Sign in with Facebook
Add and vote for what you think are the best books that question and critically examine Darwinism (macro-evolution) or any of its tenets.
-
-
Tags:
abiogenesis, academic-freedom, creationishm, darwin, darwinism, evolution, id, intelligent-design, life, macro-evolution, macroevolution, materialism, naturalism, nature, objectivity, origin-of-life, scepticism, science, scientific-inquiry, scientific-method, scientific-orthodoxy, scientific-priesthood, speciation, species
Comments Showing 1-41 of 41 (41 new)
date
newest »
newest »
This is a list of books replete in mendacity with regareds to what is accepted scientific knowledge by both scientists and those in the public who are truly interested in science. The list should be renamed "Best Books Disproving Darwinism" or something to that effect.
I agree with John. If you're going to be adding only books with a particular bias, you should be honest about that.
Max Peterson Yes, their title is also deceptive and should be corrected if possible. I'm glad your description clarifies things. I was only critiquing your title and I stand by that.I'm afraid I can't give you any points for allowing books that accept universal common descent. It's not really that accommodating to allow books that fit in the description.
Also, the link you provide doesn't seem to be showing. I only get a dash on my screen.
Rasheed wrote: "This list's description is very clear and outright in what books type of books it is for. Nevertheless, books have been accommodated here which while questioning some aspects of Darwinism, argue fo..."I still regard this list as deceptive for the following reasons:
1) No biologist I know of, with the possible exception of Richard Dawkins (who hasn't been working as a scientist for nearly two decades BTW), refers to evolutionary theory as "Darwinism". It is more properly viewed as either the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution or the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis Theory of Evolution (The latter is the term used more often in Europe.).
2) The list should be renamed "Religiously Motivated Books Critical of Biological Evolution and Evolutionary Theory". Until then, I regard this list as deceptive to potential readers and I may advise Good Reads' administrators if the title of this list isn't changed accordingly.
I might add that the most accurate title for this list would be "Sterling examples of faith-inspired mendacious intellectual pornography critical of the fact of biological evolution and current evolutionary theory", but I acknowledge that this would be viewed as inflammatory by some.
This is a creationist list (a.k.a purely illogical unscientific "faith-driven" nonsense).The title, like every other creationist's methods, relies on deception, lies and vagueness in order to pass their poison to the public.
The administrators of good reads are to change the title of the list to a more suitable one: "Mumbo-jumbo books, the cloud man exists in our head, hallelujah!".
On a side note, apart from deception, the title is a good indication of how shameful the creationists are, that they don't even dare to come out in the open and declare that they are such —I know I would if I were one;
creationist : a 21st century adult human being that still believe in Santa clause, Leprechauns, midnight fairies, and a celestial teapot.
This list's description is very clear and outright in what books type of books it is for. Nevertheless, books have been accommodated here which while questioning some aspects of Darwinism, argue for universal common descent!To be fair, I've even provided a link to the other list where pro-Darwinism books can be voted for.
But look at the double standards of those who claim to speak about fairness and honesty! Why do they not object to that other list's description "The following works make a good case for evolution" while the title "On Evolution - Love It Or Hate It" suggests otherwise?! Shouldn't it also include any and all books on the topic - regardless of its view?
Plus, how do you have a list of books about Darwinism and not include The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Gould or, for that matter, Descent of Man, Origin of Species, Plants and Animals under Domestication, Autobiography? Clearly has some bias, which is fine (these things should be discussed), just needs a better title that more accurately reflects its position.
Paul wrote: "Plus, how do you have a list of books about Darwinism and not include The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Gould or, for that matter, Descent of Man, Origin of Species, Plants and Animals under ..."If this is a truthful and sincere comment, would you mind going here and suggesting similarly? Thanks
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/2228
It can easily include The Edge of Evolution which argues for universal common descent while challenging other tenets of Darwinism. Also, suggest over there "a better title that more accurately reflects its position." :)
The title of this list shows that its promoters are acting in bad faith (and no, I'm not talking about biblical faith - I'm talking about honesty vs dishonesty).If they were confident in the truth of their ideas they would rename this list "books about intelligent design, creationism and related matters" or similar.
