Refuting Evolution

Refuting Evolution #1

by Jonathan Sarfati

A creationist response to the National Academy of Science's Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. The latter, distributed nationwide to thousands of public school teachers, is an effort to saturate students with evolutionary concepts. Refuting Evolution is a cogent rebuttal, carefully examining the points raised in the NAS science and religion; natural selection; bird evolution; astronomy; the age of the earth, etc.

Genres: Science, Christian, Nonfiction, Evolution, Christianity, Theology, Creation Science

140 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 1999

About the author

Dr 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].

Reviews

[Debbie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Succinct, easy to read and follow. This book did in 125 pages what Darwin's Doubt attempted to do in 512, and it didn't bury me alive in science that I needed additional resources to understand.

Mr. Sarfati synthesized important information from many scientific fields and presented it logically and simply. From the basis/bias' of decision making of both sides of the creationist/evolutionist argument, to specific examples of animal creation (or non-evolution), to earth age - he covered it all. This would be a perfect resource for Christians witnessing to non-believers and evolutionists.

This is an excellent book to start with if you are venturing into the creationist/evolutionist waters and are looking for more specific information other than your own "informed opinion."

[Stacy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting

[Ankur · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wronger than wrong.

"Evolution is bad, let's become Christian."

[V · Rating 1 out of 5]

He starts with the common argument about creationist scientists making important scientific discoveries. No issue there. However, it only takes a few pages of complaints about "evolutionists" for Sarfati to show that he, like most creationist authors, does not know what evolution is. "Molecules to Man" has never been a thing. Cells to man is evolution while molecules to single cells is abiogenesis (chemistry). Then he argues the influence of bias in science. It's rather amusing when he says that "It’s not really a question of who is biased, but which bias is the correct bias with which to be biased!". The correct bias? Where are we to find that?

I roll my eyes through chapter one as he points out that this professor is a self-proclaimed marxist and how "Dr Stanley Jaki has documented how the scientific method was stillborn in all cultures apart from the Judeo-Christian culture of Europe." I don't know much from outside my own continent but the polytheistic man-loving Greeks invented the scientific method and the Islamic golden age worked it out too. Then he lists Christian scientists, again. "the creationist rocket scientist Wernher von Braun" Creationist and Nazi who literally went to his local death camp to choose the slave-labourers to build his rockets. Not the best example.

It's interesting that he brings up the 'impossibility' of sight evolving and how biologists from the NAS are mostly atheist. Child me used to think that eye is too complex to be an accident until David Attenborogh explained it.

At this point I gave up on reviewing. If you want to read a good creationist book, pick one not 15 years old.

[Joshua Letchford · Rating 5 out of 5]

This surprisingly small book has ten chapters packed full of the holes in Evolutionary theory. If you have ever wondered how Evolution and the Bible mix, then this book (and another of Sarfati's, Refuting Compromise, on my to-read list) are for you!

The book is written as a response to a textbook on how to teach Evolution in the class room. It's not hard to read and very understandable. There is so much information packed into these chapters about the incredible design of animals, ape-to-man Evolution, the Big Bang, and Fish-to-land animal Evolution and much more that I recommend only reading one chapter a day or less, then writing or talking to somebody about what you read, to cement it into your memory.

This book probably for pre-teens and up for the scientific information in here, and I believe it's for everyone. Fantastic!

[Christopher · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is probably the worst book ever written. Instead of providing even a single argument to support his assumptions, Sarfati instead weaves a long string of hopes and speculations while providing no evidence in his favor. This book is worse than simply incorrect, it is wholly dishonest.

[Vicki · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is my favorite book to-date offering scientific evidence that supports Biblical creation. It is an easy read at 139 pages and written in language that anybody can understand. I would highly recommend this book as an overview of what creationists believe and why.

[Tomas Perez · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is very brief. It's just a response to a teacher's textbook. It isn't a detailed critique of the general evolution theory. If you want that, I recommend his book "By design".

[Priscilla · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book does a succinct, but thorough, discussion of the main points of evolution and the science that refutes what they believe. It also brings up some evidence that is kept under wraps or ignored by evolutionists because that evidence points pretty clearly to intelligent design. This book can be a bit dense for a non-science person, like myself, even though it's short, but it is still understandable and it makes a lot of sense.

