This book has several problems, the most noticeable one being that it doesn't even live up to its own subtitle- "The Story of One Tiny Creature and History's Most Spectacular Scientific Breakthrough." I think that, based on that subtitle, it is a reasonable assumption that the book is going to link Darwin's study of barnacles to his theory of evolution by natural selection. Well, I read all 261 pages of this book and let me state categorically that the author never makes the connection. We get a lot of information about barnacles, no doubt about it. We find out about barnacles that secrete their own shells, barnacles that burrow into other creatures' shells, barnacles that attach themselves to flesh, etc. We also get to know about hermaphroditical, bisexual, and unisexual barnacles. But the author never goes into specifics regarding why these variations developed, nor does she explain how the study of barnacles helped Darwin to further develop, or fine tune, "History's Most Spectacular Scientific Breakthrough." (A debatable assertion, by the way, but hyperbole in modern publishing is so prevalent that I guess we're not supposed to take these things too seriously.) I kept reading and reading and said to myself that the author must have a purpose in barraging us with all of this barnacle minutiae. Must be she'll have a chapter near the end where she'll explain the specific biological/environmental reasons for the variations and show how this helped Darwin to clarify his thinking. Well, sorry to say there is no such chapter in the book. It was sort of like reading a mystery and the author never tells you how the detective solved the crime. Another problem that this book has is that the narrative flow is disturbed by some very bizarre analogies. If you think that I might possibly be going overboard with my choice of the word bizarre, consider the following: a developing fetus in Emma Darwin (Charles's wife) is compared to a barnacle attaching itself to a host; and Charles undergoing an examination of his stomach is compared to a dissected barnacle being studied under a microscope. There are many more examples scattered throughout the book. All of them made me wince. So, does this book have any saving graces? Yes, it does. We learn about what an incredibly hard job Darwin took on when he decided to devote years of his life to studying barnacles, due to the seemingly endless variations he encountered, not to mention the problems involved in dissecting and studying such tiny creatures (even though I just mentioned it). We learn that Darwin didn't work on his own: he corresponded with many other naturalists, some who would generously loan him barnacle specimens and fossils from their own collections. He also had people all over the world gathering barnacle specimens for him, which they would send to him by post. In this case, as in so many others, the myth of the lone genius working in seclusion is shown to be just that- a myth. Ms. Stott is also careful to balance Darwin the scientist and Darwin the man- we learn about his self-doubts, health problems, and of his relationship to his wife and numerous children. Unfortunately, none of this is sufficient to overcome the problem of an author not accomplishing what she set out to do. Cruel as it might sound, you'd be much better off reading any collection of essays by Stephen Jay Gould.

Read 'Darwin and the Barnacle' as a prequel, if you will, to Darwin's 'Origin of Species'. It was Darwin's work on barnacles that prepared him for 'Origin'--the one book for which he will be eternally known, and where he articulated his theory of species evolution by natural selection.

Following Dava Sobel's 'Longitude,' the past few years have provided us with a flood of books on the theme of "the lone man of genius and his scientific discovery that changed the world." With rare exceptions, however, many of these have been less than profound or failed to make the case for the true relevance of their topic. Stott's 'Darwin and the Barnacle,' however, is a fine exception, and a book of a wholly different order. She forgoes the typical formula (heroic, misunderstood scientific hero fights haughty, blinkered scientific establishment to prove out his scientific discovery that is destined to change the world). Instead, Stott's story provides a balance between exceptional narrative (the drama of scientific discoveries that truly do change the world, after all, makes great subjects for narrative), and solid, informed research.

Best of all, Stott avoids the "lone scientific genius" syndrome, by demonstrating that Darwin, as he worked on his barnacles, became the center of a world-wide scientific network that took advantage of nineteenth-century social and technological advances (a postal system, railways), institutional developments (burgeoning scientific societies, and scientific professionalization), and European imperialism (colonized outposts, and voyages of scientific discovery).

History of science is too often either popular (though shallow) drama, or thorough (though impenetrable) scholarship. 'Darwin and the Barnacle' is the best of both worlds, with the pitfalls of neither. Substantial and entertaining, well written and well researched.

