The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism

Customer Reviews:

It's a jolly good read.......2001-07-05

I read this book a while ago, and unfortunately lost it in a trade with a gentleman who had given me a creationist book to read. The book itself is very accessible, easily read and quite fascinating, particularly if you are interested in finding out just how creationists attack evolutionary theory. Yes, he supports evolution (he and Niles Eldredge presented the world with punctuated equilibria - of course he does), but he does give credit where it is due and does not completely treat creationists as ignorant or stupid - quite the opposite in some areas. However his frustrations do show thru in portions, as do his fears of creationism taking a greater hold in schools - mainly due to lack of understanding of the scientific process and/or scientific theory not only in the general populace - but within the science teacher population as well. The book also is useful for gaining some insight into the operation of scientific theory, and addresses some misconceptions. It is however, *not* a scholarly work - it lacks the depth and the volume one would expect for that. It won't convert anyone - I don't think that was the intention. It is a good introduction, quite "chatty" and informal. In that respect it succeeds.

Evolution and the fossil record.......2001-06-16

Regarding the complete lack of "transitional" forms in the fossil record, Darwin said in the 1850's:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." ---Charles Darwin, "On the imperfection of the geological record", Chapter X, "The Origin of Species", J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, pp. 292-293.

But 120 years later!

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which `does' show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. Also the major extinctions such as those of the dinosaurs and trilobites are still very puzzling." ---Dr. David M. Raup (Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago), "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology". "Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin", vol. 50 (1), January 1979, p. 25.

Are there any "transitional" forms at all?

"... I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least `show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." ---Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in "Darwin's Enigma" by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89.

"I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data." ---Dr. David Pilbeam (Physical Anthropologist, Yale University, USA), "Rearranging our family tree". "Human Nature", June 1978, p. 45.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." ---Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" "Paleobiology", vol. 6 (1), January 1980, p. 127.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never `seen' in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." ---Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Evolution's erratic pace". "Natural History", vol. LXXXVI (5), May 1977, p. 14.

For truly eye-opening information...the kind you were never allowed to hear in high-school and university, see "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells, "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe, "Bones of Contention" by Marvin Lubenow, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton and "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!" by Duane Gish.

Is it fact or faith?.......2001-06-04

There's been a common misconception among the public that creationists are blind, biased fanatics (creationists have always admitted their starting bias), whereas evolutionists are unbiased pillars of objectivity. As will be documented below, with extensive quotes from evolutionists' own literature, nothing could be further from the truth!

But don't simply take my word for it. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world's leaders in evolutionary biology. He recently wrote this very revealing comment. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation - regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." -*Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of demons", The New York Review, January 9, 1997, page 31.

So here we have one of the world's leading evolutionists admitting what the general public was never told - that evolutionists have universally accepted a materialistic interpretation scheme as truth. All evidence stands or falls based upon it's fit with the dogma of evolution. Any data that does not fit within this hypothetical framework is discarded or explained away.

But let's not stop with Lewontin. Let's see what other prominent evolutionists have actually admitted. Is evolution truly fact, or faith?

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."-*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in "Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur", p. 33.

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."-*L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."-*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).

"The facts must mold the theories, not the theories the facts . . I am most critical of my biologist friends in this matter. Try telling a biologist that, impartially judged among other accepted theories of science, such as the theory of relativity, it seems to you that the theory of natural selection has a very uncertain, hypothetical status, and watch his reaction. I'll bet you that he gets red in the face. This is `religion,' not `science,' with him."-*Burton, "The Human Side of the Physiologist: Prejudice and Poetry," Physiologist 2 (1957).

"It is therefore a matter of faith, on the part of the biologist, that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."-*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 150.

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."-*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p. 63.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory-is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."-*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by *Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi (1971 edition).

"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it."-*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980).

