The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate (Rhodes, Ron)

Book Description

Why is the creation vs. evolution debate so important? Does what you believe about it really matter to the people you talk with? And if you do need to form an opinion, canâ€™t you just pick and choose the best parts of both sides of the discussion? Renowned apologist and Bible teacher Ron Rhodes skillfully answers these questions. This helpful guide gives readers the information they need to form their own convictions and answer other peopleâ€™s questions.

The ten items at the heart of this debate are explained in an easyâ€“toâ€“understand format, and they include...

The universe had a beginningâ€”and therefore a Beginner.
Fossil evidence and other scientific discoveries contradict evolution.
Creationism makes good sense and agrees with scientific evidence.

Accessible to any reader but thorough enough to be fair, this analysis of the creation vs. evolution debate will encourage believers and guide seekers in their quest for truth.

Customer Reviews:

Excellent as a Concise Overview and For Refuting Evolutionists.......2006-05-20

This book IN A CONCISE MANNER PEOPLE (it's obviously not meant to be a huge detailed treatise so stop rating it poorly for not being one) covers key reasons as to why evolution and chance creation of the universe (THEORIES, YES PLURAL) are false, and it does an excellent job of it.

Simple view of the debate.......2006-04-12

I always find myself in a quandry in reviewing book on a controversial topic on which I have strong views since I think that a good review should consider the book at least partly in its own terms. Also, believing in freedom of speech, I don't want to blast someone simply for disagreeing with me if they present their topic well. I was reading to learn what the other side thinks.

I agree with those scientists who argue that some things are outside of the purview of science, given that they cannot be empirically tested. I am willing to entertain the hypothesis of miraculous or supernatural occurances and elements in the universe, although I admit I find it unlikely. I am still waiting, however, for someone to explain how to empirically examine them. William Dembski claims to be able to demonstrate the need for Intelligent Design on the basis of empirically measuring "complex specificity", but he remains rather vague as to how this would actually be done.

Comparing this to other books on the topic, it is less scientific but in some ways more honest. Unlike William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and the inexcusable Philip Johnson, Rhodes doesn't pretend to be concerned with the integrity of science or to be conducting an impartial investigation. His religious agenda is quite frank. He does not include what I call the Classic Clashing Cliches, i.e. that scientists are simultaneously a monolithic juggernaut crushing all dissent AND deserting the idea of evolution in droves.

Have a Bible handy - the book frequently gives citations without quotations. Obviously, if one believes that the Bible is the absolute, most reliable source, before which all other arguments must fail, there is little point in arguing science. The two systems of thought have different standards of truth and aren't comparable. I don't agree with Lewontin that science is the only begettor of truth; I do fault mislabeling nonscience as scientific. I have provided a list of authors at the end of the review who can discuss the science better than I. In this review, I have focussed more on things like internal logic and consistency.

The most interesting and novel part of the book is "Christians have diverse views" the discussion of the beliefs of various creationists, including both their arguments for their conclusions and criticisms from other creationists. Rhodes doesn't declare his own allegiance, but I am guessing that he is a Young-Earth Creationist (YEC). Rhodes hails the arguments from Intelligent Design, but some of these thinkers contradict his views about the ability of evolution to generate new species.

On the other hand, Rhodes is quite insulting about the moral capacities of non-Christians, including atheists like me. He also makes numerous accusations against Darwin for creating social injustices such as racism and sexism. Some of these, like the three-fifths clause in the constitution are absurd, since they predate Darwin, sometimes by thousands of years. I might add, Christianity has come in for considerable criticism on the same subjects and has a history of violence against non-Christians and different forms of Christianity. One might argue that everyone has a history of violence against everyone else, but there is no logical reason for singling out Darwinism for blame.

A lot of Rhodes' "science" seems to be drawn from tertiary sources; e.g., the "proof" that "many scholars" believe that Peking Man is actually a monkey or baboon comes from Willmington's Guide to the Bible and Hanegraaff's The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution. Evidence from paleontologists or primatologists would be a lot more convincing. He doesn't seem to understand the idea of "transitional forms." According to the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, these species are transitional in retrospect, not in prospect, since evolution doesn't have goals. For example, an Archeopteryx is not seen as an attempt to evolve birds, it is a species in its own right and is of course fully functional and fully formed. It becomes "transitional" only if its descendents later evolve novel forms.

