Negative Positive
Title: Author argues creationism but knows nothing about evolution.
Review: I picked this book up thinking it would be something that I, a total pet lover, would enjoy. I'm glad I scanned some pages, I could not get past his insistence on creationism, his (as another reviewer said) passive aggressive attacks on people who do not believe it, i.e. "papa Darwin", and lastly one sentence about evolution stating that it contains the words "should", "may", "could". He also states he has studied the theory extensively, and in the next sentence says that it promotes survival of the strongest. This shows me he has studied nothing, and brings the baggage of creationism to the table. "Survival of the fittest" does not by any means mean "strongest", it means the most adaptable (i.e. the most fit to survive in a particular environment). His intentions may be good, but he's totally off the mark in proving his point.
Is the review positive or negative? 