My Creationist Book Review - "Not By Chance!"

Wowbagger · 3rd February 2008, 06:34 PM

So, on a challenge from a creationist, I had to read and review a book he recommend, while he had to read and review a book that I recommended.

The book I had to review was entitled Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, by Dr. Lee Spetner

The entire review can be found here:

http://www.mitchlampert.net/Images/T...e%20Review.htm

Some excerpts from my intro:

Strawman arguments are those that really do not address the opponent's position in a debate. Knocking them down is easy. Claiming that such a knock-down defeats the opponent is dishonest. The very title of this book is one example. The modern theory of Evolution does not rely on chance, especially not the form of "chance" implied here: that being a "lucky accident". Every book I have read on the subject makes it a point to reduce chance as much as possible, by placing its arguments into functions of physics, the environment, cumulative adaptations; and other aspects of the fitness landscape. Ironically, the author accepts much of those arguments. But, for some reason, he is under the delusion that "chance" still plays a significant role in neo-Darwinian claims.

If I were to write an anti-Intelligent-Design book, entitled "Not by Jesus!", I would be accused of making a similar strawman argument. Most ID proponents claim the actual identity of the Designer is irrelevant to their arguments.

To support his delusions, he utilizes a wide variety of tactics: shifting goalposts, bad assumptions, embarrassingly outdated material, irrelevant mathematics, and even appeals to morality. Rarely does he address the issues of experimentation. He probably assumes Darwinians don't bother with such things as testing their "silly" ideas.

Chapters 1 and 2 were the most "text book" boring. I complain that Spetner would probably make a typical high school teacher, and how his mode of thinking is probably stuck somewhere in the late 1960s.

Chapter 3: Spetner describes what he thinks the Neo-Darwinian theory is, and gets it wrong. He seems to employ "shifting goalposts" as a tactic, at one point.

Chapter 4: The author describes how improbable various improbable things are. I respond by mentioning how the goal of Evolution is to actually reduce that probability. I use some of his own examples against him.

Chapter 5: A lot of confusion regarding information theory is presented. I try my best to get the issues straight.

Chapter 6: Spetner vs. Dawkins. (Read my review for the final outcome of this epic battle!)

Chapter 7: The author contributes his own alternative to Darwinian theory, which for some reason, is not much different than the actual theory Darwinians use. Except for those bits about it not being related to genetics.

Chapter 8: Spetner steeps to the lowest of low arguments, when it comes to science.

The whole thing is 13 printed pages long. But, it seems to go by relatively fast. Enjoy!

http://www.mitchlampert.net/Images/T...e%20Review.htm

This might not be the final draft of the review. I may alter different bits, based on feedback from a number of places. Including this forum!

Wowbagger · 4th February 2008, 07:42 AM

I've been informed that I should have used this excerpt to attract readers. And, frankly I think I agree:

Imagine, if you will, that I was crazy. (Insert your own sarcastic response, here.) I was so crazy, that I decided to write a book entitled "Not by Falling! Shattering the Modern Laws of Gravity".

The first few chapters would be spent detailing all of the flaws in these so-called "Laws" of Gravity (or LOG, for short). I would define Gravity as "the theory that everything must fall to the ground." But, if that were the case, then all the stuff we see in space: the planets, stars, moons, etc., would all be constantly falling in a downward motion! This is clearly not the case, and I would go through great pains to show why this does not work, even on basic mathematical principals.

Furthermore, the LOG makes an important assumption: It assumes that there must exist a "cosmic floor", somewhere in the Universe, that everything is falling towards, and will eventually crash into. LOG just can't work, unless there is such a floor, yet for some reason, most of the Gravitationalists (I'll call them "Gravys" for short), do not seem concerned about the utter lack of evidence for it!

The next part of my book describes an elaborate alternative to the LOG dogma. I would call it: The Law of Material Attraction (or LOMA). This new Law claims that all matter in the Universe is attracted to each other, by a formula one can easily work out, which would be proportional to mass, and inversely proportional to distance. Since LOMA seems to fit the data better than LOG, it is a superior Law, all around!

Finally, I would make it a point to reflect on the consequences of LOG's failure. If it was allowed to succeed, God would be seen as helpless, against the ultimate doom of the planet! LOMA, however, allows us to assume there is a kind and loving God, fine-tuning the Universe, and preventing any serious stuff from colliding with our planet.

I am saddened to report that reading through the book Not by Chance! is almost exactly like that. Dr. Spetner completely and utterly misses the point about almost every aspect of modern evolution, makes false assumptions about what it implies, and as a punch line, re-invents parts of the theory in his own words, to fight against it!

