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.

This well documented book focuses on six criteria used to determining the level of confidence of a scientific assertion or explanation. These 6 are, are the results supported by repeatable experiments called replication, can the results be directly or at least indirectly measured, is the inference based on observation of controlled experiments or, conversely, on inferences from historical events, is evidence of any bias present, are the researcher’s assumptions disclosed and justified and, last, are the judgements that produce the results overstated. He then uses several examples which he divides into two levels, low confidence and high confidence, based on an evaluation of each of the 6 criteria. The author is a Harvard PhD in biomedical engineering with over 100 U.S. Patents in the area of medicine. He compares an example where all 6 were clearly met, namely statin drug research, with both microevolution, where they are likewise met, and macroevolution, where they are not met. In his area of research, all 6 must be met in order to get FDA approval.

A brief summary of all high-confidence micro evolution studies on evolution by a Harvard Ph.D. is as follows:

1. Michigan State university’s Lenski’s E. coli experiment produced combination of two mutations which required 33,000 generations and more than 10 trillion (1013) organisms. The result was bacteria was able to metabolize citrate in the presence of oxygen. In the wild these mutated bacteria suffered from a decided survival disadvantage.

2. The malaria “experiment” required one hundred million times one trillion (1020) total organisms to develop resistance to chloroquine which it achieved by a combination of four to eight point mutations. The life cycle of Plasmodium falciparum is very complex, so it is difficult to estimate a number of generations in the decades that this experiment required, but at least thousands of generations were involved.

3. Gauger’s E. coli experiment on tryptophan synthase included 9,300 generations and at least 1 trillion (1012) organisms in an effort to repair two mutations. The desired repair of two mutations was never achieved.

4. All studies had a focused, consistent, intense selective pressure to ensure that natural selection was at work (Stadler, 2016, p. 121). Conversely, as documented in chapter 6 all studies of macroevolution failed to achieve high confidence level.

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.

A must read for every science teacher and student. The quality of the science matters greatly; Rob Stadler fairly, and clearly, lays out the evolution evidence. The current evolution debate is fueled by too much bias and not enough science. This book challenges us to be intellectually honest and to focus on the quality science and the facts.

Brian Molohon

I loved how Sadler brought in the epistemological criteria that elevated the practice of medicine-from putting leeches on people to its current respected profession-into the theory of evolution. As a practicing physician, I am well aware of the shortcomings of expert opinion without randomized trials. This was extremely helpful book and I would highly recommend it!

For years, I have been a bit bewildered about the lack of science in the field of evolution and other relevant fields. Whether it is in regards to the theory of evolution itself, or fields like paleoanthropology, there is a profound sense of bias and a lack of willingness for anyone to question the status quo. Science is supposed to be critical of theories and attempt to falsify them. Instead, I see an echo chamber of people pounding the “evolutionary drum”. It is really weird and reminds me of how cults behave. This is the first book I have ever seen that actually takes an actual scientific approach to evolution in all its relevant fields. Only in the face of critical analysis can a theory ever become fact/law. It is about time that various “sacred cows“ are critically challenged so that they finally have a chance to actually survive scrutiny instead of simply being propped-up by a bunch of scientists who are afraid to challenge them. A must read for any scientist or layperson that is a free thinker and willing to except new conclusions based upon real scientific analysis. I don’t know for sure whether or not the emperor has clothes on, but we must stop assuming that he does and have the fortitude and courage to use unbiased scientific investigation techniques when probing such things. Only then can we really know truth.

An important take away from this book is that it is geared towards any individual with a background education of science, regardless of your philosophical or religious standing. Stadler is those individuals who wish to set the record straight and offer an approach in which all camps aren't just encouraged to take, but OBLIGED to take. It is fallacious to dismiss Stadler's approach as the ramblings of a random medicinal or engineer practitioner (he addresses similar objection in his book), the book does not provide six criteria for high confidence medicine research, the book is about six criteria for high confidence SCIENCE. This means that no matter your field of study and/or expertise, these are criteria that universally apply, whether you are a medical doctor, a geologist, a chemist, a biologist, doesn't matter. Stadler, in the midst of the origins debates, asks proponents from both sides, to consider and take into account these criteria before we begin considering evidences for or against each of the proponents theories about origins. Stadler's approach can utilized to deduce a very simple philosophical tool for students of science and even students specialized in philosophy of science, which I term Stadler's Diamond Sword. In short, for every question Q proposed under a scientific context, if said premises in Q, under evaluation by the six criteria of high confidence science, are categorized to have provided results that do not concord to results of high confidence science, then the scientists or practitioner has no obligation, pragmatically and/or philosophical, to take said results or questions at face value or warrant high confidence, and said individual is free and should cast serious doubts under said scientific context. And Rob Stadler throughout his book demonstrates the fruits of said approach when addressing both the high confidence evidence and low confidence evidence provided by evolutionists in the current debate. Of course, as a scientist, you are free to put trust in said low confidence results, but under Stadler's Diamond Sword (high confidence science approach), you have no obligation, career wise and even in practice in the context of scientific inquiry. So people who disdain scientists, regardless of their philosophical and/or religious standings, who provide scientific reasons to cast doubts on the current paradigm of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory are taking essentially an irrational approach to the issue under this approach Stadler provides. Which is why near the end of the book, Stadler provides straightforward educational tools for students of biology and from any field on how they should adopt and be trained to adopt an attitude to prioritize high confidence science over low confidence for the goal to provide society sober judgments on explaining scientific concepts which we have high confidence evidence for and which have practical implications, medicinal, engineering or even theoretical, but which have high confidence results nonetheless. Consequently, I recommend this book highly, both to students, professors and practicing scientists.

The author clearly spelled out the criteria for high credibility science. He shows how microevolution as in the case of breeding dogs and other domestic animals for desired characteristics fits these criteria well.

He then explained how macroevolution, including abiogenesis, fails to meet these criteria and thus falls into the realm of faith, rather science, just as does the idea of a supernatural creation of life.

He then points out that requiring the teaching of abiogenesis to school children is tantamount to requiring the teaching of faith in schools, which violates the separation of Church and state. Furthermore, it gives students a wrong understanding of what science can and cannot do.

As one who personally, as a result of a long lifetime of experience, has faith in the existence of an intelligent designer, whom I consider to be the God and designer and creator of the universe and all life, I agree with the author that science cannot go back in time to observe the creation, and therefore that science is not applicable to creation of life.

On the other hand, I accept the argument of many learned an highly qualified and experienced scientists that there is a very strong case to be made that life as it exists today had to have been designed.

I don’t accept the argument made by our anonymous friend, who likes to respond to any comments questioning abiogenesis, that “chance of the gaps” is a rational argument for the origin of the first living cell capable of self reproduction or for the “Cambrian Explosion” of different body plans. I prefer to place my faith in God rather than chance.

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 book came in good quality.

And I like the content of the book. Rob Stadler points out that there are certain types of evidences which have a higher confidence of being true and other types of evidences which have a lower confidence of being true. The lower confidence evidence is not worthless, but we should interpret the lower confidence evidences in the light of the higher confidence evidence. That part of the book was very well done.

Towards the end he also writes about falsifiability. I think that one could need a bit of polishing. He treated it as a binary issue. Either a theory is falsifiable or it isn't. But in reality there is more nuance to it. Also very specific statements are by their nature much more testable than overarching statements, especially if not every component of that overarching statement can be tested in a lab. And that's where a person has to be charitable but honest with how falsifiable they end up being. I think that part is in essence still decent, but it should have been polished.

But just because there is the potential for flaw in this part, it doesn't affect the first part about the level confidence of the first part.

A highly respected and experienced scientist offers clear criteria for assessing the strength of scientific claims. He shows how robust evidence—reproducible results, independent verification, methodological transparency, and theoretical coherence—can be distinguished from claims that merely appear scientific but rest on selective data, untested assumptions, or rhetorical appeal.

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

very good book, scientific, honest, unbiased