|
Review Summary: Awesome |
Date: 2008-03-27 |
|
| |
|
Details: Dr. Kenneth Poppe does an excellent job to explain the flaws of evolution. I have read his other book as well and he did a great job. He accurately points out what's wrong with evolution and why it just simply doesn't work. Check this one out. |
| |
|
Review Summary: And now for a word from a real scientist |
Date: 2007-08-07 |
|
| |
Details: I am a practicing scientist, but not the ivory-tower type. I have been employed in R&D in the private sector since receiving my PhD in 1972. I love science not only for its intellectual beauty and elegance, but because it WORKS. Science solves very real problems that no amount of prayer, poetry, incantation, art, music, or meditation can make a dent in. I blundered upon this book while browsing in the science section (yes, science) of the public library and I checked it out due to curiosity. I found it so disturbing that this book attempts itself off as scientific, that I had to write a review.
Creationists seem to be most concerned about two aspects of Darwinian thought: that humans are related to apes and that life may have arisen from non-living matter. The latter gets a lot of attention in this volume, but despite all the raving on the topic, the possibility that life originated from non-living matter is not central to the theory of evolution (nor is the relationship of humans and apes). The scientific investigation of the origin of life is a much more difficult and much more rudimentary line of inquiry than the study of evolution, which simply deals with how new species of organisms arise (which they undoubtedly do). So, even if this book demonstrated that life cannot arise from non-living matter (it doesn't), its arguments would still not disprove the core concept of evolution: that species evolve from other species through variation and natural selection.
The book repeats the old bogus statistical (Ch. 5-7) and second-law (Ch. 11) arguments that it is impossible for life to originate from non-living matter. These arguments were soundly refuted long ago; yet they resurface here with no response to the rebuttals. Apparently, these arguments are not really science--which can be refuted with evidence--but religious doctrine posing as science. The book insists that the theory of evolution is based on randomness, but there are two key concepts in evolution: variation and selection. Variation may be random, but selection is anything but. All of the goofy metaphors (the watch assembling itself, chimps building a car, a tornado constructing a house, etc.), as entertaining as they are, miss the point--evolution depends at least as much on non-random selection as it does on random variation. By the way, variation arises from normal alleles as well as from mutations. Quite a bit of ink is expended attacking the idea that mutation can produce adaptive traits (Ch. 17), but even if it could not, variation does not depend solely upon mutation.
The version of the second law of thermodynamics put forward here is a complete canard. First, ENTROPY does not determine whether a process can proceed, ENERGY does. Processes involving negative entropy are possible by applying energy; that is why we can make highly organized things like cars, computers, skyscrapers, etc. Second, the second law strictly applies only to closed systems, but the earth is not a closed system since it continuously receives trillions of kilowatts of solar energy. That is enough to overcome a great deal of earthly negative entropy!
In addition to such major conceptual errors, the book is loaded with trivial, annoying, and even amusing errors. An annoying error is the assertion that the LAWS of thermodynamics are more reliable than the THEORY of evolution, since they are "laws", after all. Not only is this is a merely semantic argument, it is also wrong. A trivial error is the statement that the symbol for a change in entropy is the Greek letter [delta] (p. 121). The symbol for entropy is S, and the symbol for a change in entropy is [delta]S.
The origin-of-life issue is belabored at some length in Ch. 8-10, culminating in the claim (p. 114) that the "myth of molecular evolution" has been "thoroughly debunked". As limited as the science in this field is, it still seems more plausible that life developed somehow from non-living matter than that the God of the Jews created the fruit tree, the winged fowl, the great whales, and all the rest, in their modern forms, by simply speaking (now there's a myth!). The creationist assumption seems to be that early life would be very similar to modern life--with 20 or so amino acids, proteins, enzymes, DNA-encoded information, etc. But it is likely that early life was very different, probably not easily recognizable to us, and EVOLVED into the complex and efficient life forms we have today.
At least the book does not endorse "young-earth" creationism (Ch. 14) and appears to acknowledge that the earth is probably more than 4 billion years old. This may solve creationism's big problem with the fossil record, but it does not validate the (literal) biblical version of creation, if only because anatomically modern humans have clearly lived on earth for about 30,000 years longer than the Genesis genealogies account for since Adam and Eve.
After steadfastly maintaining for 276 pages that his objections to evolution are purely scientific, the author at last confesses (p. 277), "I find the answers most compatible with science come in certain biblical texts". In particular, he finds scientific guidance in Psalm 104. Here is the ID agenda writ large: if ID is taught as science in the classroom, the Bible will soon become the textbook. That would be a tragedy. It is no mere coincidence that the flourishing of modern science began when scientists stopped attributing their results to supernatural causes and started doing more experiments to explore what they did not understand. Modern science assumes that supernatural forces are not necessary to explain Nature, not because science is inherently atheistic, but because the assumption WORKS. In other words, scientists believe that Nature is intelligible to the human mind; ID claims the opposite. No matter how "science-y" the trappings of ID, it is simply not compatible with real science.
Finally, I apologize for the length of this review. Believe it or not, I have edited it down!
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Notice anything wrong with the cover? |
Date: 2007-03-24 |
|
|
| |
Details: Do you see anything wrong with the cover? Anything "funny" about that DNA molecule? If not, then this book might be for you.
But if you have even an inkling of scientific knowledge, then you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a more apt metaphor for this creationist garbage masquerading as a pseudo-intellectual examination of the most well-supported theory in all of science. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Unfortunately sloppy presentation ... there are better books. |
Date: 2007-01-23 |
|
|
| |
Details: There's not much to recommend this book. The author talks about various objections to Darwinism, but usually garbles them enough to undercut the point.
For example, on p 55 he sets up a thermodynamics experiment with two rooms and a door partition and declares that if you can prevent the temperature from equalizing when the door is opened, "... then we'll talk" (about order coming from disorder). Sounds like a bold challenge, but irrelevant. And it sounds like the author has never lived in a house with a basement.
On page 120 he explains the law of conservation of energy as ".. this means that since the event that brought the universe into existence, no new matter has been generated from any other source. It also means you can't make any new atoms and you can never lose the old ones." That's quite wrong. And, indeed, later the author correctly states the principle.
This is the way throughout the book; sloppy phrasing and poor descriptions that undercut the point the author tries to make by injecting error and imprecision into the discussion.
The book reads like an extended posting on the Internet, with the author saying things like: "... I can't think of any off-hand..." (this is a book; you are supposed to research it, readers don't care what you can or cannot think of off the top of your head). Exclamation marks abound. Paragraphs start out "Here it is in simpler terms" or "Here is the main point of all this".
He wastes time critiquing the Drake equation which is something of no importance in the scientific world, being popular in pop science only.
His discussion about SETI describes how electromagnetic signals from the Earth have only travelled 50 light-years out, leading to his conclusion that "... If we are going to detect radio signals from active aliens, they would have to be virtually living on our block." Apparently, he thinks of the signal bubble surrounding the Earth as being the same as that surrounding an ET civilization (50 years).
This is a book that really need not have been written. It's easy for Darwinists to poke holes in and is the sort of thing that makes the subject disreputable. Library check-out at best, not a keeper. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Can't we just talk about this? |
Date: 2007-01-21 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: Dr. Poppe's books seems to be asking the question in my review title. He presents many facets of the origins debate. He seems to be attempting to start a discussion that should be on going. One of the prime characteristics of the scientific method is the chance of a scientists being wrong. That prospect is excluded from the discussion of evolution to everyone's detriment. |
| |
|
out of 10 Reviews
