Rating: 
Summary: The FACTS in your FACE
Review: Hank Hanegraaff deserves an award for putting together an excellent and memorable addition to the many books which reveal the farcical nature of evolutionary theory. As I have followed the Creation/Evolution debate in-depth and have even written my own book on the subject, I think I am qualified to say that, although much of Hanks information is not new, his approach and style which aids people in memorizing the facts is. Although it is commonplace for evolutionists and other "believers" to ad hominem attack people who differ with them on the scientific evidence, Hank provides clear evidence from both evolutionist and creationist scientists that evolution is a theory in serious factual crisis (as the title of one evolutionist's book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" points out). It is easy for some with biased and ulterior motives to ad hominem attack Hank by saying he quotes authorities out of context or quotes "irresponsible" statements by scientists. However, instead of merely making unsubstantiated assertions, I decided to actually CHECK the authorities Hank quoted. My findings? Out of 64 quoted authorities surveyed, 36 were secondary sources (evolutionists quoted in creationist material), and 28 were primary sources (actual evolutionists quoted in their material). From my own personal library, I was only able to check 23 of the 64 quotations. Out of the 23 quotes checked NOT ONE WAS OUT OF CONTEXT OR MISREPRESENTED IN ANY WAY. This includes 8 primary creationist sources, 10 primary evolutionist sources, and 5 secondary evolutionist sources. It was actually getting tiresome to keep checking the quotes, since every one was turning up 100% accurate in detail and contextual content. This is what factual evidence shows, and I challenge any HONEST person to go even further than I have and find anything different. And how exactly does one judge a statement by a non-creationist scientist as "irresponsible"? Simply because it may go against the grain of established evolutionary dogma? That seems like wishful thinking at best, and self-serving ideological bias at worst. Once the "smoke and mirrors" of pro-evolutionary speculators using ad hoc rescues is dismissed, we find that Hank provides an excellent way to remember the fallacies of this science fiction pretending to be pure scientific knowledge. He employs the acronym FACE, which means Fossil Follies, Ape-Men Fiction, Frauds, and Fantasy, Chance, and Empirical science. From the Fossil follies section, we learn that the fossil record is indeed "an embarrassment to evolutionists," so much so that new and innovative theories of punctuated equilibrium had to be invented to explain away the very real gaps in the record, gaps which should not be there according to Darwin's own theory (pp. 33, 42-44). Some have argued that there are "intermediates," and yet after so many millions of years of alleged evolutionary change, we only have about "two dozen" examples. That makes little sense, and the evidence from even some evolutionists shows that how one views a "transitional" form can be very subjective. In the section on the Ape-Men and the fictions and frauds, Hank provides substantial evidence of the mishaps and mistakes science has made in an attempt to find and categorize the "missing" evolutionary link between homo sapiens and his supposed ancestors like Nebraska Man, Java Man, Piltdown Man, and Peking Man. All of these were either outright frauds, misinterpretations of data, or serious cover-ups with deception in mind. I would have liked to have seen information on Donald Johanson's "Lucy" and other australopithicines in this chapter since they are but more examples of scientists forcing evolutionary interpretations on the evidence; another example of what Hank seems to be pointing at. In the third letter of the acronym FACE we find Hank explaining one of the pillars of evolutionary theory, which is time mixing with "Chance." Chance in evolutionary theory is not denied by any evolutionary advocate, except those who would seek to lower the role chance plays in evolution for obvious reasons. As Hank puts it, "Thus, chance implies the absence of both a design and a designer....Consider the absurdity of boldly asserting that an eye, egg, or the earth, each in its vast complexity, is merely a function of random chance" (pp. 61, 62). In Darwin's time, ignorance could cover the wild assumptions of time and chance, working with "natural selection" and mutations to create complex structures. But today, our knowledge precludes such assumptions (the reader is encouraged to read of the intricacies of how sight works in Hank's extensive notes). Chance, as the evidence from science in this book shows, cannot adequately explain the organized complexity of our world. The last letter in Hank's acronym stands for Empirical science. This is where the rubber meets the road, and the true test of whether or not the theory of evolution is purely about verifiable scientific evidence. Hank points out, among other things, that creationists are often caricatured in popular culture and literature as "bigoted ignoramuses" while evolutionists are pictured as "benevolent intellectuals" (p. 77). However, Hank points out that many great pioneering scientists of the past were creationists, e.g., Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, and Johannes Kepler. Thus the caricature is proven to be just that. Hank points out other empirical scientific facts which militate against evolutionary theory, including knowledge from what we KNOW from cause and effect, energy conservation, entropy, and common sense reason. Finally, Hank revisits the debunked but still used recapitulation theory (the "R" added to FACE to get FARCE) and goes on to conclude with appendixes to help people argue more rationally, know the veracity of the Bible as a divine Book, understand the truthfulness of Christ's Resurrection, Annihilate abortion arguments, and see the moral ramifications of human cloning. Kudos to Hank for doing a great job and putting the FACTS out there that many simply will not FACE.