On the matter of fossils, Rhodes makes two conflicting arguments. One is that the geologic column of species was formed during a short period of time, during a world-wide flood. In that case, a lack of transitional forms would be moot, since there was no transitional period. The arguments from gaps in the fossil record would then be meaningless. Rhodes sets Creation in the Cambrian period, but there would be no geologic periods if most fossils were laid down at one time.

By the same token, the fossils do not support Creationist theories either. One has to explain how numerous, no longer extant species are found in remnants of the flood, if Noah took all species on board. If one does look at the fossils independent of the flood hypothesis, then one would expect to find fossils of dogs, cats, people, giraffes, etc., in the Cambrian layers.

I am not certain if Rhodes believes in the hypothesis of "kinds", where, for example, one original canid evolved into dogs, wolves, jackals, foxes, etc., or if he is merely recounting it as the belief of other Christians. It would contradict his argument that microevolution can only occur within a species.

While many cultures have tales of massive floods, they do not all consider Noah's family to be the regenerator of the human race as Rhodes states. Various cultures credit the families of Fuhi, Utnapishtim, Manu, Xisuthrus, Tapi, Decaulion & Pyrrha, etc. Their various arks, boats, chests and so forth came to rest in different places.

The book has numerous footnotes and a bibliography, but unfortunately, no index. I like that the running title that appears at the top of the pages of the text also appears as a heading for the notes, so that one does not need to keep flipping back to find chapter numbers. On the other hand, he gives incomplete citations, which would be fine if all his sources were in his bibliography, but they are not. Also, if Rhodes is going to quote an author who is quoting a third person, I believe he should make it a double quote. As an example, he cites an introduction to Darwin's work as quoted by Gish. I think he should have given a citation for the particular edition of Darwin, followed by, "as cited in Gish ... ."

I have not attempted to discuss most of Rhodes' claims about science; this has been done far better than I could do by authors such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Mark Perakh, Robert T. Pennock, Philip Kitcher, Mark Ridley, and various other writers.

Fails to disprove evolution.......2005-10-30

I have read a heck of a lot of the works of Ron Rhodes, especially his Mormon material. As with his treatment of Mormonism, his approach to Evolution is riddled with logical fallacies, such as his fraudulent discussion of the 2nd law of Therodynamics and Maco Evolution, as well as his fudging when it comes to a 6,000 year-old earth and a global flood - just where is the evidence for these and other occurances, apart from circukar reasoning? Also, he ignores the impossibility of a literal approach to Genesis when it comes to the Tower of Babel, by not even attempting to defend this incident and the ultra-literalist apprach he and other creationists have.

This book is nothing more than card-stacking and is only for the gullible or already converted. No individual well-versed in evolution would buy any of the non-sensical assertions Rhodes makes in this book.

Evidence of either intellectual or moral bankruptcy.......2005-02-19

Ron Rhodes has written a lot of books on confronting people who don't agree with his view of things. Here he has written a book on evolution and creation. It is important to note that he is a theologian and not a scientist. And because of his limited background, this book is clear evidence that he is obviously woefully ill-prepared to discuss matters dealing with science.

Many of his arguments come directly from creationist literature (Behe, Morris, Gish and others) or from quotes of scientists taken completely out of context, which is to be expected from someone who desperately wants to get an answer that agrees with what he believes. He is well-versed in creationist literature. However, his perception of evolutionary science is at about the reader's digest level. As a previous reviewer states, he stacks the deck in favor of Young Earth Creationist arguments. Inasmuch, science seems to have no value, and arguments contrary to a 6000 year old earth are completely ignored (radioactivity, stellar distances, complexity in the geologic column, and the outright absurdity of flood geology), and is summarized as "God told us how old the Earth is so everything to the contrary is wrong."

