be.” (Pg. 12)
He says, “(1) The formation of new species involves the isolation of distinct individuals and their regrowth into a new population… (2) Under the evolutionary model, the process of speciation is slow… because very few mutations occur each generation, genetic differences accumulate very slowly…., (3) Under the creationist model of preexisting genetic differences, massive genetic differences arise in a single generation, which hold the potential for immediately resulting in morphological differences… isolation and population regrowth under the creationist model can happen quickly.” (Pg. 104)
He notes, “Today, no one denies the existence of an ice age. Evolutionists and modern creationists disagree as to the timing and the number of ice ages, but both freely invoke the phenomenon. Thus, historical climatological events plausibly explain the existence of mammals on the British Isles.” (Pg. 121)
He states, “evolutionists have frequently cited organs in the human body as ‘vestigial’—purposeless leftovers of evolution… evolutionists frequently cite the existence of vestigial whale legs as evidence of poor design… Many other examples could be cited… All these examples follow the same logical path—where the design of the structure doesn’t make sense, evolutionists see evidence against the design hypothesis. However, all of the ‘bad design’ arguments are, essentially, arguments from silence…. Historically, the evolutionary arguments from silence have not arisen from years of intensive investigation… Rather, the absence of evidence arose BECAUSE OF absence of investigation.” (Pg. 141-142)
He explains, “The modern creationist view derives primarily from several key phrases in Genesis 1-11. For example, in Genesis 1, the phrase ‘after their kind’… is used repeatedly to describe the units of God’s creative work in biology… Though the exact definition of ‘min’ [Hebrew; ‘kind’] is debated among Hebrew scholars, its use in other biblical passages intimates an answer… Noah is commanded to build an ark and to bring two of ever land-dependent, air-breathing ‘min’ on board… The purpose is the propagation of these ‘min’ after the Flood. Together, these details suggest that ‘min’ can be identified by testing which individuals can hybridize. In other words, if two individuals can successfully produce live offspring, this would be good evidence that they’re probably part of the same ‘min.’… Consequently, modern creationists do not equate ‘min’ with SPECIES. Instead… ‘min’ appear to be best approximated by the classification level of family or order.” (Pg. 148)
He acknowledges, “98% or more of vertebrate species must have formed contemporary with recorded human history. Yet everyone would seem to agree that little observational change is happening. Which is it?... Could such a rapid pace of speciation have gone undetected? A new species every five months sounds far-fetched. How could the ancients not have noticed the diversity of life unfold before their eyes? In our own era, why don’t we hear reports of new species forming every months? Where is the evidence for this modern speciation sprint? Historically, this evidence would have been difficult to obtain. The formation of 30,000 species … would have been distributed around the globe… if pre-Renaissance Europeans rarely ventured to any of the five other habitable continents, the opportunities to observe the formation of new species would have dropped dramatically…” (Pg. 155-156)
About the age of the earth and the universe, he argues, “Some methods aren’t conducive to measuring millions of years of time. Nevertheless, they still indicate that more than 12,000 years were required to produce the result in question. For example, measurements of sedimentation in lakes, of ice layer formation at the poles, and of stalactite and stalagmite formation in caves all lead to this conclusion. In the field of astronomy, the size of the universe and the speed of light argue for an ancient universe… Together, all of these methods rest on a foundational assumption… present rates have been assumed to have been largely constant for all of earth’s history… as a rule, evolutionary geologists and astronomers assume that massive alterations to present rates have not occurred in the distant past. This assumption is critical for a number of reasons. First, without it, the geologic and astronomical arguments for millions and billions of years collapse. Second… these discussions largely predate the discovery of DNA clocks. Third, creation scientists have long questioned this assumption… young-earth creationist (YEC) geologists … have developed testable scientific models and have documented phenomena in the field that are consistent with their ideas.. For example, they’ve made and experimentally tested hypotheses on accelerated rates of radioactive decay, accelerated rates of plate tectonic movement, and accelerated rates of geologic deposition and erosion… In response, the evolutionary community has largely dismissed these data… To be consistent with evolutionary practice, we should assume constant rates of change in genetics. In other words, when using the mtDNA clock to trace a species’ history, we should assume that the clock has ticked at a largely constant rate.” (Pg. 178-179)
