What do you think?
Rate this book
Refuting Evolution #2
Refuting Evolution 2
Updated in 2011! Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, who expertly defended creation in Refuting Evolution (which has sold over 350,000 copies), goes to bat once again in Refuting Evolution 2. Aimed specifically at the evolutionarily biased PBS television series Evolution, Sarfati adroitly makes light of the inaccuracies and fallacies of evolutionary theory, and offers sound creationist interpretation of the facts. This book also updates creationist arguments such as the plesiosaur reeled in by the Japanese fishing boat, the peppered moths, the men have one less rib than women adage, and much more. Here is a priceless resource for those involved in the ongoing creation/evolution debate.
235 pages, Paperback
First published November 18, 2002
16 people are currently reading
147 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Sarfati
18 books61 followersDr Jonathan D. Sarfati is a renowned creationist, physical chemist, spectroscopist, and chess master. He is most famous for taking an uncompromising stance on the origins of the universe, the earth, and life, and defending Scripture in a straightforward manner against any attempt to "reconcile" it with "scientific data" that contradict it.
Life and career
Jonathan Sarfati was born in Ararat, Australia in 1964. He moved to New Zealand as a child and received his early education there.[1] He graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted, and a Ph.D. in Chemistry, based on his thesis: A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules. He has also had papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals including co-authoring in the journal Nature on high-temperature superconductors in 1987, when he was 22 [2].
Life and career
Jonathan Sarfati was born in Ararat, Australia in 1964. He moved to New Zealand as a child and received his early education there.[1] He graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted, and a Ph.D. in Chemistry, based on his thesis: A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules. He has also had papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals including co-authoring in the journal Nature on high-temperature superconductors in 1987, when he was 22 [2].
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
January 20, 2016
Wonderful Book with awesome Details with full of great information packed inside.
worth to pay for , Fun to read , and a work of non-fiction.
Its a wonderful Book everyone should buy it for more information about evolution issues visit jw.org
Top ranked 1 Website.
Thank You Dr, Sarfati, God Bless You Dear Prof...
worth to pay for , Fun to read , and a work of non-fiction.
Its a wonderful Book everyone should buy it for more information about evolution issues visit jw.org
Top ranked 1 Website.
Thank You Dr, Sarfati, God Bless You Dear Prof...
September 5, 2012
This book is better than the first one simply because Jonathon Sarfati gets deeper into details this time around. While not covering the biggest issue, other than superficially, ie. the fossil record, he does cover a significant portion of evolutionist theory and debunks a great deal of it.
Believe him or not, he puts forth interesting alternatives that will make you think.
Believe him or not, he puts forth interesting alternatives that will make you think.
April 14, 2024
A SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION OF HIS EARLIER POPULAR BOOK
Jonathan David Sarfati is a young Earth creationist researcher, author and speaker for Creation Ministries International (CMI).
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2020 book, “This book pulls together the most powerful arguments that Christians are likely to hear from today’s leading evolutionary scientists. These arguments come from two powerhouses in the media---PBS-TV and the journal Scientific American---which have taken up the mantle of the pro-evolution crusade, preaching their message to a broad market around the world. PBS summarized the modern arguments for evolution in its lavish eight-hour series on ‘Evolution’ which … is shown in schools across America… Scientific American pulled together its own best arguments in a combative cover story, ’15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.’”
He clarifies, “although it would be nice to give teachers the FREEDOM to present alternatives to evolution, CMI and other major creationist organizations have NOT been lobbying for compulsory creation in schools, despite common accusations. For one thing… would Christians want an atheistic teacher to be forced to teach creation, and deliberately distort it?” (Pg. 29) Later, he adds, “the primary focus of Christian apologetics ministries like [CMI] is not on refuting evolution per se, which by itself will accomplish little to change lives and opinions, but rather, building a consistent biblical Christian worldview. Refuting evolution (and millions of years) is a COROLLARY of defending biblical truth.” (Pg. 66)
He asserts, “in the PBS series on Evolution… the producers tried to obscure the obvious---that evolution and biblical Christianity are diametrically opposed. Actually, they hardly discussed BIBLICAL Christianity, but interviewed people who believe that ‘God’ used evolution… they omit the strongest case of the best defenders, and give much airtime to those who haven’t the faintest idea about defending biblical Christianity. But the PBS program … clearly showed the baneful effects of compromise among Christians, and these incidents should raise alarms among pastors …” (Pg. 40)
