What one book to recommend to a creationist?

[Earthborn]

Here's one for genetics, has the benefit of being very funny.

 

[RationalVetMed]

Wow, a lot of good suggestions.

But I might need to be more specific. If I had to pick just one for paleontology and just one for the genetics where should I go?

Probably I'm gonna take this list from you guys to the library and see what they have on hand.

Very exciting - let us know if reading the book makes any difference. If he's just had a sheltered up-bringing + is intelligent + open minded maybe he might be receptive to the real picture once he gets the full story.

Definitely DON'T suggest reading the bible or anything which argues AGAINST religion. This needs to be a positive portrayal of the wonders of evolution, not in anyway something which could even possibly be seen as even slightly denigrating his beliefs. Evolution is in no way incompatible with religion, the vast majority of Christians (including the entire Catholic church) are happy to accept evolution as an actuality.

Yuri

 

[LarianLeQuella]

I can't add to any of the books or other discussion. Although, if they are a creationist, ask them what part of the evidence they have a specific problem with. There are usually a series of canards that creationists trot out predictably, and I have a few web pages that adress them: http://factsnotfantasy.com/creationists.php is one such page written by another author.

 

[quarky]

The Bible.
Sit down and read it from cover to cover. Then tell me where it says anything that conflicts with the idea of evolution.

Dang. i was about to say the Bible, but maybe for different reasons.
I figured we should recommend a book that would verify their beliefs.

The more creationists, the less competition for good jobs in a shrinking market.

 

[Dinwar]

But I might need to be more specific. If I had to pick just one for paleontology and just one for the genetics where should I go?

This is a good one, particularly since it's used as a paleo textbook at the college level (it was one of the ones I used).

"Wonderful Life" by Gould diserves another recommendation. Very accessible, and it demonstrates how truly weird life can be.

Anything by Peter Ward would be good....Perhaps "Under a Green Sky" may be best, as it portrays not only the science of paleontology but also the personalities of various paleontologists (I don't get it, but Creationists seem to think that a person's personality is more important than their argumernts).

If they've got a favorite taxa, that could help as well--the hook's already set, so to speak. For example, I love dinosaurs so I'm willing to dig into more meaty literature, including (exceedingly dry) anotomical discussions and the like. If your friend likes to fish, I know a few books on Osteichthese and Condrichthese that they might find interesting. If they farm or hunt a book on the bovids and cervids would be good.

The thing about all of these is that, except for a few passages in "Wonderful Life" and an offhand statement or two by Ward, they simply ignore Creationism--they don't argue against it, they simply don't deal with it at all. So there's no hostility to it, no more than construction blueprints are hostile to dog breeders.

If you realy want to show them what a true, honest-to-FSM paleontological study is like, one of the best examples I've seen is "Simi Hills Cretaceous Turbidites: Southern California" (Colburn et al., 1981). It's a pain to track down, and even more of a pain to read--it's a technical work, specifically adressing the issue of the Chatsworth Formation (was called the Chino Formation, but so were ALL the Cretaceous marine deposits in California), written for people who deal with this type of thing at a professional level constantly (which is the only reason I've ever heard of it). The reason I recommend this is that it's probably the best one-stop-shop for showing what paleontologists and stratigraphers actually do, how we actually think, etc., by showing the process from the beginning. It shows everything from defining a stratigraphic unit, to determining the age of the unit, to analyzing the paleoecology of the unit, to analyzing the stratigraphy of the unit, etc., all from an internal perspective. And it's more or less complete--little work has been done on this formation, so once you read this volume you're pretty much an expert on that formation. If your Creationist friend has the technical background, or is willing to acquire it, this volume will serve as an excellant case study, allowing you to really dig into specific issues like dating of units and how you know what sediments were deposited when. However, the down side to this is that your friend needs to have enough of a background to understand the issues involved, which I doubt is the case. But I thought I'd toss out the name, in case you found it useful.

 

[ExMinister]

Well since you mentioned paleontology, I highly recommend Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. Awesome book, again not overly technical but not dumbed down either, easy to read, extremely interesting on the evolutionary history of man and other animals and what we all share in common.

I have read Dawkins and others, but this is one of the easiest to understand and I can't imagine you could read this book and ever doubt evolutionary biology again.

 

[ExMinister]

Dawkins The Selfish Gene is also one of the best books I've read on this. Not easy reading and it might not be the first book I would recommend, but would make an impact.

 

[Travis]

Yeah, I was definitely thinking something that doesn't deal with creationism but instead just talks about how the science of evolution works and continues to.....erm.......evolve.

I'm thinking I might get a copy of Wonderful Life by Gould. His writing has always struck me as accessible and I now know the library has a copy on hand.

 

[gabeygoat]

The counter-creationism handbook / Mark Isaak
It's very straight forward, and addresses each argument singly and is easy to understand.

http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520249264

* Covers claims made about the disciplines of philosophy, biology, paleontology, geology, astronomy, physics and mathematics, history, and more.

* Addresses the claims of Biblical creationism, intelligent design creationism, and some creationism based on non-Christian religions.

* Includes an introduction on how to address creationists in different venues, how to deal with novel claims, and why accurate science is important.

* Is organized thematically, with extensive cross-referencing.

 

[Okie skeptic]

I second The Greatest Show on earth by Dawkins. I've been reading it, and outside of bringing back some of my college education, I've found that it does provide some very solid arguements for evolution.
A second suggestion is to actually have them read the bible and make note the discrepancies.

 

[quarky]

There's discrepancies?

 

[metzomagic]

I'll second both Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True and Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth because they are probably the most accessible to laypeople, and especially people who might not be aux fait with the scientific method/critical thinking.