"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: `A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory."-*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1977), p. 150.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with and even more incredible deity-omnipotent chance."-*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

Interested in discovering mountains of additional facts and information you were never allowed to hear in high-school and college? Want to decide for yourself which side presents the more logical and scientific arguments of the two? I recommend checking out the answersingenesis and ICR (Institute for Creation Research) websites. Also, see "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics" by Duane Gish and "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells.

A look at some myths about scientists.......2001-06-04

One of the most common ideas that people have is that creation science is somehow more biased, more 'one-eyed' than 'real science'. After all, creationists begin with the Bible, so how can they be objective, like other scientists are? Many creationist writings have already pointed out the impossibility of dealing with the past directly, without having some sort of beginning bias.

This review will not repeat any of that, nor will it again point out the essentially religious nature of evolution. Instead, it will deal directly with the powerful myth that scientists are somehow neutral and super-objective in their approach to evidence. In doing this, one is not being anti-science or anti-scientist; the findings apply to all scientists, including those of creationist persuasion. We are just facing up to the fact that scientists are as human as anyone else.

A 1980 sociological research paper surveyed scientists on their attitude to the most common traditional beliefs about themselves and their profession.[1] Some of the interesting results:

(1) Belief: Science is organized scepticism. This means that '. . . no scientist's contribution to knowledge can be accepted without careful scrutiny, and that the scientist must doubt his own findings as well as those of others.'[2]

About three-quarters of the scientists surveyed disagreed with this, and said that in fact it was not abnormal to accept what fits your own conception on a subject, and doubt that which does not. We read that the history of science demonstrates'. . . that scientists often operate in a subjective way and that experimental verification is of secondary importance compared to philosophical arguments, at least in some of the major conceptual changes that have occurred in science.'[3]

(2) Belief: Emotional Neutrality. This means that a scientist should not have an emotional commitment to particular ideas or theories.

This was very strongly rejected by a great majority of the scientists surveyed. Referring to another study,[4] the author states that 'the myth of science being a passionless enterprise, carried out by objective detached men, does not hold.' And further, that 'the image of the objective emotionally disinterested scientist is taken seriously only by the layman or by young science students.'

The interesting thing about this and similar surveys is not only that the popular image is wrong, but that the professionals know it to be so, and accept this as normal. It seems that the classical view of the scientific endeavor may not even be regarded as an ideal to strive for, since the respondents did not even try 'to live up to the idealized image of the objective, critical, disinterested truth seeker who shares his discoveries and information with his colleagues.'

All this is, of course, only what one would expect from what Stephen J. Gould calls a 'quintessentially human activity' (referring to science). And as humans, the vast majority remain deeply emotionally committed to a view of origins which allows them to escape responsibility to their Maker and Redeemer, and which seems to do away with the ideas of sin and judgment.

Hopefully, with this information in mind, one can better evaluate claims from evolutionists feigning scientific objectivity (creationists at least will acknowledge their starting bias).

REFERENCES:

[1] Nina Toren, 'The New Code of Scientists', 1333 Transactions on Engineering Management, Volume EM-27, No.3, August 1980.

[2] N.W. Storer, The Social System of Science, Holt, Rinehart, Winston, New York, 1966, p.79.

[3] S.G. Brush, 'Should the History of Science be Rated X?' Science, Volume 188, March 22, 1974, p.183; T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1970.

[4] American Sociological Review, Volume 39, August, 1974, pp.579-95.

Average customer rating:

Great then, not sure how it stands up now

A one sided tirade polemic

What a way to state your point!

An evolutionist's comfort book

A poor book - regardless of what you believe.

The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism
Niles Eldridge
Manufacturer: Washington Square Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
General | Science | Subjects | Books
Creationism | Theology | Christianity | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 0671531417

Customer Reviews:

Great then, not sure how it stands up now.......2005-08-08

I read this book many years ago, when the fantasy-worlders and their ghost stories were being marketed as an extension of the backwardness of the Reagan adminstration. This was a great primer for confronting the lunacy of creationism.

