The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth

by Edward O. Wilson

The book that launched a movement: “Wilson speaks with a humane eloquence which calls to us all” (Oliver Sacks).
Called “one of the greatest men alive” by The Times of London, E. O. Wilson proposes an historic partnership between scientists and religious leaders to preserve Earth’s rapidly vanishing biodiversity.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Biology, Environment, Nature, Ecology, Religion

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Edward Osborne Wilson, sometimes credited as E.O. Wilson, was an American biologist, researcher, theorist, and author. His biological specialty is myrmecology, a branch of entomology. A two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction, Wilson is known for his career as a scientist, his advocacy for environmentalism, and his secular-humanist ideas pertaining to religious and ethical matters. He was the Pellegrino University Research Professor in Entomology for the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He is a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism.

Reviews

[Alisse Metge · Rating 3 out of 5]

E.O. Wilson-- a giant in biology, a thoughtful and, I believe, good-hearted person whose scientific work and soft-spoken manner I admire. But even in this honest and sincere effort, his writing does not successfully escape the deeply-ingrained scientism so typical of Wilson, in which nothing outside science (e.g. religion) is ultimately allowed any grounding in reality. He continues to make his hallmark mistake of omitting the defining line between science and philosophy. Hence, most of his arguments will fail to resonate with his intended Christian audience, who will likely be more put off by his outright rejection of their views than they will be softened by his under-explored appeal for finding common ground. While Wilson’s efforts to enlist the religious in the saving of Creation is timely and, I believe, critical for the success of conservation, Wilson’s arguments are so couched in the language of his own worldview that he is, I fear, preaching only to the choir of already-converted conservationists within Christianity. For these, his presentation of the current environmental crisis is well-articulated, poignant, and motivating. But his failure to deeply connect with a Christian audience reinforces my opinion that messengers for conservation must be found and encouraged from within the various religious traditions. Nonetheless, while my worldview differs from Wilson’s in many ways, I cannot help but like this man.

[J TC · Rating 5 out of 5]

Escrito sob a forma de uma carta a um “Pastor” E. O. Wilson apresenta-nos neste seu livro escrito em 2007 porque motivo a visão secular ou religiosa do mundo natural não estão tão afastadas quanto à partida se poderia supor no que respeita ao deslumbramento que a “Criação” ou mundo natural exerce sobre nós humanos, nem na responsabilidade que nos cabe em reverter a nossa acção sobre o planeta no que é reconhecido como a sexta extinção em massa, a extinção do antropoceno.
Tal como enumera o autor, a perda de biodiversidade tem acelerado desde que o Homo sapiens iniciou a sua pegada no planeta. Uma pegada que rompeu o equilíbrio entre espécies extintas, e novas espécies. Uma pegada que acelerou 100x a perda de espécies, e que se prevê que até ao fim do século leve a uma perda com um ritmo superior a 1000x em relação ao normal e que até ao final do presente século leva a uma perda de cerca de 50% de todas as espécies.
Como ações responsáveis o autor apresenta-nos a perda de área geográfica de habitat dessas espécies, a poluição, as espécies invasoras, a sobre-população humana e a exploração excessiva seja pela caça seja pela pesca.
Escrito em 2007, E Wilson, dá-nos uma boa panorama sobre o tema, mas fica um pouco aquém nas soluções ao propor essencialmente ações individuais em vez que políticas públicas internacionais que são a única forma de conseguimos salvar o “planeta”.

[Reynold Witmer · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was very frustrating for me, and this time I'm pretty sure it's the book's fault. I was so excited by the premise, the aim of the author, and I think most of the frustration i felt was from a sense of betrayal. The book is not a meeting of science and religion. At least not a fun one. The author yammers on in tones alternately patronizing and condescending. His implicit goal does not seem to be "Make science and religion work together" but make everything science." I'm in favor of raising more scientificly astute people. Annoyingly, Wilson wrote glowingly about current science, and his beliefs about future science, in terms the were, well, kinda religious. Wilson assumes a sorta 19th century pedantic professorial religion that he's arguing against, and it does him no favors. If this book was actually an appeal for science and religion to work together, I may have liked it. Since it wasn't, I didn't.