[Rod Horncastle · Rating 4 out of 5]

That was a short-sweet ramble through Creationistic Bible loving-science.

Basically this book proves there's no reason for a Christian to even bother with so-called Evolutionary Atheistic Science. Let the Atheists have their materialistic God-hating meaninglessness and random chaos over ridiculous amounts of time with some Chance thrown in for Gambling purposes. Apparently it does NOT help them sleep at night. (I know - many have told me.)

The author tackles the lies and bad science thrown about by the National Academy of Sciences book: "Teaching About Evolution and the Natural Science". Yes, lots of quotes that are comical and extremely biased by people who claim to be free-thinking scientists of the highest nobility.
But as Refuting Evolution shows us: There's a fair bit of religious attacks in this National Academy offering. It's easy to see that "teaching about evolution" is much more than just science. Similar to asking the famous Atheistic propaganda evolution bulldog "Richard Dawkins" when's the last time he actually did any REAL science? Or visited a lab?
It seems some science isn't really about How Things Work anymore. It's more about How Anything Biblical MUST Not Work according to the academic secular elite.

"A book published by the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences...meant to teach biology teachers how to teach evolution so that their students would believe it. The NAS gave vast numbers of their book to public schools and other institutions-free of charge...NAS clearly hoped that their publication would extinguish belief in Biblical Creation, giving public school teachers all the arguments they needed to counter...Creation believers in their classrooms."

It seems the science classroom isn't really about ACTUAL science anymore: It's about who has the right to force their worldview and assumed methods on the next generation of students.

It's funny, you would think kids (and especially teenagers) would be rebellious and cheer on the underdog of Creationism or Intelligent Design, but mostly they give in to anything that defies a God that gave meaning and purpose to the universe. People look for conspiracy's EVERYWHERE - and yet when the most obvious one I have ever seen is right in front of them, they blindly run the other way gobbling up any propaganda they can absorb.

Thankfully there is now no lack of information OR "GOOD science" to simply tell people "There is no particles to people evolution" (or as one reviewer complained: "Cells to man is evolution while molecules to single cells is abiogenesis (chemistry)"). Either way - It's just poor science filled with eager assumptions and desperation.
On occasion I love picking up a pro-Darwin book and counting all the: Maybe's, We assumes, Possibilities, Could haves, It appears, Leads us to... Yep, any honest Darwinist has to admit that they really have nothing factual or scientific - just eager guesses in the name of? Desperation I assume. Don't upset the Boys Club or you'll lose your funding.

Jonathan Sarfati, PH.D. has even quoted numerous Darwinists who admit the many flaws of this poor attempt at science. Too many to put in this review - just buy the book.

[Tim · Rating 1 out of 5]

Pure drivel. Slanted and just plain... weird. The 'science' put forward just isn't and it is odd how the author chose to 'go after' evolution in general. If you read this and think it sounds right, you probably have gaping holes in your general education.

[Mark Cooper · Rating 4 out of 5]

[Book] Good summary of the main points against evolution.

