Triumph Reviews

This book was filled with a great assortment of lists that displayed many different aspects of the Civil War. When I first saw this book I thought 'This is great! A book of lists on the Civil War. How could a book of lists have a bias?' However, the author continually interjected his slant which caused the book to show his bias. (Ex. The author constantly referred to The War Between the States as "The war of the rebellion".)

I was hoping to find some of the more obscure facts such as:

1.) How many blacks fought in the Confederate army as well as
the Northern army? (Chapter 17, "Black Soldiers", only
refers to the black soldiers who fought in the Union army.)

2.) How many Northern states still practiced slavery even after
the war had ended? This is largely due to the
'Emancipation Proclamation' only freeing the slaves in the
South.

Unfortunately these details are not as widely accepted in the 'Politically Correct' world that we live in. These facts aren't as important in society if you want to say that the
Civil War was fought to end slavery! It's like the old saying goes - 'The victors write the history books'.

Compiled and written by civil war buff Donald Cartmell, The Civil War Book Of Lists is a singularly fascinating compendium of literally thousands of true facts about the deadliest war in American history in terms of fatalities and injuries. From a list of five famous female spies to the five most frequent court-martial offenses to 17 rules for Civil War Reenactors, The Civil War Book Of Lists is filled cover to cover with amazing details. The Civil War Books Of Lists is strongly recommended reading for Civil War Studies supplemental reading lists, academic reference collections, and American history buffs.

This is a great book for anyone interested in the Civil War.

I am not a biologist, and so I will not focus my review on Hunter's critique of Darwinism, other than to note that he appears to raise some arguments that have been repeatedly debunked by evolutionists. I also note that he makes an appeal to common sense. The fact that common sense notions of causality don't allow for complex organisms to evolve is not itself a good scientific argument. There are many things about science that disagree with common sense, such as the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. I will leave the remainder of the scientific debunking to someone better versed in science than I am.

I would like to focus instead on Hunter's philosophical and theological arguments against what he sees as a religious conception underlying evolutionary theory. He acknowledges that there are aspects of nature that seem cruel, wasteful, inefficient and evil to human eyes. Yet he finds no reason to conclude from this that God did not create the animals, plants and human beings we see around us every day pretty much as a finished product. (Hunter gives a passing nod to the idea that nature is fallen, but this is far from his primary focus.)

These premises seem to cast doubt on the idea of a perfect God. After all, a perfect tenor doesn't sometimes deliberately sing badly out of tune. The consequences of Hunter's view of God fit better with amoralism, the idea that nature does not follow moral principles. (To be fair, Hunter asserts in passing that God designed nature to teach us something, but his argument on this point lacks specificity.) Amoralism has a long and distinguished pedigree, found in thinkers from Spinoza and Nietzsche, but it is not usually associated with Christian theism.

There is a reason that amoralism is not usually associated with Christian theism. A logical corollary of amoralism is that the faults and flaws we see in human beings are ultimately God's responsibility. As Spinoza puts it, God's infinite nature suffices to create human beings with every possible shade of rationality or moral perfection, from greatest to least.

In a world which contains violence, evil and gratuitous suffering, human beings must be tough enough to survive and reproduce. For our own peace of mind and the good of society, we ought to curb these impulses; however, it would be absurd to envision God punishing or judging human beings for what they are, given that he is ultimately responsible for their nature. (For those who insist on the Fall, I would only note that even under that scientifically unsupported idea, human beings must have been created in such a way that they were liable to stupidly give up complete happiness and to utterly ruin a "perfect" world in favor of the dubious benefits of self-direction.)

Hunter does not follow his premises to this logical conclusion. Instead, where human beings are concerned, his unknowable order of nature suddenly gives way to a perfect and knowable moral order, an abstract, transcendent set of values by which human beings will be judged and punished for their moral imperfections (including "sinful" thoughts!) The attitude of ignorance we are to adopt when judging whether God's nature is "good" or "bad" has no place where human beings are concerned. We, of all God's creations, are expected to adopt an extremely punitive and overbearing attitude of introspection and self-judgment. (If Hunter's world view is true, I would rather be a dog than a human being. At least a dog can be itself without confessing "sins" all day or being afraid of eternal torture!)