He continues, “The YEC community has offered an explanation for these phenomena… [They] invoke the global Flood of Noah for many of the observations we’ve just made. Obviously aquatic, globally extensive, catastrophic, likely accompanied by violent volcanic and tectonic activity, the Flood matches the observations we’ve made… You might not agree with this geologic model. But consider the testable predictions that this model makes in the field of genetics… the three sons of Noah would have inherited their mtDNA from Noah’s wife… the branch lengths of the mtDNA tree reflect DNA differences due to mutation, and mutations are transmitted PER GENERATION…This roughly 1:3 (or higher) time ratio fits the relative branch length proportions among the three nodes in the mtDNA tree.” (Pg. 190-192)
He summarizes, “in the arena of nuclear DNA PATTERNS, the patterns themselves cannot distinguish between the evolutionary model and the creationist/design models. Rather, the FUNCTION of the nuclear DNA differences can distinguish between these two---and the trajectory of recent biochemical experiments is pointing toward high levels of function.” (Pg. 212)
He asks, “can the YEC model predict the nuclear DNA mutation rate across a diversity of species? Or… can it predict the mutation rate in at least one species---humans? In short, the answer is… SORT OF. The YEC model can RETROdict the human mutation rate… from a YEC perspective, humanity has undergone two to three population bottlenecks---one at the initial creation of Adam and Eve, and one at the time of the Flood when only eight people survived on the Ark. A third might be the Tower of Babel incident… Likely, each of these three bottlenecks was followed by rapid---if not exponential---population growth.” (Pg. 228) Later, he adds, “my model predicts that the history of civilization should be readable off of our nuclear genomic differences.” (Pg. 243)
He summarizes, “the linear patterns of speciation within families… naturally connects mtDNA clocks, nuclear DNA clocks, and the genetics of populations. To be sure, this discovery does not complete the puzzle of the origin of species. Massive holes in the puzzle still exist. The genetics of millions of species have yet to be determined, and the mutations rates in each of these species must still be measured… Nevertheless… The genetic results we uncovered … are highly suggestive of future discoveries. If nothing else, they make testable predictions… Only time will tell.” (Pg. 280)
Jeanson has a Ph.D. in Cell and Developmental Biology from Harvard, so he is a popular new ‘face’ for Young-Earth Creationists.
Author Nathaniel Jeanson wrote in the first chapter of this 2017 book, “This book makes a bold claim---that the events of the last 130 years have rewritten the history of life on this planet. On the surface, this statement might seem outrageous. A development this provocative would create as much upheaval as Darwin’s publication did. Yet, upon deeper reflection… in the wider context history of biology, you could argue that both paradigm shifts were inevitable.” (Pg. 9)
He continues, “[Darwin] observed the world for 73 years… in those 73 years, he was subject to the technology of the 1800s… Yet Darwin tried to tackle one of the biggest questions in biology. Since 1859, we’ve had time to reevaluate his picture… A community of millions of scientists can pool their resources and build on one another’s work… The cumulative observations of these scientists have built an unprecedented body of knowledge on the diversity and operations of life. Consequently, the puzzle image has changed.” (Pg. 11)
He goes on, “Three developments have led the way. First, after Darwin wrote ‘On the Origin of Species,’ an entire field of science [genetics] was born---and then matured. Second, premature conclusions were corrected… Third, in the last few years… Several remarkable scientific discoveries were made---ones entirely unanticipated by the trajectory of discoveries prior. Individually, each of these discoveries carried minor significance… Together, they produced a compelling picture of how species came to be. To be sure, large chunks of the puzzle still need to be filled in… Much work remains to be done… Nevertheless, the puzzle picture that we possess today is far different from the one that Darwin created. And it is far superior… This book tells the story of how this picture came to be.” (Pg. 12)
He says, “(1) The formation of new species involves the isolation of distinct individuals and their regrowth into a new population… (2) Under the evolutionary model, the process of speciation is slow… because very few mutations occur each generation, genetic differences accumulate very slowly…., (3) Under the creationist model of preexisting genetic differences, massive genetic differences arise in a single generation, which hold the potential for immediately resulting in morphological differences… isolation and population regrowth under the creationist model can happen quickly.” (Pg. 104)