Additionally, the author states that mutations and natural selection can not bring about new species (again, typical creationist dogma), but is, simply put, wrong. New species of plants have originated in recent times (Abbott and Lowe 2004), the same is true of bacteria, some species of which are now able to metabolize nylon (Kato et al. 1995). Both of these references are in scientific journals.

Ron Rhodes' discussion is completely fraudulent at one point- in his discussion of thermodynamics. It is for this reason that I claim he is either intellectually or morally bankrupt. He does not discuss even in the slightest what the second law of thermodynamics is (in order to fully grasp entropy, a mathematical, geometrical, and statistical base is necessary), instead he repeats the creationist adage that the second law prohibits evolution. It is highly unlikely that the source of this information was a science textbook.

The basic statistical gist of the second law of thermodynamics is that a system will tend to explore states when left to its own. This is the Boltzmann definition and has no indication of disorder or order- both of which are human constructs. It is true that in equilibrium mixtures (which are mostly hypothetical) disorder is favored, however in dis-equilibrium systems (which constitute nearly all terrestrial systems) order can be and often is favored. Thus Rhodes' rather incomplete view of the second law of thermodynamics suggests either ignorance or deception. Rhodes has decided either one of two things: to present an argument without having done adequate research into what he is saying (intellectual dishonesty), or is purposefully deceiving his audience (moral dishonesty). Either way, Rhodes' work is suspect.

I am a Christian, but it is people like those cited by Rhodes who drive away many individuals with this dogmatic nonsense who would otherwise come to seek faith. Rhodes is merely parroting misrepresentations that in the end help no one.

I end with a biblical verse and a commandment:
Even the fool when he keeps silent is considered wise, when he closes his lips, intelligent. (Proverbs 17:28)

And

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Anyone can easily follow this........2004-06-04

**** It's been said that the two books the devil wants people to read the least are Genesis and Revelation. Many think you can either believe science or the Bible, not both. However, the case can be made that you need more faith to believe in macroevolution than in creation. Take the fact that from nothing comes nothing, the lack of transitional fossils, or the outright lies of Darwinism, among other points, and the reader is left with the truth. To support his case, a variety of theologians and scientists including Michael Behe, Hugh Ross, Norm Geisler, William Lane Craig, and Phillip Johnson, etc. The writing is done in lay terms, or when it's not, explained, so anyone can follow it without problems. It is both interesting and informative, demonstrating that you need not bend Genesis to fit science, but that science supports Genesis. ****

Customer Reviews:

Get a life.......2000-12-13

Creationism is a story made up to protect kids from the truth of their REAL heritage. WE ARE ANIMALS!! No better or worse from the pets we house, the animals we eat, enslave, or hunt. That does not make us dirty, it should make us feel a kinship with our cousins from the animal kingdom (along with plants, fungi, bacteria, and protists). Why are humans so egocentric when it comes to our origens. The world in not 6,000 years old, we are not special, and our self-centered elistist Christian ideals will be the death of our civilization. Get over yourself!!

A Poor Performance.......2000-10-28

An odd little pamphlet, built on split-minded logic. Ankerberg and Weldon (A&W) try to recast "science" to their own literalist Christian ends, and seem to botch the job throughout. It's not fair to criticize without concrete examples, so:

On pages 17-19, we're told (rather convincingly) that acceptance of a scientific theory by a majority is a poor reason for it to be held as absolutely true. Yet on page 33, A&W try to bolster their own arguments in favor of Creationism as science by referencing polls claiming that a majority of Americans want Creationism taught in public schools. Well, gentlemen ... is it a popularity contest, or isn't it? Further: Throughout the tract, A&W lambaste evolutionists for not adhering to the established rules of proper science; but on page 29, we read: "... there is nothing unscientific about [our Creationist approach]. The worldview of theism is just as adequate an explanatory framework for the scientific data as is the worldview of naturalism." Boom -- instant shift in the established rules of proper science, and it's valid because they say so, darn it.

