In “Evolution’s Fatal Flawâ€, a carefully researched and well written book, author Lawrence Wood sets out to validate two controversial and often debated claims: that evolution is the proper explanation for our origins; and that evolution is all about the survival of the species, not as one might suppose, about the survival of the individual. It is a monumental undertaking fraught with scientific and philosophical mine fields, all which he traverses with caution and ease.
Wood lays out the core issue early on in the book by quoting the results of a recent Gallup poll which shows that our society is still fairly evenly divided between three different explanations of our existence: creationism, intelligent design, and evolution. Why do such mutually exclusive explanations still compete in this day and age, he wonders. He decides that the culprit, or culprits as it were, are a set of “illusions†that have been around since the dawn of mankind: “1) the apparently solid earth; 2) the apparent motion of the sun and planets around the earth; 3 ) the apparent same size of the sun and moon and the apparent closeness of the sun and moon; 4) the apparent motion of the stars around the earth and the apparent closeness of the stars; and 5) the apparently unchanging physical and biological features of the earth.â€Â As the first order of business, Wood shows how science has explained these illusions and basically made them go away.
As the book works its way through science’s role in demystifying the five illusions and into more complex scientific and philosophic issues, the reader is taken on a delightful and educational journey that could almost be described as a history of science and philosophy throughout mankind, although this is certainly not the book’s purpose. All the usual characters are present from Aristotle and Copernicus to Darwin and Einstein plus a host of brilliant thinkers largely unknown in the nonscientific community. At the same time, there are discourses involving all the major scientific disciplines, including but not limited to, physics, chemistry, biology, geology and astronomy.  All this is served up in a package of eighteen concise chapters, each ending with a summary of the main points covered along with a preview of what’s to come in the chapter that follows.
By the middle of the book it becomes obvious where all this is going; that evolution is going to win the debate hands down. This is okay with me as I am one who prefers his reality served up in a logical and scientific fashion. But some of the arguments are probably going to make die hard proponents of creationism and intelligent design squirm a bit. So be it. It all makes for a healthy debate.
The book’s title suggests that there is a fatal flaw in the evolutionary process which is that humans are overpopulating the earth thus creating a tremendous demand on available natural resources. It is on this note that Wood ends the book stating, “While the overwhelming desire for sexual activity cannot be realistically controlled, there are readily available means for preventing the results of sexual activity from producing too many offspring. If we are unable and/or unwilling to exercise this option, the devastating population growth plaguing the earth today will continue and, as mentioned above, ultimately doom evolution’s greatest achievement.
“Evolution’s Fatal Flaw†by Lawrence Wood has the potential to be controversial, if not explosive, and should be taken very seriously. Once it is read, however, it should be set aside and revisited periodically just to browse through its pages to marvel at the accomplishments of the mind and spirit throughout the history of mankind.
Ron Standerfer is a novelist, freelance writer, book reviewer, and journalist whose articles have appeared in numerous news publications including online editions of the Chicago Tribune, USA Today,and the Honolulu Star Advertiser. For more information on this or other posts he has written please contact him at bookreviews@ronstanderfer.com or visit http://www.ronstanderfer.com/.
10 users commented in " Book Review: Evolution’s Fatal Flaw: The Inevitable Consequence of the Need to Ensure Species Survival by Lawrence Wood "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackPC nonsense of course.
Evolution is a scientific theory, but “Evolution vs creationism” argument is a philosophical argument. It is also bad philosophy: since it posits a “straw man” (dumb fundamentalists) to knock down, instead of recognizing that the “evolution” part of the argument is the philosophy of scientism/meterialism, not science per se.
So I would have to distrust his “history” of science too.
(Science posits a way that things work/ philosophy posits a why things are Indeed, the reason science flowered in the West is because western religions posited a rational God who created a logical world which runs according to his rules, one of which is that species evolve..).
A second mistake is saying that Darwinism can be applied to anthropology. Who has proven this?
For example: Most societies have managed to limit sexuality that results in reproduction, despite his claims that the sexual desire is “overwhelming” and must result in overpopulation.
Finally, the part about people overwhelming the earth suggests that the scientific theory of Darwin is being used (or rather, misued) by the author to impose on us the religion of global warming, including forced population control.
This misuse of scientific Darwinism is similar to those pseudoscientists who used Darwin’s theories to justify killing untermensch and sterilizing inferior races.
From your review, it sounds like the book is propaganda.
Try the Teaching company’s series on the history of science instead of this crap. You won’t get an agenda, just the facts.