Ask yourselves why this list's promoters have to resort to such a cheap lie even in something as simple as the heading on a list.
Maru wrote: "The title of this list ..."Read previous comment.
Rasheed wrote: "Maru wrote: "The title of this list ..."Read previous comment."
What has the title of another list got to do with the title of this list? Classic whataboutism.
Maru wrote: "What has the title of another list got to do with the title of this list? Classic whataboutism."Classic double standards :)
Rasheed wrote: "Maru wrote: "What has the title of another list got to do with the title of this list? Classic whataboutism."Classic double standards :)"
You haven't answered my question, because you have no good answer.
Maru wrote: "You haven't answered my question, becaus..."I haven't answered your question because it doesn't need an answer. Your bias and double standards are obvious.
Rasheed wrote: "Maru wrote: "You haven't answered my question, becaus..."I haven't answered your question because it doesn't need an answer. Your bias and double standards are obvious."
All you have to do is explain, in the box below, why you have chosen to give this list a misleading title.
The mere fact that this list exists, its actually sad.
Aka, books that deny the scientific fact of evolution.
Хамза wrote: "Aka, books that deny the scientific fact of evolution."You're absolutely correct.
Хамза wrote: "Aka, books that deny the scientific fact of evolution."Have you even read any of the books in the list with the most ratings? All of them argue for, not against, evolution! Some of them even go so far as to argue for universal common descent!
For people who claim to be on the side of "science" the ignorance and bigotry is shocking! You guys must feel your Darwinian materialistic religion under threat 🤣 to go out of your way and post useless comments here that have already been responded to above.
Rasheed wrote: " Хамза wrote: "Aka, books that deny the scientific fact of evolution."Have you even read any of the books in the list with the most ratings? All of them argue for, not against, evolution! Some of..."
The books you claim that "argue for, not against evolution" at the top of the list are writen by some of our most infamous evolution denialists, especially those associated with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the notorious "think tank of Intelligent Design creationism". As I noted back in 2012, this is a list that should be noted for being a list of "[s]terling examples of faith-inspired mendacious intellectual pornography critical of the fact of biological evolution and current evolutionary theory", with only a few added mistakenly that are really books supporting evolution and rejecting evolution denialism. The ones who have "religion" here are not so-called "Darwinists" such as yours truly - and incidentally, I describe myself as a Darwinian Consevative Republican who has been trained in evolutionary biology, primarily in invertebrate paleobiology and evolutionary ecology and do not call myself a "Darwinist" - but those who find evolution objectionable because of their religious beliefs.
John wrote: "The books you claim that "argue for, not against evolution" at the top of the list are written by some of our most infamous evolution denialists, especially those associated with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the notorious "think tank of Intelligent Design creationism."Why do you feel the need to lie unless your Darwinist religious beliefs are under threat by people reading alternatives to your interpretation that has been superimposed on science?
None of the authors on this list that are affiliated to Discovery Institute deny evolution. Have you read their works from cover to cover to allege this? Why do you falsely insist that ID is the same as creationism when it clearly is not?
Please stop harassing us and go and read a book - that's what this list is for: book suggestions, not arguing about other people's choices. We are okay with people reading up on Darwinist propaganda to see both sides' views and evidences - why do you feel the need to censor and label your academic opponents?
Perhaps this is one of the clearest signs that the religion of Darwinism is on the decline and can only hold its place by bullying, censoring, labelling, ostracising and similar dishonest tactics.
The more you guys create a drama here the more obvious it becomes to open minded people that your religion needs this, not evidence, in order to survive.