Rating: 
Summary: The Good and the Bad
Review: I purchased this book to learn the basic flaws with the theory of evolution. The acronym FACE is a good reminder of issues that we all need to be aware of. I was disappointed by the extras that I didn't bargin for. For instance, the book is 240 pages long - only 90 pages (38%) of the book focused on the topic evolution. The remainder is focused on - introduction (7%), other issues - (55%), and notes (33%). I did learn a ton from this book. However, I gave it a low rating due to the fact that 62% was not related to the book's purpose - The farce of evolution.
Rating: 
Summary: This book is itself a farce and a disgrace.
Review: While browsing in a Christian bookstore recently, I noticed this book's provocative title and was intrigued. I spent some time with it, and found it to be quite as ludicrous as the disappointed reviewer of 10 June 1999 from Portland, Oregon, has described (see below). There's no need for me to repeat that reviewer's detailed critique here, as I agree with each of the points made. This book does not deserve any reading at all, let alone a careful reading. I returned "Farce" to the shelf, and moved on to find a book on early Church history. The author whose book I selected seems to know his subject quite well, which is quite a bit more than I can say for the professional debunker Mr. Hanegraaff.
Rating:
Summary: A must read for anyone interested in the truth!
Review: This book will help anyone who wants to see some classic examples of how the scientific community at large has bought into a fairy tale and then sold it to the general public at a most expensive price. Most of the public could not tell you what the second law of thermaldynamics is, much less explain how it effects evolutionary theory. This book explains in laymans terms the various age old arguments of evolution vs. creation in a simple and easy to understand format. Several things about Mr. H's writing style bothered me. First, the subject of Christianity/religion served only to confuse the issues. The quotes from the Bible were interesting, but really did not serve to reinforce the arguement for creation. To a non-believer the Bible is just a very old work of fiction with many anonymous authors. I am a Christian, yet I believe the subject of religion should not be added to the already complicated creation vs. evolution debate. Once a person can admit that there must be a creator, there are plenty of books to steer them to the one true creator. Second, much too often Mr. H. used the opinionated quotes of well known authors and scientists to emphasize his point. This serves only to give the evolutionist an opportunity to attack the credibility of the quote, the quality of the source, or the interpretation of "What the author really meant to say was.....blah, blah, blah" or "The scientist also later said so and so, making the earlier quote a half truth" and so on. Many of the arguments Mr. H puts forth are irrefutable but not entirely new. Hank just puts them together into a form that the layman can easily understand. I hope that many curious readers will buy and read this book, regardless of the nasty, mean spirited reviews by people who can't enjoy a good arguement.
Rating:
Summary: Don't Deny Yourself a Fair Reading!
