Has anyone read the book titled "Why Evolution Is A Fraud" by Robert Sutcliff?

Question

Robert Sutcliff has done 5 years of research on evolution before he wrote the book. I would like to know for those who have read the book what did you think about it? I think its an excellent book to read and very well researched. If you have not read the book I would appreciate it greatly if you do not respond to this question.

Answer 1

Where was this published? Gideons?

Answer 2

After this reader reviewed it, I won't be bothering.

http://www.evofraud.com/evofraud_chapter...

  ******

If you are thinking about buying this book, here are a few things you might want to consider doing before shelling out the price of a decent dinner in an upscale restaurant:

1. Read everything on the "search inside this book" feature. Here you can get an idea of the author's arguments against evolution. They aren't very good. For example, on page 45 he writes "No amount of absurd rationalizations, contortions of truth, or revisionist history will allow evolutionists to weasel out of the undeniable fact that their precious theory is racist." His logic leads him to argue that eugenics as a scientific endeavor was created in an attempt to legitimize the covertly racist underpinnings of evolution. The assumption is that the entire theory of evolution was developed out of a desire to exterminate "inferior" races of humans. This is a misunderstanding that would be shocking were it not so laughable. Any page on the "surprise me" link will offer up further laughs, I assure you.

2. Check out the book's website: evofraud.com. Here you can click on a link called "reviews." You will discover some interesting things here. The page cites reviews appearing on the following websites: laughinginfidel.com, culturewarbookreview.com, homeschoolbookreview.com, and redstatebookreview.com. What is interesting is that they all show similar formatting and are registered with networksolutions.com. There are also two blogspot.com blogs that are cited. When you go to those, you note (a) that each blog archive consists of ONE entry only and (b) that the evofiction blog is signed by "[e-mail]." Since the publisher of the book is "Red State Publishing," I infer a connection between "dsingleton" and the author of the book. I also infer a connection between the book's website and all the other websites that host "reviews" of the book. Peer review this is not.

3. Find out who Tom Sutcliff is. The back matter of the book says he is "a former copywriter, editor and technical writer who lives in the United States." Woo-hoo! What are his scientific credentials? If he had any, wouldn't he want us to know about them? Wouldn't you, the reader, want to know about them? If you are serious about deciding the pros and cons of evolutionary theory, wouldn't you want to read the most knowledgeable and credentialed writers on both sides?

4. On the book's website, take a look at the "sources" link. I'm guessing that this is the bibliography for the book. Are there any major names in the history of evolutionary thought on the list? Darwin isn't on the list. Neither are Sir Charles Lyell, Thomas Henry Huxley, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, E.O. Wilson, Michael Shermer, and Daniel Dennett, to name a few. That list includes both real working scientists, living and dead, as well as formidable writers on science who understand the nature of science and evolutionary thought. To be fair, he does list books by James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, and Matt Ridley, who is at least married to a neuroscientist and has written some good layperson's books on science. But other sources are more suspect, such as Ken Ham, president of "Answers in Genesis," described by Wikipedia as "a vocal advocate for a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis." Since the current book's subtitle is "A Secular and Commonsense Deconstruction", it's hard to understand how Ham's book would be useful here. There are also numerous other books on the "sources" page that are critical of evolution. The remainder are extremely general books like "Genetics for Dummies", a 1982 college text on biology, and the DK Ultimate Visual Dictionary of Science.

5. Look at the Index on the "Search Inside" feature on the Amazon link. Compare it with the index in a book like Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is, which can also be accessed on Amazon using the Search Inside feature. Which index gives you a better idea of the content of the book? Which index appears more helpful?

In short, this appears to be a shoddy attempt to discredit a theory which underlies all of modern biology, using misinformation, faulty thinking, deceptive reasoning, and various types of slanted speech. It will have appeal only to those who want support for their prejudices instead of a real search for the truth of the matter. And don't be fooled--it isn't secular in its approach at all.

http://www.culturewarbookreview.com/

http://www.laughinginfidel.com/

http://www.homeschoolbookreview.com/

http://www.redstatebookreview.com/

The critic has a point about the format of the reviewing sites.

Answer 3

The following review from Amazon pretty much summarizes the problems with this book. None of the arguments are new, nor are they convincing.