Advice: Feel free to read these books and decide what you think is right. If you have objections, contact the authors and they might agree to a debate :)
Rasheed wrote: "John wrote: "The books you claim that "argue for, not against evolution" at the top of the list are written by some of our most infamous evolution denialists, especially those associated with the D..."I'm not a "Darwinist", but a Darwinian Conservative Republican. I don't have any "Darwinist" religious beliefs, since I am a Deist. You need to look up Michael Zimmerman's Clergy Letty Project - which includes numerous statements from religious leaders of many faiths in support of the fact of biological evolution and that modern evolutionary theory is the unifying scientific theory of the biological sciences. You also need to look what a Roman Catholic Christian, Brown University cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller, has written, starting with his classic book "Finding Darwin's God". (In the interest of full disclosure as an undergraduate at our undergraduate alma mater, I helped organize his first debate against a creationist. He also serves as president of an organization we have been members of for decades, the National Center for Science Education, though what I am noting are my views only and do no represent official NCSE policy.) There are many prominent religiously-devout scientists from all of the world's great religions - including Islam, which I presume may be yours - who strongly support Miller's efforts in supporting the teaching of evolution accurately and in fighting evolution denialism.
I am not "harassing" you, just merely trying to correct the truth, which you are clearly willing to distort in service of your religious beliefs. As long as this list exists, I will continue to comment. I have a moral obligation as someone trained in evolutionary biology, and as someone who is interested in seeing science presented accurately, not in a distorted version so it will be consistent with anyone's political or religious views.
Darwinism takes as much blind faith to uphold than many traditional religions, perhaps even more. That's why we see it as nothing more than a new materialistic religion masquerading as science. Most of what your supposed corrections amount to are misrepresentation of Intelligent Design theory by falsely equating it with creationism and evolution denial although ID scientists are very clear on what aspects of Darwninian evolution they are critical of and not the whole idea.
Rasheed wrote: "Darwinism takes as much blind faith to uphold than many traditional religions, perhaps even more. That's why we see it as nothing more than a new materialistic religion masquerading as science. M..."
No "Darwinism: doesn't "takes as much blind faith to uphold than many traditional religions". By "Darwinism, if you mean the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection - which remains at the core of Modern Evolutionary Theory - then Charles Darwin and Alfred R. Wallace discovered it independently of each other during the period from the late 1830s to the late 1850s. And there were others were working on similar lines of evidence in zoology and botany who could have also discovered it too, independently of Darwin and Wallace. So your premise that "Darwinism" is a religion is utterly false and if you were intellectually honest, you would retract your absurd declaration. As for Intelligent Design, it was repudiated by genuine scientific creationists in the early 19th Century who thought that GOD "DESIGNED" according to the natural laws of the universe, not by some supernatural means, adhering to a Newtonian view of science and therefore of the universe.
(BTW I am really a Klingon. We Klingons banished our GODS because they were useless and unnecessary. Qap'la!!!!! If you really believe this, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn, NY USA that I would love to sell you.)
John wrote: "This is a list of books replete in mendacity with regareds to what is accepted scientific knowledge by both scientists and those in the public who are truly interested in science. The list should b..."Are you familiar with any philosophy of science? If so, you'll be aware that science, like all fields, begins with premises that cannot be proven; in this instance, modern and contemporary science is based on the philosophy of positivism. In addition, if you are familiar with the history of the various theories of evolution from the ancient Greeks on up, you'll see that Darwinism is no longer what is believed in science anymore--some hold to neo-Darwinism, some to punctuated equilibrium and there are others. Suffice it to say that even among secular evolutionists there is no true agreement, particularly if you look at theories around the world.
While not all of these are good sources of science, some of them are excellent in pointing out the flaws in reasoning, etc, that are inherent in evolutionary theory. At the very least you should read the non-religious professor Michael Denton's books (both of them) before you dismiss all of these because he uses science--the books are not the same--the first covers one set of things that show problems in conclusions and the other delves into newer findings. Evolutionary biology was one of my focuses in university and, frankly, until then I was in full agreement with Darwin. FWIW I went to a secular Canadian university so was only taught the same things you hold to and one of my uncles won a million dollar grant for his oncology research in Canada (a hard core evolutionist). I come a line of highly educated Darwinists, so how is it that I drifted away when I was studying biology in university and was not religious in any way at that time, nor did any religious people influence my questioning and departing from accidental evolution.