[Sara]

DNF

If Wilson's premise was to reach out to Christians to talk about how science and religion have compatible views about preserving the environment, then I think he missed the mark. He veers between being aggressive to condescending about religious beliefs. I don't see how he is taking in to consideration his purported audience. (btw, I am not at all a religious person, but I am a person who believes in courtesy and in effective communication)

I did like it when Wilson nerded out and started talking about ants and wolverines, though. I would have totally finished this if it had had a different premise.

[Davide Bianchera · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interessante saggio scritto da un famoso biologo. Si parla dell’estinzione di numerose specie avvenute negli ultimi anni e delle cause, ma anche della nuova scoperta di altrettante specie.
Ci si rende conto di quanto siamo piccoli noi umani e di quanto abbiamo ancora da scoprire e conoscere ( si parla di addirittura di decine di milioni di specie sconosciute), ma qualcosa negli ultimi decenni si sta muovendo grazie alle banche dati condivise .

E poi...chi l’avrebbe mai detto che un autore sarebbe riuscito a farmi appassionare riguardo a formiche, farfalle, molluschi? ed invece è successo.

[Anthony]

This book was not at all what I thought it would be. I totally understand and support the science behind what Wilson says. What bothered me was the way in which he says it.

The book purports to be a call for unity, for "bi-partisanship," if you will, between Scientists and Religious Leaders. Wilson even addresses the beginning (and sometimes the end, and sometimes the middle) of each chapter to a nameless Pastor. Things start out well: Wilson suggests that they each put aside their thoughts on how the world was formed and how Man got to be the dominant lifeform (the roots of partisanship on this issue) and instead work together to preserve The Creation, this wondrous world around us that is falling prey to ever-increasing species extinction and habitat loss.

Unfortunately, within the first few pages, Wilson goes out of his way to basically tell the Pastor that while he has agreed to disagree on the Origins of Life, the Pastor and his followers are wrong.

I can easily see the audience for whom this book is intended -- those on the religious (especially fundamentalist Christian) side of the divide -- failing to make it past the first chapter as it becomes obvious that Wilson is not interested in agreeing to disagree in order to build a coalition to change policy and save the Earth -- what he wants is for the Religious to agree that his facts are right, their beliefs are wrong, and therefore they must come over to his side of thinking.

I may be in the minority here, but I really do think it is possible to have a respect for the earth, to wish to turn the tide of species extinction and global warming, to be good stewards, and to still be devoutly religious. And I think Wilson hurts only his own ultimate cause by not allowing for that concept.

For the record, I am not one of those devout persons who believes the Earth was truly made in 7 24-hour periods, nor do I believe that the End Days are upon us. And perhaps the people I assume would be offended (by being offered an olive branch that is quickly pulled back and used as a bludgeon, by being called stupid and then asked to do their fair share) will not be, and so I'm the one guilty of condescension. But that tone that I perceived was what put me off the book and made it so difficult to finish -- I truly had nights where I felt I'd been reading for hours, only to discover that I'd really read two pages and only 20 minutes had gone by.

[Chris · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is the author's attempt to bring scientists and Christian leaders together in saving the environment. The book is addressed "to a Southern Baptist pastor", which is the author's childhood denomination, and he seeks common ground between his own "secular" viewpoint and the Christian one. Personally, I don't think this book is likely to achieve the author's goals. It's a short book but I found it too obnoxious to read after just 4 chapters. Since I'm an evangelical Christian who already agrees with the author's point about the environment, that doesn't bode well for the book's effectiveness with those who don't. The biggest problem is that, even though the author claims to be seeking common ground, he keeps forwarding his own perspective on science and nature in a way that's off-putting. Sometimes the language about nature is spiritualized in a way that sounds almost pantheistic--not likely to appeal to the average conservative Christian! This topic deserves a much more convincing presentation of the material. Even a straightforward scientific analysis, with no reference to Christian perspectives at all (such as Jared Diamond's long but fantastic book, Collapse) would do much better. Another reviewer called the style condescending, and it does indeed feel that way. Personally, I was also disappointed in the lack of interesting detail. The facts would be much more compelling than the author's philosophical perspective.

[George · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am deeply ambivalent about this book. I love the gesture and, as always, I love reading Wilson’s narratives of the science, but as a genuine attempt at compassionate bridge-building, it largely fails. I do not think it was successful in finding the common ground that it wanted to find.