All notions of true justice evaporate before such a concept. Hunter urges us to take the "escape hatch" and be forgiven for our sins. If eternal hellfire is truly the just punishment for our transgressions, however, we ought to embrace it. Let me make this clear: all who love justice should be willing to be punished to the extent that justice requires. Anything less is cowardice, and immorality that destroys justice. Hunter contends that somebody else already paid for our sins; any such notion, however, destroys the whole concept of justice itself. Besides which, evidently this "payment" is available only to those (predominantly white Europeans, historically speaking) who happen to be Christians.

Hunter criticizes the "gnostic" approach to the world, which rejects the idea that the physical world demonstrates the existence of a good creator. But the gnostics simply apply the Biblical criteria of truth: "by their fruits, you shall know them" to the Creator himself. The tough question is, what does a world full of suffering and human tragedy tell us about its creator? Hunter totally misreads David Hume, who would agree with the Gnostics that no one who looks at the world with an unbiased eye would reasonably conclude from that alone that there is a perfectly good, all-loving creator who made it. There is a serious Problem of Evil in the world, and Hunter's attempt to tap dance around it by rejecting Darwinism proves completely unavailing.

PROOF

The campaign against the nonsense of evolutionary thinking continues with a new book. Darwin's Proof by Cornelius G. Hunter has recently been released by Brazos Press, a division of Baker Book House of Grand Rapids. This work is subtitled: "The Triumph of Religion over Science." Hunter is the author of Darwin's God which came out several years ago.

Hunter points out that the evidence so often cited in support of
evolution is not evidence at all. In a way, perhaps the book should be Darwin's Poof! It isn't that evidence isn't presented but when viewed closely, these evidences don't stand up.

The main thrust of this work is to review the historical context into which Charles Darwin appeared. Hunter helps his readers appreciate the various popular ideas of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, ideas which made the thoughts of Darwin acceptable. One of these ides is what Hunter calls the paradigm of perfection. It is the thought that God created all things "very good." Since we can see less than perfect things in nature,
it follows that God must not have created. What this amounts to is to create God in our own image and when that image doesn't fit what is thought to exist in nature, this god can be rejected.

The problem here is that those who hold to this view neglect to
understand the effects of the Fall. This failure tends to blame God for imperfections and since God would not do anything less than perfect, He must not be much of a God.

It is an interesting thing, says Hunter, to realize that the idea of evolution, though said to be non religious, actually rests on religion. "Darwinists claim religion plays no role in their theory," he says, "but religion lies at its very foundation. It is the constant thread running
throughout Darwinism. Evolutionists reject a particular religious explanation, but in doing so they proclaim their own religion. Declaring what or how God may not create is just as religious as declaring what or how he does create."

This concept of creating their own God is nothing new among those who would reject the Gospel's message. Hunter takes his readers back to a cross outside Jerusalem. There men taunted Jesus by demanding that 'if He is really the savior, He should get down from the cross.' These men had made up their own minds as to what a saviour would look like. They hadn't taken the time to read the scriptures and to understand that the saviour would not be one to rescue them from Roman rule but one who would
lead the way back to God. They could not envision themselves in need of such a savior so they missed the point of what was taking place on that hill.

Much the same thing can be seen occurring in the evolutionary camp. Instead of reading what God has said about things, people have used their tainted imaginations to make up stories about the past and stories about God. In general these have pushed God farther and farther away from any involvement in creation. "Darwinism is really all about God," says
Hunter. "God wouldn't have created this world, say the evolutionists. But Darwinists have a false god in mind."

Hunter concludes this short book, of some 150 pages, by reminding his readers that evolution is a religious idea. "Darwin's theory of evolution," he says, "has had a profound impact on society. Its claim that God is not needed to explain the origin of species has influenced many, and it certainly seems reasonable to say that evolution is
antireligious or atheistic. For example, evolution always opts for naturalistic explanations, no matter how unlikely, rather than admit any possibility of God. ....The problem with this argument is that it misses the historical roots and underlying motivation of Darwinism. The motivation behind Darwinsim is religious, not antireligious, and this makes a tremendous difference in how one understands the theory. Darwinism is the product of a long tradition of religious doctrine.
Though not biblical, this doctrine has always been popular in the church.