Wowbagger · 9th February 2008, 12:54 PM

There are is one technical correction I should make. In the review it is stated that streptomycin "infects" ribosomes. In fact, that was not quite the right word to use (though spetner does use it, himself). The better word would be "attach".

There are a few other, relatively minor, corrections that have been brought to my attention. But, they will make themselves known in the next draft.

Olowkow · 9th February 2008, 03:55 PM

I'd like to see the creationist's review of the book you recommended.

Wowbagger · 9th February 2008, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Olowkow

I'd like to see the creationist's review of the book you recommended.

Yeah, so would I!!!

I don't think he wrote it, yet. He promised he would. But, frankly, it is not something I am holding my breathe about.

ETA: The book I recommend he read was The Quark and the Jaguar, by Murray Gell-Man. I picked that one for him, specifically, because it covers the basics of Information Theory, which is something he was confused about, and applies it to the complex adaptive entities we call life forms: Something he could not fathom, previously. And, it doesn't hurt that he learn a thing or two about fundamental physics, as well, which the book covers fairly well.

Olowkow · 9th February 2008, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Yeah, so would I!!!

I don't think he wrote it, yet. He promised he would. But, frankly, it is not something I am holding my breathe about.

No surprise.

Quote:

ETA: The book I recommend he read was The Quark and the Jaguar, by Murray Gell-Man.

Heavy reading for a beginner. My favorite "gospel" was Martin Rees' Before the Beginning. Then, Brian Green, anything.

Wowbagger · 10th February 2008, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Heavy reading for a beginner.

You think so? I thought Gell-Man's approach was gentle enough for the average Joe to comprehend.

Originally Posted by Olowkow

My favorite "gospel"

Why use the word "gospel", even if it was in quotes? Why not just use the word "book"?

Why confuse the audience about what "gospel" means?

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Martin Rees' Before the Beginning.

Have not read that one, yet.

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Then, Brian Green, anything.

I thought his books were even heavier than The Quark and the Jaguar.

3rd February 2008, 06:34 PM	#1
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,516	My Creationist Book Review - "Not By Chance!" So, on a challenge from a creationist, I had to read and review a book he recommend, while he had to read and review a book that I recommended. The book I had to review was entitled Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, by Dr. Lee Spetner The entire review can be found here: http://www.mitchlampert.net/Images/T...e%20Review.htm Some excerpts from my intro: Strawman arguments are those that really do not address the opponent's position in a debate. Knocking them down is easy. Claiming that such a knock-down defeats the opponent is dishonest. The very title of this book is one example. The modern theory of Evolution does not rely on chance, especially not the form of "chance" implied here: that being a "lucky accident". Every book I have read on the subject makes it a point to reduce chance as much as possible, by placing its arguments into functions of physics, the environment, cumulative adaptations; and other aspects of the fitness landscape. Ironically, the author accepts much of those arguments. But, for some reason, he is under the delusion that "chance" still plays a significant role in neo-Darwinian claims. If I were to write an anti-Intelligent-Design book, entitled "Not by Jesus!", I would be accused of making a similar strawman argument. Most ID proponents claim the actual identity of the Designer is irrelevant to their arguments. To support his delusions, he utilizes a wide variety of tactics: shifting goalposts, bad assumptions, embarrassingly outdated material, irrelevant mathematics, and even appeals to morality. Rarely does he address the issues of experimentation. He probably assumes Darwinians don't bother with such things as testing their "silly" ideas. Chapters 1 and 2 were the most "text book" boring. I complain that Spetner would probably make a typical high school teacher, and how his mode of thinking is probably stuck somewhere in the late 1960s. Chapter 3: Spetner describes what he thinks the Neo-Darwinian theory is, and gets it wrong. He seems to employ "shifting goalposts" as a tactic, at one point. Chapter 4: The author describes how improbable various improbable things are. I respond by mentioning how the goal of Evolution is to actually reduce that probability. I use some of his own examples against him. Chapter 5: A lot of confusion regarding information theory is presented. I try my best to get the issues straight. Chapter 6: Spetner vs. Dawkins. (Read my review for the final outcome of this epic battle!) Chapter 7: The author contributes his own alternative to Darwinian theory, which for some reason, is not much different than the actual theory Darwinians use. Except for those bits about it not being related to genetics. Chapter 8: Spetner steeps to the lowest of low arguments, when it comes to science. The whole thing is 13 printed pages long. But, it seems to go by relatively fast. Enjoy! http://www.mitchlampert.net/Images/T...e%20Review.htm This might not be the final draft of the review. I may alter different bits, based on feedback from a number of places. Including this forum!
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