He notes, “Today, no one denies the existence of an ice age. Evolutionists and modern creationists disagree as to the timing and the number of ice ages, but both freely invoke the phenomenon. Thus, historical climatological events plausibly explain the existence of mammals on the British Isles.” (Pg. 121)
He states, “evolutionists have frequently cited organs in the human body as ‘vestigial’—purposeless leftovers of evolution… evolutionists frequently cite the existence of vestigial whale legs as evidence of poor design… Many other examples could be cited… All these examples follow the same logical path—where the design of the structure doesn’t make sense, evolutionists see evidence against the design hypothesis. However, all of the ‘bad design’ arguments are, essentially, arguments from silence…. Historically, the evolutionary arguments from silence have not arisen from years of intensive investigation… Rather, the absence of evidence arose BECAUSE OF absence of investigation.” (Pg. 141-142)
He explains, “The modern creationist view derives primarily from several key phrases in Genesis 1-11. For example, in Genesis 1, the phrase ‘after their kind’… is used repeatedly to describe the units of God’s creative work in biology… Though the exact definition of ‘min’ [Hebrew; ‘kind’] is debated among Hebrew scholars, its use in other biblical passages intimates an answer… Noah is commanded to build an ark and to bring two of ever land-dependent, air-breathing ‘min’ on board… The purpose is the propagation of these ‘min’ after the Flood. Together, these details suggest that ‘min’ can be identified by testing which individuals can hybridize. In other words, if two individuals can successfully produce live offspring, this would be good evidence that they’re probably part of the same ‘min.’… Consequently, modern creationists do not equate ‘min’ with SPECIES. Instead… ‘min’ appear to be best approximated by the classification level of family or order.” (Pg. 148)
He acknowledges, “98% or more of vertebrate species must have formed contemporary with recorded human history. Yet everyone would seem to agree that little observational change is happening. Which is it?... Could such a rapid pace of speciation have gone undetected? A new species every five months sounds far-fetched. How could the ancients not have noticed the diversity of life unfold before their eyes? In our own era, why don’t we hear reports of new species forming every months? Where is the evidence for this modern speciation sprint? Historically, this evidence would have been difficult to obtain. The formation of 30,000 species … would have been distributed around the globe… if pre-Renaissance Europeans rarely ventured to any of the five other habitable continents, the opportunities to observe the formation of new species would have dropped dramatically…” (Pg. 155-156)
About the age of the earth and the universe, he argues, “Some methods aren’t conducive to measuring millions of years of time. Nevertheless, they still indicate that more than 12,000 years were required to produce the result in question. For example, measurements of sedimentation in lakes, of ice layer formation at the poles, and of stalactite and stalagmite formation in caves all lead to this conclusion. In the field of astronomy, the size of the universe and the speed of light argue for an ancient universe… Together, all of these methods rest on a foundational assumption… present rates have been assumed to have been largely constant for all of earth’s history… as a rule, evolutionary geologists and astronomers assume that massive alterations to present rates have not occurred in the distant past. This assumption is critical for a number of reasons. First, without it, the geologic and astronomical arguments for millions and billions of years collapse. Second… these discussions largely predate the discovery of DNA clocks. Third, creation scientists have long questioned this assumption… young-earth creationist (YEC) geologists … have developed testable scientific models and have documented phenomena in the field that are consistent with their ideas.. For example, they’ve made and experimentally tested hypotheses on accelerated rates of radioactive decay, accelerated rates of plate tectonic movement, and accelerated rates of geologic deposition and erosion… In response, the evolutionary community has largely dismissed these data… To be consistent with evolutionary practice, we should assume constant rates of change in genetics. In other words, when using the mtDNA clock to trace a species’ history, we should assume that the clock has ticked at a largely constant rate.” (Pg. 178-179)
He continues, “The YEC community has offered an explanation for these phenomena… [They] invoke the global Flood of Noah for many of the observations we’ve just made. Obviously aquatic, globally extensive, catastrophic, likely accompanied by violent volcanic and tectonic activity, the Flood matches the observations we’ve made… You might not agree with this geologic model. But consider the testable predictions that this model makes in the field of genetics… the three sons of Noah would have inherited their mtDNA from Noah’s wife… the branch lengths of the mtDNA tree reflect DNA differences due to mutation, and mutations are transmitted PER GENERATION…This roughly 1:3 (or higher) time ratio fits the relative branch length proportions among the three nodes in the mtDNA tree.” (Pg. 190-192)