[Zachary Donnelly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Johnathan Sarfati Ph. D. scientific nonfiction book “Refuting Evolution” is a engaging word after word book promoting that a Intelligent designer is not ridiculous. Johnathan reviews the false claims in the (NAS) “Teaching about evolution and the nature of science” Americas guidebook for educators on evolution.
Johnathan Sarfati wrote this book to inform youth that scientist lie about the theory of evolution and keep evidence that can affect it away from the public. “I vividly recall a seminar where a young lady, who appeared quite distressed, came up and blurted out “I’m angry.” “At me?” I asked ... “No not at you-at my teachers and college professors.” “And why is that?” I asked… “Why didn’t they tell me about all this evidence that contradicts evolution…isn’t that what education is all about?” Pg1. I and many people agree that lies are everywhere that should no be there specially if it is “science.” Johathan states on Pg68 “evolutionary faith…” Faith: “To believe in a unknown or unseen force.” As a evolutionist you have faith no matter what you need it to believe it. Evolutionist have faith that Missing links are there, bird evolved from dinosaurs, Humans evolved from ape ancestor, and the universe came into existence etc.
Missing links is a major problem for the theory of evolution. Dr. Colin Patterson wrote in his book : Evolution “…If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them… I will lay it on the line – There is not one such fossil for which one can make a water tight argument.” Pg48. The fossil record has many massive gaps between species. Based on the standard model evolutionary chart it shows a nice flowing evolution of species but in reality the chart is like a barely standing Jenga tower. “Turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates… The “oldest known sea turtle” was fully formed turtle, not at all transitional.” Pg49-50. “Palaeochiropteryx tupaiodon – one of the “oldest” fossil bats … and is “dated” between 48 and 54 million years old. It clearly had fully developed wings, and its inner ear had the same construction as those of modern bats.”Pg50. The Transitional evidence as told isn’t out there and yes this is just a example. This give evidence that we must of been designed.
Humans : Images of God or advanced apes? We all get preached about humans evolved from apes with a “mysterious process” like it’s a fact. Well Jonathan and I disagree. “Anatomist Charles Oxnard performed a detailed analysis of different bone of A. Africanus and concluded that it did not walk upright in the human manner… Oxnard, an evolutionist, is one of the several experts who do not believe that any of the australopithecines were on the human line.”Pg80. Mitochondrial Eve is a “sequencing of DNA in a part of humans cells known as Mitochondria.”Pg87. Evolutionist propose human ancestors from Africa about 150,000 years ago started spreading out through out the world. “This DNA is inherited only through the mothers line… Evolutionist believed they had clear proof against the biblical account, because “Mitochondrial Eve” supposedly lived 200,000 years ago… Mitochondrial DNA mutates far faster than previously thought. If this new evidence is applied to “Mitochondrial Eve” it indicates that she would have lived only 6000-6500 years ago” Pg 87-88 perfectly consistent to the biblical account.
Astronomy Johathan explains we have problems with the common knowledge of astronomy. “Evolution is a philosophy trying to explain everything without God. Thus, it must be applied to the origin of the universe and solar system.” Pg91. “Dr. James Trefil professor of physics at George Mason University, Virgina, accepts the “big bang” model, but he admits that there are fundamental problems… “The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit.”” Pg93. “The creationist astronomer, Dr. Danny Faulkner, pointed out : Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don’t spontaneously collapse and form stars.” Pg94. I was given false facts ever since I was young and still teach it like a fact this word needs to spread.
Evolution is very faulty the school systems teaching lies and selective evidence. They aren’t teaching us how to think but what to think. Jonathan Sarfati : Refuting evolution is for anyone looking for the truth that he very well writes and cites that the truth is design.

[Xion]

science can used to refute evolution very easly.

[Michael Vincent · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid work with many good points concerning complexity and design. A good place to start in learning about the creationist view of the creation/evolution debate.

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

My summary:

Sarfati responds to a report put out by the National Academy of Sciences to teachers of evolution across the nation. He addresses it in many different ways varying from underlying assumptions in the report to the gross inaccuracies cited in its pages. He begins by noting the creation perspective and the scientific predictions that it affords. He quickly points out that evolutionary theory also allows for the promotion of religion is not purely scientific. An example of this is the report's recommendation of openly atheistic books that promote atheism as much as evolution. Sarfati then goes into the mechanisms of evolution, natural selection, and variation within a species. Evolutionists believe that particles eventually turned into people through random mutation sorted by natural selection. Creationists believe that all creatures were created with enough genetic information to allow them to adapt to a variety of environments.

Creationists also believe in the principle of deterioration such that copying errors (mutations) results in a loss of genetic information. More specifically, creationists argue that as creatures experience different environments they become more specialized and lose some of the variation in their genetic code. This causes them to be less able to adapt in future environments. Genetic drift is also defined as something that is likely to occur in small, isolated populations, such that genes are lost because of random sampling among the population when organisms come from sexual reproduction. The founder effect is when a single pair of a species are separated from the rest of the population and develop a population from the single pair. This also results in a loss of information so that eventually the founder pair's progeny may no longer be able to interbreed with the rest of the group because so much information has been lost. This process explains how creatures evolved after the flood.

All species that exist today didn't exist back then, instead root species existed which diverged into multiple related species. Sarfati then goes through the "proof" for evolution given in the report. First is the resistance to bacteria to antibiotics. Although it explains it in terms of mutations that allow them to overcome antibiotics, there is little evidence for this. Generally, bacteria not resistant to antibiotics is killed out and all that is left is resistant antibiotics. Also, when mutation does occur that helps resist antibiotics, it is a loss of information or defect that occurs that just happens to be beneficial. He then goes into the finches and other breeds that are purported to have evolved for different purposes. Evolutionists claim that this process occurred by the addition of information by mutation to help them survive, but Creationists argue that these breeds all came from an ancestor with more genetic information (which is lost when the breeds become more specialized). Sarfati then goes into talking about the gaps in evolution-supporting fossils.

