Compelling evidence that the most important assumptions on which Darwinism rests are wrong. The controversial best-seller that sent Oxford University and Nature magazine into a frenzy has at last come to the United States. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism exposes the gaping holes in an ideology that has reigned unchallenged over the scientific world for a century. Darwinism is considered to be hard fact, the only acceptable explanation for the formation of life on Earth, but with keen insight and objectivity Richard Milton reveals that the theory totters atop a shambles of outdated and circumstantial evidence which in any less controversial field would have been questioned long ago. Sticking to the facts at hand and tackling a vast array of topics, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism offers compelling evidence that the theory of evolution has become an act of faith rather than a functioning science, and that not until the scientific method is applied to it and the right questions are asked will we ever get the true answers to the mystery of life on Earth.

This tour of the scientific frontier makes a strong case that the alternative science of today will be the hard science of the future.

A novel handbook that explains why so many secondary and college students reject evolution and are antagonistic toward its teaching.

Caudill, whose Darwin in the Press (Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 1989) covered similar ground, here adds little to the corpus of rich literature on Darwinian evolution; his discussions of the theory's misapplications have been covered thoroughly by other researchers. He focuses here on documentation from the popular press, which, he argues, has been overlooked. In doing so Caudill ignores much of the extensive research by contemporary scientists and historians of science. Caudill also often refers to articles without author attribution, using phrases such as "a German doctor" or "a Harvard professor." The reader must go to the notes to identify the author and to assess Caudill's comments and criticisms. In addition. the book lacks continuity and flow, reading like a series of essays strung together under a theme of "myths." Tighter editing would have improved continuity, addressed inconsistencies in using birth and death dates, and corrected the unforgivable misspelling of the name Wedgwood. Not recommended.?Joyce L. Ogburn, Old Dominion Univ., Norfolk, Va. Copyright 1997 Reed Business Information, Inc.