He summarizes, “in the arena of nuclear DNA PATTERNS, the patterns themselves cannot distinguish between the evolutionary model and the creationist/design models. Rather, the FUNCTION of the nuclear DNA differences can distinguish between these two---and the trajectory of recent biochemical experiments is pointing toward high levels of function.” (Pg. 212)
He asks, “can the YEC model predict the nuclear DNA mutation rate across a diversity of species? Or… can it predict the mutation rate in at least one species---humans? In short, the answer is… SORT OF. The YEC model can RETROdict the human mutation rate… from a YEC perspective, humanity has undergone two to three population bottlenecks---one at the initial creation of Adam and Eve, and one at the time of the Flood when only eight people survived on the Ark. A third might be the Tower of Babel incident… Likely, each of these three bottlenecks was followed by rapid---if not exponential---population growth.” (Pg. 228) Later, he adds, “my model predicts that the history of civilization should be readable off of our nuclear genomic differences.” (Pg. 243)
He summarizes, “the linear patterns of speciation within families… naturally connects mtDNA clocks, nuclear DNA clocks, and the genetics of populations. To be sure, this discovery does not complete the puzzle of the origin of species. Massive holes in the puzzle still exist. The genetics of millions of species have yet to be determined, and the mutations rates in each of these species must still be measured… Nevertheless… The genetic results we uncovered … are highly suggestive of future discoveries. If nothing else, they make testable predictions… Only time will tell.” (Pg. 280)
Jeanson has a Ph.D. in Cell and Developmental Biology from Harvard, so he is a popular new ‘face’ for Young-Earth Creationists.
August 7, 2021
An excellent read. Dr. Jeanson's scientific qualifications and irenic spirit combine to make this a delightful read. Much of the data is hard to follow for one who is not a scientific professional, but he explains things in a way that is understandible if one is wiling to put forth the effort. The book does an excellent job of showing the the problems of darwinian evolution in light of modern day genetics, and posits a workable alternate model. Unlike many creationist writers, Jeanson is cautious about saying too much and quick to admit when the data is insufficient to draw conclusions. Highly reccomended!
October 7, 2023
Challenging a 100 Years Old Darwin's Theory.
Replacing Darwin is a comprehensive and thought-provoking exploration of the theory of evolution. Jeanson embarks on a meticulous journey through the intricacies of his alternative perspective, boldly challenging some of the fundamental tenets established by Charles Darwin over a century ago.
One of the standout features of this book is the clarity and structure of Jeanson's argument. He adeptly presents his case, laying out a systematic critique of traditional evolutionary theory. Throughout the book, he raises significant questions and introduces alternative hypotheses, making it an invaluable resource for readers intrigued by the interface of science and religion. However, it is crucial to approach this book with both an open mind and a critical eye.
Conclusion: A book that boldly challenges the prevailing notions of evolutionary theory, making it a compelling read for those eager to explore alternative perspectives. Nevertheless, it is essential to engage with the content critically and to recognize the book's position within the broader scientific discourse.
Replacing Darwin is a comprehensive and thought-provoking exploration of the theory of evolution. Jeanson embarks on a meticulous journey through the intricacies of his alternative perspective, boldly challenging some of the fundamental tenets established by Charles Darwin over a century ago.
One of the standout features of this book is the clarity and structure of Jeanson's argument. He adeptly presents his case, laying out a systematic critique of traditional evolutionary theory. Throughout the book, he raises significant questions and introduces alternative hypotheses, making it an invaluable resource for readers intrigued by the interface of science and religion. However, it is crucial to approach this book with both an open mind and a critical eye.
Conclusion: A book that boldly challenges the prevailing notions of evolutionary theory, making it a compelling read for those eager to explore alternative perspectives. Nevertheless, it is essential to engage with the content critically and to recognize the book's position within the broader scientific discourse.
Read
June 6, 2019A scientific bombshell blowing evolution to bits and supporting Genesis 1-11.
