Rating: 
Summary: Updated Rehash of Long-Refuted Arguments
Review: This is a work replete with straw-man arguments, sometimes out-of-context quotes and way too much reliance on radical young-earth authors as sources. To a large extent, it is a rehash of old arguments that have been refuted over and over again. Hank Hanegraaff loves ascribing evolution to "random chance." He does supply a quote from biologist Jacque Monod to back that up, but Monod wrote that nearly 30 years ago. More recent evolutionary scholars disagree. Science philosopher Philip Kitcher in "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism" writes , "The randomness ploy is invoked to blind the reader to the fact that evolutionary processes are governed by precise physiochemical laws." And Richard Dawkins notes, "The belief that Darwinian evolution is 'random' is not merely false. It is the exact opposite of the truth. Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative [natural] selection which is quintessentially nonrandom." The "Face" author blames evolution for the "death of God" mentality. But interestingly, many in Christianity were fairly accepting of evolution (in a theistic context) for about a 50-year period from the 1870s to the 1920s. An excellent book that supports that is "Darwin's Forgotten Defenders" by David Livingstone. "Face" claims that theistic evolutionists believe the Fall is an allegory. But that is not always true. Theologians August Strong and C.S. Lewis both took the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall fairly literally. (The "Fall of Man" chapter in Lewis' book "The Problem of Pain" is highly recommended.) And the "Face" author's citing racist quotes by Darwin as "proof" that evolution is inherently racist is rather misleading. Hanegraaff is taking statements out of historical context from when racism was normal. I wonder if he also condemns our form of government because our Founding Fathers of the 18th Century permitted slavery and gave only white men the vote. The author also claims there are no transitional species in the fossil record. This is a myth that has been refuted again and again. One quote he gave from Colin Patterson appears to be bogus. He claims Patterson said "If I knew of any [evolutionary transitions], fossil or living, I would certainly have included them [in my book 'Evolution']" But incredibly, Patterson does acknowledge transitions in that book! He wrote "There are many...examples of fossil 'missing links' such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs...and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes." The "Face" author claims the fossil record is "an embarrassment" to evolutionists. But not all see it that way, because evolutionists are divided into the "punctuated equilibrium" camp and the "gradualist" camp. The former group suits Hanegraaff's views, but it is worthwhile to quote Dawkins, a gradualist: "(T)he fossil record abounds in beautifully gradual transitions, although there are some gaps too--some very large and accepted, by everybody, as due to animals simply failing to fossilize." "Face" devotes some space arguing against the idea that Archaeopteryx, an apparent bird-reptile, is a transitional species. It gives an excerpt from punctuated-equilibrium advocates Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, but it is out of context. A careful reading indicates their belief that archaeopteryx is not an intermediate WITHIN THE GRADUALISM MODEL. In a March 10 phone conversation, Gould told me that the creature is a "lovely transition." In favor of archaeopteryx as a transition, I recommend the book "Taking Wing: Archaeopteryx and the Evolution of Bird Flight" by Pat Shipman. Furthermore, other apparent transitions have been discovered--meaning small dinosaurs with proto-feathers. They have been named Protoarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui. (See Los Angeles Times --June 24, 1998) Hanegraaff also fulminates against the homo erectus "ape man." First, it is important to note that there have been at least 50 homo erectus specimans found at multiple locations, according to famed anthropologist F. Clark Howell. Hanegraaff only mentions two locations. He claims that Java Man was really a modern human and that the 1911 Selenka expedition report proves this. Evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith (whom Hanegraaff quotes as a souce) says in a 1911 article that the report's conclusion that Java Man was not a human ancestor was base on "slender evidence." And in Keith's later book "The Antiquity of Man" he makes clear that he accepts Java Man as a human ancestor--"an early stage in the true and direct line of human evolution..."So it is obviously wrong to take a 1911 report as the final word on this subject. And Hanegraaff's claim that Peking Man skulls were really from apes is just plain wrong. They had braincases that were far too large, averaging 1,100 c.c.'s. (The average ape brain is 400 c.c.'s.) "Face" also cites the tired argument that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The book quotes a 1971 Scientific American article saying "the conceptual connection between information [such as genetic info] and the second law of thermodynamics is now firmly established." But the same article says that in nature "the earth creates subsystems that are out of equilibrium with the general environment" and that the energy and information in these subsystems have negative entropy! (the opposite of the second law) "Face" also predictably delves into the issue of complexity, citing the "astronomical odds" arguments against complex systems developing by "random chance." Richard Dawkins answers this well in "The Blind Watchmaker." The astronomical odds argument is based on change in one fell swoop. But the odds change radically when change is seen as a cumulative, deterministic step-by-step building process. Finally "Face" mentions Michael Behe's work "Darwin's Black Box" which claims evolution could not have worked at the cellular level, because cells and similar structures are far too complex. I recommend anyone interested type in (on the internet) "Behe's Empty Box" for numerous scholarly response to Behe's book.