I haven't read it since, and I don't know if it's been updated to address the newest form of creationism slyly renamed 'intelligent design'. It really doesn't matter, I guess. If you are a true believer, you'll ignore reality to prop up your medieval world view.

A one sided tirade polemic.......2004-03-01

This book is a one sided tirade polemic against the view that God had a role in creation. It is an example of the fact that the Darwinian scientists are now going to an extreme in shutting off debate in this area. As a biology professor at a state college, I have learned to help students grow without turning them off to science. By the way, about 95% of my biology students are creationists of some type (YEC, OEC, ID etc.). We need to realize this and move on and teach biology. I stress that they must know evolution theory but that I am not in the business of changing beliefs (at least in religious areas) and let them do research on their own. Even if they do not believe in Darwinism, they must understand what the theory is all about. I also allow (actually encourage) criticism of the theory in class. I know many professors who do not permit students to present any information in class that opposes Darwinism. No wonder so many students are turned off by science! We must learn to be tolerant, and this book will not help in this goal.

What a way to state your point!.......2003-05-12

It seems like everytime I pick up a book by an evolutionist attempting to discredit creation science, the evolutionary proponent almost inevitably results to name-calling and ad hominem attacks to make a point. This book is no different.

Mr. Eldredge attacks creationists and creation science calling them names like puny, while attempting to bolster the case for his view in the process. If he would have interacted more with actual factual evidence and quoted from creationist literature, then shown where the evolutionist's disagree, he would have been more successful in making a stronger case for his views. This book lacked clear, concise and convincing argumentation, and relied more an mud-slinging and name calling to win the day. I believe this shows that evolutionary advocates are using every possible tactic to prevent creation science from being taught. They are afraid to admit the possibility that another view will compete with theirs and that people may be swayed by such an argument. Heck, Mr. Eldredge states in the beginning of his book that creationists usually win creation/evolution debates against evolutionary supporters. Yet, he can't make it sound as if the creation camp's argument is more factually correct and more sound, so he says that most victories are the result of theatrics and crowd-pleasing and also because evolutionary supporters are misinformed and do not understand the material as well as they should.

Yet, I do have to give Mr. Eldredge credit where credit is due. I do understand the arguments he is trying to make against teaching creation science in the science classrooms. Creation science isn't really science at all because you can't test any of the theories to see if they are correct and you can't measure them against any observable evidence. Creationists just have to say that God did it this way, outside of the set laws of nature, and that's the way it is. This is definitely not science and should not be taught to kids as science. Furthermore, as Mr. Eldredge argues our entire society is predicated on the findings and benefits that moderns science provides. He uses the examples of engineering plants and labratory science as two examples. These programs are a direct result of modern science and are related to the science of biological evolution.

Nevertheless, I think the situation in America has done a complete 180. In the early 20th century most of the American establishment was against the prospect of teaching evolution in the classroom. The 1925 Scopes Trial was the most public and virulent manifestation of such a situation. Yet, now the tables appear to have been turned. Instead of the having Biblical creationists bitterly oppose the views of evolutionists, you have evolutionists bitterly opposing and fighting against the views of creationists. I believe this shows how hyppocritical both sides have been and still can be today. The evolutionary camp has illustrated that it is no better or no more altruistic than the staunch creationists of the early 20th century. They will will fight, claw, scratch and complain that they should be the only model taught in the school system. Although I agree with the evolutionists that the model of creation science being espoused by men like Duane Gish is not really science and a result of fundamentalist Christian thinking, I do not believe this should eliminate creation thinking from being removed from the classroom. It is possible to present the idea that the Universe developed either by 1.)Random Chance or 2.)Intelligent Design simultaneously in the same classroom. Furthermore, it is possible to argue for intelligent design without getting overtly religious or faith specific; Just arguing against one system because it is diametrically opposed to your own will not cut it; Even worse, is engaging in this kind of activity and not providing any solid argumentation of defense of your view. The Bible does not have to be interpreted ultra-literally as most creation scientist do today. There are other Christian scientist's at work today who believe in the scientific data supporting the earth's age, they accept the fossil evidence as accurate. They do all of these while simultaneously holding the Geneis model as accurate. Just because some creation scientists hold views that are incompatible with this evidence, does not mean that the rest of the establishment should be punished or kept from the classroom.

