Book Reviews

the new and exciting developments which emerge virtually every week, Natural selection— the book should be regularly revised every couple of years to keep the issue evolution’s phantom at the forefront in the hotly contested fields of intelligent design and creation science. This is particularly important mechanism given the fraudulent rhetoric actively promulgated by theistic evolutionists and popular science authors. A review of What Darwin Got Wrong References by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini 1. Williams, A., Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism, J. Creation Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 21(3):111–117, 2007; creation.com/images/ New York, 2010 pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf. 2. Wells, J., Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing, Washington, DC, 2004; www. iconsofevolution.com/. Jean K. Lightner 3. Clamp et al., 2007, Distinguishing protein-coding and noncoding genes in the human genome, his book is not a creationist or Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104:19428–19433; Tintelligent design book. In fact, it see also review: Truman, R., What biology was written by two men who consider textbooks never told you about evolution, J. themselves atheists, have no problem Creation 15(2):17–24, 2001; creation.com/ what-biology-textbooks-never-told-you-about- with the idea of common descent, and evolution. assume “that evolution is a mechanical 4. Probst, A.V. and Almouzni, G., Pericentric process through and through” (p. xiii). heterochromatin: dynamic organization during So what is it that the authors believe early development, Differentiation 76:15–23, Darwin got wrong? The mechanism 2007. for evolution; namely, the theory of 5. See creation.com/biologos for detailed critique natural selection. In the first chapter the authors ask: and the apostasy to which theistic evolutionary Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli- compromise logically leads. “What kind of theory is the theory Palmarini are professors of cognitive of natural selection?” They compare 6. Tomkins, J. and Bergman, J., Telomeres: science at their respective universities. evolutionary theory to B.F. Skinner’s implications for aging and evidence for Fodor also has expertise in philosophy intelligent design, J. Creation, 25:86–97, 2011; theory of operant conditioning. creation.com/journal-of-creation-251. while Piattelli-Palmarini began his Initially they look at both as a black career as a biophysicist and molecular 7. Luke, B. and Lingner, J., TERRA: telomeric box (i.e. what the theories propose to repeat-containing RNA, EMBO J. 28:2503–2510, biologist. Information from these do). They elaborate on six postulated 2009. diverse fields is brought together in this strong constraints in which the two 8. Farnung, B.O. et al., Promoting trans­ book as the authors argue that natural theories are essentially identical. They cription of chromosome ends, Transcription selection cannot be a major mechanism then ‘open the box’ to look at the 1:140–143, 2010. for evolution. mechanism by which they are said to operate. In each case there is a random Organization of the book generator of traits and a filter which can Prior to the first chapter, the influence the persistence of those traits. book has a section entitled Terms This comparison is frequently referred of Engagement. This provides some to later in the book, as the authors argue introductory comments along with that natural selection fails for many of an outline of what is discussed in the same reasons the theory of operant the various chapters. It is here the conditioning has failed. authors warn that they will embark on The remainder of the book is numerous digressions, a promise they divided into two sections. The first, certainly keep. These digressions make chapters two through five, presents the the book difficult to follow at times, but biological argument. Here numerous the authors work hard at tying these advances in the field of biology are thoughts together. discussed as they have relevance

