The Scientific Approach to Evolution: What They Didn't Teach You in Biology

This excellent book is about more than just evolution. It is equally about science itself, and what science means. Stadler’s approach to his topic is to lay the foundation for how we can judge the accuracy or reliability of scientific results generally. In other words, what is our confidence in the science.So, while the book’s focus is evolution, the tools Stadler provides can be well applied to many other areas of science, and frees us to consider alternatives where “The Science” is really no more than conjecture or extrapolation.On the topic of Evolution, Stadler makes an important distinction between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. The former has been well studied, and can be taken with high confidence—following the criteria for high-confidence science as he lays it out. Macro-evolution—the origin of species from a single source—has only extremely low confidence science behind it. In fact, it is essentially conjecture.Stadler goes into the topic of bias with honesty, admitting the unavoidability of it—including his own. And it is precisely because of bias that the rigors of scientific method need to be brought to bear on any problem.This book is superbly written and thought out. I am not any kind of scientist and yet could follow the arguments and the data easily, without any sense that things were being “dumbed down”. Everything is very well explained and taken step by step.Overall this is a stimulating and thought-provoking book that will be interesting even to those who already have an opinion about evolution, regardless of what that opinion is. Anyone with an open mind will take a great deal from this book. Highly recommended.

Dr. Stadler's "High Confidence/Low Confidence" paradigm is a fresh approach to the study of macroevolution ("molecules to man"). Rigorous enough to satisfy working scientists, yet approachable to the layperson, The Scientific Approach to Evolution is a clear and logical argument for scientific reasoning.Dr. Jim Tanksley

Our ancestors’ understanding of the universe was largely based on intuition until science provided a more accurate view. For example, because the stars and planets appeared to revolve around the earth every 24 hours, it was intuitively obvious to them that the world was the center of the universe. That understanding was so intuitively clear that it was unquestioned for thousands of years, except by people who were considered to be insane or demonic. It wasn’t until Copernicus quantitatively analyzed the motions of the stars and planets with their geometric paths that human understanding was changed.Similarly, for centuries people have intuitively felt that the physical universe has always existed in some physical form or other and that time has no beginning. But when Georges Lemaître began analyzing the physics of the universe mathematically, his analysis led him to the conclusion that the physical universe actually had a beginning and that it had exploded out of an originating single point. Even Einstein could not initially accept Lemaître’s conclusion because it was so counterintuitive, yet Einstein confirmed that Lemaître’s math was correct. About a half century later empirical quantitative input from Nobel laureate Arno Penzias and other scientists confirmed Lemaître’s conclusions.Our current understanding of evolution is that it is a succession of incremental mutations, each followed by selection of the fittest. This idea is intuitively satisfying. But where is the mathematical proof? What is the probability that a mutation will be beneficial in both the short term and the long term, and beyond that, will leave future generations of the organism in a position for further successful increments? What are the time delays in this process? Although each of these missing factors may be a function rather than a constant, they are nonetheless quantifiable. I have long wondered about this, but until now I haven’t seen the probability and mathematics of evolutionary theory adequately addressed.The current line of thinking goes something like this: The earth is generally estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old and became hospitable for life about a billion years later. So that gives us an upper limit of about 3.5 billion years for evolution to date. That’s about a million times longer than all of documented human history. So this should be plenty of time for almost anything to happen by natural random variation and selection. But that is still only an intuitive statement until we know the kinds of quantitative factors that I have mentioned above.I like the book THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO EVOLUTION because it opens a new quantitative dialogue in the science of evolution. Some critics may suggest that a book like this should be written from a DNA perspective by a biochemist or from a fossil evidence perspective by a paleontologist. But biochemists don’t normally deal with the kinds of factors listed above. Paleontologists play an important role in gathering empirical evidence, organizing it, and cataloging it, but this issue requires scientists who focus on building mathematical models that can be tested with the empirical data. A lot has been achieved in empiricism, but what we need now is rationalism.Perhaps it takes a fresh perspective from a biomedical engineer to get us out of the comfortable groove of intuition. The author of this book has very credible credentials, both in educational and in professional achievements.