One of the examples is the evidence showing that present day species exist unchanged from prehistoric times. Another example is a creature that was supposed to be a transition between fish and land animals (according to fossil evidence), but then a live one was found and it was observed that the hypothesized use for its finds was completely wrong. Dating procedures also completely disagree with the time periods necessary for most purported transitional creatures. He also goes into the examples of dinosaur to bird links and how they are not supported by fossil evidence. Most of the transitional forms are simply an extinct species of bird. Whales also offer more evidence for the lack of transitional species. They would require the loss of the hip bone, which would be impossible while the creature was still a land animal because it would not be able to walk, but yet not be able to swim well either. Humans and apes are another example of the claim of missing links. Sarfait points out that most of the fossils claimed to be early humans are much more akin to extinct species of apes.

Sarfati then goes into cosmology and the origin of our galaxy, the big band, etc. He argues that there is much evidence showing that starts cannot be formed without other stars present. In other words, dust (i.e., heavier elements) is needed for H and He to adhere to, etc. so it becomes a chicken and the egg problem on whether stars or the dust needed to form stars appeared first. He then goes into the age of the earth and the controversy surrounding dating methods. He presents evidence for geologic formation based on a global flood vs. a gradual formation assumed by non-creationists. He then goes into dating methods and their flaws. Specifically, radiometric dating is based on assumptions that often aren't true. One of them is whether the rock has been contaminated, how much parent and daughter element was present originally, and the rate of decay has remained the same throughout time.

He points out many anomalies with dating methods. One is the dating of known rocks (volcano rocks) and how they are tremendously overestimated, one is the disagreement between methods, and one is the discovery of "older" rocks in layers that should be "younger". This supports the global flood interpretation rather than the gradual theory of geology. He ends the book talking about whether a design theory is legitimate. He uses many examples of how we normally detect "intelligent design" and argues that we should use the same criteria for life on earth.

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book concentrates on a single book from the National Academy of Sciences and is mostly about biology, with individual chapters on astronomy and the age of the earth, so it's not as comprehensive as other creation science books that I've read. But it's still an excellent overview of the creation/evolution debate, pointing out the major holes/flaws in the argument presented in the NAS's book.

For example, there is the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, which even evolutionists admit, like this quote for Stephen Jay Gould: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stage between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for graduate accounts of evolution." Nor are any transitional forms to be found, since as chapter two describes, mutations tend to be eliminated and even when new variations of animals do arise, it is the result of a loss of genetic information.

[Amanda Barbeau · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a really good brief overview of several different branches of evolutionary theory and how many scientists can't agree with each other, don't have proof for their theories, and even how many theories have been disproved but are still used in science books today. It's always best to do research on both sides of an argument rather than simply believing what you are fed.

[Sean McGowan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was written as a response to a work called “Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science” put out by the National Academy of Sciences. It was a book published for public school teachers.

Although I don’t think the title helps it’s cause, this book does a great job arguing against the Darwinian theory and presenting a case for young earth creationism. Recommended!

[Wade Stotts · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good. Also read in December of 2014. Not sure why I rated it so poorly then; my rating has gone from two stars to three.

[Rod Innis · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great book on how evolution fails to explain reality.

[Craig Childs · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a concise, informative primer on what creationists believe—which is not always what they are accused of believing by mainstream science.

Creationism should not be confused with Intelligent Design. The ID crowd is committed to alternate scientific theories of origin besides evolution, but they do not allow religious preconceptions to influence their theories or experiments.

Dr. Sarfati, on the other hand, is very upfront that he believes in the 7-day creation account from Genesis, and he interprets all scientific data to fit that initial presupposition. He believes creation itself was a miracle and thus outside the boundaries of what science can be expected to explain. He believes the natural laws that govern the universe were put in place on Day 7. Sarfati makes his case that the scientific data available to us confirms a very fast creation that occurred about 6,000-8,000 years ago.

This book was written in 1999 and would be more useful if it was updated (Sarfati also wrote a sequel, Refuting Evolution 2, in 2011, which I have not read yet). However, this appears to be viewed as one of the seminal works on creationism and for good reason. Sarfati is clearly very intelligent and, although in the minority in his field, he makes many very good points.