October 25, 2023
I have read a lot about the origins debate from many perspectives and including many topics and subtopics: presuppositional apologetics, biology, biblical and systematic theology, hermeneutics, genetics, astronomy, physics, and much more. I've read at least hundreds of articles on line.
After all that, this book taught me a lot and presented new perspectives in many of these areas, but especially genetics and speciation (the development of new species—hence the title). Jeanson is a PhD scientist with many published papers in well-known (and less well-known), peer-reviewed journals. He carefully lays out, in a mostly accessible manner, logical step by logical step, an explanation for the origin of species that is consistent in all points with observed data, including the latest understanding of genetics and nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. He has meticulously documented his work with reference to hundreds of papers and data sources. The book includes understandable tables, charts, and illustrations.
I'd give this book 4.5 stars if I could. It gets minor points off for the following:
(1) Simple editing could have fixed many grammatical, usage, and syntax errors. They aren't overwhelming, but there are several dozen throughout the book.
(2) Jeanson could have incorporated the most important end notes into the body directly or as footnotes to save the reader a lot of flipping back and forth.
(3) The author could have summarized and restated his key points and arguments a little more. Even for someone like me with a lot of background in the subject matter, I would have to re-read this book a few times and take notes to grasp it as well as I think that I should have been able to after the first reading. Charts and illustrations for each major part of his narrative, and for the whole, would have been very helpful.
(4) He should have been a little more explicit or emphatic on some relevant scientific points, such as the limitations of change between taxa (e.g., the hard limits between genera, families, orders, etc., based on things like chromosome length differences and the relationship between the amount of DNA coding and the effects on morphology and large-scale structure and function). I grant that Jeanson probably didn't want to stray too far from his point.
(5) The highly repetitive chart explanations and methodology explanations could have been reduced to a single explanation for a class of chart or methodology, with variations pointed out as required. In this regard, he was too explicit, as if he were writing a scientific paper. I appreciate the intent: total transparency and consistency with approved methods of science communication and documentation.
After all that, this book taught me a lot and presented new perspectives in many of these areas, but especially genetics and speciation (the development of new species—hence the title). Jeanson is a PhD scientist with many published papers in well-known (and less well-known), peer-reviewed journals. He carefully lays out, in a mostly accessible manner, logical step by logical step, an explanation for the origin of species that is consistent in all points with observed data, including the latest understanding of genetics and nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. He has meticulously documented his work with reference to hundreds of papers and data sources. The book includes understandable tables, charts, and illustrations.
I'd give this book 4.5 stars if I could. It gets minor points off for the following:
(1) Simple editing could have fixed many grammatical, usage, and syntax errors. They aren't overwhelming, but there are several dozen throughout the book.
(2) Jeanson could have incorporated the most important end notes into the body directly or as footnotes to save the reader a lot of flipping back and forth.
(3) The author could have summarized and restated his key points and arguments a little more. Even for someone like me with a lot of background in the subject matter, I would have to re-read this book a few times and take notes to grasp it as well as I think that I should have been able to after the first reading. Charts and illustrations for each major part of his narrative, and for the whole, would have been very helpful.
(4) He should have been a little more explicit or emphatic on some relevant scientific points, such as the limitations of change between taxa (e.g., the hard limits between genera, families, orders, etc., based on things like chromosome length differences and the relationship between the amount of DNA coding and the effects on morphology and large-scale structure and function). I grant that Jeanson probably didn't want to stray too far from his point.
(5) The highly repetitive chart explanations and methodology explanations could have been reduced to a single explanation for a class of chart or methodology, with variations pointed out as required. In this regard, he was too explicit, as if he were writing a scientific paper. I appreciate the intent: total transparency and consistency with approved methods of science communication and documentation.
March 1, 2019
Interesting, though somewhat technical book
I heard about this book from Answers in Genesis—a fellowship of scientists who believe that true science actually supports the Bible, rather than contradicting it. Although I found it interesting and informative, due to its often technical nature, it took quite a while for me to read and digest this book.
The author, a geneticist, traces the history of that science and discusses how far we have come in our understanding since the days of Charles Darwin. Using the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle, he shows how each discovery has shaped our perception of the origin of species and how much we have yet to learn. He explains the difference between nuclear DNA and metachondrial DNA and how they help scientists understand how species are different and how they have developed over time since the Great Flood.