“Evolution is a scientific theory, but “Evolution vs creationism” argument is a philosophical argument.”
I’d be perfectly happy to drop the whole issue of evolution vs creationism if the creationists would recognize that creationism is a myth, admit that intelligent design is creationism in a cheap suit and quit trying to get it taught in public school science classes in a pathetic attempt to insert their particular god into my child’s classroom, and quit telling me how I must live my life when it doesn’t affect them and is none of their bloody business.
Don’t pray in my school and i won’t think in your church
Hey Nancy, try reading the book before calling it crap, instead of basing your rant on the review and your own personal prejudices.
“…Most societies have managed to limit sexuality that results in reproduction.”
China, for example. Doing a hell of a job there.
Perhaps Nancy hasn’t noticed world population is increasing, and resources are ultimately limited, as in finite.
Sounds like the last chapter ruins an otherwise compelling book. The fact is that as the population has grown so has our capacity for feeding it; i.e., we are becoming more efficient at using limited resources. And besides, one less person born is potentially a lost opportunity for creating one more problem solver.
More efficient use of resources simply means more time before they run out.
And one less person born is equally one less chance for a Hitler, or a Hussein, or a Stalin, or a Jerry Falwell.
You don’t promote breeding like bunnies just because you’re afraid that if you don’t you’ll miss Beethoven.
I think the whole anti-choice movement is born out of the fear that someone is going to abort the second coming…I can fathom no other rational explanation and reconcile their free market passions with their elimination of self determination when it comes to child rearing.
In other words its perfectly okay for a corporate ceo to be unregulated ruining lives, the environment, spoiling the food chain and water and wreaking the economy and environment for self directed financial gain and profit no matter who gets hurt but those rules of unfettered self determination don’t apply to individuals when it comes to child rearing and that responsibility.
I can not reconcile their concern with a microscopic cellular unconscious molecular mass with their entire disregard for human life after it is born.
Nor can I reconcile their love of the death penalty and their shooting of doctors, and defenseless animals with the teachings of their messiah or their complete contempt and utter disregard of the poor, uneducated, hungry, sick and dying at home and abroad with their obsessive action and violent defense of a microscopic cellular mass.
Abortion is not a religious event for most and those to whom it is a religious issue should have more faith in their god and the way he directs our lives and the choices and roads he lays out before us…Life is a learning experience and I severely doubt that any of this would be here if we all didn’t have a lot to learn.
The sheer magnitude of the infinite variety of life on this earth as represented in the animals, trees, fish, insects, frogs, flowers, weather, culture, size and shape, color, grass, fields, mountains, streams, rivers, valleys, music, art and literature as well as the birds of the Galapagos Islands should certainly be a clue, and hint as to otherwise that their isn’t only one way for life or ourselves to evolve and certainly not one way for us to live our lives outside the guiding principle of love.
Paul Burke
Author-Journey Home
As a pre-Christian, I worshipped science. My degree is in industrial engineering — making things. Americans reject something-for-nothing thinking by our respect for principles of science we learned mostly by osmosis. We are people emersed in making, repairing and using gadgets.
DNA should have slammed the door on Darwinism. It’s language use, not the thing itself, but a symbolic representation. A conscious mind is required to pick and place the symbols acording to the rules of the language used. Then you need a compatible receiver to use the coded information. “Fallen together by a happy chain of accidents” doesn’t get it for me. Insufficient faith for that explanation as an adult.
We make design inferences all day long. The answer to designed or all-natural does lead to “Who dunnit?” But that doesn’t make the answer “Designed!” a religious response. It’s now part of many sciences. Look at CSI, the kids’ murder-or-accident favorite from TV exposure.
What is it about engineering that seems to attract more than its share of crackpots?
“As a pre-Christian, I worshipped [sic] science.”
No one wanted you to. That was your choice, and it indicates the kind of person you are.
“Fallen together by a happy chain of accidents” – argument from personal incredulity: “I don’t believe it so it couldn’t have happened that way”; and a strawman: “I don’t understand it so I’ll restate it in a way that has nothing to do with real science but makes it sound ridiculous.”
And there’s no code or language in DNA, except that humans have assigned codes to parts of DNA to help study it; that’s the conscious mind picking and placing the symbols.
And are you under the impression that CSI has ever found a supernatural explanation for any of the crimes it investigates? Aren’t they all committed by humans?
So obviously “[t]he answer to designed or all-natural(?)” is humans.
Leave A Reply