This non-Christian thought can be found in many influential figures leading up to Darwin and it remains popular today. It involves a nonbiblical version of God, who is distanced from the world. The divine attributes of wisdom and goodness are emphasized over those of providence, immanence and judgment."

When this is understood, a reader can appreciate how the religion of Darwin has been such a powerful tool to lead men and women away from science into a dark world of myth and imaginations.

The book has several pages of end notes which is a good source for those wishing to do additional study. This work should be read by anyone involved in the Origins issue.

July 2003

"Darwin's Proof" is the follow-up to Cornelius Hunter's successful first book, "Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil" (Brazos Books, 2002). In that book, he exposed the theological underpinnings of the evolutionary argument as put forth by Charles Darwin. According to Hunter, beginning with Darwin, and carried through to the present, runs a strong thread of theological argument. Hunter illuminates that argument in "Darwin's God".

In "Darwin's Proof", Hunter offers several fresh insights and juxtaposes his original ideas against some of the more common arguments and examples that evolutionary Biology uses to defend evolution. In so doing, the strength of Hunter's underlying argument - that at root evolution is built on a theological premise - becomes readily apparent. Indeed, after reading Darwin's Proof, it is difficult to see how to formulate a deductively valid argument that concludes evolution must have occurred without resorting to a theological premise. That insight, drawn from Hunter's obviously in-depth study of both the scientific and theological historical roots and influences of evolution, will add a new and valuable dimension to the ongoing debates regarding the scientific status of both evolution and Intelligent Design.

"Darwin's Proof" is a very readable, understandable, and clear book. Hunter writes in a brisk, crisp style that keeps the reader interested in the material. Thanks to that, there was no place in the book where I felt I had to "scratch my head" to figure out where he was taking his argument. For people not that familiar with this debate, that clarity will be very helpful.

As difficult as it must have been, Hunter managed to keep most of the text jargon free. Introductory readers won't have to scramble to their Oxford Dictionary of Biology in order to figure out what the author is talking about. Where he does use jargon, he manages to clearly describe exactly what the jargon refers to. For example, on pages 72-74 he engages a discussion on pseudogenes making reference to the L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase pseudogene. Often books of this nature get jargon laden and those unfamiliar with the territory will have their eyes glaze over when they encounter such terms. Hunter takes the extra pains to explain exactly to what such terms refer, and thus helps his readers appreciate the true nature of his argument. Would that all writers on this subject would take such pains when writing for a popular audience.

There were two fresh insights that I personally found to be especially illuminating. The first was that in establishing the theological arguments used by evolution, he provides several useful counter-arguments based on Biblical theology drawn from several scriptural sources, and not just the book of Genesis. So often, it seems, the argument lies in science versus, not the Biblical view of creation as a whole, but only the book of Genesis. By drawing on several references that go beyond just Genesis, Hunter demonstrates the non-Biblical, non-orthodox theological view that serves as the foundation for the entire evolutionary argument. In so doing, Hunter makes clear his view that evolution is not so much atheism in disguise, as so many have claimed, but a theological heresy in disguise -- a heresy at considerable odds with orthodox Christian theology. This takes much of the starch out the oft heard claim that evolution is "just science".

The second insight that Hunter provides is that, yes indeed, we can admit that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution. However, absent the non-Biblical, non-orthodox theological underpinning of the evolutionary argument, the mountain of evidence not-with-standing, the power of the evidence is greatly reduced if not made outright negligible. In other words, it's not the quantity, but the quality of the evidence. Stripped of the theological foundation, the quality diminishes rapidly. This insight should provide the basis for healthy and fruitful discussions in the ongoing debates in the whole area of origins.

Hunter also added a very useful appendix that includes summaries of the strong and weak arguments for both Darwinism and Creation with appropriate responses and challenges to those arguments. This should prove helpful to those less familiar with the subject as well as provide some good "talking points" for those engaged in ongoing discussions on these matters from opposing points of view.