4th February 2008, 07:42 AM	#2
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,516	a BETTER Excerpt I've been informed that I should have used this excerpt to attract readers. And, frankly I think I agree: Imagine, if you will, that I was crazy. (Insert your own sarcastic response, here.) I was so crazy, that I decided to write a book entitled "Not by Falling! Shattering the Modern Laws of Gravity". The first few chapters would be spent detailing all of the flaws in these so-called "Laws" of Gravity (or LOG, for short). I would define Gravity as "the theory that everything must fall to the ground." But, if that were the case, then all the stuff we see in space: the planets, stars, moons, etc., would all be constantly falling in a downward motion! This is clearly not the case, and I would go through great pains to show why this does not work, even on basic mathematical principals. Furthermore, the LOG makes an important assumption: It assumes that there must exist a "cosmic floor", somewhere in the Universe, that everything is falling towards, and will eventually crash into. LOG just can't work, unless there is such a floor, yet for some reason, most of the Gravitationalists (I'll call them "Gravys" for short), do not seem concerned about the utter lack of evidence for it! The next part of my book describes an elaborate alternative to the LOG dogma. I would call it: The Law of Material Attraction (or LOMA). This new Law claims that all matter in the Universe is attracted to each other, by a formula one can easily work out, which would be proportional to mass, and inversely proportional to distance. Since LOMA seems to fit the data better than LOG, it is a superior Law, all around! Finally, I would make it a point to reflect on the consequences of LOG's failure. If it was allowed to succeed, God would be seen as helpless, against the ultimate doom of the planet! LOMA, however, allows us to assume there is a kind and loving God, fine-tuning the Universe, and preventing any serious stuff from colliding with our planet. I am saddened to report that reading through the book Not by Chance! is almost exactly like that. Dr. Spetner completely and utterly misses the point about almost every aspect of modern evolution, makes false assumptions about what it implies, and as a punch line, re-invents parts of the theory in his own words, to fight against it!
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! Last edited by Wowbagger; 4th February 2008 at 07:44 AM.

9th February 2008, 12:54 PM	#3
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,516	There are is one technical correction I should make. In the review it is stated that streptomycin "infects" ribosomes. In fact, that was not quite the right word to use (though spetner does use it, himself). The better word would be "attach". There are a few other, relatively minor, corrections that have been brought to my attention. But, they will make themselves known in the next draft.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

9th February 2008, 03:55 PM	#4
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,795	I'd like to see the creationist's review of the book you recommended.
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,795	__________________ Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to heaven. --Shakespeare

9th February 2008, 06:38 PM	#5
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,516	Originally Posted by Olowkow I'd like to see the creationist's review of the book you recommended. Yeah, so would I!!! I don't think he wrote it, yet. He promised he would. But, frankly, it is not something I am holding my breathe about. ETA: The book I recommend he read was The Quark and the Jaguar, by Murray Gell-Man. I picked that one for him, specifically, because it covers the basics of Information Theory, which is something he was confused about, and applies it to the complex adaptive entities we call life forms: Something he could not fathom, previously. And, it doesn't hurt that he learn a thing or two about fundamental physics, as well, which the book covers fairly well.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! Last edited by Wowbagger; 9th February 2008 at 07:58 PM.

9th February 2008, 08:26 PM	#6
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,795	Originally Posted by Wowbagger Yeah, so would I!!! I don't think he wrote it, yet. He promised he would. But, frankly, it is not something I am holding my breathe about. No surprise. Quote: ETA: The book I recommend he read was The Quark and the Jaguar, by Murray Gell-Man. Heavy reading for a beginner. My favorite "gospel" was Martin Rees' Before the Beginning. Then, Brian Green, anything.
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,795	__________________ Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to heaven. --Shakespeare

10th February 2008, 11:00 AM	#7
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,516	Originally Posted by Olowkow Heavy reading for a beginner. You think so? I thought Gell-Man's approach was gentle enough for the average Joe to comprehend. Originally Posted by Olowkow My favorite "gospel" Why use the word "gospel", even if it was in quotes? Why not just use the word "book"? Why confuse the audience about what "gospel" means? Originally Posted by Olowkow Martin Rees' Before the Beginning. Have not read that one, yet. Originally Posted by Olowkow Then, Brian Green, anything. I thought his books were even heavier than The Quark and the Jaguar.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!