JOURNAL OF CREATION 25(3) 2011 27 Book Reviews

to the inadequacy of the theory of despots who are notorious for having the idea that change is driven primarily natural selection. In the second section, killed masses of people. The effect by environmental factors). From a chapters six through nine, the authors of Darwinian thought in science and creation perspective, these patterns of deal with the conceptual situation. This psychology has also been explored gene similarity fit well with the belief portion is more philosophical in nature. before. However, I appreciated how the that the Creator reused various design In chapter nine the authors work book brings out some of these points. elements in separate creations. It is to bring all the pieces together and The authors mention that they possible their reuse is due to functional provide a summary of the arguments know people in the fields of ‘wet’ constraints. It is clear that their reuse is that began in chapter one. biology who are not ‘that’ kind of beneficial to humans from a research The nine chapters occupy only Darwinist. In other words, these perspective. In fact, medical research 163 pages. There is an appendix which experimental biologists, while likely depends heavily on such similarity, as examines various quotes from the accepting common descent, do not mice are commonly used as models for literature demonstrating that Darwin’s agree that natural selection is a major human disease. ideas remain incredibly influential in mechanism for evolution. In spite The authors discuss the reality the fields of psychology and philosophy of this, Darwinian dogma on natural that mutations are not random (e.g. of the mind. This is followed by notes selection remains firmly entrenched in hotspots exist). They also point out on the chapters where the authors put many areas, both within biology and in that even if they were random, their bits of information and explanatory other fields. This highlights the ‘power effects on phenotype would not be. A comments that they found interesting of the paradigm’ problem where ideas variety of biological discoveries are and couldn’t resist including. Given that have been shown to be fallacious surveyed (microRNAs, chaperones, the propensity of the authors to find can live on for decades. It is helpful alternative splicing, gene networks and bunny trails, which were somewhat to realize that what is promoted as signaling pathways) which challenge related but tended to result in much ‘scientific fact’ on a popular level in postulates of natural selection meandering before reaching the our culture can often differ markedly discussed in chapter 1; namely, that destination, this seems a prudent way from what scientists in the field really evolution is a gradualistic process to organize such comments. The notes believe. where small phenotypic changes occupy over 40 pages. Finally there is generated at random are then filtered a list of resources and an index. No genetics in a bean bag by environmental constraints. Despite the brevity of the book, This discussion in the biological Bean bag genetics refers to the it is certainly not a quick read for section (chapters 2–5) was my favorite idea that the phenotypic traits of an most people. I found the authors’ style part of the book. I was familiar with a organism are like colored beans in a enjoyable with appropriate humor fair amount of the content, but I learned bag which exist independent of each scattered throughout. However, the some valuable new things along the other. Changing a trait by mutation was authors challenge the reader to think way. This section would be helpful for viewed to be the same as exchanging deeply in diverse areas. It often takes anyone (creationist or otherwise) who one color bean for another. This is a while to recognize why the authors finds ‘just so’ natural selection stories consistent with the neo-Darwinian are exploring a topic that on the surface satisfying. The authors maintain their idea that variation in traits is generated may seem unrelated. Yet I found the view that naturalistic processes can randomly and it is the environment book well worth the effort. Here, I explain these phenomena, consistent which selects them. The problem is that summarize some of the authors’ points with their clearly stated starting this idea is not consistent with what we that I found most interesting. assumptions. In that respect I am happy know about genetics. to operate within the creation model. In reality, there are a number of The prevalence of Neo- I would not want to be in the position internal constraints that affect the Darwinian thinking of trying to explain optimal design generation of phenotypes. There are (chapter 5), which exceeds that of the One concept the book brings out single genes that can affect a variety of best human engineers, by mindless is the extent to which neo-Darwinian traits (pleiotropy). There are individual naturalistic processes. thinking has influenced multiple traits that are influenced by many scientific fields outside biology, different genes. The authors spend a Intensional fallacy: can natural including philosophy, psychology, bit of time discussing the unanticipated selection choose? and semantics. In fact, the 15-page finding that many genes were found to appendix is devoted to extended quotes be largely the same in vastly different One major criticism of neo- and discussion of this. The ubiquity species. Many of these are regulatory Darwinism centers on the confusion of Darwinian thinking in our society genes, and their existence is interpreted of two non-identical claims: 1) natural is certainly not a new concept. Much in an evolutionary (common descent) selection is “a process in which crea- has been written about how Darwin model, while the authors acknowledge tures with adaptive traits are selected”, influenced politics, particularly the the problem these discoveries make for and 2) natural selection is “a process policies of Hitler and Communist natural selection (i.e. they challenge in which creatures are selected for

28 JOURNAL OF CREATION 25(3) 2011 Book Reviews

with the authors that the complexity of living things militates against the belief that a few simple scientific laws can explain the changes we see (or don’t see) in living things over time. There are some implications of this I’d like to expound on. Which historical narratives are considered plausible will be largely dependent on the underlying philosophical assumptions of the one presenting it. I have seen several examples where strong patterns of protein or DNA sequence differences were attributed to natural selection, often with ‘statistical support’. However, on closer examination it appears that natural selection did not play an important role in producing Photo by Einar Einarsson Kvaran the patterns.2 We need to be cautious Figure 1. Figures are carved in the spandrels between the arches of this building. Although about automatically accepting easy one might conclude that the spandrels were ‘chosen’ for the building so the sculptors had explanations; we should be willing to a place to decorate, spandrels naturally show up when arches are used in the architecture of a building. dig deeper to see if the explanations are really plausible. their adaptive traits” (p. xv; emphasis selection. However, breeders have a Much of this is significant to the in original). They argue that neo- mind and choose what they select for. creation/evolution debate. Historical Darwinism is committed to infer 2 You can ask the breeder what they narratives by evolutionists which are from 1, which is invalid. This is known had in mind to determine if a trait was purported to explain things like the among philosophers as an intensional selected for or just a free-rider. Despite origin of feathers, limbs, eyes, etc. fallacy. the pervasive anthropomorphizing would be rejected by creationists. In chapter 6 considerable time that goes on, even to an extent in the The idea that God created creatures is spent expanding on an argument scientific literature, natural selection according to their kinds is rejected proposed by Gould and Lewontin in does not have a mind. The authors do a without consideration by evolutionists. 1979.1 It deals with the issue of ‘free- nice job of driving home the point that A person’s perception of plausibility riding’, where non-adaptive traits are artificial selection is not really a good is often heavily influenced by their associated with adaptive traits. They analogy to natural selection because worldview. use the analogy of cathedrals that have the first has an intelligent agent while Of course, it would be dangerous arches and spandrels, triangular-shaped the second does not. Theoretically, for creationists to dismiss all areas where the arches converge. the former might have the foresight evolutionists’ historical narratives One can recognize the purpose of the to prop up a less fit intermediate form without consideration. Many of these arch, namely to support the dome. because the fully formed feature will involve changes within created kinds, One could also propose a purpose for have an advantage. Natural selection which creationists need plausible the spandrels, e.g. a nice space for has no foresight so cannot cross a local explanations for. It is fair to mention a given explanation as a possibility attractive artwork. Although many minimum in ‘fitness space’. seemingly plausible reasons could be if it seems plausible, but it seems ill suggested, the reality is that all such Science or history? advised to promote these ‘historical ‘just so’ stories are false. The spandrels narratives’ as ‘the answer’ to why naturally show up when arches are used I found it interesting that the certain patterns appear in nature. This is in domed buildings—they were not authors recognized the historical particularly true where natural selection designed as spaces for artwork. nature of this topic. How creatures is given as the cause of the pattern. The reality of ‘free-riding’ creates change over time is not explained Even John Endler, in his 1986 book a problem for natural selection. While by some law of nature, but may be promoting natural selection, points one can always come up with a story explained through ‘plausible historical out that natural selection is more often about how a certain trait is adaptive, narratives’. Historical narratives are inferred than demonstrated.3 Other there is no way in the real world inherently post hoc. It seems to me that plausible mechanisms (e.g. migration, to determine if the story is true. A Darwin attempted to find a ‘natural law’ genetic mechanisms including gene second related problem is that natural to give his ideas clout, and creationists conversion, and epigenetic effects) selection is often compared to artificial can fall into the same trap. I agree need to be considered as well.