Most interesting is A&W's use of references and quotations ... 149 footnotes for a mere 39 pages of text. I was impressed, until I did a quick count. Well over a quarter of those citations come from the same three Creationists, one a lawyer, the second "with three earned doctorates in science" (social science? political science? A&W don't say), and the last identified as a "molecular biologist" ... no reference to an earned doctorate for him, though. There were several references to astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, and those contained the only substantial attempt in the essay to refute an aspect of evolution: the mathematical improbability of life's spontaneous generation from inorganic matter. I had to wonder, though, whether the literalist Christian authors further agree with Hoyle's hypothesis that the organic grains of life came to Earth from outer space over 5 billion years ago, and then evolved from there. That makes him a rather strange bedfellow. Any port in a storm, I guess ...

A&W have also penned pamphlets with titles like "The Facts on Halloween," "The Facts on Homosexuality," and "The Facts on Rock Music." Alas, I'll be skipping those pieces.

An accurate portrayal "evolution science.".......2000-06-22

This book unmasks the scientific communities death-grip on any information that may harm the false doctrine of evolution.

Book Description

Over 100 years ago, Darwin hoped fossils would someday provide transitional evidence. Now, millions of fossils later, the data actually suggests creation, not evolution. Join Muncaster in this fascinating look at the scholarship that proposed evolution and how belief in pure evolution theory is declining as scientific conclusions increasingly support creationism.

Customer Reviews:

Great resourse!.......2007-01-14

Provides an excellent summary of how science actually reinforces creation, and explains why most people are under the impression that science supports evolution.

A thorough and well-produced documentation of creationist viewpoints and counterarguments.......2006-04-07

Creation vs. Evolution: What Do Current Scientific Discoveries Reveal? this superbly produced 135-minute DVD by Ralph O. Muncaster (founder and executive director of the Institute of Contemporary Christian Faith and established Christian author) deftly address the ongoing argument between the validity of creation over that of evolution. Painstakingly researched and knowledgeably presented from the perspective of a renowned Christian scholar, Creation vs. Evolution educates its viewers with respect to creationist supportive studies consisting of microbiology, physics, probability analysis, and cosmology. Enhanced with computer animations and illustrative graphics, Creation vs. Evolution is a thorough and well-produced documentation of creationist viewpoints and counterarguments, and is highly recommended to all students and leaders of the Christian faith dealing with the issues of creationism and intelligent design.

A thorough and well-produced documentation of creationist viewpoints and counterarguments.......2006-04-07

Evolution is as much a fact as Jesus is God.......2006-04-06

I'm sorry Young-Earth Creationists---there's an extremely strong case for transphylogenic evolution. You people are so elementary in thinking and as a result, you put God into a box and thus atheists are immediately turned off by Christianity. If you would take the time to read the Torah in Hebrew, you'd see that there are evidences of evolution, ie. "Let the Earth bring forth" (translation) among other words and phrases that suggest the process. Besides, the creation account in Genesis is allegorical. If Moses taught the Jews that once there was this bacteria that evolved into different creatures, they would have laughed at him. This does not mean that the Torah is uninspired. But instead of automatically dismissing the Theistic Evolution and Day-Age theories, read about them, analyze them, see for yourself. I am telling you they are valid theories. Besides, Christianity can be proven factual even if you don't go into detail about creation. Fellow Christians, use your heads: they may be fallible, but that doesn't mean you have to be gullible.

Average customer rating:

Registered Nurse.

EVOLUTION vs. CREATION: THE FINAL WORD
Z. RICHARD SAWAN
Manufacturer: AuthorHouse
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books

Science & Religion | Religious Studies | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 1418449709

Book Description

This book you have in front of you is like nothing that you have ever experienced, or ever will, when it comes to the topic of evolution vs. creation. The learned theologians and the intellectual archeologists and evolutionists couldn't figure it out! This book is finally going to put the issue of our origin to rest. This unique book combines the pages of Genesis with the pages of archeological history over the past 150 years. It tries to unite the creationists and the evolutionists in an effort to finally show that both evolution and creation actually occurred. Finally revealed is convincing evidence that both evolution and creation are FACTS. Nowhere else can anyone find such evidence, and believe it or not, it's been sitting under our very noses for thousands of years. Evolutionary theories based on archeological evidence had the story half right. The other half is in the first two chapters of Genesis, hidden for all these years. It took the discoveries of the scientists to highlight the secrets in Genesis. Based on both bodies of evidence, one can conclude that man was created, while everything else underwent the process of evolution over millions of years.