Rating:
Summary: nothing new hear, not worth the effort
Review: Hank just rehashes old stuff. Some of it's good, but he also resorts to some substandard items and tactics. Kind of embarrassing at times, plus he uses material from young-earth radical Henry Morris, well known for his deceptions. For good, intellectial studies of the topic, see the books by Behe, Denton, Phillip Johnson and Hugh Ross.
Rating: 
Summary: NAILING IT!
Review: A QUICK NOTE ON THE FACE**HANK SEES WOLVES ASSEMBLING ON THE FROZEN RIVER, CIRCLING, SALIVATING AT THE PROSPECT OF PULLING DOWN THE ONES WANDERING ON THE NEARBY SHORE. INSTEAD OF SAYING UNDER HIS BREATH "LET THEM BE ANATHEMA." HE CALLS OUT TO THEM, "THOSE BOOMING SOUNDS YOU HEAR ARE NOT THUNDERCLAPS, THEY'RE COMING FROM UNDERNEATH YOU." FORGIVE THE NATURALIST ANALOGY. HANK WILL HOPEFULLY FOLLOW UP WITH INSIGHT AS TO WHAT FARCE WILL FILL THE VOID WHEN EVOLUTION FINALLY CRASHES THROUGH THE ICE, AFTER THE HEAT OF D.N.A. BEATS DOWN UPON IT? UNLESS THESE "KNOWLEDGABLE ONES" ARE BORN AGAIN AND BECOME "UNDERSTANDING ONES", THEIR VARIOUS DESPERATE REACTIONS COULD BECOME PROBLEMATIC FOR THE REST OF US. IT WILL BE LIKE THE MALAISE FRENCH ANARCHISTS FOUND THEMSELVES IN WHEN, IN ONE SESSION, THE FRENCH PARLIAMENT TURNED OVER ALL OF THEIR ATHEIST PROCLAMATIONS. OR WORSE, LIKE THE MALAISE RUSSIA FOUND ITSELF IN WHEN THE "COMMUNIST ATHEIST WORLD VIEW", VALUES THAT FOR DECADES HAD BEEN INCULCATED INTO THE MINDS OF ITS NON-CHRISTIAN CITIZENS, BUCKLED UNDER IT'S OWN LACK OF CONVICTION. GOOD SHOW, CHAP, MARANATHA. 1 COR 16:22-23. VICTOR C RUSSELL.
Rating:
Summary: One long ad hominem attack that ignores real issues!
Review: On page 19 of his book, Hank says, "Evolution's most significant consequence is that it undermines the very foundation of Christianity. If evolution is reflective for the laws of science, then Genesis must be reflective of the flaws of Scripture. And if the foundation of Christianity is flawed, the superstructure is destined to fall." Here, Hank admits that scientific objections to evolution are beside the point. If evolution is true, then Christianity is dead. How, then, can Hank examine the scientific evidence with an ounce of objectivity? On page 147, he protests ad hominem attacks that "attack people rather than argue principles. Ad hominem arguments are designed to distract attention from the real issue." I agree with that COMPLETELY, which makes his following statements discreditable: "Evolution not only dispenses with God ... but is racist as well." (p. 24) "In the evolutionary hierarchy, black [races] are placed at the bottom, yellows and reds somewhere in the middle, and whites on top." (p. 26) Granted, Hanegraaff cites racist quotes from historical figures, including Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley. But is Hank aware that creationists have written racist books, too? By his deduction, does that fact discredit creation science? Did he ever read where George McCready Price and Frank Lewis Marsh claimed that black skin resulted from original sin? Does Hank know that Henry Morris once defended the Bell Curve notion of racial differences in IQ being genetically determined? Hank should heed Jesus' warning in Matthew 7:3-5 about pointing out the speck in his brothers' eyes while ignoring the plank in his own.