For those already familiar with the nuances of the ongoing debates between evolution and intelligent design, this book will offer some additional and useful insights. For those not that familiar with the nature of these debates or the subjects at issue, this book offers some good foundational perspectives that can supplement further study. Either way, Hunter has made another positive contribution to the discussion and one that should be taken seriously.

This book is an inspiration to any who has had any major illness. Part of it hit home for me since I also have Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Ms. Wilcox is full of energy and never gave up during this horrible illness. She provides reference materials that I would have not know about. No Time For Tears was easy to read compared to other Guillain-Barre Syndrome books.

In No Time For Tears: Transforming Tragedy Into Triumph, Dorris Wilcox tells her compelling story of combining aggressive self-education, massive doses of positive thinking, a barrage of nutritional supplements, with an unshakable faith in God's healing power to over come Gulillain Barre Syndrome (a potentially lethal neurological disorder) and experience a 95% recovery. No Time For Tears also provides sufferers from any and all debilitating affliction the spiritual and emotional tools to acquire and maintain a positive mindset so necessary to triumphing over adversity regardless of any particular medical outcome. Highly recommended reading.

I have an aunt with Guillain Barre Syndrome and she couldn't wait to get her hands on this book. Dorris' story is hopeful and inspirational, appealing to those who think that the disease is necessarily a dead end road. In my opinion, No Time for Tears is an excellent book for the patient, friends and family members of anyone suffering from any kind of debilitating illness. Dorris teaches you how to fight back!

This is an interestng, but in my opinion, poorly written tale by Lawrence Block. In this novel, Block is too obsessed with dialogue. That is the only way the story is told. Instead of the rich extra thinkings of the hero that we usually get from Block, this character is only seen through his speech, giving us an unclear view of what could be a great, tragic figure. Otherwise, the story is interesting. All in all, if I could have known him better, maybe Miles Dorn would have deserved the title evil.

Now that this book is now out of print, I want to assert that this is by far and wide not a poor book by accomplished crime author Lawrence Block. Originally published under the pseudonym Paul Kavanagh, just like the first Kavanagh SUCH MEN ARE DANGEROUS, Block exceeds the reader's expectations in the unique creation of a taut, tense and memorable novel about a hired political assassin who falls in love with a girl who proves that his actions are very very wrong. The plan is to overthrow the current US government through careful manipulation of the general public through murder after murder of high-profile political figures representing all causes and extremes. Dorn's cruel calculating violence is a marvel to behold, and so are counter-reactions in the public and political spheres. A tragic figure in tragic times. A very powerful novel. If it isn't in print - find it!

Scary and thought-provoking. I first read this over thirty years ago and have never been able to forget it. I just read it again, after finding out it was really written by Lawrence Block (author of the "Burglar" series), and it's even better than I remembered it. The main character is much more interesting than the one in Block's later "Hit Man" stories. Fascists hire this assassin to manipulate the Presidential election with a series of killings. The plan seemed quite plausible at the time. A very spooky note: one they want to kill is a racist Southern demagogue similar to George Wallace. But the assassin just arranges for him to be crippled and politically and literally emasculated. One year later, the real George Wallace was shot and left in a wheelchair. Coincidence?

Uffindell clearly spent lots of time walking the battlefield and has an excellent knowledge of it. He is also enthusiatic about his subject and the book is a good read. However, it is bad history. Too often, the myths about the campaign are repeated as fact. Too often questionable statements by Uffindell's hero Wellington are taken at face value. Of course, the British did nothing worng in this campaign and foreigners like the Prince of Orange, Dornberg and Ziethen are to blame for Wellington's errors. This book is very much inferior to Hofschroer's work.

"Eagles Last Triumph" is an outstanding treatment of the Waterloo Campaign, with special focus on the battle of Ligny, 2 days prior to the more commonly known battle of Waterloo. Uffindell counts on a variety of primary and secondary sources. Nor does he depend heavily on British accounts; German, French and Dutch-Belgian sources are used as well, balancing the writing so that the reader can understand the why of the decisions made by the battlefield commmanders. There are maps, though not many of them, but clear and relevant to the accounts in the book. His after-battle analysis, leading to the impact the twin battles of Quatre-Bras and Ligny had 2 days later on their more famous cousins, Waterloo and Wavre, is excellent. Through it, you may (as I have) come away convinced that Ligny, though a French tactical victory, was a strategic defeat in that it was the best chance in the campaign for Napoleon to destroy one of the armies he faced during the campaign. If the Prussian army had been destroyed at Ligny, Waterloo would not have been fought. Strongly recommended for all readers.