Although there is something to be said for a catcy title, Myths and Misuses of Darwinism soon vanishes from the reader's mind. As the book is unacceptably skant in both content and innovation, the reader is unable to conjure the meaning of the book. Thus, the reader is forced to delve deep into the phantom pages in order to ascertain the author's argument. At times, however, by way of some supernatural sense, the author is able to express his views to the reader often without actually demonstrating them in the text. Although this book is unable to make a lasting impression, it offers a rare oppurtunity for the reader particpate a he must envision what the author will conclude about Myths and Misuses in Darwinism

This is a superb snapshot of the legend-creation process that has always braided with the legacy of Darwinism. Ideology has been described as a lack of information, and the absence of historical knowledge in depth of the development of Darwinism by the general public has left the field to sound bite summaries, the fodder of legend, myth, and outright falsehood. Both sides of the debate have shown their colours here, although the genesis of Social Darwinism has been the worst of the whole process. The book covers a range of topics from the hollywoodization of the Huxley-Wilberforce debate, to the strange tale of Darwin's death bed confession, from the Spanish Civil War to the questions of eugenics, and finally the fearful shadow of fascism at the end of the whole business. The author starts with a fact little grasped, that Darwinism began with many of the tactics in their early forms of the modern publicity machine. The clear objections of many critics, in the confusion of the fact of evolution versus the theory of the mechanism, counted little as the promotion of the Darwin camp ensured the success of Darwin's theory irregardless of its deeper scientific merits as it tagged along with the timely spread of evolutionary thinking in general.

This is a well written book, but it is somehow disappointing. For the begginers in the study of Darwin, if you don't care about the constant repetitions in this book.

I bought this book at Bethany Beach, Delaware for a summer read-- and enjoyed it as a biography first-- with historical perspectives of the science. I will leave it around for my daughter as she enters high school-- a perfect introduction to Darwin and the scientific method of observation.

I bought a copy of this book at the Natural History Museum in London last week, and did indeed read it on the plane back to Seattle. While I did notice some discussions repeated in more than one chapter, I actually found these brief repetitions helpful, as they saved me from leafing back to review material that hadn't sunk in the first time.

I had been looking for a light, quick introduction to Darwin's obstacle-laden pursuit of verifiable truth to give my son as he tackles "On the Origin of Species" in college this year, and I found it in this book. It's not a substitute for reading Darwin's own best works (which are the 1845 edition of "The Voyage of the Beagle" and the first edition [1859] of "Origin"), of course, but that's okay, because that's not its purpose.

The photograph of Darwin on the cover of this book caught my interest. Darwin's expression seems almost apologetic, as if to sadly say to future viewers that evolution is a hard but illuminating fact of life.

The book is packed with interesting 19th century photography and art relating to his family and achievements in science. As a device, the extensive use of photography and art gives one the flavor of his times, but as anyone who is interested in attaining at least a modicum of literacy in science knows - and where is there a better topic for one to start than evolution - understanding most present day science concepts reqiures considerable effort. And it may be expecting too much of any author, however expert, to explain the concept of evolution in this small and thin book.

The sample dialog from the Scopes trial in the 1925 religious controversy is old, tiresome and a waste of time. To make a personal discovery one needs the help of better devices and explainers to begin to wade the deeper waters of the current literature on the science of evolution.

If you like science and the little details that go with it-you will really enjoy this book. It reads easily yet contains much detail.

a good introduction to darwins thought.it points out many things that he was wrong on but it cannot be said as the author points out as darwin simply pushing on ideas of other people

Hank Hanegraaff's approach to the creation-evolution controversy is excellent. It is very obvious that he has done his homework...and done it well. Instead of attacking evolutionists or characterizing them as evil, he looks at the facts. His acronym FACE (Fossil Fallacies, Ape Man Fiction, Frauds and Fantasy, Chance, and Empirical Science) makes it easy to recall the relevant points. He is thorough, while still keeping the issues at the "layman" level. For those interested in further study (on either side of the issue), he sites all sources.

Hanegraaff demonstrates a clear grasp of the issues and of the controversy around those issues. While many may still disagree with his views, he has proven himself once again to be an intellegent, well-studied author of integrity. I recommend reading this book with an open mind before dismissing creationism as a "crock"!