[Ryan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Published in 2006, Wilson's The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth is an open letter to an imaginary Christian pastor. The form doesn't work, I suppose because even if the reader is sympathetic to Wilson's aims, as I am, earnestly reaching out to pastors to accept scientific conclusions like the age of the planet (more than 6000 years old) or the value of biodiversity somehow comes across as condescending. Of course, Christians often do value the planet, even if politicians who do the most to accelerate global warming or to roll back environmental protections consistently court many Christians to vote for them, or even if these same politicians argue that the very idea of anthropogenic climate change is a sort of hubris against God, or even--but here I am, getting caught up in today's arguments. If I were to defend Wilson for choosing this form, I suppose I'd have to try to remember how difficult it was for biologists in the 2000s.

Long ago, scientists and biology teachers found themselves in conflict with the American president and by extension nearly all conservatives. In his memoir, Decision Points, George W. Bush writes "at its core, the stem cell question harked back to the philosophical clash between science and morality." There is something in this "clash" that irks me, and I suppose it's the implied accusation that scientists are immoral. But the notion that scientists are impure was not uncommon at the time, and it led to a lot of signalling disguised as discourse. I looked up Anne Coulter for a representative sample and found Godless: The Church of Liberalism, a book published in 2006. Coulter's career is a provocation, especially when it was tied to everything else the Bush administration was doing, and many took the bait. Christopher Hitchens wrote God is Not Great in 2007 to argue that religion can be a harmful institution, that the religious do immoral things, and I suppose to just dunk on Christian conservatives, generally.

The discourse might seem like a waste of time now, but stem cell research was constrained by the Bush administration, and just teaching of evolution became contentious in many American states. I rarely hear it discussed today, but there was a movement urging high school biology teachers to explain intelligent design alongside (or in place of) evolution. Geologists and astronomers were thankfully excluded from the rancor, but prominent biologists were drawn in to many public debates in which everyone went home convinced that their side was right. Was it a failure to communicate? Dawkins published The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution and Jerry Coyne published Why Evolution is True in 2009. Today, Coyne and Dawkins are mostly introduced as smugly antagonistic New Atheists, perhaps because the books written in defense of intelligent design and against a blind watchmaker did not long survive the end of the Bush administration, but titles like "God is Not Great" and Dawkins' The God Delusion (2006) were smugly antagonistic. To avoid the appearance of confrontation, others wrote open letters. Sam Harris wrote Letter to a Christian Nation in 2006, and Wilson published The Creation.

Looking back from 2020, however, the notion that an open letter might persuade anyone to change their mind seems unbearably naive. These books mostly reach an audience of the author's supporters looking for confirmation bias and ready made arguments to use with their uncle at Thanksgiving. But in engaging in this game, we soon learned it was far more complex than we thought. People want to believe what they want to believe, which we learned reading Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow (2011), Jonathan Haidt's Righteous Mind (2012), and Stephens-Davidowitz's Everybody Lies (2017). And we must not only deal with cognitive bias but also the mechanisms that spread information and purposeful misinformation (see Pomerantsev's 2019 work, This is Not Propaganda). If anything, communication between detractors seems to have played out to the point that only the most complex game theorist can follow it.

Regardless, Wilson's The Creation is more interesting as an artifact than as a book.

[Joey · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is perhaps the best non-fiction book I've ever read. Ostensibly, it's an argument, an attempt to find common ground with fundamentalists in order to save the earth, but really it's a meditation on the universe and life on this planet.

[Nathan May · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found his attempt to define nature in chapter 3 pretty messy, but it definitely provoked a lot of interesting thought, it ended up being both my favorite and least favorite part of the book for that reason. I feel like if I were the supposed target audience of a Baptist pastor (or just religious non-environmentalist) I could easily have felt condescended to throughout the book, which would defeat the purpose of it being a respectful peer-to-peer plea, but as myself I found it to be a fun short read with some interesting perspectives.

[Ricardo Moreno Mauro · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un muy buen libro de difusión Ciencífica, en el que nos impulsa a maravillarnos de la naturaleza, estudiarla y cuidarla

[Ioana · Rating 5 out of 5]

2006, An appeal to save life on Earth

Edward O. Wilson’s effusive plead for the conservation of all life forms on Earth is masterfully packed in only 213 pages.
Starting out as an open letter addressed to a fictitious representative (pastor) of the Supreme Fascist (God), the focus quickly shifts to the crux of problem: the accelerated decline in biodiversity caused by human interference. If God made us masters of our lives and Gardeners of a bequathed Eden, we are putting the rest of his Creation under rapid fire.