Disclaimer: This review is based on a quick skim of the book in a friend's house, and therefore may possibly miss something important...

Somehow, a book has been put together on Feminist Parenting, and apparently all the contributors are female.

This must be an oversight. Feminist parenting must, will, and does have an impact on male children (indeed, this is discussed by some of those who do write). Where are their views? Not, it would appear, here.

What a missed opportunity.

The essays in this book are insightful, funny, inspiring and so very REAL. I love this book and I wish that it were more widely available.

The author is a well-known former Congressman from Massachusetts who ran for President sometime in the 1980's I believe. His book is written supposedly from a first-hand viewpoint, but in fact I believe Mr. Mitchell had no direct involvement in any of the events of which he writes. The analysis borrows (steals may be the right word) heavily from works on the same subject by Zbigniew Chelitchew and Anastas Mikoyan. The text is full of typographical errors and clearly was not proofread by the author. A C- grade overall.

I'm agnostic about the book, but it should be pointed out that Mr. Mitchell was a Senator from Maine. He did not run for President - that would have been Edmund Muskie, back in the seventies...

A historical treatise. Putting the world in perspective considering all of the elements of societies that we have been and will be faced with. A must read for all of the worlds politicians and anyone interested in who they elect to run their society. A good read for anyone .. period

This is the most bogus piece of propaganda I've had the misfortune of stumbling across in a long time. Makes me wonder which agribusiness is behind this one. I will never cease to be amazed at the shamelessness of some people. Need I remind "mad dog" Avery that -cid (as in pestiCIDe) comes from Latin and means "killing". Somehow this seems a little incongruous in a sentence with words like "saving" , "environmental" and "triumph".

I only rated this 4 stars instead of 5 since Avery could have shortened the book a bit by avoiding repetition. Excellent exposé of the flawed paranoia being peddled by environmentalists, conservationists and others who need something to do and keep discovering new "crises" to spend your money on.....

Actually, the base "-cid" comes from the Latin "cadere" and means "to fall". This term was modified by the Romans to mean "to kill" as in "occedere". Another example of factual misrepresentation on both sides of the environmental debate. Avery trys to answer some of the big questions left unanswered by environmentalists: If our food is being poisoned, why are we healthier and living longer than ever before in the course of human history? If chemicals are polluting the environment, why is it now safe to swim in rivers that have previously been too polluted? Why is the air cleaner than 20 years ago, despite a huge increase in motorized traffic? I would also recommend Peter Huber's "Hard Green".

It is summer...1986. Twenty seven climbers triumph at the K2 summit. Thirteen climbers die in their quest to conquer K2. Therein lies the tale.

The author, a photographer who calls himself a climber, though that is debatable, attempts to make sense of the events which unfolded on the mountain that summer. Relying upon the anecdotes and narratives of others, as well as his own personal observations, he tries to put the events into perspective, even though he has no first hand knowledge of what transpired up on the mountain, for the most part. Although he was there, he rarely ventured past base camp.

The book does make for an interesting read, as we look at events as they unfold before the author. It is amazing that with all the tragedies which seemed to occur at almost every turn, the climbers still kept climbing, never losing sight of their quest. At times this singlemindedness on the part of the climbers comes across as somewhat meglomaniacal.

The author is very candid in his commentary throughout the book and, surprisingly, he does not hesitate to speak ill of the dead. His candor, while somewhat disturbing, is refreshing, and it is interesting to find out that the gods do, indeed, have clay feet.