Hank Hanegraaff deserves an award for putting together an excellent and memorable addition to the many books which reveal the farcical nature of evolutionary theory. As I have followed the Creation/Evolution debate in-depth and have even written my own book on the subject, I think I am qualified to say that, although much of Hanks information is not new, his approach and style which aids people in memorizing the facts is. Although it is commonplace for evolutionists and other "believers" to ad hominem attack people who differ with them on the scientific evidence, Hank provides clear evidence from both evolutionist and creationist scientists that evolution is a theory in serious factual crisis (as the title of one evolutionist's book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" points out). It is easy for some with biased and ulterior motives to ad hominem attack Hank by saying he quotes authorities out of context or quotes "irresponsible" statements by scientists.

However, instead of merely making unsubstantiated assertions, I decided to actually CHECK the authorities Hank quoted. My findings? Out of 64 quoted authorities surveyed, 36 were secondary sources (evolutionists quoted in creationist material), and 28 were primary sources (actual evolutionists quoted in their material). From my own personal library, I was only able to check 23 of the 64 quotations. Out of the 23 quotes checked NOT ONE WAS OUT OF CONTEXT OR MISREPRESENTED IN ANY WAY. This includes 8 primary creationist sources, 10 primary evolutionist sources, and 5 secondary evolutionist sources. It was actually getting tiresome to keep checking the quotes, since every one was turning up 100% accurate in detail and contextual content. This is what factual evidence shows, and I challenge any HONEST person to go even further than I have and find anything different. And how exactly does one judge a statement by a non-creationist scientist as "irresponsible"? Simply because it may go against the grain of established evolutionary dogma? That seems like wishful thinking at best, and self-serving ideological bias at worst.

Once the "smoke and mirrors" of pro-evolutionary speculators using ad hoc rescues is dismissed, we find that Hank provides an excellent way to remember the fallacies of this science fiction pretending to be pure scientific knowledge. He employs the acronym FACE, which means Fossil Follies, Ape-Men Fiction, Frauds, and Fantasy, Chance, and Empirical science.

From the Fossil follies section, we learn that the fossil record is indeed "an embarrassment to evolutionists," so much so that new and innovative theories of punctuated equilibrium had to be invented to explain away the very real gaps in the record, gaps which should not be there according to Darwin's own theory (pp. 33, 42-44). Some have argued that there are "intermediates," and yet after so many millions of years of alleged evolutionary change, we only have about "two dozen" examples. That makes little sense, and the evidence from even some evolutionists shows that how one views a "transitional" form can be very subjective.

In the section on the Ape-Men and the fictions and frauds, Hank provides substantial evidence of the mishaps and mistakes science has made in an attempt to find and categorize the "missing" evolutionary link between homo sapiens and his supposed ancestors like Nebraska Man, Java Man, Piltdown Man, and Peking Man. All of these were either outright frauds, misinterpretations of data, or serious cover-ups with deception in mind. I would have liked to have seen information on Donald Johanson's "Lucy" and other australopithicines in this chapter since they are but more examples of scientists forcing evolutionary interpretations on the evidence; another example of what Hank seems to be pointing at.

In the third letter of the acronym FACE we find Hank explaining one of the pillars of evolutionary theory, which is time mixing with "Chance." Chance in evolutionary theory is not denied by any evolutionary advocate, except those who would seek to lower the role chance plays in evolution for obvious reasons. As Hank puts it, "Thus, chance implies the absence of both a design and a designer....Consider the absurdity of boldly asserting that an eye, egg, or the earth, each in its vast complexity, is merely a function of random chance" (pp. 61, 62). In Darwin's time, ignorance could cover the wild assumptions of time and chance, working with "natural selection" and mutations to create complex structures. But today, our knowledge precludes such assumptions (the reader is encouraged to read of the intricacies of how sight works in Hank's extensive notes). Chance, as the evidence from science in this book shows, cannot adequately explain the organized complexity of our world.

The last letter in Hank's acronym stands for Empirical science. This is where the rubber meets the road, and the true test of whether or not the theory of evolution is purely about verifiable scientific evidence. Hank points out, among other things, that creationists are often caricatured in popular culture and literature as "bigoted ignoramuses" while evolutionists are pictured as "benevolent intellectuals" (p. 77). However, Hank points out that many great pioneering scientists of the past were creationists, e.g., Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, and Johannes Kepler. Thus the caricature is proven to be just that. Hank points out other empirical scientific facts which militate against evolutionary theory, including knowledge from what we KNOW from cause and effect, energy conservation, entropy, and common sense reason. Finally, Hank revisits the debunked but still used recapitulation theory (the "R" added to FACE to get FARCE) and goes on to conclude with appendixes to help people argue more rationally, know the veracity of the Bible as a divine Book, understand the truthfulness of Christ's Resurrection, Annihilate abortion arguments, and see the moral ramifications of human cloning. Kudos to Hank for doing a great job and putting the FACTS out there that many simply will not FACE.