Having read many books on evolutionism, creationism and intelligent design I’ve realised how close to impossible it is to write on these subjects in an impartial, unbiased and thoroughly objective way. As Rob Stadler says himself in this book: “Everyone has bias. Everyone” and that includes himself of course and me too.However, this author does something very clever here; he gets Science to do the talking. If Science could speak to us it would exhort us to exercise caution in its use as a tool for acquiring knowledge, and to recognise its merits and shortcomings. Science is a wonderful thing and can speak eloquently in very many areas but there are other areas where it just might have limitations and still others where it must of necessity remain silent; it all depends on the level of confidence in its explanatory power.The title of the book mischievously implies that there hasn’t been a scientific approach to evolution thus far. Outrageous you may think. Well, seemingly not. I was surprised at what I didn’t know.Mr Stadler has distilled, from his tough and highly successful commercial experience in the medical field, the terms upon which science tells us it must be deployed; six criteria of high and low confidence science. To deviate from these would be to abuse science and risk perpetrating fallacies. He has another laudable objective too. Adhering to this scientific method will hopefully take some of the heat out of the debate over origins. While evolutionists will have to recognise the perils of bias, assumption and retrospective investigation, creationists too will have to resist bias and bow to incontrovertible high confidence science. Both will have to recognise the subjectivity inherent in low confidence science.Mr Dawkins comes in for occasional criticism (apparently with some justification) and, at one point, is portrayed not as a scientist but as an unscrupulous salesman selling atheism to an unsuspecting public!Rob Stadler asks, quite mildly, if now is perhaps the time to begin taking the scientific high ground. I think I would ask why hasn’t the scientific high ground been taken hitherto and if not why not. I certainly can’t think of a plausible reason why it shouldn’t be taken from now on.I had to read the book twice. First time I was able to take in the general thrust and the second time I got to grips more with his examples of high and low confidence science when investigating common descent, mutations, natural selection and survival of the fittest and how his approach sheds light on the validity of the evolution theory. It is very compelling.I wish I had been taught the six criteria of high/low confidence science in biology at school. They should be taught now so that students can be enabled to think with more clarity and to examine with greater insight what they are taught about origins.A highly informative book written with equanimity.Thanks to Mr Stadler for sharing his hard won knowledge and experience and for calmly clarifying the scientific method and its application to this emotive subject.(Not sure what the 'voting buttons' text hereinafter means - not something I've knowingly tried to do or even understand)

The general argument presented in this book is not new. Other critics of evolutionary theory have frequently pointed out the essential differences between the types of data used to support that theory with those that validate the empirical sciences, such as the laws of thermodynamics. Evolutionists typically confuse the issue by conflating the two classes of data.Rob Stadler confines his critique of evolutionary theory to this one aspect. He develops the argument systematically and in great detail, taking the discussion to a higher level. He sets out the various criteria used in his own field of medical research to assess the claims made for medical innovations such as new drugs or medical devices. He describes the different classes of tests and the confidence levels associated with them. Because the well-being or even the lives of patients are at stake, it is vital that the claims made for medical innovations pass those tests that have the highest confidence levels.The author proceeds to apply the various tests to the different types of evidence offered to support evolutionary theory. He shows that evidence used to support evolution on a small scale, such as the limited changes observed in biological populations to adapt to environmental changes, pass the high confidence level tests, but evidence used to support evolution on a grand scale, i.e. those that involve the crossing of major taxonomic boundaries, fail the high confidence level tests. In other words, evidence for micro-evolution are well supported, but evidence for macro-evolution are not.A simple example is the use of variation among dog breeds to argue for evolution. The differences are limited to such traits as size and colour. Conspicuously no novel structures are involved, and these are intrinsic to macro-evolution. To extrapolate micro-evolutionary change to a macro scale is mere speculation, and does not merit confidence.For an in depth discussion read the book itself. For additional reading, I strongly recommend Lee Spetner’s  The Evolution Revolution .Stadler ends with a discussion of the effects of evolutionary bias on education, and appeals for honesty in the teaching of evolution. The book includes two appendices and an index. The Evolution Revolution

Devastating appraisal of low confidence evidence used to justify the theory of evolution. It is only 200 pages long but is very effective at showing that the type of evidence put forward to support evolution(sets of fossils) does not stand up to proper scientific scrutiny.This book is highly recommended to anyone who wants to further their understanding of the evolution debate. If you are really interested in this debate about the origins of man you should also read the books by Cornelius hunter.

I really enjoyed reading this book, the science hums. I work as a peer reviewer for the JIBMS and have reflect on my notes from this book while reviewing. I also work as a Christian Pastor and I finally get why some scientists think there is any value in the idea of evolution.His simple, elegant, unbiased presentation of the scope and criteria for confidence in scientific endeavour is refreshing and very helpful.

Questo libro mostra come molte affermazioni che ci vengono propinate come se fossero scienza assodata in realtà di scientifico hanno molto poco. Spiega quali sono i parametri in base ai quali si può dire che un'affermazione qualsiasi è scientifica o no. Andrebbe tradotto in italiano e letto nelle scuole superiori