Rating:
Summary: About FACE on the facts.
Review: From the size of the bibliography, you would think this should be a scholarly, well researched book. But Hank Hanegraaff (HH) makes it clear that as Christian evangelist he's out to discredit evolution because it is unbiblical. He wants to give the reader easily memorized answers to defend the One True Faith. This is just the sort of subjective, sensational book that would result from that approach. HH recaps common, discredited creationist arguments from his creationist sources. Face's best value is as a classic collection of the egregious tactics used by creationists. It is a negative tutorial on critical thinking and scholarship. Ad hominems, red herrings, straw men are represented. HH uses out of context quotations of authorities, even evolutionists, intended to mislead the audience into thinking they agree with the author. He quotes irresponsible statements from scientists as if they were authoritative. Unsupported assertions oversimplifications and bold misstatements are the centerpieces. Out of date, discredited science is used either to bolster the author's arguments or as a straw man to ridicule. He omits relevant facts. He employs the "after this, therefore because of this" fallacy to blame every social ill and idea he finds troubling on evolutionism. He asserts that how you view your origins determines how live your life. Are we to believe that all the millions of people who accept evolution lead despicable lives? HH expends much ink in support of "evolutionism is racist." He tries hard to sell the logical fallacy: some evolutionists are racists, therefore evolution is a racist ideology. Evolution, like many other ideas has been abused by people who wish to oppress others. Christianity is among those ideas so abused. Even the founder of HH's version of Christianity, Martin Luther is infamous for his vitriolic anti-semitism, and anti-peasant diatribes. HH invokes special pleading to argue that Christian abusers are different as they were disobeying Jesus. Clearly the scientific study of historic events is not inherently racist. This is not to agree that Darwin was quite the racist that the author says he is. Many of the ideas considered in The Descent of Man are appalling in light of modern knowledge, and have been discarded by science, such as the idea that the races could be different species. Others are held to be true today, such as the idea that differences between races are small and overwhelmed by individual variation. Right or wrong, Darwin was struggling to honestly evaluate the alternatives. In any case the theory of evolution does not stand or fall on the personal attributes of Charles Darwin, but on the validity of the current hypotheses and evidence. HH's arguments to that end fail as well. It is obvious that in writing this book HH has consulted few if any primary scientific sources. Space will allow me to cite only a few of the abuses. HH says that Pithecanthropus (now Homo) Erectus is a fiction based on a single skullcap a few teeth and a femur. and that the Selenka expedition and Keith's 1911 paper on it is the definitive word on the subject. Many more Erectus have been and continue to be found over a wide geographical range and are dated from half a million to over 1.5 million years old. They are certainly important human relatives if not our direct ancestors. He employs the ridiculous creationist tale that the damaged skulls of Peking Man ("pure fantasy") fossils found at one site prove that they were actually monkeys whose brains were eaten by ancient Chinese gourmets. Anyone comparing Peking Man (a variety of Homo Erectus) to a monkey can see the difference This whole 'monkey' business is probably an exploitation of a mistranslation from French of the word for 'simian' in a 1930 paper by Teilhard de Chardin. Some creationists still argue that the holes in the skulls show that the creatures were being hunted by modern humans, but this is weak. HH also tells us that the fossil record fails to support evolutionary theory - there are no intermediates. The truth is we have intermediates at every hierarchical level of the fossil record. Good species transitions are rare, but there are around two dozen solid examples of gradual transitions in various mammals from the Pleistocene (the last ice age). At a higher level we have a series of genera showing the transition from reptiles to mammals, in correct chronological and phenotypical order over a long period. HH trots out the old, discredited creationist thermodynamic arguments. He will not accept that local reductions of entropy are not a violation of the second law, and in fact do occur. The sun's energy increases the entropy of the universe while driving weather on earth and causing the formation of ice, a local reduction in entropy. Evolution is no more in violation of the second law of thermodynamics than is any other process of life (or refrigerators). HH misapplies information theory to evolution: "random deviations in genetic material will not increase genetic information." However natural selection operating on these deviations does increase genetic information on how to grow a fit organism. An intelligent designer is not required - just a process able to favor a more useful gene. HH's effort to paint punctuated equilibrium as little more than the hopeful monster theory (instantaneous change) is contradicted by his quote from Gish, who almost explains it right as intermittent, accelerated gradualism, even if he doesn't believe it. There is a chapter devoted to recapitulation. If you want to understand the issue of recapitulation beyond HH's all or nothing arguments, I recommend the book by Gould which HH cites: "Ontogeny and Phylogeny". For a balanced, broad, readable history of the subject of evolution I recommend "Evolution : The History of an Idea" by Peter J. Bowler. For a study on the relationship between dinosaurs and birds read "The Mistaken Extinction" by Lowell Dingus and Timothy Rowe.