Hank is terrific!
Not much is new stuff here, folks. It's a reminder to us that evolution really has been proven wrong. Not many can take this harsh dose of reality, as you can see.

While there certainly are valid critiques to be made of EP--outside of the esssay by Gould--one will not find them here. One gets the idea that the only reason this collection was put together was not to advance any real debate on the scientific merits of EP but rather to serve as a vehicle for the editors to register their moral and political apprehension about the consequences of EP. It must be pointed out, however, that the fact that you may not like something for moral reasons does not make it any less true. EP certainly has a long way to go before reaching truly scientific status, but it is already much closer to knowledge than the whining found here.

It's painful to say this, because I greatly admire the work of many of these contributors, but this book was a huge disappointment to me. It is not a cohesive critique of the field at all, nor does it detail any specific excesses or flaws in actual evolutionary psychology research programs. It is largely a collection of philosophical essays, some of which are recycled arguments from the earlier sociobiology wars so well chronicalled in "Defenders of the Truth" by Ullica Segerstrale.

The arguments still seem to be motivated by the fear that a rigid biological view of human nature will leap the great divide and dominate social sciences. And the responses to these critiques seem to verify that indeed the central issues are how mutable we view culture, how we characterize cultural evolution, and what it means for social and political policy. The verification of specific scientific theories gets surprisingly little attention.

I was expecting more detailed essays on the legitimate technical issues such as the problem of confirmation of evolutionary adaptations, the problem of psychological types, the problem of psychological modules, the definition of adaptation, the developmental systems theory challenge to so-called genetic determinism, the theory of inclusive fitness, and the theory of reciprocal altruism as an explanation of human kindness.

Unless I missed it, I couldn't find any mention of the use of evolutionary game theory in EP in this book, a particularly sad omission because it is one of the most reasonable bridges between biological and social science thinking, and so its status is critical what seems to be the agenda of the critics here.

What little of the essays addresses these pretty much assumes the battle is won and argues from there. I found it unconvincing. For example, geneticist Gabriel Dover's ("Dear Mr. Darwin") critique of selfish gene selectionism is very interesting but odd in relying so heavily on his molecular drive theory and inexplicably avoiding raising many of the excellent points that others like Sober and Eldredge have made about selection dynamics at different levels. Not that I found much wrong with it, it would stand alone well by itself. But it illustrates the general problem with this book, that it makes some good specific points but never quite ties them together as a constructive (or even coherent) critique of EP.

Compared to Paul Ehrlich's "Human Natures" for example, this book is very poorly researched in my opinion, though both will likely be about as equally despised by many evolutionary psychologists, for different reasons. "Alas" because it mainly just opens up old wounds without contributing much to the dialog, and "Human Natures" because while more scholarly than "Alas," and more educational about evolution generally, it still argues largely orthogonally to EP rather than constructively about it.

Surprisingly, both books largely avoid much of the useful critique of evolutionary psychology that comes from within that very field. Understandable, I suppose critics don't trust scientists to be competent at critiquing their own field. But in this case of "Alas," especially, it would have strengthened the book tremendously.

In spite of the disappointment, there are some very good essays here, even where they may miss their mark on current evolutionary psychology. In one of the best essays, Patrick Bateson argues persuasively that the word 'instinct' has become scientifically ambiguous and even meaningless. Mary Midgley points out some of the now fairly well known weaknesses in the concept of selfish memes as a theory of cultural transmission.

Countering what many of the contributers here characterize as the conservative bias of EP, Anne Fausto-Sterling argues for a feminist perspective on science and Barbara Herrnstein Smith gives a fairly generic critique against aspects of the cognitive model of the mind. Both make good points, though a bit unfocused and neither points out that the same critiques have been made from within the field as well, such as by Geoffrey Miller. Nor do they explain why they characterize the entire field as politically conservative older white males, when that image seems to me to better characterize its populists than its researchers. There is little evidence that any of the authors went even as far as journalist John Horgan ("The Undiscovered Mind") went in interviewing or debating any of the researchers directly on any specific points for this book.

