The Lie: Evolution

Rating:
Summary: Psuedoscience at its finest
Review: Creation science is not a 'science', in any sense. It is an attempt to rescue one interpretation of the Bible from the 'evil Satan' of evolutionary theory. We might as well start passing edicts burning evolutionary scientists at the stake and force them to 'repent' their belief that life evolved, much as the Catholic Church forced Galileo to recant his belief the Earth orbited the Sun.

It is as ridiculous as trying to defend Astrology as a system with equal validity to modern Astronomy.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing: what I needed, not what I wanted
Review: I expected evidence, I was disappointed to get something perhaps better -- a clear presentation of presuppositionalism. The entire book can be summarized by the book's quotation from The Southern Skeptic, Volume 2 Number 5, Autumn 1985, which covers the Skeptical position: "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by unobservable God." Skeptics work rationally-- from the presupposition that that there is no God, and merely interpret the evidence thusly. This is the Bayesian notion that nothing is "objective": that you must have some initial belief. Christian theists work rationally-- from the presupposition that humans are special, and we did not create ourselves. Your presupposition reveals your heart, and your mind follows.

Rating:
Summary: Redrawing the battle lines in the "origins" debate.
Review: Having perused some of the earlier reviews of this book, I am struck by the intensity of the polarization it causes. The reviewers either love it or they hate it -- there is not much middle ground. It seems to me that those who criticize it the loudest and hate it the most are missing its main point. Thus their blistering critiques are aimed at something that the book was never intended to be. Once these things are understood, it should be easier to offer a more objective evaluation in light of the book's intended purpose.

Within the last week I had the firsthand opportunity to hear the author speak at my church, and have read this book. Having heard his unfiltered message "straight from the horse's mouth," I have (I believe) the benefit of additional insights into his thinking that may not be apparent to some readers.

First of all it is important to note that this is NOT intended to be a science book. That means it is NOT intended to tackle all of the physical evidence for or against creationism in this brief text. Second, the reader must consider the target audience, to wit, those who approach the "origins" debate already convinced from other sources that the Bible is true and authoritative -- what Ham calls his "presuppositionist" approach. Third, the reader must consider that the naysayers are approaching this debate already convinced from other sources that the Bible is false and lacking in any authority. Both sides have the same evidence to work with. The only difference is which "presuppositions" will be your filter as you examine that evidence.

With that groundwork laid, it is much easier to identify this book for what it is -- a challenge and a wake-up call to believers both real and nominal to consider the incredibly important implications of trying to take "millions of years" (Ham's shorthand term for the evolutionist position) and make it fit with biblical teachings. Not only it is impossible to do so without doing violence to Scripture, but in trying to do this believers are handing a pick and shovel to those whose desire it is to undermine (and ultimately to destroy) biblical Christianity. In other words, the purpose of the book is to clearly delineate between two mutually exclusive positions, and to issue a challenge those who foolishly try to straddle the fence. This is Ham's essential message, whether in print or in person, and personally I thought he did a yeoman's job of getting this message across to those who care to listen. Unfortunately, too many of the critics automatically assume the author's position is flawed, and thus fail to comprehend even the basic gist of what he's trying to say because their minds are firmly closed as they read.

Aside from challenging the church and the compromisers about the crucial nature of this debate, Ham made one other very important observation which bears repeating. In fact, it's one of the most important points in the whole book, and I felt like he didn't say nearly enough about it -- thus only four stars instead of five. That is the fact that this is not a battle of "science vs. religion." Rather, it's one of "religion vs. religion." Each religion has the same evidence at its disposal to bring to bear on the "origins" debate. The only difference is that your religion will determine how you choose to evaluate the evidence. Ham makes no bones about the fact that he approaches this issue as a religious person, and he challenges evolutionists to make the same admission.

Evolutionism is a religion, make no mistake. Evolutionists criticize Christians for believing in supernatural occurences which cannot be proved by the scientific method, but in so doing they condemn themselves by the same logic -- hoisting themselves on their own petard, so to speak. To believe in evolution is to believe in supernatural occurences which cannot be proved by the scientific method. Both religions have a God. For Christians it's the God of the Bible, revealed to humanity in his Word and in Jesus Christ. For evolutionists, crass humanism is the order of the day and man is his own god. Such humanists cannot admit to the existence of an eternal, omnipotent Creator, because it would force them to confront their moral accountability to that Creator. Thus they decide it's easier to believe that the universe spontaneously created itself rather than give in to the "blind faith" of Christianity. If that characterizes you, I hope you're intellectually honest enough to see the irony in that statement.

What the debate boils down to is this -- Christians believe that the God of the Bible is real, and that his Word accurately recounts the creation of the universe. Evolutionists hang all their hope on a logical impossibility, that matter can create itself without an external cause. This violates at least two of the fundamental laws of logic -- the law of noncontradiction and the law of causality, which precludes the existence of an uncaused effect.

For example, if I were to insist that the coffee cup on my table simply sprang into uncaused existence, i.e. created itself, and that the water in it bubbled and evolved over time to a palate-pleasing Kona blend, you would rightly call me an illogical madman. Yet that is exactly the position that evolutionists are forced to defend in their own exercise of blind faith. And so the battle lines are drawn just as the author plainly spells out. In this the author accomplished the intended purpose of his book. I just wish he hadn't been so soft-spoken about it.

Just a final point to consider, from Romans 1:18-20: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." You think about that as you read this book.