The creation myths, with all their potent beauty, full of primal longing for meaning and unrivaled in allotment of a place in the Universe, be it center or underneath it all, sadly, might obfuscate Reality’s poetry, stretching over eons of steady innovation, an accumulation of jaw dropping features, building up to create something better than us at one point, perhaps.

Wilson guides you to the smallest yet riches corners of our world: from the micro region that surrounds each tree, a whole world in its own rights, to the thin ring around our planet, the biosphere.

There is a right way to be selfish, it turns out: ”Each person deserves to have the option to travel with ease towards and from the complex, primordial world that birthed us. We need the liberty to roam places owned by no one, protected by all.”

With prudence, humanization of scientific research and immersion in the contemplation of the natural world, we might reach our conservation goals.

The loss of species will have an impact (time will show its extent) that is irreversible. So it would be ”prudent on our side to slow down the final and permanent elimination of Nature, until we understand exactly what are we and what we are doing.”

At this point, the rate of extinction surpasses the birth rate of species by 100 fold and may climb to 1000 fold. We also learn that if habitat loss continues at the current rate, we might lose up to half the species of plants and animals by the end of this century. This habitat loss is mostly, but not only, caused by global warming, harvesting and excessive pollution. Wilson is no moralist, and does not invoke pretentious jargon. He fails to subtly rebuke religion - his vociferous plea is honest and comes from a place of intimate understanding of the living world.


The destructive power of the human kind (totaling a insignificant biomass) is immense. Edward O. Wilson correctly traces the indifference towards nature in a badly (very, I might add) managed introduction in biology. I owe the world to my grandfather, who took the time to take me to roam together in forests and fields, explore rivers, learn about different types of bugs and mushrooms, clouds, minerals. If I had more time with him on this Earth, I would be a better person.

We learn by example, experimentation and being told the truth. Edward O. Wilson munificent work, both as a researcher and also as a teacher is something that shouldn’t go unnoticed. Remarkably, he wrote this splendid book that encompasses his worldview at 77...wheew! Get this book.

[Roger DeBlanck · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a world-renowned biologist and self-described “secular humanist,” Wilson calls upon leaders in the various scientific fields and in the widespread religious communities to put aside their differences and endeavor together to save the natural world. His chief aim is to open up dialogue, which is built upon optimism and mutual respect. He uses the curiosity of science and the intellection of religion as the basis for understanding the connection of humans to nature. He stresses the inherent nobility and necessity of protecting the planet as a moral choice to save ourselves. He examines the unfathomable diversity of life forms striving to survive in threatened habitats around the globe, and he also attests to the yet undiscovered bounty of species thriving within the Earth’s biosphere, most notably the microscopic legions of bacterium present in the smallest samples of soil and water.

Putting his vast knowledge as a biologist into highly readable language, Wilson invests the yearnings of science with feelings of religiosity. He sees humans as intricately bound to the mysteries of natural history. He assesses how the physiological and psychological make-up of humans is entwined with the evolution of the Earth. He contends that a study of biology brings humans nearer to understanding themselves and how they should live. Wilson believes humans cannot continue to think that the harm brought upon the Earth has no consequence. He makes an impassioned and convincing argument that allowing the Earth’s biosphere to diminish and die endangers the human species from achieving the vision shared by both science and religion: a preservation of the beauty and diversity of all life forms for future generations of the world.

[Ray Zimmerman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pastor, I am grateful for your attention. As a scientist who has spent a lifetime studying the creation, I have done my best here to brief you and others on subjects I hope will be more a part of out common concern. My foundation of reference has been the culture of science and some of secularism based on science, as I understand them. From that foundation I have focused on the interaction of three problems that affect everyone: the decline of the living environment, the inadequacy of scientific education, and the moral confusions caused by the exponential growth of biology. In order to solve these problems, I’ve argued, it will be necessary to find common ground on which the powerful forces of religion and science can be joined. The best place to start is the stewardship of life.
So begins Chapter 17, the final chapter, of Edward O. Wilson’s book, The Creation. Wilson wrote the book as a letter to a Southern Baptist preacher, and has no fear of directly referring to their differences. He begins with a reference to his own early experiences in the faith, his departure from it, and their common roots as Southerners.
Within the framework of this unique approach, Wilson describes subjects already known to his readers: the importance of nature as our home, the destruction of nature by habitat loss, invasive species and other causes, and the love of nature (Biophilia). The Creation is a book long appeal for science and religion to find common ground and protect the natural world.