I have a friend and mentor, retired Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller, who converted to Roman Catholic Christianity when he was a Brown undergraduate. I recommend instead, reading his books, starting with "Finding Darwin's God". I am a Deist. I am also trained in evolutionary biology, with strong emphases in paleobiology and ecology, and have worked in epidemiological research. None of these books have valid criticisms of "Darwinism" or evolution. If you want to read books with valid critiques of "Darwinism", I would point instead to those written by American invertebrate paleontologists Niles Eldredge and his friend, Stephen Jay Gould (now deceased). Gould was also a friend of Miller's, who, incidentally, is a cell biologist, not an evolutionary biologist. (Both Eldredge and Gould developed the theory of evolution known as punctuated equilibrium and have been major critics of "Neo-Darwinian" thought as reflected in the current Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution.) All of the books you support on that list do not have good discussions on science except Michael Ruse's, and his is the only credible book on this list.
John wrote: "I have a friend and mentor, retired Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller, who converted to Roman Catholic Christianity when he was a Brown undergraduate. I recommend instead, reading his bo..."Thanks, I've read Gould before, of course, and a number of other authors, but avoid Dawkins because he is caustic and rude. However, I still think that Michael Denton's insights are also very good points about problems that still have to be answered fully. Darwinism has been gone for a very long time, although some follow neo-Darwinsim.
I have met a number of hard core atheists who converted to Christianity and other faiths after or during their studies in science, some in grad school and it still happens today, whereas I was more of an agnostic before I made any conversion to anything. I am not sure--I read everything I could lay my hands on from many POVs.
When it comes to Deists and Christians there is an enormous range of beliefs ranging from the widet array of ID theories (a Deist, by definition, is not a positivist so then whatever theory of evolution they hold would, by strict definition fall into one of the various ID camps.
I have not marked "read" all of the books I've read on this topic, nor do I remember all of their titles, but suffice it to say everything from positivism-based theories of evolution through a bevvy of variations on ID and also various religious ones which also range enormously.
By the time my 20-something kids went to high school their texts included mandatory sections on punctuated equilibrium, but western texts, at least by that point, were still lacking theories from the east, etc. However, until my kids were 13 they learned at home so have been exposed to a number of ways to look at the same data because it's important that kids learn to think for themselves since public education is now teach-to-the-test.
With the sole exception of Michael Ruse's book, this book list is useless since it contains books written by those who are either creationists or sympathetic to it, especially Intelligent Design creationism. There are no credible "Eastern" ways at looking at biological diversity only the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution and slightly heterodox ideas like punctuated equilibrium. Again, I note this as someone trained in evolutionar biology with emphases in both ecology and paleobiology.
Flebilis wrote: "This is a creationist list (a.k.a purely illogical unscientific "faith-driven" nonsense).The title, like every other creationist's methods, relies on deception, lies and vagueness in order to pass..."
Why do you call them creationists? Is this a flaw? We are not creationists, but rather we are human beings who think and realize that we are special, and we do not originate from irrational, barbaric animals whose first and last goal is to eat and reproduce. Also, this alleged theory of evolution is all assumptions and errors. I am sure you have not read all these books. Even your masters said and admitted that this theory It's nonsense
John wrote: "With the sole exception of Michael Ruse's book, this book list is useless since it contains books written by those who are either creationists or sympathetic to it, especially Intelligent Design cr..."Why do you call them creationists? Is this a flaw? We are not creationists, but rather we are human beings who think and realize that we are special, and we do not originate from irrational, barbaric animals whose first and last goal is to eat and reproduce. Also, this alleged theory of evolution is all assumptions and errors. I am sure you have not read all these books. Even your masters said and admitted that this theory It's nonsense
Max wrote: "I agree with John. If you're going to be adding only books with a particular bias, you should be honest about that."Why do you call them creationists? Is this a flaw? We are not creationists, but rather we are human beings who think and realize that we are special, and we do not originate from irrational, barbaric animals whose first and last goal is to eat and reproduce. Also, this alleged theory of evolution is all assumptions and errors. I am sure you have not read all these books. Even your masters said and admitted that this theory It's nonsense
Maru wrote: "Rasheed wrote: "Maru wrote: "You haven't answered my question, becaus..."I haven't answered your question because it doesn't need an answer. Your bias and double standards are obvious."
All you ..."Why do you call them creationists? Is this a flaw? We are not creationists, but rather we are human beings who think and realize that we are special, and we do not originate from irrational, barbaric animals whose first and last goal is to eat and reproduce. Also, this alleged theory of evolution is all assumptions and errors. I am sure you have not read all these books. Even your masters said and admitted that this theory It's nonsense
John wrote: "Rasheed wrote: "This list's description is very clear and outright in what books type of books it is for. Nevertheless, books have been accommodated here which while questioning some aspects of Dar..."John wrote: "Rasheed wrote: "This list's description is very clear and outright in what books type of books it is for. Nevertheless, books have been accommodated here which while questioning some aspects of Dar..."
John wrote: "Rasheed wrote: "This list's description is very clear and outright in what books type of books it is for. Nevertheless, books have been accommodated here which while questioning some aspects The theory of evolution is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. These are all assumptions and myths, and because of them, racism has spread by likening Africans to apes and claiming that Europeans are a sublime and refined race. Because of it, the Nazis and other countries killed millions of people because of this sick theory.
John wrote: "I might add that the most accurate title for this list would be "Sterling examples of faith-inspired mendacious intellectual pornography critical of the fact of biological evolution and current evo..."The theory of evolution is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. These are all assumptions and myths, and because of them, racism has spread by likening Africans to apes and claiming that Europeans are a sublime and refined race. Because of it, the Nazis and other countries killed millions of people because of this sick theory.
Paul wrote: "Plus, how do you have a list of books about Darwinism and not include The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Gould or, for that matter, Descent of Man, Origin of Species, Plants and Animals under ..."The theory of evolution is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. These are all assumptions and myths, and because of them, racism has spread by likening Africans to apes and claiming that Europeans are a sublime and refined race. Because of it, the Nazis and other countries killed millions of people because of this sick theory.
Maru wrote: "The title of this list shows that its promoters are acting in bad faith (and no, I'm not talking about biblical faith - I'm talking about honesty vs dishonesty).If they were confident in the trut..."
The theory of evolution is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. These are all assumptions and myths, and because of them, racism has spread by likening Africans to apes and claiming that Europeans are a sublime and refined race. Because of it, the Nazis and other countries killed millions of people because of this sick theory.
Хамза wrote: "Aka, books that deny the scientific fact of evolution."The theory of evolution is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. These are all assumptions and myths, and because of them, racism has spread by likening Africans to apes and claiming that Europeans are a sublime and refined race. Because of it, the Nazis and other countries killed millions of people because of this sick theory.
John wrote: "Rasheed wrote: " Хамза wrote: "Aka, books that deny the scientific fact of evolution."Have you even read any of the books in the list with the most ratings? All of them argue for, not against, ev..."
The theory of evolution is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. These are all assumptions and myths, and because of them, racism has spread by likening Africans to apes and claiming that Europeans are a sublime and refined race. Because of it, the Nazis and other countries killed millions of people because of this sick theory.
The theory of evolution is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. These are all assumptions and myths, and because of them, racism has spread by likening Africans to apes and claiming that Europeans are a sublime and refined race. Because of it, the Nazis and other countries killed millions of people because of this sick theory.
Related News
The temperatures are dropping, the days are getting shorter, and the fall book season is nearly upon us. (If you’re reading from the southern...
Anyone can add books to this list.
We respect the criteria of that other list, and therefore you do not see us adding books sceptical of Darwinism there. Similarly, we expect you to observe this list's criteria just as we observe the other one's.