Review: Dear Potential Reader: Please do not let the weak reviews you see here sway you from treating yourself to this most excellent work concerning the blunders of Darwinian evolution. Mr. Hanegraff has provided thorough, well-documented research but has presented it in a way that is readable and memorable. With all due respect to the individual commenting herein saying, "Hank seems to misrepresent almost every detail of modern evolution theory," I can only say you are horribly confused and off-track. First of all, it is a given that Mr. Hanegraff would make comments militating against Lamarckian biology. Not to do so would be nothing short of scientifically anachronistic. The biological concept of acquired characteristics postulated by Jean-Baptist Lamarck have long been demonstrated to be false! Geneticists have conclusively demonstrated that the congenital nuances that form in a human being (or otherwise) are affected strictly by the reproductive cells NOT by somatic cells Ergo, if you're still holding to Lamarckiansim, you're living in the outmoded scientific world of the 19th century! Secondly, you are correct that the book provides some argumentation against saltationism. What is your point? Concentrating on certain schools of saltationism (e.g. punctuated equilibrium), Mr. Hanegraff demonstrates quite well that they are nothing more than fantastic theories proffered by naturalists who are trying to backpedal their way out of an insignificant fossil record. Thirdly, whatever do you mean that Mr. Hanegraff confuses spontaneous generation with abiogenesis? Sir, they are one and the same. Fourthly, it is true that Mr. Hanegraff points out several fossil discoveries that have long been proven inadequate by those in the scientific community. What you fail to realize, however, is that the scientific community in general has not had the courtesy to communicate these facts to the rest of us. As a result, the majority report of "lower academia" (and therefore the general populi) remain unaware of these developments. So, things which may seem abundantly obvious to you regarding the fossil record are, evidently, not so obvious to the high school biology teacher who continues to teach his young students about silly, silly things like Nebraska, Java, and Peking Man. Finally, it is beyond me how any true Christian could be anything other than grateful for Mr. Hanegraff's efforts in this area. He demonstrates clearly that, in the area of origins, the believer need not fear what is packaged as "science" when really it is philosophy and worldview. Rather the Christian may rest assured that to believe is not to sacrifice the intellect on the alter of faith but that revering God (and seeing His creation as an appendage of His glory) is actually the very beginning of wisdom (Prov 1:7).
Rating:
Summary: concise and easy to understand
Review: This like all of Hank's books is designed to be easy to read and easy to remember. I found it very helpful. I have read other more detailed creation science materials. If you are looking for in-depth information look elsewhere but if you want quick reading that covers the topic well, pick this book up.
Rating:
Summary: Is this against Darwinism?
Review: Hank seems to misrepresent almost every detail of modern evolution theory. He seems to argue against lamarckian ideas and saltationism. He confuses spontaneous generation with abiogenesis. He attacks fossil finds that have been dismissed by scientists for decades. I wonder if Hank actually read up on his material. He seems to quote mine (searching for quotes that can mean different things in the wrong context). If he is a fair representative of the modern creationist movement, I have no choice but to list it as another cult with crazy fringe ideas. He left the science at home and pumped up the rhetoric. I'm sorry that we Christians have these kind of people speaking for us. I think Hank will have a lot of explaining to do to the Big Guy. Shame on you Hank. You are taking advantage of our current situation of poor science standards and filling minds with falsehoods in exchange. It will catch up to you.
Rating:
Summary: Very Very Silly
Review: What more can be said? It's just stupid
Rating:
Summary: Empty Propoganda
Review: As a christian I was upset at this rather overdogmatic approach to a complex topic. Books such as this come across as simple ideology.
Rating:
Summary: Bloated Dogma
Review: I got it for free, and that is good because it is a terrible book. I wanted to give it ZERO STARS. Laughably bad, Hanegraaff uses personal attacks on Darwin to discredit evolution theory. All the quotes are out of context. Even the caption under Isaac Asimov's picture was funny. "Evolutionist Dr. Isaac Asimov..." really? is that what Asimov is known for? The whole thing is twisted and stupid and I'm embarrassed for Hanegraaff. The logic is totally flawed. Hangraaff credits Darwin with the Nazi Holocost. Wow what a leap! Kind of scary though, since a lot of people believe what ever they see in print. This book is really full of hot air, I have to put a paperweight on it to keep it on my desk. It doesn't even discuss present day evolution theory at all. Don't waste your time.
| 