Customer Reviews:

Registered Nurse........2005-03-21

As a christian, I never believed in evolution. However, this book opened my eyes to evolution which I was completely against. This book was fantastic in that it took the evidence of evolution and used it to support the biblical evidence of creation. In addition, this book showed how the biblical account of creation supports evolution. This book also answers many other questions that we as humans have today. I strongly recommend this book to both evolutionists as well as those who believe in God.

Average customer rating:

Who's more biased? Is evolution fact or faith?
Evolution and the fossil record
A look at some myths about scientists
is it all true?

The creation vs. evolution handbook
Thomas F Heinze
Manufacturer: Baker Book House
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding

General | Christianity | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books

Customer Reviews:

Who's more biased? Is evolution fact or faith?.......2001-06-16

We all know that creationists have a starting bias with which they use to interpret scientific data, but many people mistakenly seem to think that evolutionists are somehow more objective in their approach to science. This is a common picture presented to the general public by evolutionists, but is it true? As a previous reviewer documented, the idea of "objective" science exists only in the mind of young (naive and inexperienced) scientists and laymen.

But don't simply take my word for it. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world's leaders in evolutionary biology. He recently wrote this very revealing comment. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation - regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." -*Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of demons", The New York Review, January 9, 1997, page 31.

So here we have one of the world's leading evolutionists admitting what the general public was never told - that evolutionists have universally accepted a materialistic interpretation scheme as truth. All evidence stands or falls based upon it's fit with the dogma of evolution. Any data that does not fit within this hypothetical framework is discarded or explained away.

But let's not stop with Lewontin. Let's see what other prominent evolutionists have actually admitted. Is evolution truly fact, or faith?

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."-*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in "Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur", p. 33.

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas with or without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."-*L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."-*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).

"The facts must mold the theories, not the theories the facts . . I am most critical of my biologist friends in this matter. Try telling a biologist that, impartially judged among other accepted theories of science, such as the theory of relativity, it seems to you that the theory of natural selection has a very uncertain, hypothetical status, and watch his reaction. I'll bet you that he gets red in the face. This is `religion,' not `science,' with him."-*Burton, "The Human Side of the Physiologist: Prejudice and Poetry," Physiologist 2 (1957).

"It is therefore a matter of faith, on the part of the biologist, that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."-*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 150.

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."-*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p. 63.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory-is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."-*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by *Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi (1971 edition).

"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it."-*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980).

"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: `A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory."-*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1977), p. 150.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with and even more incredible deity-omnipotent chance."-*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

Unfortunately, my review is limited to a mere 1,000 words. I could literally fill volumes with quotes like those above from evolutionists' own literature.

Want to decide for yourself which side presents the more logical and scientific arguments of the two? For mountains of additional facts and information you've never been told, I recommend checking out the answersingenesis and ICR (Institute for Creation Research) websites for much more information.

Evolution and the fossil record.......2001-06-16

Regarding the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, Darwin said in the 1850's:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." ---Charles Darwin, "On the imperfection of the geological record", Chapter X, "The Origin of Species", J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, pp. 292-293.

But 120 years later!

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which 'does' show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. Also the major extinctions such as those of the dinosaurs and trilobites are still very puzzling." ---Dr. David M. Raup (Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago), "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology". "Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin", vol. 50 (1), January 1979, p. 25.

Are there any transitional forms at all?

"... I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." ---Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in "Darwin's Enigma" by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89.

"I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data." ---Dr. David Pilbeam (Physical Anthropologist, Yale University, USA), "Rearranging our family tree". "Human Nature", June 1978, p. 45.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages 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 gradualistic accounts of evolution." ---Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" "Paleobiology", vol. 6 (1), January 1980, p. 127.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never 'seen' in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." ---Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Evolution's erratic pace". "Natural History", vol. LXXXVI (5), May 1977, p. 14.

