This is a series of essays in the same genre as Stephen Jay
Gould, who is reviewed elsewhere in these pages. The initial
focus is on astronomy and different theories of our origins,
which was what whetted my appetite enough to buy the book.
While Rothman's points are interesting, I personally know the
different theories well enough to know that he's not really
giving much credence to the natural skepticism of scientists.
Having been to several meetings where such things are discussed,
I know that they are filled with a lot more rancor and doubt
than Rothman seems to imply here (the "Galileo" tone in popular
skeptical writing is really annoying when it isn't justified).
I'm sure Rothman has, too, which makes his tone even more curious.
In other words, I think his points are valid, but the context
is misleading. There is no "party line" among cosmologists,
who are subsequently prone to petty fits of anger when someone
disagrees with them. It makes good copy, sure, but it just isn't
true. Anyway, the second half of the book is on a much more
obscure topic of scientific history, and I found myself skimming
it. All in all, if you want to write some good popular science
writing, Rothman holds his own, but I see no reason not to
thoroughly digest everything Gould has written first.