Rating:
Summary: Not a worthwhile purchase.
Review: 'The Face' will perhaps convince the ignorant or reinforce the opinions of the already-convinced, but anyone with even a moderate familiarity with the subject of evolution will see through Hanegraaff's points. He trots out old arguments that have long ago been refuted by evolutionary scientists, and, by using ad hominem arguments against his opponents (i.e., personal attacks -- he calls Stephen Jay Gould 'pitiful', for instance), he falls into a logical trap that he himself warns his readers against using themselves in discussions with evolutionists.
Rating:
Summary: Interestin, but ultimately fallacious
Review: Hank Hanegraff has written a very easily understandable book. His presentation of his position is clear, concise and to the point. However, despite all of this clarity the book incorporates numerous fallacies to bolsters the creationist position. For example, Hanegraff is quite right that evolution has been used to support many atrocities in the past such as racism and justifying a particular race as superior above all others, however it is a fallacy to suppose that because something has been used for wrong purposes that it is itself wrong. The validity of any proposition rests not on how it is used, but on the evidence solely. Another example would be how christianity has also been used to support racist attitude by such groups as the KKK and was widely used in the south prior to during and after the civil war, however this being the case it does not follow that I can judge christianity, christians, or the bible based on these actions it would be fallacious of me to do so and it is fallacious for Hank Hanegraff to do so as well. This is just one example, but there are many. I just have one question which is if there is an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God why do his followers, not all, but those such as Hank Hanegraff, have to resort to deception and distortion to gain more followers?
Rating:
Summary: One long ad hominem attack.
Review: The following quote on page 19 of Hank's book discredits everything that follows. "[Evolution's] most significant consequence is that it undermines the very foundation of Christianity. If evolution is reflective for the laws of science, then Genesis must be reflective of the flaws of Scripture. And if the foundation of Christianity is flawed, the superstructure is destined to fall." Here, Hank admits that scientific objections are perfunctory. If evolution is true, then Christianity is dead. How, then, can Hank examine the scientific evidence with an ounce of objectivity? Answer: He can't and he won't! On page 147, he protests ad hominem attacks that "attack people rather than argue principles. Ad hominem arguments are designed to distract attention from the real issue." I agree with that COMPLETELY, which makes his following statements discreditable: "Evolution not only dispenses with God ... but evolutionism is racist as well." (p. 24) "In the evolutionary hierarchy, black [races] are placed at the bottom, yellows and reds somewhere in the middle, and whites on top." (p. 26) "It should also be noted that Darwinian evolution is not only racist but sexist as well." (p. 28) "The consistent application of evolutionary principles inevitably leads to [slavery]." (p. 29) Granted, Hanegraaff cites racist quotes from historical figures, including Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley. But is Hank aware that creationists have written racist books, too? By his deduction, does that fact discredit creation science? Did he ever read the racist writings of George McCready Price or Frank Lewis Marsh? Does he know that Henry Morris once defended the Bell Curve notion of racial differences in IQ being genetically determined? Does Hank know that racists quote the same scriptural passage he cites to defend their bigotry? Is Hank aware that Christians quote the Apostle Paul to defend sexism? Hank should heed Jesus' warning in Matthew 7:3-5 about pointing out the speck in his brother's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.