For truly eye-opening information...the kind you were never allowed to hear in high-school and university, see "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells, "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe, "Bones of Contention" by Marvin Lubenow, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton and "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!" by Duane Gish.

A look at some myths about scientists.......2001-06-16

One of the most common ideas that people have is that creation science is somehow more biased, more 'one-eyed' than 'real science'. After all, creationists begin with the Bible, so how can they be objective, like other scientists are? Many creationist writings have already pointed out the impossibility of dealing with the past directly, without having some sort of beginning bias.

This review will not repeat any of that, nor will it again point out the essentially religious nature of evolution. Instead, it will deal directly with the powerful myth that scientists are somehow neutral and super-objective in their approach to evidence. In doing this, one is not being anti-science or anti-scientist; the findings apply to all scientists, including those of creationist persuasion. We are just facing up to the fact that scientists are as human as anyone else.

A 1980 sociological research paper surveyed scientists on their attitude to the most common traditional beliefs about themselves and their profession.[1] Some of the interesting results:

(1) Belief: Science is organized scepticism. This means that '. . . no scientist's contribution to knowledge can be accepted without careful scrutiny, and that the scientist must doubt his own findings as well as those of others.'[2]

About three-quarters of the scientists surveyed disagreed with this, and said that in fact it was not abnormal to accept what fits your own conception on a subject, and doubt that which does not. We read that the history of science demonstrates'. . . that scientists often operate in a subjective way and that experimental verification is of secondary importance compared to philosophical arguments, at least in some of the major conceptual changes that have occurred in science.'[3]

(2) Belief: Emotional Neutrality. This means that a scientist should not have an emotional commitment to particular ideas or theories.

This was very strongly rejected by a great majority of the scientists surveyed. Referring to another study,[4] the author states that 'the myth of science being a passionless enterprise, carried out by objective detached men, does not hold.' And further, that 'the image of the objective emotionally disinterested scientist is taken seriously only by the layman or by young science students.'

The interesting thing about this and similar surveys is not only that the popular image is wrong, but that the professionals know it to be so, and accept this as normal. It seems that the classical view of the scientific endeavor may not even be regarded as an ideal to strive for, since the respondents did not even try 'to live up to the idealized image of the objective, critical, disinterested truth seeker who shares his discoveries and information with his colleagues.'

All this is, of course, only what one would expect from what Stephen J. Gould calls a 'quintessentially human activity' (referring to science). And as humans, the vast majority remain deeply emotionally committed to a view of origins which allows them to escape responsibility to their Maker and Redeemer, and which seems to do away with the ideas of sin and judgment.

Hopefully, with this information in mind, one can better evaluate claims from evolutionists feigning scientific objectivity (creationists at least will acknowledge their starting bias).

REFERENCES:

[1] Nina Toren, 'The New Code of Scientists', 1333 Transactions on Engineering Management, Volume EM-27, No.3, August 1980.

[2] N.W. Storer, The Social System of Science, Holt, Rinehart, Winston, New York, 1966, p.79.

[3] S.G. Brush, 'Should the History of Science be Rated X?' Science, Volume 188, March 22, 1974, p.183; T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1970.

[4] American Sociological Review, Volume 39, August, 1974, pp.579-95.

is it all true?.......2000-12-19

At school everybody is told: we know everything abot evolution and you shold belive us. Faith in God and creation is out and primitive. But nobody can proof evolution! This is what Heinze shows in his book. He takes all the stuff you heard st school and shows, that it doesn't proof evolution. Evolution is just a possible explanation, but creation isn't pooved wrong by science. This is not going to happen, but you won't see that until you read a book like this!!