He argues, “how do creationists explain carnivory today?... The Bible doesn’t specifically explain how carnivory originated, but since creation was finished after Day 6… there is no possibility that God created new carnivorous animals. Instead, creationists have three explanations in general… 1. The Bible appears not to regard insects as living in the same sense as humans and vertebrate animals… 2. Before the Fall, many attack/defense structures could have been used in a vegetarian lifestyle… 3. God foreknew the Fall, so He programmed creatures with the information for design features for attack and defense that they would need in a cursed world. This information was ‘switched on’ at the Fall… In general, I believe #3 is the best explanation for structures that seem specifically designed for attack and defense.” (Pg. 88-90)
He points out, “[in] the creationist argument [the] issue is not new TRAITS, but new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information… Rather, a mutation in the hox gene results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place. The hox gene merely moved legs to the wrong place; it did not produce any of the information that actually constructs the legs…” (Pg. 100)
Of the anti-design argument of the ‘blind spot’ in human vision, he comments, “the blind spot occupies only 0.25% of the visual field, and … the visual acuity of the region is only about 15% of the foveola, the most sensitive area of the retina on the visual axis. So the alleged defect is only theoretical, not practical. The blind spot is not considered handicap enough to stop a one-eyed person from driving a private motor vehicle. The main problem with only one eye is the lack of stereoscopic vision.” (Pg 116)
He notes, “the idea of ‘junk DNA’ was first a deduction from evolution… when evolutionists discover new strands of DNA that have no known function, they like to describe it as ‘junk’ DNA that is a leftover of evolution… But it’s absurd… that more complex organisms should evolve such elaborate machinery … if they were really useless. Rather, natural selection would favor organisms that did NOTE have to waste resources processing a genome filled with 98% of junk. And there have been many uses for junk DNA discovered, such as the overall genome structure and replication of genes, so it is also likely that it could have enabled rapid post-Flood diversification.” (Pg. 121-122)
He states, “Supposedly there were five mass extinctions in Earth’s history, caused by planet-wide catastrophes… The best-known extinction was that of the dinosaurs… The PBS program presents the usual meteorite impact theory as fact… The many problems with this idea are ignored. For example: *The extinction was not that sudden (using evolutionary/long age interpretations of the geological record). But the spread in the geological record makes sense if much of the sedimentary deposits were formed in Noah’s Flood… *Extinctions don’t correlate with crater dates, even given evolutionary dating assumptions. *Modern volcanic eruptions don’t cause global extinction patterns, even if they cause a temporary temperature drop… *Drill cores of the apparent ‘smoking gun’ crater on the Yucatan peninsula in south-east Mexico do not support the idea that it is an impact crater. *It seems that some scientists didn’t speak out against the idea for fear of undermining the ‘nuclear winter’ idea, and being grouped with ‘nuclear warmongers.’” (Pg. 151-152)
He says, “living organisms have machinery to direct the energy from sunlight or food, including the ATP synthase enzyme. This is the world’s tiniest motor… But machinery presupposed teleology (purpose), which means that the machinery must have had an intelligent source.” (Pg. 164-165)
Of the postulated evolution of the eye, he observes, “It is … fallacious to point to a series of more complex eyes in nature, and then argue that this presents an evolutionary sequence. This is like arranging a number of different types of aircraft in order of complexity, then claiming that the simple aircraft evolved into complex ones, as opposed to being designed. For one thing, eyes can’t descend from other eyes per se; rather, organisms pass on genes for eyes to their descendants. This is important when considering the nautilus eye, a pinhole camera. This cannot possibly be an ancestor of the vertebrate lens/camera eye, because the nautilus as a whole is not an ancestor of the vertebrates, even according to the evolutionists!” (Pg. 173-174)
Against the notion of the human appendix as a ‘vestigial organ,’ he points out, “It is now known that the human appendix contains lymphatic tissue and helps control bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the upper end of the alimentary canal, which are known to fight throat infections. They also provide a safe house for beneficial bacteria, so they can repopulate the large intestine after a dysentery attack flushes out all bacteria.” (Pg. 216)
This book will interest young-earth creationists and other critics of evolutionary theory.
Jonathan David Sarfati is a young Earth creationist researcher, author and speaker for Creation Ministries International (CMI).
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2020 book, “This book pulls together the most powerful arguments that Christians are likely to hear from today’s leading evolutionary scientists. These arguments come from two powerhouses in the media---PBS-TV and the journal Scientific American---which have taken up the mantle of the pro-evolution crusade, preaching their message to a broad market around the world. PBS summarized the modern arguments for evolution in its lavish eight-hour series on ‘Evolution’ which … is shown in schools across America… Scientific American pulled together its own best arguments in a combative cover story, ’15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.’”