Dawkins' book also has the most accessible chapter about radiometric dating that I have ever read. And understanding that the universe around us is a lot more than 6000 years old is fundamental to breaking down some of the barriers that religious dogma/creationism throw up.

 

[psionl0]

If YouTube is included then I always found "Evolution is a blind watchmaker" an interesting video (not too long either). It doesn't prove anything but it clearly shows how evolution works.

 

[Lowpro]

Well if we're allowing YouTube then AronRa's "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" is great.

 

[maxpower1227]

I would start with something "easy" and straightforward. I second a strong recommendation for "Your Inner Fish" and will add Only A Theory by Ken Miller. Very clearly written, from the perspective of a devout Christian, and with many irrefutable evidences of evolution.

 

[maxpower1227]

Another highly informative book is Donald Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, though the language therein is a bit more dismissive of Creationism, so he might get defensive while reading it.

 

[Merton]

I just want to say that I would not recommend Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth. I'm a strong atheist, a fan of Dawkins, and I greatly enjoyed that book, but it is rather harsh on the perspective of believers. If you're looking to convince someone of evolution, anti-theistic rhetoric will not get the job done. Instead, I'd suggest Coyne's Why Evolution is True, Shubin's Your Inner Fish or even Dawkins's The Selfish Gene.

 

[maxpower1227]

I feel like I would just stay away from Dawkins altogether, given his reputation. I recommended Ken Miller's book partly because it's in no way offensive to religious faith.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Who Wrote the Bible?, by Richard Friedman.
Good to see that someone mentioned Lyell's Principles of Geology. It's a hard slog, though. Dinwar nails it:
1. Offspring resemble parents, but not exactly.
2. More are born than can survive and reproduce.
3, Differences in hereditary endowments influence differences in reproductive success.
4. The world is very old.

That's all you need. You'd need divine intervention to prevent evolution if the above is accurate.

How 'bout Darwin's The Voyage of the Beagle, the version edited by Leonard Engel?

On two occasions I met with in this province some oxen of a very curious breed, called nata or niata. They appear externally to hold nearly the same relation to other cattle, which bull or pug dogs do to other dogs. Their forehead is very short and broad, with the nasal end turned up, and the upper lip much drawn back; their lower jaws project beyond the upper, and have a corresponding upward curve; hence their teeth are always exposed. Their nostrils are seated high up and are very open; their eyes project outwards. When walking they carry their heads low, on a short neck; and their hinder legs are rather longer compared with the front legs than is usual. Their bare teeth, their short heads, and upturned nostrils give them the most ludicrous self-confident air of defiance imaginable.

Since my return, I have procured a skeleton head, through the kindness of my friend Captain Sulivan, R. N., which is now deposited in the College of Surgeons. [1] Don F. Muniz, of Luxan, has kindly collected for me all the information which he could respecting this breed. From his account it seems that about eighty or ninety years ago, they were rare and kept as curiosities at Buenos Ayres. The breed is universally believed to have originated amongst the Indians southward of the Plata; and that it was with them the commonest kind. Even to this day, those reared in the provinces near the Plata show their less civilized origin, in being fiercer than common cattle, and in the cow easily deserting her first calf, if visited too often or molested. It is a singular fact that an almost similar structure to the abnormal [2] one of the niata breed, characterizes, as I am informed by Dr. Falconer, that great extinct ruminant of India, the Sivatherium. The breed is very _true_; and a niata bull and cow invariably produce niata calves. A niata bull with a common cow, or the reverse cross, produces offspring having an intermediate character, but with the niata characters strongly displayed: according to Senor Muniz, there is the clearest evidence, contrary to the common belief of agriculturists in analogous cases, that the niata cow when crossed with a common bull transmits her peculiarities more strongly than the niata bull when crossed with a common cow. When the pasture is tolerably long, the niata cattle feed with the tongue and palate as well as common cattle; but during the great droughts, when so many animals perish, the niata breed is under a great disadvantage, and would be exterminated if not attended to; for the common cattle, like horses, are able just to keep alive, by browsing with their lips on twigs of trees and reeds; this the niatas cannot so well do, as their lips do not join, and hence they are found to perish before the common cattle. This strikes me as a good illustration of how little we are able to judge from the ordinary habits of life, on what circumstances, occurring only at long intervals, the rarity or extinction of a species may be determined.

The rivers which flow in these valleys ought rather to be called mountain-torrents. Their inclination is very great, and their water the colour of mud. The roar which the Maypu made, as it rushed over the great rounded fragments, was like that of the sea. Amidst the din of rushing waters, the noise from the stones, as they rattled one over another, was most distinctly audible even from a distance. This rattling noise, night and day, may be heard along the whole course of the torrent. The sound spoke eloquently to the geologist; the thousands and thousands of stones, which, striking against each other, made the one dull uniform sound, were all hurrying in one direction. It was like thinking on time, where the minute that now glides past is irrevocable. So was it with these stones; the ocean is their eternity, and each note of that wild music told of one more step towards their destiny.

It is not possible for the mind to comprehend, except by a slow process, any effect which is produced by a cause repeated so often, that the multiplier itself conveys an idea, not more definite than the savage implies when he points to the hairs of his head. As often as I have seen beds of mud, sand, and shingle, accumulated to the thickness of many thousand feet, I have felt inclined to exclaim that causes, such as the present rivers and the present beaches, could never have ground down and produced such masses. But, on the other hand, when listening to the rattling noise of these torrents, and calling to mind that whole races of animals have passed away from the face of the earth, and that during this whole period, night and day, these stones have gone rattling onwards in their course, I have thought to myself, can any mountains, any continent, withstand such waste?

 

[maxpower1227]

I really didn't come here intending to shoot down everyone else's ideas, but I'm not sure I would recommend Victorian prose written by the Father of All Lies himself to a home-schooled creationist, either.