The title is likely to suggest to most people that Darwin has been found to be a fraud and his theories completely discredited. The title of course sounds like lots of other startling headings I have read. These are often not put forward by the author but by the publisher and the contents don't support the title. When seeing a magazine with the main article "Darwin was wrong" I had to buy it. On reading the article it was really ideas that are a supplement to Darwin's theories, just as we have continued to strengthen his theories as we have learned more about how the world works. The title had the effect that the publishers wanted though - to help sell the magazine.
So I'll read The Naked Emperor: Darwin Exposed and come to a conclusion as to whether I believe Darwin has been shown to be a fraud, though it seems unlikely that 200 years of evidence supporting and adding to his theories will be overturned.
Reading the supporting comments on the back of the book where it is claimed that macro-evolution involves the introduction of a completely new DNA in evolutionary change. I would dispute this claim straight away. The DNA of a chimp is very similar to that of us.
Antony's preface starts with a very honest look back at his education, upbringing and later life studying to be a doctor, etc. His path is similar to mine except I didn't go on to university. His school education on evolution pulled the rug out from under his religious beliefs.
I wouldn't say this was true in my case but in my early teens I did have this ongoing mind battle between the church I had been brought up in and science. I had lots of sleepless nights and nightmares. One I remember was about being in hospital being cared for by nuns and in my pain being continually told it was for my own good. I had discussions with my mother. I listened to what they said at my bible class.None of it answered my questions. I reasoned that only one of these could be right even though my understanding of evolution was (I later found out) very sketchy. Religion just seemed nuts, making claims that there was no support for, and full of hypocrites. In the end I decided I had to select one or the other. On one hand I was fearful of not selecting religion (displeasing God, God watching me, knowing what I was thinking, eternal damnation, upsetting my family) but it was so nuts. In the end it was almost like the toss of a coin. I selected science but to be on the safe side I was going to try it for three weeks. In that period I thought God would if he was real give me something. I put religion out of my head, and I found that I slept well at night; no more nightmares. I didn't need three weeks to decide.
Later in life I became amazed at religion, its beautiful churches and music. Why do billions around the planet believe it? Maybe there was more to it than I knew. But everything I heard on the religious side came without support and on the scientific side it seemed conservative based on the information available at the time. I remember being enthralled by the Cosmos series. Then, in the infancy of the Internet, on a newsgroup someone recommended The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. I was totally bowled over by this book; almost everything I learned was new to me. He answered lots of questions I had and explained reasoning behind things I had never thought of. I was even more enthralled by evolution and eager to read more.
At the back of my mind I thought: I have really only heard this from one source, maybe I was being blind. So I tried out my new-found information on others but they couldn't contradict it. I went on to read other Dawkins books, and other similar books.
Antony describes evolution as the survival of the fittest. At one point this is what I accepted too, but it is really those best at passing on their genes to the next generation that is the measure. Fitness could describe lots of abilities that may not enhance the survival of the individual.
When Anthony was working in Kenya he converted to religion though he doesn't say what it was that converted him. However this must have been extremely compelling for him because it allowed him to discount all the corroborating scientific evidence that had continually reinforced, supported and added to Darwin's theories. In fact not only is he throwing out Darwin's theories he is throwing out most scientific fields that tie in and support evolution. Did he weigh this up when making his decision? It seemed that no matter what, evolution and science had to be wrong if it didn't support God.
Antony states that he will go on to explain these two terms. I don't even accept that there should be these terms. It is like the difference between a short road and a long road. I think the genetic evidence on its own adequately explains this. So I will be interested to read Antony's explanations.
It's interesting that we both come to different conclusions on the books of Richard Dawkins; could it be that Antony approached them from the angle that they had to be wrong? It will be interesting to look at this too.
Iain: My first thoughts on Chapter One...