What do you think?
Rate this book
Objections to Evolution
The Theory of Evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859, has been plagued by controversy and criticisms since its inception. But in the Western World at least, the fight seems to be almost over, with evolution being seen by many as a sealed deal. The theory has made its way into science textbooks and lodged itself firmly in there.
Could this be the biggest mistake the scientific community has ever made?
Objections to Evolution addresses this question. It re-examines the evidence for evolution and brings forth a new case against it from a non-religious perspective.
This case contains completely unique and thought-provoking ideas, arguments and theories. It asks and answers fundamental questions, which have not been addressed previously, and attempts to create a revolution in the way we think about our origins.
Could this be the biggest mistake the scientific community has ever made?
Objections to Evolution addresses this question. It re-examines the evidence for evolution and brings forth a new case against it from a non-religious perspective.
This case contains completely unique and thought-provoking ideas, arguments and theories. It asks and answers fundamental questions, which have not been addressed previously, and attempts to create a revolution in the way we think about our origins.
- GenresNonfictionScience
367 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 21, 2019
61 people are currently reading
210 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 - 7 of 7 reviews
August 20, 2020
I won this book in a goodreads drawing.
The author pokes a bunch of holes into the theory of evolution, from a mostly atheistic, or at least agnostic perspective.
Pretty good if you're into that sort of thing.
The author pokes a bunch of holes into the theory of evolution, from a mostly atheistic, or at least agnostic perspective.
Pretty good if you're into that sort of thing.
um-not-these-authors
October 11, 2019Exhibit 32,954 in the case against vanity presses and diploma mills. May the Flying Spaghetti Monster help us all.
December 2, 2019
I won this from a giveaway. Did not finish... Could not get into it. What I did read was wordy and over my head, which was a turn off.
November 9, 2019
A thoughtful critique of evolution theory
The author does an excellent job of dissecting evolution theory and proving through logical analysis that evolution theory has no more scientific merit than Creation theory. Both cannot be empirically proven but the author maintains that Creation theory is much more scientifically plausible. An enjoyable read!
The author does an excellent job of dissecting evolution theory and proving through logical analysis that evolution theory has no more scientific merit than Creation theory. Both cannot be empirically proven but the author maintains that Creation theory is much more scientifically plausible. An enjoyable read!
February 24, 2020
(Won this book on Goodreads). This was an extremely hard book to read. It seemed to be way over my head and was not able to completely follow. I found the initial description to be interesting(why I choose to try and win the book) because I believe in God and his creation and want to see other ways of thinking about it. I was just hoping it would have been a more down to earth read.
Want to read
November 11, 2019Thank you for the opportunity to review this book as a giveaway recipient. I am excited to read it and will update my thoughts on this book soon!
January 14, 2020
Here are all the major problems with this book. Firstly, the author's knowledge of philosophy of science appears very poor. He uses this to try and reframe the burden of proof. He continually makes the analogy to a court room, and the reader to a member of a jury. In scientific terms, a theory is rejected because a better theory with more explanatory power replaces it. The author is correct, theories are not facts. However, we treat a theory as true if it is the best theory to explain certain phenomena.
This is the issue with everybody who argues against evolution. The author has to use the "reasonable doubt" criteria, because he is aware that no alternative exists. It is merely enough to provide "reasonable doubt." In fact, the author is so unsure of his position that he includes a disclaimer saying his alternatives are not necessarily his own views.
The author seems ignorant of basic logic as well. He correctly labels theories as inductive, but then claims later certain theories are facts. One of these theories is The Theory of Relativity, which has it's own problems. It doesn't work with Quantum Theory. Relativity itself arose from problems with Newtonian physics and Maxwell's field theory.
The words "Deductive Logic" are never stated in this book. I'm not even sure the author knows there is such a thing. The author claims that evolution is unscientific, and does so by constantly claiming any evidence is "circular logic." This is an accusation of a fallacy called " begging the question." The author doesn't even know what that is. Most of the evidence for evolution is deductive. This means we are looking for things that are consistent with evolution being true. This isn't circular reasoning, it is how we investigate a theory. A major assumption of the theory being proven false would not necessarily kill the theory, but it would certainly change it.
The author is also very fond of false analogies. One of the more hilarious ones is he argues against evolutionary traits evolving independently of each other, by saying that this is like assuming two cars have the same manufacturer. No, but his analogy fits the case. Two car manufacturers might come to the same design conclusions, just like two species might evolve similar traits to survive.
He also relies a lot on misconceptions about evolution. Populations evolve, not species. If you understand this concept you'll see through his arguments. He seems to think only directly observed phenomena can be true. There are arguments about this kind of thing in philosophy of science, but very few people would defend this idiocy.
Once you get past the first half things get pretty boring. His argument for alternatives basically starts by arguing for something close to "race realism." The rest is a strange mix of stupidity. Most doesn't even pretend to be scientific. A lot of it directly contradicts things that were argued in the first half.
Here's a tip. Come up with a coherent alternative to evolution and then argue in favor of that. Intelligent design is just philosophy, and doesn't even directly contradict evolution. Creationism is theology. Everything else is a conspiracy theory. Do better. Especially if you want to challenge a major scientific theory.
This is the issue with everybody who argues against evolution. The author has to use the "reasonable doubt" criteria, because he is aware that no alternative exists. It is merely enough to provide "reasonable doubt." In fact, the author is so unsure of his position that he includes a disclaimer saying his alternatives are not necessarily his own views.
The author seems ignorant of basic logic as well. He correctly labels theories as inductive, but then claims later certain theories are facts. One of these theories is The Theory of Relativity, which has it's own problems. It doesn't work with Quantum Theory. Relativity itself arose from problems with Newtonian physics and Maxwell's field theory.
The words "Deductive Logic" are never stated in this book. I'm not even sure the author knows there is such a thing. The author claims that evolution is unscientific, and does so by constantly claiming any evidence is "circular logic." This is an accusation of a fallacy called " begging the question." The author doesn't even know what that is. Most of the evidence for evolution is deductive. This means we are looking for things that are consistent with evolution being true. This isn't circular reasoning, it is how we investigate a theory. A major assumption of the theory being proven false would not necessarily kill the theory, but it would certainly change it.
The author is also very fond of false analogies. One of the more hilarious ones is he argues against evolutionary traits evolving independently of each other, by saying that this is like assuming two cars have the same manufacturer. No, but his analogy fits the case. Two car manufacturers might come to the same design conclusions, just like two species might evolve similar traits to survive.
He also relies a lot on misconceptions about evolution. Populations evolve, not species. If you understand this concept you'll see through his arguments. He seems to think only directly observed phenomena can be true. There are arguments about this kind of thing in philosophy of science, but very few people would defend this idiocy.
Once you get past the first half things get pretty boring. His argument for alternatives basically starts by arguing for something close to "race realism." The rest is a strange mix of stupidity. Most doesn't even pretend to be scientific. A lot of it directly contradicts things that were argued in the first half.
Here's a tip. Come up with a coherent alternative to evolution and then argue in favor of that. Intelligent design is just philosophy, and doesn't even directly contradict evolution. Creationism is theology. Everything else is a conspiracy theory. Do better. Especially if you want to challenge a major scientific theory.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews