|
Review Summary: Questioning fact? |
Date: 2008-10-02 |
|
| |
|
Details: I was under the impression that evolution was a fact that couldn't be questioned. Boy, was I wrong. I have come to the conclusion now that it takes more faith to accept evolution than it does to accept creation! I would highly recommend this book for anyone who wishes to see that another realistic opinion actually exists. |
| |
|
Review Summary: An astute obserbation into the cause of our social and spiritual ills |
Date: 2008-04-03 |
|
| |
Details: While the scientific substance for the theory of evolution is lacking in all necessary areas, and while the physical evidence for the historical accuracy of the Genesis narrative continues to amount, many Christians still refuse to accept a literal interpretation of the First Book of Moses, particularly concerning the first few chapters. It seems likely that one reason for this is a lack of realisation on how significant an affect our understanding of human origins makes upon our general worldview. Thus, Ken Ham has attempted to challenge this philosophical apathy in `The Lie: Evolution'. Using the decadence of the modern world, he proposes that the bases for the ethical anarchy we observe is primarily due to a lack of correct foundations, rather than blatant pure wickedness. As the great majority are under the illusion that we are nothing more than mutated chemicals, these individuals perceive no reason to behave in a moral fashion; or rather, see no prevention to challenging moral absolutes regarding such topics as homosexuality, euthanasia and abortion. Furthermore, without Genesis as the foundation to our understanding of human history, the vitality of Christ and Redemption is rendered null; without a conception of sin, no-one will seek a Redeemer. Exposing the religiosity of Darwinian descent, Ham advocates the importance of realising that we are start from a particular worldview; something that affects the rest of our thinking.
Like most Creationist literature, it is composed within the evangelical Protestant tradition. The social evils of common-ancestory evolution are clearly described, as is the resulting collapse of Christian civilisation; insightful and practical observations. The one critique I would offer is that Ken Ham overwhelms the theory of evolution as the singular cause of the world's spiritual deprivation, rather than viewing it as an anti-Christian leap, in a tradition commencing at the `Enlightenment'.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Weak attempt at defending creationism |
Date: 2008-01-10 |
|
| |
Details: I'm a Christian and I still thought he did a horrible job defending creationism. The book had very few scientific statements and came off more emotional than logical. In my opinion, it seemed like his whole argument kept coming back to a "...because God said so..." type response. He discredits ALL science that cannot reproduced in a lab. This guy would get shredded in a debate.
He goes on to say that Evolution is a religion and is the reason for the decay in society. I'm sorry, but the "decay" began way before Darwin was even born. To me, he comes off as an angry man shouting from his soap box casting judgement on non-believers. He's misdirecting the cause for sinful behavior on Evolution. I'm not saying Evolution is right, but this not the right book if you're looking for answers.
I applaud his passion, but I believe he lacks focus as well as legitimate arguments disproving Evolution. I feel this book is irresponsible and should not be added to anyone's library. If I was not already a Christian, this book would push me in the opposite direction. This book was a reach at best. |
| |
|
Review Summary: worth the money |
Date: 2007-11-23 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: Well written and easy to read book by Ken Ham. I highly recommend for people of any worldview. Excellent for ages highschool, college, and beyond. Remember, don't just search for something to believe in, search for the truth. |
| |
|
Review Summary: A Study in Fallacious Reasoning |
Date: 2007-08-17 |
|
|
| |
Details: Let me make one thing clear, to begin: I am a Christian, I believe in the divinity of Christ, the reality of the Gospel, and the authority of scripture--and also that God created the universe.
For that reason, I gave Ham's book as objective a treatment as I could, coming to it with an open mind, and a willingness to find not the problems in his argument but to discover what he could teach me as a thinking believer. In other words, I intentionally read the book with an "I'm going to assume he's right unless he proves himself wrong" sort of mentality.
What I found in Ham's book was not a logical argument but rather something I'm seriously considering using in writing classes I teach at a Christian university as an example of fallacious logic--of what NOT to do when trying to make an argument from a Christian perspective.
A number of his fallacies are pointed out in other reviews, here are several that seemed significant to me:
1. He seems to willfully mis-characterize both the Bible and science. Primarily, he attributes to a present-day consensus about evolutionary theory a number of ideas that present-day scientists rejected as false long ago, and that have been roundly critiqued as destructive lies by the very liberal academic community (both in the humanities and sciences) he descries, such as social Darwinism. Present-day scientists do not accept Darwin's theories wholesale, and haven't for a very long time. By thus mischaracterizing the nature and ideas of his opposition, he creates a clear "straw man" argument, setting up not the real arguments used by present-day scientists, but rather the ideas that he can knock down most easily.
The largest fallacy of all in this vein is the assumption that science itself purports of "prove" anything at all. I have a number of friends who are scientists, some at Christian universities. Each of them would immediately correct a student who says he/she says that an experiment has "proven" a theory as "true," when, in fact, what they have done is observed a phenomenon that has acted in a manner consistent with a hypothesis: nothing more, nothing less. This isn't the same thing as religious belief.