[Stefano Sotgia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vincitore di due Pulitzer, fondatore della sociobiologia, il più grande esperto al mondo di formiche, Edward O. Wilson si rivolge a un ministro della Chiesa Battista per porre fine all'ostilità fra scienza e religione e lottare insieme per difendere la biodiversità del pianeta, gravemente minacciata da noi Homo Sapiens. Lo ammetto: la scelta del dialogo col pastore battista mi ha lasciato perplesso (è davvero nello scontro fra scienza e religioni l'ostacolo maggiore alla biodiversità del pianeta? e non nei modelli economici inadeguati, nelle classi politiche inadatte, etc.?), ma alla fine è solo una trovata retorica di relativa importanza. Il pregio vero del libro sta nel tono appassionato e contagioso con cui Wilson racconta il suo amore per la biologia. E nell'ottimismo con cui, insegnando l'amore per ogni forma di vita - biofilia - e impegnandoci per studiarla, potremmo farcela. Il libro è del 2006, mi chiedo cosa sia rimasto del suo ottimismo alla luce delle ultime previsioni sul climate change. Non so se la voce di Wilson sarà sufficiente a convertire masse di gente a difendere le specie a rischio, ma è impossibile negarne la forza. Se avessi figli, lo leggerei ad alta voce prima di andare a letto.

[Kat Cav · Rating 3 out of 5]

An elementary explanation of the importance of biology and ecology education at all ages. Wilson writes this short treatise as an incredibly condescending letter to a generic "Pastor" of a Christian church. While I agree completely with all Wilson says, being an amateur, armchair ecologist myself (by his definition), I don't think his tone would be welcomed or appreciated by anyone to which he's addressing this book. He's not going to win anyone to his side with this. At the end of the book he does gain an ecclesiastical tone and tell the Pastor to focus on all the common ground they have, instead of the disagreement on intelligent design (which he in no uncertain terms proves false to the Pastor, which I'm sure he/she enjoys). The tone is so awful I cringe every time I read ",Pastor ,". It reads in my head so pompous and elitist, like Wilson is grinding the word "Pastor" into the ground with the heel of his hiking boot. Maybe that's just my own sensitivity. I just don't think most Pastors of the leading Christian churches today are as out of step with science as he presupposes. Granted Wilson is from a different era, definitely pre-Pope Francis. This book reveals Wilson's own misconceptions and prejudices against the faithful more than it does the ignorance of the faithful.

[B · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked this book. It was my favorite of the three E.O. Wilson books I've read so far. However, I agree with another reviewer that many religious individuals would probably reject this book wholeheartedly. While I don't think he means to, Wilson does sound extremely condescending when addressing the hypothetical pastor that this book is addressed to. Another problem is that he doesn't get into any religious-based reasons that Christians/other religious people should care about the environment (and you could definitely make the case that the Bible argues for good stewardship of the earth).

So this is a great book if you already agree with Wilson. But if you are religious - while I would recommend trying to understand Wilson's perspective - you will probably not find this convincing, at least for the reasons outlined by the author.

[Cass · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was recommended this book by a professer with a degree in soil or something...it sounded interesting. He told me I should rent it from the library, not buy it...but I love to write in books, so I looked all over and found it in a couple places for $20.00+. I wasn't about to spend that for a 170 page book...so I finally found it in a library.

Anyway, it's pretty interesting. I was hoping it would be more along the lines of: these are specific examples of what we're doing wrong, now go change it. But instead it was a professor's rambling of biology and why it should be important to everybody. I could read into the bias, and I actually love biology...but I still found it entertaining. There were certain anticdotes about ants and alien species that I found particularly interesting.