I enjoyed this book. Jim Curran is a gifted writer, well able to maintain the reader's interest with his fluent, eloquent style and, in turns, he is humourous and tragic. As pointed out in other reviews, he does spend much of his time in and round Base Camp, only venturing as far as Camp II, which some people seem to find makes him boring and/or unable to give the "full story". Personally, this is the first mountaineering book I have read which is delivered by a non-climbing member of an expedition - in many respects, it makes for more gripping and tense reading as you are led through various moments in the climbing season where nobody at Base Camp has the foggiest clue about what is happening up on the hill. The tension, and sadness, on occasions is tremendous. My one complaint about this book is that, having finished it, you do not feel as if you have a good idea of what many of Curran's team were like as people (as opposed to climbers), with the exception of Curran's good friend, Al Rouse. In particular, I was eager to be told more about the Burgess twins, who seemed to be intriguing (and it was hinted at, possibly mischievous), as well as excellent mountaineers. However, all in all, a good book which conveys well the highs and lows, the humour and the tragedy of climbing at the most extreme edge of the sport.

This book is about the 1986 season on K2 when there were several casualties. It is written in a funny and self-deprecating tone, which is refreshing given the usual self-aggrandisement tone of mountaineering adventures. Of course, the author is not an accomplished mountaineer, but rather an observer who happens to be on the mountain.

He does spend a bit too much time going through the full description of characters on the mountain that season, the first since Pakistan allowed climbers back after a long hiatus. However, I guess it is best to err on the heavier side of character development, so it is okay. It is a quick fun read, if not life-changing like many mountaineering books seem to try to be.

Being a Christian I read this book with the intention of understanding what evolutionists believe more accurately. The snippets of quotes from creationist literature didn't provide me with enough material in context to understand scientific ideas (I didn't think). I was correct.

This book really explained some things to me that I didn't understand before, like how the Linnaean classification system fit within evolution and how punctuated equilibrium was explained. It also gave some answers to the creation scientists' claims (gaps in the fossil record, "kinds" reproducing, etc).

This said, I was actually very happy with the book until I came to Chapter 7, "Can We Afford A Culture War". For a paleontologist (who ostensibly is interested only in communicating "good science") to explain the role religions of the world have in saving the environment and how we can all live together in peace and harmony seems to me a bit of a stretch. I think he should have stuck to the subject.

The author is rightly disturbed by the way creationists discuss several different fields of specialty during a debate when the scientist on the other side of the issue can only discuss his or her specialty. Of course you wouldn't expect a biologist to discuss the fossil record - that's the job of a paleontologist. Yet this is exactly what the author does in chapter 7 - he plays the role of philosopher and theologian by explaining how outmoded the "narrow minded" evangelical Christians will continue to hold back the "true" religion of the universalist.

I would recommend this book to creationists and others sans that last chapter. I also like the new formatting style of leaving a line between paragraphs - much easier on the eyes.

Having read, reviewed and thoroughly enjoyed Niles Eldredge's 'Reinventing Darwin', I was looking forward to his account of the creationism controversy. Although an interesting read, I found unfocused and disappointing.

Much of the problem is that Eldredge writes what are in essence several different books. We have discussions of the Scientific Method, primers on evolution, the fossil record, patterns of life and punctuated equilibrium, attacks on young earth creationism, and a reply to Intelligent Design Creationism. All this in a framework (expressed in the introduction and the concluding chapter) claiming that religion, along with science, can solve the great challenge that lays ahead of us - the ecological crises and the threat to biodiversity.

Unfortunately, there are much better essays on each of these issues, and that the strength of Eldredge's arguments vary considerably between these issues.

After an interesting introduction, Eldredge treats us with a sound but all too brief discussion on scientific methodology. Eldredge explains how in science, we have a hierarchy of ideas - some extremely well established (like the 'fact' that the Earth is round and that life evolved) and some more speculative (like the superstring theory or the age of the universe). Thus the creationist regular chant that evolution is 'just a theory' is meaningless.

It is a good discussion, but more sophisticated accounts exist. My personal favorite is chapter four of Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's Intellectual Impostures ('Fashionable Nonsense' in the American edition).

Chapter three 'The Fossil Record' is probably the dullest chapter in the book. There is very little wrong with the discussion of the evolution of life in it - although it maybe stresses the ideas of Eldredges's 'Naturalist' school a little too much - but it is not very coherent. Eldredge simply is not the master of prose that Gould and Dawkins are.