2. Ham argues that evolutionary theory is essentially the "root of all evil" in modern society, responsible for things like homosexuality, abortion, and the rest of the usual litany of social ills. He fails to address, however, the fact that all these things existed in significant ways well before Darwin published his theories, and existed even in a medieval and renaissance western Europe that was an entirely Christian society in which the idea of young-earth creation was accepted as a matter of course. Perhaps there is a counterargument to this--but the point is that Ham doesn't make it.
3. Ham also fails to answer the potential counterargument of why science actually seems to work under many other circumstances. He argues, essentially, that all science is theory, that all theory is "tainted" by belief and bias, and that if science is theory, then it must uncertain; and if it's uncertain, it can't really explain anything. The problem is, it does explain a lot of things: if you take medication for a physical condition and it works, you're acting on the kind of science Ham descries: the medication was generated using empirical research, which noticed how certain chemicals acted on the body, and explained that interaction sufficiently well to create a medication that, say, demonstrably dries up your sinuses when you're sniffly. If science is nothing but spurious belief, why does science clearly explain many things? And if Ham's critique of science is true, why does he not also critique, say, the law of gravity as just as big a religious myth as evolution?
In a way, he's actually right: if you read up on the philosophy of science, you'll find that even scientists don't believe they can prove that the law of gravity is an eternal constant, that it will keep operating as it has forever. Why? Because science deals with observable phenomena, and the future isn't there to be observed. All science can prove is that the law of gravity has acted in a consistent manner in the past. However, if we take Ham's argument to heart, then we should be nailing down or furniture, because if science can't prove that it will continue to act as it does, then the idea that gravity will continue to act as it has is nothing but a spurious religious belief. In other words, if Ham's argument is true, then ALL science is nothing but empty religious belief, including all the scientific concepts that you take for granted on a daily basis--the concepts that theorize why airplanes fly, how light and electricity are transmitted, how the mechanism of your watch works.
4. The biggest problem, for me, was that a huge part of his argument really seemed to be missing: Ham argues, as I've mentioned, that because our knowledge of science isn't absolute, it can't explain anything with complete surety. If that's the case, Ham says, then science really doesn't teach us anything. However, he argues, we can know about the Bible because if we start with the idea that God is supreme and all-knowing, then his word, i.e. the Bible, must be true. But here's the question he doesn't answer: HOW DO WE KNOW THAT OUR KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE IS COMPLETE? We are, as Ham acknowledges, a fallen species, our understanding both the world and God is tainted by our own sinfulness. If that's the case, can we really afford to think that our understanding of scripture isn't equally tainted by our fallenness? I'm not saying, here, that God isn't all-knowing and the scripture doesn't contain the Truth with a capital-T; I'm saying that if we are a fallen people, we can't trust our own understanding of anything, that includes science, but it also includes God and the scriptures. The reason this is a problem is that it shows that Ham actually commits the very sin he thinks is at the root of all contemporary social evil: he assumes that his understanding of the Bible and of God are absolute, assumes that, when we read the Bible, a perfect knowledge of God is beamed into our hearts, untainted by our own fallen, human understanding. This is important because what he does, here, is to literally LEAN ON HIS OWN UNDERSTANDING. That, my friends, is a stance that Ham himself has a word for: Humanism. For that reason, I would submit that Ham is the ultimate hypocrite, because he proves himself, ultimately, to be the very kind of humanist he so abhors.
To those who are inclined not to believe me in any of this, my response is "GREAT! Don't believe me! Do some reading from the real sources and judge for yourself!" Read recent work that's coming out from actual scientists in the fields of geology or biology: what are the questions they're really asking these days? How are they going about looking for answers? What do they say their research is really telling them? What do real, pious scholars of the scriptures have to say about Genesis? What has been said and thought about Genesis in the Christian tradition?
If you'd like a really accessible overview of all this, allow me to recommend a different book, which I'm sure is available here on Amazon: Roger Olson's _The Mosaic of Christian Belief_. Olson is a respected scholar of Christian theology at Baylor University--and is very orthodox in his belief. I'm not going to review the book here, but only issue this challenge: after you've read both books, ask yourself which seems the more logical? Which writer seems to be working from accurate historical knowledge? Which writer seems to write from a position of real humility and generosity toward his fellow believers, including the ones with whom he disagrees? Which seems the more informed? Which seems to be writing more out of a sense of Christ's commandments to love God and neighbor than our of a sense of simply accusing the "other guy" of being the source of all the world's evil? Which one seems to be building up rather than tearing down? Which writer evinces more real hope and joy? Which demonstrates the fruits of the spirit and the spirit of the beatitudes more clearly? What are the potential fruits of Ham's view of the scriptures and the world as opposed to Olsen's?
Blessings to all.The Mosaic of Christian Beliefs: Twenty Centuries of Unity & Diversity |
| |
|
out of 87 Reviews