"Read before buying!, November 20, 2007

By J P

If you are thinking about buying this book, here are a few things you might want to consider doing before shelling out the price of a decent dinner in an upscale restaurant:

1. Read everything on the "search inside this book" feature. Here you can get an idea of the author's arguments against evolution. They aren't very good. For example, on page 45 he writes "No amount of absurd rationalizations, contortions of truth, or revisionist history will allow evolutionists to weasel out of the undeniable fact that their precious theory is racist." His logic leads him to argue that eugenics as a scientific endeavor was created in an attempt to legitimize the covertly racist underpinnings of evolution. The assumption is that the entire theory of evolution was developed out of a desire to exterminate "inferior" races of humans. This is a misunderstanding that would be shocking were it not so laughable. Any page on the "surprise me" link will offer up further laughs, I assure you.

2. Check out the book's website: evofraud.com. Here you can click on a link called "reviews." You will discover some interesting things here. The page cites reviews appearing on the following websites: laughinginfidel.com, culturewarbookreview.com, homeschoolbookreview.com, and redstatebookreview.com. What is interesting is that they all show similar formatting and are registered with networksolutions.com. There are also two blogspot.com blogs that are cited. When you go to those, you note (a) that each blog archive consists of ONE entry only and (b) that the evofiction blog is signed by "[e-mail]." Since the publisher of the book is "Red State Publishing," I infer a connection between "dsingleton" and the author of the book. I also infer a connection between the book's website and all the other websites that host "reviews" of the book. Peer review this is not.

3. Find out who Tom Sutcliff is. The back matter of the book says he is "a former copywriter, editor and technical writer who lives in the United States." Woo-hoo! What are his scientific credentials? If he had any, wouldn't he want us to know about them? Wouldn't you, the reader, want to know about them? If you are serious about deciding the pros and cons of evolutionary theory, wouldn't you want to read the most knowledgeable and credentialed writers on both sides?

4. On the book's website, take a look at the "sources" link. I'm guessing that this is the bibliography for the book. Are there any major names in the history of evolutionary thought on the list? Darwin isn't on the list. Neither are Sir Charles Lyell, Thomas Henry Huxley, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, E.O. Wilson, Michael Shermer, and Daniel Dennett, to name a few. That list includes both real working scientists, living and dead, as well as formidable writers on science who understand the nature of science and evolutionary thought. To be fair, he does list books by James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, and Matt Ridley, who is at least married to a neuroscientist and has written some good layperson's books on science. But other sources are more suspect, such as Ken Ham, president of "Answers in Genesis," described by Wikipedia as "a vocal advocate for a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis." Since the current book's subtitle is "A Secular and Commonsense Deconstruction", it's hard to understand how Ham's book would be useful here. There are also numerous other books on the "sources" page that are critical of evolution. The remainder are extremely general books like "Genetics for Dummies", a 1982 college text on biology, and the DK Ultimate Visual Dictionary of Science.

5. Look at the Index on the "Search Inside" feature on the Amazon link. Compare it with the index in a book like Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is, which can also be accessed on Amazon using the Search Inside feature. Which index gives you a better idea of the content of the book? Which index appears more helpful?

In short, this appears to be a shoddy attempt to discredit a theory which underlies all of modern biology, using misinformation, faulty thinking, deceptive reasoning, and various types of slanted speech. It will have appeal only to those who want support for their prejudices instead of a real search for the truth of the matter. And don't be fooled--it isn't secular in its approach at all."

and:

"By Doug Weler "Skeptical Archaeology"

It reads like a political diatribe. He manages to accuse 'evolutionists' of being Stalinists, Hitler supporters, and the cause of the Columbine massacre, while at the same time showing either his ignorance of what evolutionary theory actually has to say or his willingness to lie about it. In his first chapter he repeats the hoary old lie that evolution is all about randomness and chance. And the lie that Kettlewell glued moths to trees (has he never read a book written by a supporter of evolution to see what they actually say, or checked the Kettlewell story - if he'd read the book he quotes he would have discovered he was wrong?). He gets all excited about the fact that Haeckel's 1866 theory that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has long been rejected, and for some reason thinks that this proves evolution wrong (it doesn't). He makes the ludicrous claim that a "common theme of evolution" is "Monkeys and apes resemble humans so we must share a common ancestor." And he manages to accuse supporters of evolution as racists while at the same time complaining that primitive man is not depicted as blue-eyed, blond-haired anf fair skin (hardly a recipe for survival in Africa).

If you want to read something whose main message is a political one, eg his statement "When we stand by and allow the truth to be perverted by politically-correct, God-hating socialists, we bear some responsibility for the poisoned fruits that ripen as we sat idle", this is the book for you. If you want to read something objective about evolution, avoid this book like the plague.

And guess which one of the reviewers praising is apparently the author?

wl