JOURNAL OF CREATION 25(3) 2011 29 Book Reviews

Conclusions This book, written by authors The totalitarian intolerance who are upfront about their atheistic evolutionary viewpoint, presents of the New Atheists an interesting challenge to the idea that natural selection is a major mechanism for evolution. The authors A review of are refreshingly honest about their The Rage Against God assumptions and make many insightful by Peter Hitchens comments. In many ways their style is Continuum International entertaining and enjoyable. Although Publishing Group, they make it clear they do not agree London, 2010 with creation or intelligent design, they do not resort to the usual cheap shots on these. Instead they focus on issues relevant to natural selection. Dominic Statham This book can be a challenging read since the authors pulled from eter Hitchens is the brother of the many diverse fields. However, I Pprominent atheist Christopher consider it valuable for someone who Hitchens. He is an award-winning really wants to understand natural columnist and author, and currently selection. There are certainly many writes for the British newspaper, The additional points one could discuss Mail on Sunday. Unlike his brother, related to how natural selection, even Peter professes a Christian faith. within the creation model, is seriously Although he would not describe misunderstood and overrated. Still, this himself as a biblical fundamentalist, book provides a decent introduction to and would not argue for a literal Soviet Union were not truly atheist. many of the issues involved. interpretation of Genesis, he is a In the final chapters he warns of the confirmed member of the Church totalitarian intolerance of the New References of England and a strong supporter Atheists, their determination to drive 1. Gould, S.J. and Lewontin, R.C., The spandrels of Christian values and Christian out the remaining traces of Christianity of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: morality. He has, however, not always from the laws and constitutions of a critique of the adaptationist programme, been sympathetic to Christianity. In Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Europe and North America, and their Series B 205(1161):581–598, 1979. fact, as a teenager, he had rejected the desire even to wrest from parents their Christian beliefs with which he had 2. Lightner, J.K., Genetics of Coat Color I: freedom to raise children in a religious The Melanocortin 1 Receptor (MC1R), ARJ been raised as a child—even to the faith. 1:109–116, 2008; and Lightner, J.K., Gene point of publicly burning a Bible—and duplications and nonrandom mutations in joined the generation who were ‘too The fruit of atheism the family Cercopithecidae: evidence for clever to believe’. He embraced ‘the designed mechanisms driving adaptive Peter wrote that his own views faith of the faithless age’, that science genomic mutations, CRSQ 46(1):1–5, 2009. changed slowly, as he came to see the could explain everything we needed 3. Endler, J.A., Natural Selection in the Wild, fruit of atheism. Part of this realisation to know without reference to God. So Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, came when he was working as a 1986. I recommend this book as well for vehemently had he turned away from journalist in Moscow, during the final someone who wants to understand this topic. God that he was almost physically Although I don’t think Endler anticipated disgusted by those who believed years of the Soviet Union. His depiction the seriousness of free-riding or some of the (p. 74). of this godless society was sobering. genetic findings that complicate matters, he He wrote of the riots that broke out does have a more robust way of viewing In his book, Peter describes his natural selection than some others, and he journey from atheism to faith and when the vodka ration was cancelled points out some problems with how natural refutes three of the common arguments one week; the bribes required to obtain selection is commonly viewed. I used this presented by atheists—that conflicts anaesthetics at the dentist or antibiotics book to write a lay article on natural selection. at the hospital; the frightening levels Lightner, J.K., Matters of fact … what is fought in the name of religion are natural selection? Creation Matters 15(4):10– really about religion; that it is possible of divorce and abortion; the mistrust 11, 2010. to know right from wrong without and surveillance; the unending official acknowledging the existence of God; lies, manipulation and oppression; and that the failed atheist states like the the squalor, desperation and harsh

30 JOURNAL OF CREATION 25(3) 2011