An evolutionist's comfort book.......2000-10-16

I just finished reading another book on the subject, "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!" by Duane Gish and Eldredge's book is better, but not a whole lot better.

Both books fit into the same category, they too often wander off their intended point to bash the other side's opinion. One of the reasons I give this book 3 stars and Gish's book 1 star is that Eldredge says more to justify his views of evolution than Gish ever does to justify his views of creation.

As an example, Eldredge uses words like "pathetic" and "puny" to describe creationists opinions. I don't care if the opinions are puny or pathetic, give me the facts and leave out the creationist bashing. Eldredge speaks far too much in general terms about creationists (they tend to use the following arguments) and far too little with specific points. Gish at least looks specifically at certain points about evolution, liberally quoting evolutionary biologist and other scientists, even if he is off the mark more often than not. Eldredge seldom quotes creationists, he usually just talks about them.

In the end, most of what Eldredge says is pretty good information, but won't do anything to sway a creationist who is reading the book. Because it lacks weight (in size and content), it ends up being a comfort book for evolutionist and little more.

A poor book - regardless of what you believe........2000-01-22

The best critic is one who earnestly seeks to study and understand the reasons someone holds a position. At the other extreme is the fanatic, the insecure caricaturist who does not even care to understand his subject matter before tearing into it. I'm sorry to say that this book is in the latter category.

Eldredge demonstrates no significant grasp of his subject matter (creation science, the interpretation of natural science data in a framework based on Genesis), the result being a work that should shame a freshmen college student, much less the co-author of punctuated equilibrium! He stoops to blatant falsehoods and absurdities, such as claiming no creationist scientist has ever published in a science journal. While admitting that they win all the debates early in his book, he chalks it up to theatrics, which is surely an insult to the intelligence of audiences at origins debates.

In one of his two quotes from creationary material in the entire book he claims creationists quote out of context - and then quotes a creation scientist out of context to support his claim. His other quote of a creationist is equally bizarre: taking a section of text in which the term "kind" of animal is used in the same casual context context we use in everyday conversation, he imputes a technical meaning to it based on the Hebrew term baramin that is rather obviously not applicable to even the more casual and uninformed reader.

Probably the most usable portion of his book is the section based on his own expertise in the study of trilobites. But anyone with an interest in this subject would surely be better served reading books more directly applicable to that specialty. His book closes with a chilling appeal to evolutionists to work together to suppress academic freedom and toleration for dissenting viewpoints under the rubric of "defending science."

Creation science could be well-served by thoughtful, informed critiques of its' models and theories. Some evolutionists do occasionally produce these and they are to be commended for rising above the fray and refraining from the kind of behavior characterized by this book. But as it is, I realized that if the co-author of "punk eek" could only do such a poor job of criticizing creation and defending evolutionism, the evolutionary worldview had indeed become indefensible. May the future offer better!

Average customer rating:
Flowering Plants of Massachusetts
Vernon Ahmadjian
Manufacturer: Univ of Massachusetts Pr
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Plants | Biological Sciences | Science | Subjects | Books
General | Botany | Biological Sciences | Science | Subjects | Books
Flowers | Field Guides | Outdoors & Nature | Subjects | Books
Look Inside Outdoors & Nature Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
ASIN: 0870232657

Average customer rating:
Catalogue of the flowering plants and ferns of Springfield, Massachusetts, growing without cultivation, (Museum of Natural History, Springfield, Massachusetts. Bulletin)
Luman Andrews
Manufacturer: The Museum
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding

General | Botany | Biological Sciences | Science | Subjects | Books
ASIN: B00085J1SY

Average customer rating:
Flora of Concord. An Account of the flowering plants, ferns and fern-allies known to have occurred without cultivation in Concord, Massachusetts from Thoreau's time to the present day. (Special pulication #4, Museum of Comparative Zoology)

Manufacturer: Harvard
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
ASIN: B000CQ5BS8

Average customer rating:
FLOWERING PLANTS Of MASSACHUSETTS.
Barry - Illustrator]. Ahmadjian, Vernon. [Moser
Manufacturer: University of Massachusetts Press,
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
ASIN: B000VRI66C

Average customer rating:
Report on the herbaceous flowering plants of Massachusetts, arranged according to the natural orders of Lindley, and illustrated chiefly by popular descriptions of their character, properties, and uses.
Chester.] [Dewey
Manufacturer: Cambridge, Folsom, Wells, and Thurston,
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
ASIN: B000OUV4HO

Average customer rating:
A catalogue of the flowering plants and ferns of Worcester County, Massachusetts
Joseph Jackson
Manufacturer: Worcester Natural History Society
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding

General | Botany | Biological Sciences | Science | Subjects | Books
ASIN: B00085CTR4

Average customer rating:
The flora of Cape Cod: An annotated list of the ferns and flowering plants of Barnstable County, Massachusetts
Henry K Svenson
Manufacturer: Cape Cod Museum of Natural History
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding

General | Botany | Biological Sciences | Science | Subjects | Books
ASIN: B0006X9AYS

Average customer rating:
Flora of Concord. An Account of the flowering plants, ferns and fern-allies known to have occurred without cultivation in Concord, Massachusetts from Thoreau's time to the present day. (Special pulication #4, Museum of Comparative Zoology)
Richard Jefferson Eaton
Manufacturer: Hardvard Univeristy
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
ASIN: B000Q69FY0

Average customer rating:
Key to the families of spring-flowering plants of eastern Massachusetts
Merritt Lyndon Fernald
Manufacturer: Harvard University
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding

General | Botany | Biological Sciences | Science | Subjects | Books
ASIN: B00088E9Z6

Average customer rating:
Shrubs and vines of the Massachusetts South Shore
Clarence Hinckley Knowlton
Manufacturer: South Shore Nature Club
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding

Shrubs | Gardening & Horticulture | Home & Garden | Subjects | Books
ASIN: B0007I472W

Book Description

With more than 600 miles of trails within just a few hours of New York City, the Catskills and the Hudson River Valley are a hiker's paradise, boasting varied and scenic terrain from Westchester County to Albany. This new guide from the experts at the Appalachian Mountain Club leads beginner and experienced hikers alike along sixty of the region's most spectacular trails, from short family nature walks to day-long hikes that reward with magnificent views. Each trip description includes a detailed map and a summary of the trip time, distance, and difficulty, plus an icon indicating whether the trail is also good for snowshoeing or cross-country. The guide includes appendices packed with snowshoe treks, rock climbing in the Gunks, and other opportunities for outdoor adventure in the region, making this guide an essential four-season reference for locals and visitors alike.

Special features include:
>Fifty day hikes for all ability levels, ranging from two to eight miles long
>Detailed and accurate trail descriptions
>Locator map and "At-A-Glance" highlights chart for easy trip comparison and planning
>Hiking and safety tips
>Detailed maps showing parking areas, trails, and natural highlights
>Nature Notes about prominent species, and unique natural features of each hike
>Photographs of plant and animal life reflecting each trip's hidden wonders

Customer Reviews:

You'll want to try them all!.......2007-10-18

We are not expert hikers, but we got around fine using this guidebook. We knew we wanted to go hiking during our B&B weekend in the Hudson Valley, but wanted to try somewhere other than Mohonk Mountain (which is very nice, and covered in the book, but we've done it a few times). We took his suggestion and rode out to Stissing Mountain. It was so worth it! Between the directions in the book and help from our GPS, we were able to find the trailhead. Climbing to the top was a little intense, but we were rewarded with amazing views from the firetower, just as promised! We can't wait to go back for more hikes!

