What do you think?
Rate this book
The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism
Anti-scientific misinformation has become a serious problem on many fronts, including vaccinations and climate change. One of these fronts is the persistence of anti-evolutionism, which has recently been given a superficially professional gloss in the form of the intelligent design movement. Far from solely being of interest to researchers in biology, anti-evolutionism must be recognized as part of a broader campaign with a conservative religious and political agenda. Much of the rhetorical effectiveness of anti-evolutionism comes from its reliance on seemingly precise mathematical arguments. This book, the first of its kind to be written by a mathematician, discusses and refutes these arguments. Along the way, it also clarifies common misconceptions about both biology and mathematics. Both lay audiences and professionals will find the book to be accessible and informative.
- GenresScience
292 pages, Paperback
Published May 12, 2022
2 people are currently reading
33 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 - 4 of 4 reviews
March 15, 2024
It’s been years since I read a science book and I’m very glad I read this one. It turns out that I have previously read a book by this author, but over ten years ago. I thought I was pretty well versed in ant-evolutionist arguments and their refutations, but I really learned a lot from this book. I especially enjoyed the analogies the author uses. For example, in refuting the probability arguments of the anti-evolutionists he explains that in evolution not every outcome is equally probable, any more than any outcome of a roll of a pair of dice is equally probable. The main thing I learned from this book is that the ant-evolution arguments employed by the creationist crowd are even worse than I thought.
February 22, 2024
Mathematician Jason Rosenhouse examines the mathematical claims of anti-evolutionists. The author examines such problems as evolutionary discontinuity, specified complexity, evolution with and without multiple simultaneous changes, and conservation of information.
He begins by examining a 1928 creationist book by William A. Williams, a Presbyterian clergyman. He holds it up as an example of anti-evolutionist mathematics. Mathematical calculations shouldn’t begin like an engineer's design. The system did not arise in one step from the mind of an engineer. But viewed as the outcome of a long historical process, everything makes sense. It shows the “senseless signs of history.”
According to the author, irreducible complexity represents appalling design, at least as judged by the standards of human engineers. Gradualism is supported by the fossil record, which contains many transitional fossils that show structural adaptations of species as they transform into new species. With the introduction of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, gradualism has been contrasted with stasis (a period or state of inactivity or equilibrium).
“And since no mathematical model could possibly include enough of nature’s complexity to be convincing, we are not worried that a few back-of-the-envelope calculations will provide a good reason for abandoning that hypothesis.” p.105
However, he has a different view when using computers to model evolution.
"In particular, we can use computers to create this environment. Our organisms will be computer programs striving to replicate themselves and competing for memory in the computer." p.208
He uses an unfortunate analogy to show senseless history. He sees a staggered intersection as a dangerous example of disorganization. Actually, such intersections are found all over the Midwest and are designed that way because of the earth’s curvature, and are actually safer than 4-corner intersections.
He begins by examining a 1928 creationist book by William A. Williams, a Presbyterian clergyman. He holds it up as an example of anti-evolutionist mathematics. Mathematical calculations shouldn’t begin like an engineer's design. The system did not arise in one step from the mind of an engineer. But viewed as the outcome of a long historical process, everything makes sense. It shows the “senseless signs of history.”
According to the author, irreducible complexity represents appalling design, at least as judged by the standards of human engineers. Gradualism is supported by the fossil record, which contains many transitional fossils that show structural adaptations of species as they transform into new species. With the introduction of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, gradualism has been contrasted with stasis (a period or state of inactivity or equilibrium).
“And since no mathematical model could possibly include enough of nature’s complexity to be convincing, we are not worried that a few back-of-the-envelope calculations will provide a good reason for abandoning that hypothesis.” p.105
However, he has a different view when using computers to model evolution.
"In particular, we can use computers to create this environment. Our organisms will be computer programs striving to replicate themselves and competing for memory in the computer." p.208
He uses an unfortunate analogy to show senseless history. He sees a staggered intersection as a dangerous example of disorganization. Actually, such intersections are found all over the Midwest and are designed that way because of the earth’s curvature, and are actually safer than 4-corner intersections.