Biology, zoology, and genetics: Evolution model vs. creation model

Average customer rating:

Biology, zoology, and genetics: Evolution model vs. creation model
Adell Thompson
Manufacturer: University Press of America
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Genetics | Evolution | Science | Subjects | Books

Natural History | Nature & Ecology | Science | Subjects | Books

Christ's teaching on creation vs. evolution

Average customer rating:

Christ's teaching on creation vs. evolution
Newton N Riddell
Manufacturer: Vital Christianity
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding

General | Evolution | Science | Subjects | Books

Christian Perspective on Creation Vs. Evolution

Average customer rating:

Christian Perspective on Creation Vs. Evolution
Michael L. McCoy
Manufacturer: Concordia Pub House
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Christianity | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books

General | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 0570096480

Book Description

Creation vs. Evolution is an entry level book written primarily to educate concerning the worldview of the evolutionist and to equip the Christian to present the message of the faith. The book incorporates science, literature and philosophy along with the sacred to prepare the Christian to learn and be able to teach others, especially our children, about the Lord our God Who is our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. It is suitable for private reading as well as small group Bible study.

Average customer rating:

Shallow

Creation vs. Evolution
Eric Bermingham
Manufacturer: BookSurge Publishing
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | World | History | Subjects | Books

General | Science | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 1588987582
Release Date: 2002-08-02

Product Description

Four basic principles of evolution theory taught to nearly everyone in school and held by most of the scientific community are: (1) the Big Bang, (2) the formation of the stars and planets from the material released by the Big Bang, (3) the spontaneous generation of life on Earth, and (4) the evolution of all species from the first life. These principles are taught as proven fact and any attempt to criticize them often leads to suspicion or ridicule.

These four principles stand in stark contrast to four events initiated by God as revealed in the Bible: (1) the creation of the universe in six days, (2) the destruction of the world by a global flood, (3) the mixing up of language at the Tower of Babel, and (4) the Incarnation of Jesus Christ through the Blessed Virgin Mary. If one set of the four is literally true, the other is necessarily not.

The scientific, theological, and scriptural arguments against a godless Theory of Evolution and for the traditional Catholic perspective on the first chapters of Genesis are presented, together with the keys to world peace, in an easy-to-understand format.

Customer Reviews:

Shallow.......2007-01-06

I was quite disappointed. There was little depth to this treatment of the issue, and even less factual information one could sink one's teeth into. Catholic arguments are weak at best.

I recommend "Show Me God," by Fred Heeren and "Evidence that Demands A Verdict," by Josh McDowell.

Creation vs. Evolution: What You Need to Know (Quick Reference Guides)

Average customer rating:

Bogus Shmogus.
Typical creationist apologetics

Creation vs. Evolution: What You Need to Know (Quick Reference Guides)
John Ankerberg , and John Weldon
Manufacturer: Harvest House Publishers
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Pamphlet

General | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books

General | History & Philosophy | Science | Subjects | Books

General | Religion & Spirituality | 4-for-3 Books Store | Stores | Books

All 4-for-3 Deals | 4-for-3 Books Store | Stores | Books
ASIN: 0736900365

Book Description

In 16 pages of concise, readerâ€“friendly information, this booklet presents the major points and arguments of the religion or subject discussed. Sideâ€“byâ€“side comparisons with biblical teachings are provided for a scriptural perspective. Ideal for atâ€“aâ€“glance reference or for giving away.

Customer Reviews:

Bogus Shmogus........2000-06-06

Yes, evolution is a theory. Yes, there is not an infinite amount of seamless and perfect evidence which could allow us to "know" it is "true". Science is not about perfect knowledge and absolutes. It is only a system of thought, experimentation, and peer review which allows us to theorize and then act upon reasonable assumptions. Zealotry in science definitely must be scorned, but the actions of a few do not invalidate the process.

In my opinion, those claiming natural selection is a fraud are ignorant of the science behind genetic mutation and reproductive statistical perpetuance, lack the required mental abilities to understand it, or are extremely biased by erroneous preconceived notions. Ankerberg and Weldon may choose which one they think applies in this case.

Typical creationist apologetics.......1999-08-30

This "reference guide" lists the generally discredited creationist "explanations" of flood geology, geophysics, polystratic fossils and the other typical creationist arguments.

If you are a special creation beliver don't rely on this book to refute well informed scientists, but it is sufficient for typical "lay" persons. That is to say, people who don't know what's wrong with it won't have answers to it. Problem is, the book itself is fact-free. Nothing in it is right. Informed lay people or scientists will have refutation for each and every argument in the book.

Pretty much, it's a waste of time.

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books