|
Review Summary: so... All creationsts believe in a young earth? |
Date: 2007-11-03 |
|
| |
Details: This is probably a great book for anyone who knows little of the debate! If you think all creationists believe the earth is 6k years old, then this book will help you live in a bubble of ignorance. It made me laugh opening this book to see how much of it delt with the age of the earth.
I will not lie, I didn't read all of the book (come on, I read through this at the book store), however I did read the chapter on the origin of life. The first laughable part of this is when he actually claims the origin of life has been solved, and then has miller as the refrence. Yes thats right, Stanley miller came up with an amino acid. Thats the easy part, now try to get that to a protein sequence and see what happens ;). The author contiunally assures us that the answer to this problem is easier than meets the eyes (well of course he says that, he also thinks its already been solved). He atacks yockeys theory, and says that he has overestimated the chances of self-regulation, and then states its a little smaller than that (without giving a cited refrence). He talks about base-pairing in polynucleotides (such as the "RNA world" model) as the prevailing view of how self-replication began in the molecular world. However, subsequent efforts to synthesize such a system capable of self-replication have failed. Sorry buddy, I guess you forgot to mention that! From what I remember the book never suggests how such a reaction system would spawn a genetic code or isolate itself within a membrane to sustain displacement from equilibrium. Even considering if "self organization" is to work, you have to get a whole lot of things correct and nothing wrong. Even more of a problem is that we have had entirely enough time to figure this problem out, and we can't do it hmmmmmm (well thats according to mainstream science, I dont know about this guy). Or you can just take this guys word for it being solved! (Just for the record, please advise if what I said about his view of the origin life is incorrect. IF thats the case than I apologize. Like I said this is all going off memory from reading this at the book store hours earlier)
One enlightening aspect of this book is that he uses science with his argument. It is a relief from all this name calling online. I never really get to pick up these types of books so I listen to reviewrs lame attempts and SO rarely hear anything scienitfic, so this was a nice change of pace. Perhaps I should have given this book two stars! |
| |
|
Review Summary: REAL scientists confront creationists (as this book does so well) |
Date: 2006-05-25 |
|
| |
Details: This book is an excellent resource that helps get to the bottom of the fallacious reasoning of the psuedo-science movement (the creationist movement in particular). Every chapter is well written and superbly informative. The authors are well accredited and right on target on the topics they address.
The book deals with some very basic fallacies of the creationist movement (not necessarily attacking God-believers, but militant young earth creationists and other opposers of evolution). A lot has developed in the ID movement since the writing of this book. More resources are handy, but the material here is priceless and needed knowledge to any person who champions true, unadulterated science over the bad excuses that try and pass for it in this turbulent time when everyone is trying to bootleg nonsense into our colleges and public schools.
(JH)
www.ministerturnsatheist.org |
| |
|
Review Summary: Of Kettles and Pots |
Date: 2006-03-04 |
|
|
| |
Details:
I find it fascinating how often members of both sides of the evolution-creation argument accuse each other of some kind of questionable practice - whilst doing exactly the same thing themselves.
The credibility of this book can be gauged right from the start of the first chapter - by the arguments presented by an evolutionist who is pulling exactly the kind of stunts that evolutionists most hate (and quite reasonably so) when such actions are being carried out by creationists.
First the author uses a passage from the work of Henry Morris as though it faithfully represented the views of ALL those who prefer a creationist explanation of the origins of mankind.
Secondly the author fails to distinguish between "fundamentalist", "creationist" and "literalist", drawing the assumption, for example, that all fundamentalists are literalists as far as interpreting the contents of the Bible is concerned.
This is categorically NOT true - as illustrated all the way back in 1925 when William Jennings Bryan (a renowned fundamentalist but NOT a literalist) explained, in the course of the trial of John Scopes, that he believed in the literal truth of the Bible, but ONLY insofar as it was meant to be taken literally.
Next the author makes an unjustified leap - from saying that evolutionism (from a creationist viewpoint) "may be because of the Devil" (page 1) to the extremist claim that "scientific creationism" is seen by its adherents as "a battle between Good and Evil" and that "either you are for God, or on the side of the Devil" (page 2).
So, in the space of just about one full page of text, the author selected to "open the batting" has indulged in the three cardinal sins so often ascribed to creationists:
- Quote mining
- Misuse of technical terms
- Building straw men as a basis for repudiating the case made by the people you are criticising.
Please note, I am not for one moment denying that "some" creationists may be in complete agreement with Dr. Morris' views; "some" creationists definitely do indulge in quote mining; "some" creationists do misuse (deliberately or through ignorance) technical terms and definitions relating to evolution; and "some" creationists definitely do base their arguments on "straw men" because they are so much easier to demolish than confronting the "facts".
But NOT all of them.
Contrary to the implication made by this author, and throughout most of the book, creationists are a diverse lot and definitely not a neatly self-contained, homogenous group which can be written off with a few supercilious side swipes.
Nor is it true that ONLY "scientific creationists" (or any other religion-oriented groups/individuals) have criticisms of the supposedly "scientific" evidence used to support evolutionist claims. (See, for example, "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism", by Richard Milton, a science journalist and evolutionist with NO religious affiliations.)
In a nutshell, "Scientists Confronting Creationism" is preaching strictly to the "converted" whilst adding little or nothing to a genuinely informed and useful debate.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Timeless - get three copies. |
Date: 2005-12-27 |
|
|
| |
Details: Martin Gardner wrote: "This scholarly, richly documented anthology is also a slashing, two fisted attack on the scientific imbilicity of today's creationists. (...) for anyone open to reason and overwhealming evidence, it couldn't be more effective."
I recommend that you buy three copies of "Scientists Confront Creationism," one for yourself, one to lend to friends, and one as a gift for the chairman of your local school board. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Utterly Convincing |
Date: 2003-07-16 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: I read this book almost 20 years ago now and found it utterly convincing. You will quickly notice that the arguments against this book won't come from a scientific viewpoint but from a religious one. As with the reviewer here who describes the book as "full of logical errors", yet can't produce a single example and insists that "there are creationist scientists", the arguments are based on ignorance. Actually I doubt most of the critics got more than a few pages into the book. They no doubt would find the abolutely overwhelming mass of evidence from virtually every branch of science inconvenient and uncomfortable. For open minded folks though wondering why virtually every practicing scientist today accepts the basic theory of evolution (all life evolved from simpler life forms), in spite of the fact that it seems to defy common sense, it would be difficult to find a better book. Certainly its arguments leave no room for doubt.
The book does not disprove God or a creator, however its clear that honest seekers wishing to tie the origins of life to a human understanding of God will conclude that what is taught by today's Christian fundamentalists is absurd nonsense. |
| |
|
out of 22 Reviews