July 10, 2022
I have been a fan of Rosenhouse's writing for a long time, as I think he does a good job of trying to state things clearly and fairly. This is an interesting companion to Rosenhouse's other work (Among the Creationists, Monty Hall Problem, etc), and one that showcases his ability to present concepts clearly. I did not find anything novel being countered in the book [that is I had heard or seen the arguments being confronted before], but the author does a good job of extracting the main arguments, presenting them clearly, then explaining what has gone wrong or what is wrong with the argument itself. It is also serves as a nice resource for seeing the various arguments compiled with responses in a relatively short volume. The mathematical notation is minimal and Rosenhouse takes great care to explain things with plain prose (I thought this was done well, but since I am quite familiar with mathematics argumentation I do not know how a less math-inclined reader would take the sections that are a bit more mathematical).
If you have an interest in some of the errors in creationist/ID mathematics arguments, this is an excellent volume.
If you have an interest in some of the errors in creationist/ID mathematics arguments, this is an excellent volume.
March 18, 2023
mi sa che parla ai convertiti
A me Rosenhouse è sempre piaciuto come autore, sin dai tempi del suo libro sul problema di Monty Hall; ho anche seguito i testi da lui editi sulla matematica ricreativa seria. Ma in questo caso direi che non ci siamo proprio. Il libro nasce (e scommetterei che è stato un suo pet project) per confutare gli argomenti "matematici" portati dagli antievoluzionisti: Rosenhouse è in fin dei conti un matematico, non un biologo. Io sono una persona semplice, e mi accontento di una prova circostanziale dell'evoluzione: gli organismi viventi hanno una costruzione meravigliosamente interallacciata, ma lo è in modo subottimale, come del resto afferma anche Rosenhouse. Riesce nel suo intento? Non sempre. È bravo a smascherare la matematica usata come cortina fumogena, e qui la sua metafora della matematica come formata da due binari da seguire entrambi - visione intuitiva e formulazione formale - è utile anche al di fuori di questo contesto. Mi sembra però che anche lui abbia mischiato un po' le carte nella sezione combinatorica. Rosenhouse risponde all'affermazione che le proteine usate dai viventi sono un'infinitesima parte dello spazio delle possibili proteine affermando che in fin dei conti quelle proteine ci sono, con argomenti bayesiani. Immagino che abbia fatto così perché altrimenti si dovrebbe invocare il principio antropico, che a me non infastidisce ma porta a una forma debole di Intelligent Design che evidentemente voleva evitare. A parte queste considerazioni, non mi sembra che il libro possa convincere i non-darwiniani. Proprio perché i loro argomenti sono similscientifici (non uso apposta pseudoscientifici per evitare diatribe) in quanto rivolti a persone tipicamente con scarse competenze in materia, spiegazioni di questo genere non portano a molto. Insomma Rosenhouse parla ai convertiti: ne vale la pena?
A me Rosenhouse è sempre piaciuto come autore, sin dai tempi del suo libro sul problema di Monty Hall; ho anche seguito i testi da lui editi sulla matematica ricreativa seria. Ma in questo caso direi che non ci siamo proprio. Il libro nasce (e scommetterei che è stato un suo pet project) per confutare gli argomenti "matematici" portati dagli antievoluzionisti: Rosenhouse è in fin dei conti un matematico, non un biologo. Io sono una persona semplice, e mi accontento di una prova circostanziale dell'evoluzione: gli organismi viventi hanno una costruzione meravigliosamente interallacciata, ma lo è in modo subottimale, come del resto afferma anche Rosenhouse. Riesce nel suo intento? Non sempre. È bravo a smascherare la matematica usata come cortina fumogena, e qui la sua metafora della matematica come formata da due binari da seguire entrambi - visione intuitiva e formulazione formale - è utile anche al di fuori di questo contesto. Mi sembra però che anche lui abbia mischiato un po' le carte nella sezione combinatorica. Rosenhouse risponde all'affermazione che le proteine usate dai viventi sono un'infinitesima parte dello spazio delle possibili proteine affermando che in fin dei conti quelle proteine ci sono, con argomenti bayesiani. Immagino che abbia fatto così perché altrimenti si dovrebbe invocare il principio antropico, che a me non infastidisce ma porta a una forma debole di Intelligent Design che evidentemente voleva evitare. A parte queste considerazioni, non mi sembra che il libro possa convincere i non-darwiniani. Proprio perché i loro argomenti sono similscientifici (non uso apposta pseudoscientifici per evitare diatribe) in quanto rivolti a persone tipicamente con scarse competenze in materia, spiegazioni di questo genere non portano a molto. Insomma Rosenhouse parla ai convertiti: ne vale la pena?
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews