Author: Michael Shermer
Publisher: Times Books
Year Published: 2006
Rating:
Buy From Amazon.com

I've always liked Michael Shermer's witty, skeptical approach to virtually everything in his Scientific American columns. Regardless of whether I agree with his conclusions, he always offers me a new perspective on various, obscure topics. So it was with great interest that I picked up his new book, Why Darwin Matters.

In the book, Shermer argues that science is under attack from Evangelical Christians, and it's about time that scientists stand up and debunk Intelligent Design for what it is - a way for Evangelicals to infuse religious teachings into secular education. If they don't, they risk allowing religious proponents to redefine "science" to support their claims.

According to the widespread myth, Darwin became an evolutionist at the Galapagos Islands in 1835 after discovering natural selection during his research there. But according to his diaries, Darwin wasn't convinced of evolution until two years later. It took him until 1844 to share his findings with his botanist friend, Joseph Hooker, where he wrote "I am almost convinced, (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable." In fact, Darwin spent 22 years struggling with the question of whether to publish his findings. After all, if species could evolve through natural selection, what place was there for God? In 1859, he finally published On the Origin of Species, and only because another researcher, Alfred Russel Wallace, independently came up with the theory of natural selection and was considering publishing it.

Fast forward to the modern era and the scientific community is virtually united in agreement that evolution happened. The same cannot be said for the cultural landscape. According to a 2005 Pew Research poll, 42% of Americans hold creationist views that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time" compared to 48% who believe that humans "evolved over time." 64% are ok with teaching creationism in classrooms, while more than half of those individuals think evolution should be replaced by creationism in biology classrooms.

Even President Bush was quoted as saying that Intellectual Design (ID) should be taught in schools. The media frenzy was so potent that Bush's science advisor was compelled to clarify the President's words in a New York Times article. In it, he explained that the President meant that while ID might be discussed a part of the "social context" in science classes, it was not to be considered "science" and that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology." As a former creationist turned evolutionist, Shermer sets out to explain the hype surrounding the creation v. evolution debate and clarify the positions and motivations of both sides.

Shermer opens his book with the definitions of a scientific theory, the historical context in which Darwin introduced his theory, and the main tenants of the theory of evolution. He also introduces the foundations of the Intelligent Design philosophy - theologian William Paley's famous watchmaker argument. The 1802 philosophy posited that if you found a watch on the ground, you'd know that it must have a maker because of its complexity. Similarly, because the world is complex, it must have had a designer - God. Both Paley and Darwin sought to explain the world around them, but while Paley took a top down, religious approach, Darwin started from the bottom with natural selection. The religious community latched on to Paley's arguments. After much debate, the scientific community went with Darwin.

Evolutionary theory has developed considerably since Darwin's time. Shermer provides numerous examples of how scientists know evolution happened and how they test their hypotheses. He then tackles the question of why people don't accept evolution, pulling from a speech William Jennings Bryan was set to make, but never did, during the Scopes Trial of 1925 - that evolution implies that there is no God, that it leads to atheism and a life without morality or meaning. In fact, most people don't care about the basic tenets of evolution or the evidence supporting it. They're more upset with the notion that accepting evolution would somehow degrade our humanity and leave us Godless and immoral.

In probably the most comprehensive section of the book, Shermer sets his sights on the fallacies of logic in their Intelligent Design argument and argues against them one by one. If you've ever wanted to read an eloquently written challenge to ID, pick up this book. Shermer leaves no stone unturned when addressing common ID issues such as the plausibility of a supernatural creator, the burden of proof, that disproving evolution doesn't prove creationism (as they'd like you to believe), that one more fossil is needed to fill a particular gap as proof of evolution. He also refutes what he considers to be the 10 most cogent arguments with evolutionary science.

Next, Sherman tackles creationism and Intelligent Design in the courtroom. He discusses the 1987 Louisiana case that asked for balanced time for creationism and evolution and the 2005 Dover case that wanted a disclaimer for Intelligent Design added to the science curriculum. He then shows that the real agenda of Intelligent Design is to convince people that Darwinism is atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism v. evolution to God vs. no God. In other words, the ID community wants to convince you that if they can disprove evolution, that automatically means creationism (or ID) is correct.

Like Shermer's Scientific American columns, this book was a joy to read. In this book, Shermer tries to do three things: explain why evolution is considered science and intelligent design is not, defend science from those people who want to change its very definition to suit their religious needs, and show how you can still believe in God and accept evolution.

While, unfortunately, believers in Intelligent Design and creationism probably won't bother to pick up this book, it offers a compelling and thorough argument for evolution to anyone sitting on the fence or wanting to learn more about evolution.