Rating:
Summary: Invincible Ignorance made Inherently Memorable
Review: Quite possibly, a new low in creationist rhetoric. That something farcical is going on here is undeniable, but there is no reason to suppose that it is evolution. The author, Hank Hanegraaff, tells us that "As the Soviet Union collapsed before our very eyes, so, too, the propped-up corpse of evolution is ready for its final fall." This will come as a surprise to working scientists, and I suspect Hanegraaff and his acolytes are wise to celebrate evolution's downfall now, rather than waiting. The book is an elaboration of a lecture of the same title which Hanegraaff has been touring for a decade or so. The word "face" in the title is an acrostic (Hanegraaff calls it an acronym), the letters of which are supposed to enable readers to remember four irrefutable arguments against evolution. There is no point in discussing these, as they are not so much irrefutable as interminable: in no way original -- they were threadbare when Hanegraaff adopted the quartet for his own -- they will be depressingly familiar to taxonomists of creationist polemic, who will have to be pardoned for thinking they were refuted, demolished, and generally laughed out of court decades ago. Even by creationist standards, the book is woefully out of date -- and incredibly trite. What makes the book harder to take than one by some other creationist maven is not the scientific howlers, which are merely representative, but the presentation. Apparently lacking academic credentials -- certainly unburdened with scientific ones -- Hanegraaff has long sought to legitimate his mavenship by styling himself a "memory expert." His purpose, to use a well-worn Hanegraaffian phrase, is to make the timeless creationist arguments "inherently memorable." This theme is hammered on mercilessly throughout the book. In practice, he has only two devices for achieving this noble goal. One is "acronyms," by which he means words formed from the initial letters of his topics. The other is alliteration. He is most tickled when he manages to combine the two: thus, the A in FACE signifies "Ape-Men Fiction, Fraud, and Fantasy." But this is only the beginning. For the book, Hanegraaff has provided each of his central platitudes with a trio of alliterative sub-heads, in this case Pithecanthropus erectus, Piltdown Man, and Peking Man. And there is worse. It is here that Hanegraaff plumbs new depths: that most, if not all, of our fossil ancestors and cousins are somehow fraudulent is a common enough creationist prevarication, but no other creationist has thought it would be more impressive enshrined in a silly word game. The spectacle is inherently pathetic; the real function of all this juvenile wordplay is to camouflage the author's lack of substance. Even for such a slim volume, surprisingly little information, good or bad, is on tap. But then the book is not primarily about evolution. It is really a showcase for specimens of Hanegraaffian erudition, both the alliterative and the acrostical. It would appear that God put Hanegraaff on this Earth so that we all might have inherent memorability, but the total effect is less than scholarly, and may even be considered farcical by the unregenerate. Nor is it all that inherently memorable. In a slightly more intriguing bit of linguistic legerdemain, the author coins a word, "pseudosaur," and is enormously pleased with himself. The definition is a bit vague, but I suspect the word may be freely used to describe any fossil which scientists regard as an intermediate between groups, but of course isn't, so there! The most famous pseudosaur is, of course, Archaeopteryx, and calling it a pseudosaur is certainly more expedient than trying to explain why it has birdlike features, and reptilian features, and also lacks other features of modern birds. To the extent that the author attempts to argue at all, he tends to favor fallacies of relevancy. He is particularly fond of setting up straw men. Every letter of his fabulous FACE represents at least one straw man and sometimes several. Hanegraaff obviously has no interest in trying to understand what biologists, paleontologists, and physicists are actually saying. He indulges in several irrelevant (and risible) theses, among them that evolutionary theory is inherently racist, sexist, and somehow promotes abortion. Slavery and sexual freedom would appear to be other evils caused by evolutionary ideas. At least, if they aren't then it isn't clear why he brings them up. (The best picture in the book is of five husky guys at a gay pride rally doing a chorus line high-kick routine. This tells us -- what exactly? About evolution?) Finally, Hanegraaff loses it completely: there can't be that many legitimate books on popular science that end with an altar call. Hanegraaff's explanation for the continued success of evolutionary theory (in the face of its impending demise) is, reduced to lowest terms, a blanket accusation of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the thousands of working scientists since Darwin. But this is nothing compared to his contempt for those Christians who have reconciled their faith with contemporary science, and consequently do not share his terror of science. It could have been worse, I suppose. It could have been set to music. But then, there is an audio cassette version too. The book may be of marginal interest to those studying the pathology of belief, but it is inherently unworthy of serious refutation.
Rating:
Summary: A poorly research compendium of Creationist dogma.
Review: Hank Hanegraaff continues in the Creationist's tradition of misquoting, quoting out of context, or simply distorting the truth to make it fit his belief structure. In "The Face..." Hank implies that Einstein and Leonardo da Vince supported the Creationist's viewpoint. Rather implausable as Einstein's God certainly did not resemble Hank's. And da Vinci's writings indicated that he did not believe in a universal flood. In fact, Leonardo da Vinci is described by some as one of the first evolutionists. Hank's review of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is very unique in that his 2nd Law has little resemblance to that employed in Physics. In short, the book is excellent fiction!!
| 