Chapter four, which deals with Natural selection and punctuated Equilibrium is much better, in part because of its lovely history of evolutionary thought structure, and in part due to the eloquent 'Naturalist' account of evolutionary theory - with all the stress on Punctuated Equilibrium you would expect from its co-creator.

Chapter five is an attack on Young Earth Creationism. It deals mostly with Geology, and is both competent and unexceptional.

In Chapter Six, Eldredge argues that Creationists are often dishonest, and takes on the Intelligent Design movement headed by Phillip Johnson. For the most part he does a good job. Nonetheless, better criticism of Johnson's concept of 'atheistic materialism' appear in 'Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism' by Robert T. Pennock. The critique of Michel Behe's irreducible complexity, while true, is far from thorough (the best review on Behe is an on line article in the Boston Review 'Intelligent Design, Again' by H. Allen Orr).

Furthermore, on this chapter and on the next one, Eldredge bends over backwards to please the religious, especially Christians. The matter here is the association between evolution and atheism. While anti-evolutionists wish to equate evolution with atheism, biologists like Gould and Eldredge sometimes fall into the opposite trap ' pretending that there is no discord between evolution and religion. Actually, while evolution does not disprove Christianity (or religion in general), it certainly poses a challenge to Christianity which Christian apologetics should face if they wish to persuade us that Christianity is true or at least intellectually acceptable.

The tendency grows worse. In chapter seven, Eldredge falls deeper into the 'bending over' trap. Eldredge claims that he sees a great role for religion in the future ' religion is mankind's tool to fight off the coming ecological crisis.

Eldredge thinks that religion mirrors ecology ' 'religious traditions, especially as embodied in concepts of God, are deeply if not wholly ecological concepts as well' (p. 162). He 'demonstrates' this by an argument so thin ' using only two examples, one of them from the King James Bible and one from an African tribe ' that it barely requires refutation. What is the religious response for the current crisis ? 'the emergence of the economic impact of humanity on the biosphere as a whole is so new that it is perhaps to be expected that no religious traditions independently mirroring the relatively recent scientific understanding of the problem have yet emerged' in other words, even if you were to accept the ' extremely metaphorical ' connection between religion and the ecological niche mankind posses, the connection is obsolete. Nonetheless, there is hope. Eldredge observes 'a growing movement in conservative Christian circles, a movement that can only be described as 'green'' (p.167)

Now this is patently irrelevant. As much as the leftist and secular environmentalists may applaud that our religious brethren are finally opening their eyes to a danger that has been known since the 1970s, what does that have to do with their religion? If the religious wants to join the good fight, they are welcome to it, but it doesn't make the struggle for biodiversity religious.

Eldredge has redefined religion in such a way as to make it unrecognizable. The problem of religion will not go away so easily. Eldredge simply refuses to except that the existence or inexistence of God is an empirical question ' and he hides the differences between science and religion with obfuscationist rhetoric. Eldredge dares say that on the one hand 'we created God in our own image' but that does not say that 'the concept of God in question' does not exist in precisely the manner Christian theology specifies' (p. 166 note 12). Of course not ' but no one can take seriously the idea that we invented God in our own image and somehow miraculously captured the way God really is like.

Eldredge claims to respect all religions, but if religion is false it does not deserve respect. Rather, like any other false idea, it should be discarded, and whatever social role it plays must be taken over by an institution based on truth, not myth.

Non-creationist critics of this book, several of whom seem to have science Phds, need to remind themselves that this book wasn't written for them.. Their knowledge of evolution is assumed, so they should feel complimented. Rather, the book was written for the general reader, and as such it rates a major success in my opinion.. Eldredge uses clear and readable language to inform the public of the parameters and points of contention that exist between creationists and evolutionists, and then proceeds to logically demonstrate the unquestionable cogency of evolution versus the dead end of creationism.. No where in the book does he do this more effectively than in the chapter about hominid endocranial advances in size and shape, leading in a smooth progression to modern homo sapiens.. Eldredge is correct to call this progression of skulls "creationism's worst nightmare". Creationist critics of this work would do well to remember the adage "science deals with unanswered questions and fundamentalism deals with unquestioned answers", or words to that effect.. We can only hope their kids read this book, in order that they launch their educational journey from the firm foundation of the scientific method..