For one thing, he is more accurate in his terminology than most evolutionists I have read (I am also reading Bill Nye’s Undeniable, which outlines the evidence “for” evolution). Sarfati clearly differentiates adaptation that results from loss of genetic information versus evolution that requires gaining genetic information. Most scientists describe all this behavior with the single word “evolution”, which makes the theory seem more compelling than it actually is.

He is also dubious about making too many assumptions from fossils. Archaeologists may indeed find a fossil that appears to have both reptilian and avian characteristics; this does not automatically make it an intermediate species. Sarfati wants to understand how an intermediate set of lungs—somewhere between the bellows function of lizard lungs and the complex air-circulation system of birds—could provide a benefit that nature would select for. This relates to a concept of irreducible complexity, the idea that some organs/ features/characteristics must be 100% correct to begin with; no intermediate design would work, and therefore nature would not select for it.

There are many other examples like this. The book contains some very thought-provoking questions, arguments, and rebuttals for people willing to take a critical look. I did not agree with everything, and I was particularly disappointed he barely addresses the most convincing argument for evolution—How do we see starlight from distant stars in a young universe? He has written on this subject more recently, according to his website, but it was not in this book.

[Steven H · Rating 3 out of 5]

A YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONIST CRITIQUES THE NAS GUIDEBOOK

Jonathan David Sarfati is a young Earth creationist researcher, author and speaker for Creation Ministries International (CMI). This book was originally published in 1999; the revised 6th edition was published in 2019.

He wrote in the Introduction, “The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has recently published an educator’s guidebook entitled ‘Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science.’ It has been made available to educators … to encourage teachers to incorporate more evolution in their classes and basically teach particles-to-people evolution as a fact… [This book] seeks to redress the lopsided pro-evolutionary way in which origins are taught. The NAS guidebook… contains the most up-to-date and major arguments for evolution… [This book] responds to many of the [guidebook’s] arguments … so that a general critique of evolution can be made available to challenge educators, students, and parents. At the same time, [this book] gives … positive information … to defend the creationist position. Thus, it provides a good summary7 of the arguments against evolution and for creation.”

He states in the first chapter, “It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselves---they are always INTERPRETED according to a framework. The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is NATURALISM---it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past… So it’s not a question of biased religious creationists versus objective scientific evolutionists; rather, it is the biases of the Christian religion versus the biases of the religion of secular humanism resulting in different interpretations of the same scientific data… It’s not really a question of who is biased, but which bias is the correct bias with which to be biased!” (Pg. 15-17)

Of antibiotic and pesticide resistance, he comments, “what has this to do with the evolution of NEW KINDS with new genetic information? Precisely nothing… the resistance was already there, and creatures without resistance are eliminated. In other cases, antibiotic resistance is the result of a mutation, but in all known cases, this mutation has destroyed information… Another example … is the transfer of pieces of genetic material … between bacteria, even between those of different species. But this is still using PRE-EXISTING information, and doesn’t explain its ORIGIN.” (Pg. 40-41)

The NAS guidebook notes that Darwin suggested that “on rare occasions, snails might have ‘floated in chunks of drifted timber across moderately wide arms of the sea…’ Thus, Darwin helped answer a problem raised by skeptics of the Bible and its account of the flood and ark: ‘How did the animals get top faraway places?’ This also showed that some invertebrates could have survived the flood outside the ark, possibly on rafts of pumice or tangled vegetation… Other experiments by Darwin showed that garden seeds could still sprout after 42 days’ immersion in salt water, so they could have traveled 1,400 miles … on a typical ocean current. This shows how plants could have survived without being on the ark… even if they were often soaked. Therefore, the creation-flood-migration model could also have led to such experiments, despite that [the NAS guidebook] implies.” (Pg. 45-46)

He argues, “The inability to imagine functional intermediates is a real problem. If a bat or bird evolved from a land animal, the transitional forms would have forelimbs that were neither good legs nor good wings. So how would such things be selected? The fragile long limbs of hypothetical halfway stages of bats and pterosaurs would seem more like a hindrance than a help.” (Pg. 54-55)

He points out, “We should remember that that the media often sensationalize ‘proofs’ of evolution, but the later disproofs, even by other evolutionists, hardly rate a mention. For example, in 1996 there were headlines like ‘Feathered Fossil Proves Some Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds’… Creationist publications advised readers to be skeptical and keep an open mind. They were vindicated when four leading paleontologists… later found that the ‘feathers’ were just a parallel array of fibres, probably collagen.” (Pg. 60)

He asserts, “Many of the alleged transitional forms are based on fragmentary remains, which are therefore open to several interpretations, based on one’s axioms… such remains are often likely to be interpreted as transitional… and is also prevalent in ape-man claims… But when more bones are discovered, then the fossils nearly always fit one type or another, and are no longer plausible as transitional. It’s also notable that alleged intermediate forms are often trumpeted in the media, while retractions are usually muted or unpublicized.” (Pg. 77)

He contends, “[Creationist] physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys points out that under [General Relativity], gravity distorts time. Prof. John Hartnett… extended Dr. Huimphreys’ pioneering model using the space-time velocity metric of the late Israeli physicist Prof. Moshe Carmeli… Hartnett used this new physics to accurately describe galaxy rotation curves and cosmic expansion… he applies this successful physics to a universe centered on our galaxy. And when Carmelian physics is applied with this assumption, Hartnett shows that the light from distant stars could have travelled to Earth in the biblical timescale---as measured by Earth clocks.” (Pg. 95)

Of radiometric dating, he asserts, “physicists Drs. Eugene Chaffin and Russell Humphreys suggest that nuclear decay rate was highly accelerated during Creation week and possibly during the flood year. They support this theoretically by applying quantum mechanics and the effect of the universe’s expansion, and evidentially by the amount of helium still retained in minerals, and by mature uranium radiohalos and their lack in ‘Phanerozoic’ strata.” (Pg. 110)

He acknowledges, “Creationists admit they can’t PROVE the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. They realize all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist arguments… Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim they can use various present processes to ‘prove’ the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all age-dating methods, including those which point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions. Creationists ultimately date the earth using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which is consistent with much data.” (Pg. 116)

He notes, “This is not to say that no mutation is ‘beneficial’; that is, it helps the organism to survive. But… [this] is usually the result of LOSS of information, or sometimes a transfer of information---NEVER the result of NEW information. Other beneficial mutations include wingless beetles on small desert islands… the wind is less likely to blow them o0ut to sea. Obviously, this has nothing to do with the origins of flight in the first place, which is what evolution is supposed to be about.” (Pg. 127)

This book (and its more detailed sequel) will interest young-earth creationists.

[Ola Kościuszko · Rating 1 out of 5]

I grabbed this book to understand in depth why creationists believe what they believe. Throughout the whole book the author is repeating how atheists or people supporting evolution theory “are attacking”. The author focuses on why theory he supports is right instead of making an informed comparison (like after the passage about the humming birds). I respect Bible as cultural heritage, but the Bible seems to be his main reference and evidence when it comes to supporting his creationist belief. The author did not manage convincing me of his notion despite holding his PhD degree (as he advertises in the back of the book). The publication is in a defensive tone and pretends to be scientific-like.

[Sara Watson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good read. I always find the topic interesting. "Science" based off of a theory of evolution which first and foremost arrived by the author Darwins issue with the metaphysical problem of evil is widely accepted and taught as a factual and a perfect religion yet its opponent Creationism is kicked out, not allowed, and black listed from all National Academy of Sciences teaching. Just another example of the closed minded thinking of most in the scientific world who have already made up their mind in their world view against God. Pretty ironic too.

[Tracy]

It's not the clearest of writings, but I suppose it's not the clearest of subjects. However, very interesting, and makes good points. Only a chapter or so in, so the verdict is still out.

Overall good, love the ideas and it makes sense. Clearly not just hastily thought out. But has background and logical arguments!

[Larry Brinich · Rating 5 out of 5]

Easy to understand with very good reasons to believe in creationism.

I found the book to be easy to understand and educational. There is a lot of bias against creationism that needs to be refuted. Also this book is a good reinforcer to biblical belief.

[Dennis · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was good to view what creationist are getting put to them. See amazon.com and look at some of the 1 star ratings. Excellent information....

[Adam Milliman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Top rate book on the science behind evolution and the lack thereof.

[Anne Hamilton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Informative and interesting with copious footnotes. The section on embryos was illuminating and answered some questions that had puzzled me for many years.