[Samuel Viana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Edward Wilson is a passionated person: in this book he explains almost like a religious believer its love for all the biodiversity in this planet (that it calls in this book 'Biophilia') and proposes steps that can be made in order for people to love nature in the same way he feels it. He tries to show his passion in line could be made into something that could be almost as a religion,

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Admirable, but addresses the wrong people

This is an interesting book, as all of Wilson's books are interesting. I like the story about the fire ants that plagued the islands in the Caribbean some centuries ago and the paleoforensics employed to figure out what happened; in fact I like all of Wilson's stories about ants. Ants are fascinating, and ants will be here long after we are gone.

I also like the idea of trying to preserve as much biodiversity as possible. Save the rain forests, by all means. Save the tigers and the gorillas, the elephants and the snow leopard.

But it's not going to happen. Wilson is in prayerful mode. You can tell that by the very fact that he addresses this plea to a protestant clergyman as an author's conceit (partly in remembrance of his Baptist childhood). His tone, try as he might, will be taken by some as condescending, which it unavoidably is. Wilson is sensitive to the criticism he has gotten over the years, especially from those who think his sociobiology is a blueprint for a return to eugenics. So he is overly polite, overly indulgent with all the references to the Bible, to what he and the clergyman have in common. He is bending over backwards.

But it will never work. Biodiversity means little to the average clergyman. Saving the planet and its resources may mean a little more since even though evangelical Christians are certain that the rapture is coming, they are uncertain as to when. It could be tomorrow; it could be a few years away. So let's not dirty up the waters too much, let's not kill all the honeybees, let's scrub the coal smokestacks; in short let's not allow an environmental holocaust, at least not yet.

This is a short book, the kind of book that eminent persons are allowed to write and see published near the end of their lives, the kind of book that speaks of public service, that adds some further meaning to the author's existence. In a way this is similar to Consilience (1998) in which Wilson called for a meeting of the minds between the hard sciences and the soft ones, between those in the humanities and those in the labs, for reductionism to embrace poetry or vice-versa. The same idea applies here: people of faith should join people of science and work together to preserve the biosphere.

However, instead of addressing clergymen I think it would have been better and more natural for Wilson to address heads of state and chief executive officers of giant corporations since they are the ones most directly responsible for the ecological disaster staring us in the face, and they are the ones who can do something about it. Wilson writes, "Humanity doesn't need a moon base or a manned trip to Mars. We need an expedition to planet Earth...." Clearly such a statement would be better aimed at the Congress of the United States than at its clergymen. Wilson indicates in this book that he is not much for genetic engineering or for saving humanity by moving into outer space. He writes, "...human biology and emotions will stay the same far into the future, because our immensely complicated cerebral cortex can tolerate little tinkering..." (p. 28)

I also think it is unfortunate and even obsequious that Wilson calls what he wants saved "The Creation" when it is obvious that he does not consider life on earth a creation at all and in fact states directly that life on earth evolved from nonliving matter and energy. This sop to the creationists and Intelligent Designers is somewhat offset by his argument against Intelligent Design in the last chapter.

This book could also have been addressed to young students and teachers of biology, which in fact is what he effectively does in chapters 12-15 which are titled, "The Fundamental Laws of Biology," "Exploration of a Little-Known Planet," "How to Learn Biology and How to Teach It," and "How to Raise a Naturalist."

Putting aside the artificial spin that Wilson employs, this book is really about "three problems that affect everyone: the decline of the living environment, the inadequacy of scientific education, and the moral confusions caused by the exponential growth of biology." (p. 165) Wilson addresses the Christian clergy because "In order to solve these problems...it will be necessary to find common ground on which the powerful forces of religion and science can be joined." (p. 165)

More in keeping with the Wilson I know and greatly admire, typified in his book On Human Nature (1978) which won the Pulitzer Prize, is this from page 28: "There are still some thinkers around the world...who wish to base moral law on the sacred scripture of Iron Age desert kingdoms while using technology to conduct tribal wars--of course with the presumed blessing of their respective tribal gods."

I think the average clergyman, here and elsewhere, is still in the thrall of his tribal god, and not likely to listen to Professor Wilson, regardless of how politely and diplomatically he presents his case. Too bad.

Bottom line: clearly not one of Wilson's better books. I might even say that he has lost his intellectual compass. I hope he finds it.

--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”

[Terry · Rating 3 out of 5]

I heard Bill Moyer interview Wilson on a podcast the other day, talking about this book. Knew I had to read it. Sigh...the list just keeps on growing.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book appears to stem out of a singular frustration: why is religion often so at odds with preserving our environment, nature, the creation. E.O. Wilson, a secular humanist, pleads with a strawman "pastor" to join him in saving the creation we all depend upon. While he makes many an argument for evolution and the importance of biology, in the end, he appeals to this pastor that one's origin belief is irrelevant. We have an emergency (he largely focuses on mass extinction of countless species, but others are referenced) and collectively, we need to address it, whether from a perspective of science or religion.

Some quotables:
"You and I and every other human being strive for the same imperatives of security, freedom of choice, personal dignity, and a cause to believe in that is larger than ourselves." (page 4)

"... while most people around the world care about the natural environment, they don't know why they care, or why they should feel responsible for it. By and large they have been unable to articulate what the stewardship of Nature means to them personally. This confusion is a great problem..." (page 13)

"Environmental damage can be defined as any change that alters our surroundings in a direction contrary to humanity's inborn physical and emotional needs." (page 27)

"In sharp contrast to their inborn sensitivity to ancient perils, people are far less prone to acquire fear of knives, guns, automobiles, electric outlets, and other dangerous objects of everyday modern life." (page 65)

...people prefer an environment that combines three features: looking down and out, to be near a body of water, something solid to the rear (e.g. wall or cliff), and trees with low horizontal branches and divided leaves (e.g. Japanese maple) - page 66

"During 15 year of records of patient attacks on wall art, all were directed at abstract paintings, none expended on literalist representations of nature." (page 69)

"Many river systems approach the fate of those in China, where chiefly because of pollution 80% of the 50,000 kilometers of major channels can no longer support fish of any kind." (page 78)

"...with certainty we are the giant meteorite of our time, having begun the sixth mass extinction of Phanerozoic history. We are creating a less stable and interesting place for our descendants to inherit." (page 81)

"Scientists by and large are too modest to be prophets, too easily bored to be philosophers, and too trusting to be politicians. Lacking in street smarts, they are also easily fooled by confidence artists and sleight-of-hand tricksters." (page 104)

"The basic ingredient for a love of learning is the same as for romantic love, or love of country, or of God: passion for a particular subject. Knowledge accompanied by pleasurable emotion stays with us." (page 127)

Teaching principles: (131-138)
1. Teach top-down
2. Reach outside biology
3. Focus on problem solving
4. Cut deep and travel far
5. Commit Yourself

[Margarita Carrillo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Recomiendo este libro a todos los naturalistas de corazón, biólogos, ambientólogos, religiosos, etc. El libro está escrito como si fuera una carta a un pastor bautista. En esta carta E.O. Wilson, explica como la religión y la ciencia pueden luchar para salvar la naturaleza (la creación). El autor muestra que a pesar de que ciencia y religión tienen ideas opuestas en cuanto al origen de la vida o del universo mismo, existen algunas cosas en las que pueden unirse y trabajar por un fin común que sería preservar la vida.

El libro está dividido en 5 partes, las cuales se van complementando. Comienza definiendo a la naturaleza en desde un punto de vista biológico y religioso, de ahí pasa a la crisis de la biodiversidad. En la crisis, utiliza ejemplos muy interesantes de extinciones de insectos, invasión de especies de hormigas y muestra la importancia de las bacterias del suelo. Al final, da un panorama esperanzador de por qué cuidar los recursos con ejemplos concretos en EUA.

Para los que son profesores, en el capítulo 14 da una serie de recomendaciones y principios de cómo enseñar la biología. Estos principios aunque van guiados por el método científico terminan siendo muy humanistas y haciendo que la enseñanza de la biología sea integrativa.

Para mí un libro escrito desde el corazón de uno de los naturalistas mas honestos que he leído. Es de fácil lectura. Me gustó su narrativa y creo que los traductores hicieron un buen trabajo al mostrar el sentir del autor. Hay algunos errores de dedo en la edición española pero son mínimos.