He clarifies, “although it would be nice to give teachers the FREEDOM to present alternatives to evolution, CMI and other major creationist organizations have NOT been lobbying for compulsory creation in schools, despite common accusations. For one thing… would Christians want an atheistic teacher to be forced to teach creation, and deliberately distort it?” (Pg. 29) Later, he adds, “the primary focus of Christian apologetics ministries like [CMI] is not on refuting evolution per se, which by itself will accomplish little to change lives and opinions, but rather, building a consistent biblical Christian worldview. Refuting evolution (and millions of years) is a COROLLARY of defending biblical truth.” (Pg. 66)
He asserts, “in the PBS series on Evolution… the producers tried to obscure the obvious---that evolution and biblical Christianity are diametrically opposed. Actually, they hardly discussed BIBLICAL Christianity, but interviewed people who believe that ‘God’ used evolution… they omit the strongest case of the best defenders, and give much airtime to those who haven’t the faintest idea about defending biblical Christianity. But the PBS program … clearly showed the baneful effects of compromise among Christians, and these incidents should raise alarms among pastors …” (Pg. 40)
He argues, “how do creationists explain carnivory today?... The Bible doesn’t specifically explain how carnivory originated, but since creation was finished after Day 6… there is no possibility that God created new carnivorous animals. Instead, creationists have three explanations in general… 1. The Bible appears not to regard insects as living in the same sense as humans and vertebrate animals… 2. Before the Fall, many attack/defense structures could have been used in a vegetarian lifestyle… 3. God foreknew the Fall, so He programmed creatures with the information for design features for attack and defense that they would need in a cursed world. This information was ‘switched on’ at the Fall… In general, I believe #3 is the best explanation for structures that seem specifically designed for attack and defense.” (Pg. 88-90)
He points out, “[in] the creationist argument [the] issue is not new TRAITS, but new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information… Rather, a mutation in the hox gene results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place. The hox gene merely moved legs to the wrong place; it did not produce any of the information that actually constructs the legs…” (Pg. 100)
Of the anti-design argument of the ‘blind spot’ in human vision, he comments, “the blind spot occupies only 0.25% of the visual field, and … the visual acuity of the region is only about 15% of the foveola, the most sensitive area of the retina on the visual axis. So the alleged defect is only theoretical, not practical. The blind spot is not considered handicap enough to stop a one-eyed person from driving a private motor vehicle. The main problem with only one eye is the lack of stereoscopic vision.” (Pg 116)
He notes, “the idea of ‘junk DNA’ was first a deduction from evolution… when evolutionists discover new strands of DNA that have no known function, they like to describe it as ‘junk’ DNA that is a leftover of evolution… But it’s absurd… that more complex organisms should evolve such elaborate machinery … if they were really useless. Rather, natural selection would favor organisms that did NOTE have to waste resources processing a genome filled with 98% of junk. And there have been many uses for junk DNA discovered, such as the overall genome structure and replication of genes, so it is also likely that it could have enabled rapid post-Flood diversification.” (Pg. 121-122)
He states, “Supposedly there were five mass extinctions in Earth’s history, caused by planet-wide catastrophes… The best-known extinction was that of the dinosaurs… The PBS program presents the usual meteorite impact theory as fact… The many problems with this idea are ignored. For example: *The extinction was not that sudden (using evolutionary/long age interpretations of the geological record). But the spread in the geological record makes sense if much of the sedimentary deposits were formed in Noah’s Flood… *Extinctions don’t correlate with crater dates, even given evolutionary dating assumptions. *Modern volcanic eruptions don’t cause global extinction patterns, even if they cause a temporary temperature drop… *Drill cores of the apparent ‘smoking gun’ crater on the Yucatan peninsula in south-east Mexico do not support the idea that it is an impact crater. *It seems that some scientists didn’t speak out against the idea for fear of undermining the ‘nuclear winter’ idea, and being grouped with ‘nuclear warmongers.’” (Pg. 151-152)
He says, “living organisms have machinery to direct the energy from sunlight or food, including the ATP synthase enzyme. This is the world’s tiniest motor… But machinery presupposed teleology (purpose), which means that the machinery must have had an intelligent source.” (Pg. 164-165)
Of the postulated evolution of the eye, he observes, “It is … fallacious to point to a series of more complex eyes in nature, and then argue that this presents an evolutionary sequence. This is like arranging a number of different types of aircraft in order of complexity, then claiming that the simple aircraft evolved into complex ones, as opposed to being designed. For one thing, eyes can’t descend from other eyes per se; rather, organisms pass on genes for eyes to their descendants. This is important when considering the nautilus eye, a pinhole camera. This cannot possibly be an ancestor of the vertebrate lens/camera eye, because the nautilus as a whole is not an ancestor of the vertebrates, even according to the evolutionists!” (Pg. 173-174)
Against the notion of the human appendix as a ‘vestigial organ,’ he points out, “It is now known that the human appendix contains lymphatic tissue and helps control bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the upper end of the alimentary canal, which are known to fight throat infections. They also provide a safe house for beneficial bacteria, so they can repopulate the large intestine after a dysentery attack flushes out all bacteria.” (Pg. 216)
This book will interest young-earth creationists and other critics of evolutionary theory.