One really important point he makes is that, for a theory to be valid, it has to be testable. Furthermore, our tests should yield predictable results that verify our predictions. Using a lot of math (not my thing), he demonstrates how a young earth view yields numbers that agree with the data, while a belief in millions of years is incompatible with the results that have been found in the DNA analysis of many species.
The book concludes with a discussion about why it’s so hard for people to accept the evidence that true science agrees more with the Bible than with Darwin’s proposal of the origin of species. It, too, is a bit technical/philosophical for me.
If you have excellent reading comprehension and are a patient reader interested in the field of genetics, this would be a fascinating book. I don’t recommend the electronic version of it, since the charts, illustrations and other insertions don’t flow well with the text in that format. The hard copy would provide a more pleasing reading experience. The hardback version is a bit pricey, so you may want to wait for it to come out in paperback, instead. That way, you can not only enjoy it yourself, but you can afford to buy a copy for a fellow science nerd.
I heard about this book from Answers in Genesis—a fellowship of scientists who believe that true science actually supports the Bible, rather than contradicting it. Although I found it interesting and informative, due to its often technical nature, it took quite a while for me to read and digest this book.
The author, a geneticist, traces the history of that science and discusses how far we have come in our understanding since the days of Charles Darwin. Using the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle, he shows how each discovery has shaped our perception of the origin of species and how much we have yet to learn. He explains the difference between nuclear DNA and metachondrial DNA and how they help scientists understand how species are different and how they have developed over time since the Great Flood.
One really important point he makes is that, for a theory to be valid, it has to be testable. Furthermore, our tests should yield predictable results that verify our predictions. Using a lot of math (not my thing), he demonstrates how a young earth view yields numbers that agree with the data, while a belief in millions of years is incompatible with the results that have been found in the DNA analysis of many species.
The book concludes with a discussion about why it’s so hard for people to accept the evidence that true science agrees more with the Bible than with Darwin’s proposal of the origin of species. It, too, is a bit technical/philosophical for me.
If you have excellent reading comprehension and are a patient reader interested in the field of genetics, this would be a fascinating book. I don’t recommend the electronic version of it, since the charts, illustrations and other insertions don’t flow well with the text in that format. The hard copy would provide a more pleasing reading experience. The hardback version is a bit pricey, so you may want to wait for it to come out in paperback, instead. That way, you can not only enjoy it yourself, but you can afford to buy a copy for a fellow science nerd.
March 24, 2025
Dr. Jeanson has a PhD in Cell and Developmental Biology from Harvard and I was so impressed that he could take such a complicated and specific subject and break it down into a fairly easily-digestable 10 chapter book. He not only proves all his points, but he addresses all of the evolutionary claims in a respectful way.
Evolutionists who claim that Creationists hold their beliefs outside of science, should really second-guess that theory. Everything presented in this book is fully backed by scientific charts, tables and mathmatical equations. In the Afterword, the author states: "...I did not argue for my conclusions from Scripture, and then selectively corral scientific data to justify it. Rather, I justified all of my scientific conclusions about the origin of species with science, not theology."
In the end, the author presents a very realistic and scientfically-backed alternative to the THEORY of Evolution. Yes, both creation and evolution are ultimately theories. There's simply not enough information available to definitively prove either stance, yet simply stating out-of-hand that creation defies science is patently false.
Ultimately, what I've always believed to be true is still true: It takes as much faith to believe in an accidental process that's without design or intelligence as it does to believe in a purposeful and all-powerful Creator. It boils down to theology rather than science, which is a different problem altogether. I choose to believe in a Creator God and encourage anyone open to seeing the science that shows His beautiful handiwork to read Replacing Darwin.
5/5 stars.
Evolutionists who claim that Creationists hold their beliefs outside of science, should really second-guess that theory. Everything presented in this book is fully backed by scientific charts, tables and mathmatical equations. In the Afterword, the author states: "...I did not argue for my conclusions from Scripture, and then selectively corral scientific data to justify it. Rather, I justified all of my scientific conclusions about the origin of species with science, not theology."