Algunas frases que me gustaron:
"La Tierra es un laboratorio en el que la naturaleza nos expone el resultado de innumerables experimentos"
"La profesión de naturalista no es una mera actividad sino un honroso estado espiritual"
"La formación de un naturalista se parece mucho a la de un músico o un atleta: excelencia para los que tienen talento, placer duradero para el resto y beneficios para toda la humanidad"

[Revere P Kinkel · Rating 5 out of 5]

EO Wilson wrote this book late in life as a letter to a southern Baptist pastor. It was written as an argument for religion and science to find common ground to halt the decline of ecosystems and biodiversity imperiling life on earth. Wilson argues that three separate problems, limit human progress and require religion and science to find common ground: these problems include the decline of the living environment, the inadequacy of scientific education, and the moral confusions caused by the exponential growth of biology. While the concepts outlined in the 17 chapters are well known to any student of biology and the basic sciences, they are unfortunately disregarded by strict fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible that either deny the scientific basis of life and creation or put forth default arguments, such as intelligent design with no support by any scientific method. I only wonder how many of the people that this book was intended for actually read it. It probably makes little difference since many people who are aware of or do not disagree that the crisis facing the environment is real do little to alter their own harmful behaviors.

[Theresa Leone Davidson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a beautifully written plea to save the natural world by Pulitzer Prize winning, Harvard University professor and biologist, Edward Wilson. The book is written in the form of a letter to an evangelical minister because, unfortunately, educated, intelligent people still have to convince the witless, superstitious, and happily ignorant folks to help save the planet if there is any chance for it to be saved. Wilson's writing is accessible, and his argument is clear and factual; the problem is the book is already over twelve years old and not much positive has happened in that time. Human beings foolishly and systematically continue to ruin the planet for future generations. Those future generations will look back at this time without fondness or respect: we have known for decades what we needed to do to save our environment but opted not to so why should they be respectful. Nevertheless, Wilson is more optimistic than I am, and his book is, in many spots, beautiful, especially when describing nature and it's nonhuman inhabitants. HIGHLY recommend.

[Rhonda D. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wilson wrote this as a plea to pastors to care about creation. He starts so well and I applaud his attempt to bridge the gap. I give Wilson 5 stars for the warmth and graciousness he began with as well as wanting to build a bridge. However, as others have mentioned, he quickly becomes condescending about origins of life and the fundamental different between science (provable hypotheses) and philosophy (faith is never provable in a scientific sense, but that does not mean that everything worth knowing is provable). In the middle, he meanders through how people can help and how parents and educators should develop a love of science. Fans of Wilson will love this book, but his target audience may be put off by his tone and his lack of understanding about faith in general. (As a Christian, the fact that I even found this book and read it tells you that I am not a young earth, 7 day creationist and I already care about conservation.)

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book there are some parts that he may seem condescending towards the pastor but I do not view it like that. This man lived his whole life towards the conservation of the globe and the biodiversity within that. He speaks with true passion and knowledge, I admire E.O Wilson as many others do. I was saddened by his passing and that is what led me to read this book. I hope he knows even tho he is gone, he is still heard. My favorite quote from this book is “Each species is a small universe in itself, from its genetic code to its anatomy, behavior, life cycle, and environmental role, and a self-perpetuating system created during an almost unimaginably complicated evolutionary history. Each species merits careers of scientific study and celebration by historians and poets.” This puts into perspective how extensive the knowledge is to protect the ecosystem and keeps me passionate about what I do no matter how small I may feel that day. Thank you, E.O Wilson.

[Dustin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mmh. I'm not sure why this book is titled The Creation. I'm glad E. O. Wilson makes an effort to reach out to Christians in taking care of the earth. Not a ton is discussed concerning that but Wilson does a good job at painting this Earth and the wonders within which we barely understand 10% of it. It makes me uneasy why an appeal would be needed by a scientist for Christians to care for the Earth, because Christians ought to be the ones taking care of creation extremely serious and there needs to be more sermons on this subject ! I did appreciate Wilson's thoughts on making children aware of the natural world and becoming naturalists although I'd differ in his ultimate end goal at doing this. It has given me the idea of getting a microscope or hand magnifying glasses for the children...and a bit for myself if I'm honest!

[Lauren Schnoebelen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wanted to rate this lower because I already knew a wide amount of the information that was presented in this book. If I was going off of that I would have probably given it 3 stars but reflecting on the way the information was explained as well as the general communication techniques is was really won me over. E O Wilson has an excellent way of communicating science to the general public and specific groups that generally push back against the scientific community; especially on topics like climate change and funding conservation projects for endangered species.

I think this book has a very wide audience and should be read by people interested in conservation, have concerns about the connections between religion and science, and any scientists interested in a good quality example of how to communicate their area of expertise to the public.