By Design or by Chance in the Universe: The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life [Paperback]

The basic problematic of the book begins in the preface where Ms. O'Leary states: "I began to see clearly that Darwinism is a theory of evolution that explicitly denies design in biology in order to leave God out to of the picture." Although, in the body of the text, she does make some effort to discriminate between the scientific theory of evolution and a philosophy which she, following the ID lead, calls Darwinism, this is so muted that the average reader must be forgiven if they equate the diatribes against Darwinism as an attack on the science of evolution.

The first example of shoddy science shows up in the introduction where a side-bar defines the Big Bang as an explosion. The next page labels a highly improbable event as "impossible" even though it is part of probability that improbable, even highly improbable events can happen. There is the usual ID/creationist confusion of the theory of evolution with theories about the origin of life leading to inappropriate commentary on the Urey-Miller experiments. There is the usual ID/creationist quote-mining of Gould's defence of Punctuated Equilibrium and misrepresentation of what that thesis entails. And this merely scratches the surface.

A shallow theology also runs right through the book. It begins by equating evolution with chance, chance with nature and nature with athiesm. No supporter of modern evolutionary theory would agree that evolution is a matter of chance. Indeed a side-bar on page 172 quotes "arch-villain" Richard Dawkin' statement from Climbing Mount Improbable to the effect that designoid objects are not accidental but the product of a non-random process.

But the more significant theological error is to assume that a deity cannot or will not use natural, random processes to achieve its goals. There is nothing inherently atheistic about chance processes or natural processes. But the ID and creationist movements have convinced millions of sincere believers that there is. The effect of this theological error is that Christian organizations spend millions on combatting the wrong target: setting their sights on the science of evolution itself, rather than on the philosophies of materialism, naturalism and scientism which mistakenly claim to be the logically necessary conclusions of evolution.

Finally, there is the matter of journalism. Here I can offer some kudoes. Ms. O'Leary does a fine job of recounting the social history of Darwin's theory--of how it came to be associated with materialism, and of the key role played by the evolution=atheism propagandists such as Huxley and Mencken, Dawkins and Sagan. Her analysis of the film Inherit the Wind in comparison to the actual event of the Scopes trial is superb. Her brief history of the rise of creationism is also excellent.

But in contrast to these virtues, her recounting of evolution and science is appallingly bad. For example, the only mention of dinosaur-bird transitional forms is Archeoraptor, the hoax which embarrassed National Geographic. There is not a single mention of the dozens of legitimate finds of feathered dinosaur fossils. In this context, such an omission amounts to the very suppression of evidence which she alleges against supporters of evolutionary theory. She has uncritically accepted a perversion of Gould's punctuated equilibrium thesis when correct information is readily available. Twice she quotes, and once alludes to, Gould's comment on lack of transitional fossils, when a simple reading of the primary literature would indicate that Gould was speaking of transitional fossils at the species level, not transitional fossils in general.

One of the most striking features of the book is that it nowhere deals with the actual science of evolution. The focus is rather on the conflicting philosophies that have gathered around the science. Unfortunately, the implication is that the philosophies establish the truth of the science. This is simply not the case, and, ironically, it is a creationist scientist, Kurt Wise, who points this out. Unfortunately, while Ms. O'Leary is willing to accept that a creationist can still do good science, she does not accept the corollary that "Darwinists" can also do good science, in spite of their belief system.

There are many important matters that do need to be discussed in scientific, philosophical and theological circles around design and chance. Now and again Ms. O'Leary touches on them. But the serious weaknesses of this book preclude it as a significant contributor to this important discussion.