I appreciate the underlying theme of many of these authors that human nature (or as Ehrlich puts it, "natures") is complex and often oversimplified, but they authors give the impression of throwing up their hands rather than giving it a try. That seems to be the point of EP research programs, however their current status is perceived, to try to find real, testable patterns in our lives that we can use to understand and improve ourselves. It is in the specifics of testing and testability that I expected to see criticism, and found little to feed my hunger here. The reader with little time can skip the chapters if they are looking for a critique of EP and simply read a summary of Steve Rose's good final chapter arguing against ultra-Darwinism, and go from there to the technical work that supports it and to the EP work itself that deals with it. Here are Steve's main arguments against "ultra-Darwinism":

1. naked replicators are empty abstractions

2. There is a non-linear relationship between genes and phenotypes

3. Individual genes are an important level of selection but not the only one

4. Natural selection is not the only mode of evolutionary change

5. Not all phenotypic characters are adaptive

There are reasonable arguments for and against each of the above points in other literature. Unfortunately, this book lists these points without discussing them very far or how they apply to actual current EP research programs.

This is an excellent book... and a wonderful contribution to an increasingly acrimonious debate. The Roses are too be congratulated for bringing such an inter-disciplinary and thoughtful group of writers together to argue for the view that Darwinism does NOT need to be synomonous with facile, reductionistic, and poorly grounded arguments.

Far from arguing for a simplistic, social constructionist, ideology - as some reviewers have suggested - the editors and contributors are working from an empirically grounded, materialist, Darwinistic, standpoint. The contributors to this volume argue that the sciences must be understood in relation to their social, historical, and cultural context. They further argue that strong claims require strong evidence. Both of these positions are widely supported within both the social and the natural sciences. From the standpoint of their different disciplines, the contributors proceed to expose the weak reasoning, poor empirical basis, lack of contextualisation, and unsupported assumptions which are such worrisome aspects of this new 'science'.

This book brings a dose of critical common sense to a set of claims that were threatening to float off into the speculative ether. It is extremely readable, full of incisive critique, and very enlightening. The bringing together of varying disciplines - ranging from developmental neurobiology, to sociology, to philosophy - within a single volume works very well. I am recommending it as a 'must-read' to my students and friends.

Calvin bases his ideas on this 'observation' in chapter 7:

"The axon acts like an express train, skipping many intermediate stops, giving off synapses only when about 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 mm away from the tall dendrite (and sometimes continuing for a few millimeters farther, maintaining the integer multiples of the basic metric, 0.5 mm). "

This is a plain lie.

The so-called "reconcilation" promised by the title is not entirely delivered. Both Calvin and Bickerton seem too taken with their respective ideas. It is an interesting discussion nonetheless, and good points are made by both writers.

The author tries to debunk Darwin's theory of evolution. He states that he has a sweeping case against Darwin, and will show the flaws of his arguments and the lack of supporting evidence. Amazingly he not only fails, but in all 13 error-ridden chapters makes a fool of himself by showing his ignorance about science and evolution. The other amazing thing is that Phillip Johnson, the ID guru, endorsed it. It clearly raises the issue of whether Johnson is really interested in the truth. This is the worst book I've ever read. People like this should not be allow to write such time wasting drivel.

I have not read this book. I HAVE read Janet Browne's magisterial bio of Darwin (second volume due fall 2002, whoo-hoo!) and other books on Darwin and on evolution. I urge the reviewer from DC, below, as well as any who might be inclined to agree with him/her, to read Janet Browne. Again, I haven't read THIS book, nor do I intend to. Evolution is hardly a theory anymore, people; it's demonstrable fact. Accept it.

After having met Duane Schmidt (read my below review), i was able to ask him about his target audience. "My audience are the 90% of Americans who believe who believe in God," he replied.

Not all of this 90% are creationists, and many (as i said below) will find some of the phrases foreign. But it gave me a clearer idea of his target audience.

Schimdt is publishing a second book; a version of this book, but for teenagers. I mentioned that many adults may find it more useful than this one, and he agreed. That one may be more accessible to those not familiar with evolutionary biology.