The premier guide for anyone planning an excursion in New York's Catskills and Hudson Valley country!.......2006-08-09

There are more than 600 miles of hiking trails in the Catskill mountains and the Hudson Valley, locales that are within just a few hours of New York City. "AMC's Best Day Hikes In The Catskills & Hudson Valley" is a practical "day trip" guide to varied and scenic terrains that range from Westchester County to Albany, showcasing sixty of the most scenic and spectacular of these trails which suited for anything from short family nature walks to day-long hikes with magnificent views. Each individual trail trip includes a detailed map and a summary of the trip time, distance, and difficultly. An icon indicates whether the trail is also good for snowshoeing or cross-country skiing in the winter, making "AMC's Best Day Hikes In The Catskills & Hudson Valley" an all weather, all-season reference of value for both local residents and vacationing visitors. Enhanced with hiking and safety tips, advice for hiking with children, an 'At-a-Glance Trip Planner' for finding the best hikes suited to the reader's aspirations and limitations, "AMC's Best Day Hikes In The Catskills & Hudson Valley" is the premier guide for anyone planning an excursion in New York's Catskills and Hudson Valley country!

The Best of the Appalachian Trail Day Hikes, 2nd

Average customer rating:

Great Books!
Get in your car and go!
Hiking for the fun of it

The Best of the Appalachian Trail Day Hikes, 2nd
Victoria Logue , Frank Logue , and Leonard M. Adkins
Manufacturer: Menasha Ridge Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Family Travel | Specialty Travel | Travel | Subjects | Books

General | Travel | Subjects | Books

General | Sports | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Outdoors & Nature Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Sports Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Travel Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0897325273

Book Description

You love to backpack, but you can only get out on the trail a few weekends a year. This book was written for you. It is the first guide to cover the length of the Appalachian Trail in a single volume. It doesn't describe every mile of the trail, but offers detailed descriptions of the suggested hikes. Why sort through guidebooks looking for a good hike, when the best of the Appalachian Trail is all here in one book. Includes day hikes in all fourteen states the Appalachian Trail passes through.

Customer Reviews:

Great Books!.......2004-07-08

Just bought this and Best of the AT Overnight Hikes and am really enjoying them. I know I will never hike the whole trail, but these two books give me the best that the Appalachian Trail has to offer without having to hike evey inch of it. The books are well-organized and you can glean a lot of information at a glance; later you can go back and get the specifics of the hikes. This is edition has been a major revision of the first edition with more than a third of the hikes being brand new and all of the hike information--length, difficulty, trail route, driving directions, etc.--updated. I (and you will too) will be making great use of them.

Get in your car and go!.......2000-03-30

If you like to hike, but don't like to spend too long in the mountains, this book is for you. Very well thought out and rich in detail, I've found the suggested hikes to be quite accurate in their descriptions, times, etc. One of the hardest things about day hikes is knowing how long it will take, and how you will get started and finished. the authors of this book went to great lenghts to make sure that they give you exactly the kind of information you need. I've hiked about 10 of the trails mentioned in this book, and I loved every mile of them--i even made it back in time for dinner :-)

Hiking for the fun of it.......2000-03-29

It was incredible to have somewhere to look that didn't give me 45 day journey's. I found the best trails and the steepest trails right at my fingertips. Because of this book, my husband and I decided to spend our week long vacation hiking the trail instead of day trips in NY, NJ and PA!

The Best of the Appalachian Trail Day Hikes

Average customer rating:

The Best of the Appalachian Trail Day Hikes
Victoria and Frank Logue
Manufacturer: Menasha Ridge/Appalachian
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
ASIN: B000HZ1QG0

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books