Reviewing a Review, and a promise of more..

There is a New Scientist quickie review of a book by Jerry Coyne called, "Why Evolution is True". I have not read the book, and don't intend to review the book itself, just the review... at least for now. I don't need another book on evolution, what I need are hard, incontrovertible facts. But that's for later.

The reviewer, Rowan Hooper, is convinced that there is, in the standard evolutionary parlance, "a mountain of evidence", and lauds Coyne for "carefully leading the reader through the overwhelming evidence, that evolution is a fact."

Here's why I won't bother with the book: First, the mountain of evidence that so impresses Hooper and Coyne is all - 100% - inferential, extrapolated forensic story telling. (more on this in a minute or two). Second, the idea that science of any stripe produces the "Truth" that Coyne advertises is beyond misguided, it is irresponsible in a person of Coyne's prestigious position.

The standards of evidence that are used and enjoyed by evolutionary biologists are far, FAR below the standards of other sciences. These folks are so accustomed to such low standards that they cannot comprehend why others object to their mantras of TRUTH based on inferences that are claimed "scientific".

If one takes the revered "mountain of evidence" and separates it, piece by piece, into two sub-mountains, one of inferential evidence and one of hard, empirical, reproducible fact, one will still have only one mountain: the inferential evidence mountain.

Evolutionary enthusiasts cannot even agree on what evolution is, but they know it when they see it. The revered Year of Darwin, 2009, will see new definitions of evolution be foisted and argued. But one thing will be kept sacrosanct: "evolution happened".

Here's a promise. First, the Science Magazine List of 15 evidences of evolution will get my scrutiny, although I have already looked at some if not most of them. I will post my opinion on their "hardness" as evidence of evolution. Second, any new evidences that are proposed that are supposedly "hard" in their empirical content will also get my scrutiny.

It seems a shame that a supposed science has to be treated to such skepticism. But it brings it upon itself.