In the end, the author presents a very realistic and scientfically-backed alternative to the THEORY of Evolution. Yes, both creation and evolution are ultimately theories. There's simply not enough information available to definitively prove either stance, yet simply stating out-of-hand that creation defies science is patently false.
Ultimately, what I've always believed to be true is still true: It takes as much faith to believe in an accidental process that's without design or intelligence as it does to believe in a purposeful and all-powerful Creator. It boils down to theology rather than science, which is a different problem altogether. I choose to believe in a Creator God and encourage anyone open to seeing the science that shows His beautiful handiwork to read Replacing Darwin.
5/5 stars.
November 2, 2025
I believe when I read On the Origin of the Species it was around 600 pages. This book was about half that many but somehow felt three times as long. It doesn't replace Darwin's evolution versus creationism at all. It fortifies it with the nuts and bolts 170 years later. The biochemistry of the nuts and bolts and DNA and mitochondria and RNA and mtDNA and genes and genomes and biochemistry of chromosomes and nuclear genome sequences and non-protein coating nuclear DNA. Still, I lost interest towards the end with all the irrelevant god and bible talk. god bible babble and science are irreconcilable so unnecessary in the conversation.
April 16, 2022
Jeanson rigidly follows the science of genetics to develop his conclusions regarding speciation. Along the way he presents evidence for different timeframes for speciation. By objectively following the evidence, he prepares to consider what the biblical account of creation might offer to either contradict or confirm his genetic model. This book should be read by every Christian interested in scientific research — especially in the realm of biology.
January 11, 2019
An interesting overview of the field. The main conclusion is that species form when a population’s DNA moves from heterozygous to homozygous, which is to say they’ve lost information, via migration or other classically defined methods. And that God created the initial animals and Adam and Eve highly heterozygous.
I do think the work of Randy Guliuzza at ICR will eclipse this.
I do think the work of Randy Guliuzza at ICR will eclipse this.
August 18, 2019
If you're looking for a light read on mutation rates of mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA, heterozygosity, and speciation timelines, this is not it. Gets heavily technical at times. If you don't really care about this topic, don't bother. I'm moving on to much lighter reading for my next book.
October 28, 2021
I learned a lot and the book finished strong, but certainly a slow read with all of the definitions and the writing style.
November 10, 2022
Technical explanations of DNA, genes, and speciation support a special creation explanation for origins.
May 19, 2023
For the Christian science lovers out there- this is a pretty good book that challenges the view of most modern-day scientists. Very interesting read.
January 17, 2024
Puts creation into terms and ideas that everyday people can understand, but also add plenty of scientific data to back it up.
October 10, 2024
The idea of the material was good, I was just expecting it to be more of a comparison between evolution and genesis and it wasn’t. It also read very dull and boring, similar to a textbook.
March 21, 2025
Very interesting, but about 2/3 through it got too scientifically detailed for me to understand any more than the general purpose of each chapter.
February 4, 2021
Fascinating. So honest and factual. Not motivated by emotion or anything else but true scientific findings regardless of what they imply. Not holding back certain answers to questions simply because they bring God into it. Author has very well thought out his work and it’s implications as well as its roots.
August 13, 2020
Evolutionary biologist here. Is it possible to give a book a zero? Jeanson gets basic concepts in biology, evolution, genetics, and even science itself wrong.
July 23, 2025
I really enjoyed the beginning and end of this book. It’s part textbook/part apologetics/part journal article. The first part had me thinking about some different ideas regarding “young earth creationism” - I’ve never really been too concerned about the age of the earth and its scientific implications really, so this was very interesting. The end of the book couches the whole evolution/creation debate in a very good way that I very much appreciated. Some of the intervening chapters were very full of genetic data, LOTS of it, so that it was more like a mathematical genetics research article. I really would have been all right with more summary and less detail. But you can tell the author is thorough.
The afterword brought it back up to a 4-star review for me. If you’re not into data/molecular genetics, you might just skip a couple chapters or only read the beginning/ending of them.
The afterword brought it back up to a 4-star review for me. If you’re not into data/molecular genetics, you might just skip a couple chapters or only read the beginning/ending of them.
July 22, 2023
Excellent book! Just realize that it is extreme technical! Would recommend keeping a dictionary close by if you are not a science major!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews