Reviews for Challenging Nature: The Clash of Science and Spirituality at the New Frontiers of Life

The average rating for Challenging Nature: The Clash of Science and Spirituality at the New Frontiers of Life based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2009-12-10 00:00:00 Yong Chuan Tan There are many moderates on either side of the debate who would like to believe that science and religion operate in mutually exclusive spheres (non-overlapping magisteria if you will) and are not inherently in conflict as fundamentalists on both sides of the issue would have you think. Sadly for science … the fundamentalists are right, and given the fact that those with a religious perspective continually strive to interfere with science in both the classroom (evolution vs. non-intelligent design) and in the lab (stem cell research), strong voices are needed to quash the ridiculous nonsense propagated by those operating with a bronze age system of beliefs. That's where Lee M Silver comes in. "Challenging Nature: The Clash of Science and Spirituality at the New Frontiers of Life" examines the conflict which arises from the biological sciences including: stem cell research, the beginning of life, cloning, mood enhancing drugs (like antidepressants) and other forms of biotechnology. Silver examines the arguments used by religious fanatics to distort and obfuscate science and the political machinations they employ to codify their irrational worldview into law …. to the detriment of us all. A rarity, Silver possesses both the scientific and literary skills to present a cogent defense of science. The book is also superbly written and fascinating to read. It should be noted that the book came out in 2003 when Bush occupied the White House and had appointed anti-science, religious crusaders to key positions within his administration. Though circumstances have temporarily changed with the election of Obama, these zealots have not gone away and will bide their time until they can once again continue their process of dismantling the constitution in the name of jeessus. In the second half of the book, Silver takes on irrationality on the left and those who attribute a spiritualized version of Mother Nature to the natural world. This takes the form of those who believe: natural is better than artificial (everything is natural, including arsenic and malaria), that dietary supplements are better for you than pharmaceuticals (the latter go through a rigorous testing program, while the former do not), that organic foods are healthier than non-organic or genetically modified foods (there is no supporting evidence for this claim) and others. There's good evidence supporting these positions and he makes a compelling case. He loses me, though, when he applies this hyper-rationalistic approach to species extinction in which he asserts that species have always gone extinct from natural causes (climate change, asteroids, etc.) and that the planet has always recovered. Humans are just the latest natural disaster to cause a widespread reduction in biodiversity and that the planet (measured by its biomass) can thrive where ecosystems are controlled by scientists. I have two criticisms to make, one based on rationality, the other on humanity: 1. Silver falls into the trap of scientific hubris. He assumes that with a solid scientific understanding of natural ecosystems that we will be able to manipulate the environment to the maximum benefit of humans. While the loss of the giant panda may not materially affect the quality of life of most people, a thriving ecosystem is built upon a series of complex interactions between species. You can chip away at biodiversity, but at some point you may reach a point where a balance is upset and the system collapses (remember that stacking game Jenga?). It's not clear that the human mind is capable enough to fully grasp the complex interactions posed by natural systems or that, even if it were, the resources exist to monitor nature to the level of detail needed to ensure that it functions correctly. Certainly the history of human meddling in the environment doesn't lend support his position. A few easy examples include global introductions of non-native species and hive collapse in bees. Each has serious and negative consequences for humans and so far scientists have yet to offer any solutions of value. To conclude based on current evidence that scientists can fine tune the environment seems to me the height of arrogance. 2. Biodiversity adds a richness to our existence. Though I've never seen a cheetah in person, I've seen them on television and read about them. These incredible animals are powerful examples of natural selection at work and their beauty and speed make my life is richer for their existing. Looking at it another way, imagine a bland foodpaste that contains all the ingredients necessary to optimize human health, but only if you ate it for every single meal for the rest of your life. Would Silver, or anyone, give up the richness of the experience of food in favor of this paste? I doubt it. Yet Silver seems ready to doom future generations to a poverty of biodiversity simply because he sees no utilitarian value to cheetahs, giant otters or pandas.

Review # 2 was written on 2012-06-01 00:00:00 Ming Chieh Yew Dr. Silver will surprise you and maybe even bring a few mad chuckles out with his wild and sad but true stories of genetic mutations, but it isn't enough to save this book. The first hundred pages are fascinating and then the book slips into his true agenda. Whenever someone attacks something that benefits health and environment (as he does with organic farming), I get skeptical because there's often profit involved. He takes a route I have seen in conservative anti-science lobbying firms: compare natural carcinogens (that occur in lima beans and coffee) to dangerous synthetic ones like DDT. This is an atrocious distortion of the truth. You can't compare a lifelong consumption of a natural chemical to a synthetic chemical that would kill you if you ingested a mg of it. He is also either ignorant of the scholarly research or is lying through his teeth when he argues vitamins are a sham. Why I don't know. Maybe he wants his branch of science to be the only solution. The book is littered with logical fallacies like weak analogies. Silver tries to equate environmentalists with Christians, but not all environmentalists worship the planet the way Christians worship the Bible. It's really like comparing apples to oranges. He does the same to animal rights activists, but again not all animal lovers are members of Peta. Much of Silver's ideas consist of assumptions and he fails to acknowledge the basis of just ethics. One can be an ethical and responsible citizen, or scientist, without the need to destroy nature or life. That doesn't make them a lunatic. Many scientists are turning to more humane and more reliable means like computer modeling to replace the unnecessary testing on animals. To compare the obstruction of stem cell research based on religious beliefs to the petition to stop biotech corporations from creating Frankenfoods that we all eat is also a weak analogy. I get the sense he has much invested in the industries he defends here in this book. Worth the read to spark some thinking and debate, and there are some great highlights and points, but the book goes south after page 100.