June 21, 2010
After finding that he could simply make everything up as he went along and get paid for it, Sarfati once again dusts off his faulty imagination to put together a stream of intellectual dishonesty. This book isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
There isn't a single coherent argument in this book. The whole thing reads like a list of half-baked, unintelligent epiphanies written by a dullard on cannabis.
There isn't a single coherent argument in this book. The whole thing reads like a list of half-baked, unintelligent epiphanies written by a dullard on cannabis.
July 15, 2017
A very informative book comparing the evolutionist and creationist views of evolution.
October 17, 2023
If you're new to the topic, I would recommend you read Refuting Evolution before you read Refuting Evolution 2 because it is a step up in information.
That said, this is still an overview/introductory book. It does an excellent job of outlining the basics of creationist belief, and it shows the areas where creationists and evolutionists disagree about the interpretation of the evidence. Once you've read this, you'll be aware of a lot of topics where you wish you knew more, and that's a good thing because it'll give you an idea of what to study next. I recommend reading it with a notebook nearby so you can write down those questions or topics as you reach them. Creation Ministries International will have an in-depth book on whatever you want to dive more deeply in to after.
That said, this is still an overview/introductory book. It does an excellent job of outlining the basics of creationist belief, and it shows the areas where creationists and evolutionists disagree about the interpretation of the evidence. Once you've read this, you'll be aware of a lot of topics where you wish you knew more, and that's a good thing because it'll give you an idea of what to study next. I recommend reading it with a notebook nearby so you can write down those questions or topics as you reach them. Creation Ministries International will have an in-depth book on whatever you want to dive more deeply in to after.
August 8, 2020
This sequel to "Refuting Evolution" debunks the best arguments for evolution as shown through the PBS aired TV-series "Evolution" and Scientific Americans article titled "15 answers to Creationist Nonsense". Jonathan Sarfati does a great scientfic work when he debunks some of the most used arguments for evolution. He makes them really look silly. He shows clearly how natural selection and mutations never can explain how an organism gains new informastion. When this is explained in a good and scientific way evolution is simply dead. If you liked the previous book, this is maybe even better.
Read
September 8, 2017Did not finish
Want to read
January 29, 2008part 2 of 2
February 11, 2016
Ok but lacking.
April 19, 2017
Written to refute the PBS series Evolution and a Scientific American article, this book doesn't cover quite as much material as a more general book on creation science might (such as Creation Rediscovered, for example). It does cover several points that I haven't read about before, such as that "bad design" is evidence for evolution, or the origin of reproduction.
As a bonus feature, an appendix covers various creationist arguments that should no longer be used (such as the thickness of moon dust) an others that are doubtful (like the pre-flood canopy theory or the decay in the speed of light).
The only criticism I have for this book is the one and a half page urge for readers to "trust in Christ as Savior" (which is unfortunately common for creationist books from Protestants).
As a bonus feature, an appendix covers various creationist arguments that should no longer be used (such as the thickness of moon dust) an others that are doubtful (like the pre-flood canopy theory or the decay in the speed of light).
The only criticism I have for this book is the one and a half page urge for readers to "trust in Christ as Savior" (which is unfortunately common for creationist books from Protestants).
Read
May 5, 2019I am not even going to try to rate this.
What can I say about something like this? I was interested in the Creationist arguments. It was biased, of course. Some of the comments were actually sarcastic, from my perspective. Such as referring to radioisotope dating as "dating" in quotes. The arguments about radioisotope dating were discussed in another book or article which was referenced. I did not read that document, though I may because I am curious. All of that aside, some of the arguments were interesting and could make an open minded person who can ignore the sarcasm stop and think. That should be the objective anyway. Research both sides and make up your own mind.
It is probably not possible to discuss this topic without bias. Probably the only people who might be able to present a nonbiased POV would be those who do not care at all.
The book was aimed at a Fundamentalist Christian audience and included a section of arguments this population should use and avoid in discussions with others about evolution.
Overall, this was an interesting book, though I doubt I will read the first installment.
I wanted to know what their arguments are. Now I know.
What can I say about something like this? I was interested in the Creationist arguments. It was biased, of course. Some of the comments were actually sarcastic, from my perspective. Such as referring to radioisotope dating as "dating" in quotes. The arguments about radioisotope dating were discussed in another book or article which was referenced. I did not read that document, though I may because I am curious. All of that aside, some of the arguments were interesting and could make an open minded person who can ignore the sarcasm stop and think. That should be the objective anyway. Research both sides and make up your own mind.
It is probably not possible to discuss this topic without bias. Probably the only people who might be able to present a nonbiased POV would be those who do not care at all.
The book was aimed at a Fundamentalist Christian audience and included a section of arguments this population should use and avoid in discussions with others about evolution.
Overall, this was an interesting book, though I doubt I will read the first installment.
I wanted to know what their arguments are. Now I know.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews