Rating: 
Summary: It's In My Top Five
Review: Tornado in a Junkyard is in my top five books on the creation-evolution subject. It is a book to be feared by evolutionists. Perloff speaks clearly to the lay reader and provides ample citations that will please anyone who wants to study further.The index is particularly helpful and I appreciate Mr. Perloff clearly identifying the authorities he uses that are creationists. It should be on the shelf of all creation defenders and I challenge skeptics to read it cover to cover.
Rating: 
Summary: Bad Science
Review: Perloff is as easy to read as Carl Sagan in "The Demon-Haunted World," and writes with as much wit and humor. He is probably as persuasive, which is unfortunate, because in my opinion he is dead wrong. Throughout the book, most of Perloff's discussions sound reasonable on their face. However, often in the middle of a reasonable-sounding discussion, I encounter an absurd passage, or a glaring omission that jumps out at me. Also, having a PhD in physics, I know something about some of what he writes. In such cases, I can see where he is wrong even when he sounds reasonable. On page 23, Perloff addresses the complaint that "quoting an evolutionist in support of creation misrepresents the person." This itself is a misrepresentation. The problem is not that a creationist misrepresents an evolutionist by quoting him, but that the creationist frequently misquotes him. For example, Perloff quotes Darwin on p. 32 about the eye ("The Origin of Species," published in whole on the talk.origins web site): --> "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Perloff does not give us the rest of that paragraph, which continues: --> "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound." In short, Perloff took a passage saying, in short, "There seems to be a problem, but there really isn't," and cut off the second clause to leave, "There seems to be a problem." This is a standard creationists lie. Perloff discusses astronomy in chapter eleven, yet ignores what I see as an inescapible contradiction between creationism and astronomy: Astronomers have discovered a universe billions of light-years across, full of galaxies and galaxy clusters, and even larger structures. If the universe were only 6000 years old, we would not see anything farther than 6000 light-years away -- a small section of our galaxy and an infinitessimal point of the universe. (I hope to review another book, "Starlight and Time," which attempts to resolve this contradiction.) Perloff briefly mentions astronomy's biggest discovery of the twentieth century: the expanding universe. Predicted by Einstein, discovered by astronomer Hubble, and the subject of numerous books and observation projects (the COBE experiment, the Hubble Telescope), the expanding universe does not warrant Perloff's offhand dismissal. Perloff writes on page 125, "Big Bang advocates say gravity caused gases to condense into . . . galaxies, but this is only a theory." He does not consider whether the theory is right or wrong, plausible or implausible. The theory is "only a theory," and dismissed on that account alone. Perloff's dismissal is all the more agregious here because *the theory of* gravity is extremely well established in physics. I believe that nearly every argument in this book supporting creationism or opposing Darwinism can be refuted, and has been refuted somewhere.
Rating:
Summary: You knew in your heart evolution was bunk, Perloff proves it
Review: Creationism has been so ridiculed by the humanistic, pseudo-intellectual elite and the resulting deception concerning the origins of life has been so pervasive that reading this book may possibly provide you with a life-changing experience. If nothing else, it gives intelligent people the courage to believe in creationism as a theory at least as valid as evolutionism. In fact, Perloff proves beyond this reader's doubt that evolutionism is unsupported by the evidence and is, indeed, scientifically impossible. So open your mind, forget the indoctrinations of your professors and read this entertaining and enlightening book.
Rating:
Summary: Creationism Is Not Science
Review: Creationism is not science, rather it is a weak atempt to bring god back into the classroom. What questions does creation ask, what new directions are they exploring to explain their "theory". None. I have not read a single point about creationism that has any significant scientific merit. All attempts to discredit evolution are taken out of context and are slanted to illustrate their bias. For example, in the creationist argument about genetic mutation, they claim that it is not probable. But what they are claiming is rate of mutation in an individual is small, without ever mentioning that they are talking about an individual. What they do not talk about is the rate of mutation in populations, which is large, which is the dimension where natural selection, and evolution, occur. This is just one example of how creationists try to discredit evolution, by offering impertinent data, that when investigated using scientific reasoning, hold no value. This is not an attack at any one's religion. As an issue of science, there is no debate. creationism is as much a hard science as is political science. So, if you want to read a book full of twisted information that does not provide any useful information, then this is your book.
Rating: 
Summary: Provoking
Review: Anyone who reads this book, will be provoked. If you doubt me, just look at the reviews. The level of passion on each side is deep. It amazes me, however, that the poor reviews do not give any specific rebuttal to Perloff's arguments. There is a haughty superior feel to there whine, but no intelligent rebuttal to the arguments in the book. This book is an excellent first step to understanding the arguments against evolution. James attacks every part of the theory and does an excellent job of doing so. Read Phillip Johnson's books for a good follow-up.
Rating:
Summary: What good is half a brain? It lets you believe in god
Review: I can't believe that creationist are still using the same old worn out arguements and ideas. Science can't explain what good "Half an eye" is ? Well, having poor eyesight is better than no eyesight at all and offers an survival advantage to those creatures. Many animals in natural acutally have "Half an eye", poorly devolped vision, light sensitive cells and other things. How does creationism explain animals in cave environments that have eyes, but don't see? It can't! Creationism isn't science, but an attempt to insert religious dogma into the public schools. E-mail me, but only send me questions that are irreducibly complex!
Rating:
Summary: Truth... for the first time
Review: I am amazed at Perloff's ability to make everything simple. He boils evolution down to a basic element. Can it be proven? No. He shows how so many hoaxes have been introduced and, even though disproven, we still have pictures of our so called "ancestors" in school books. It was also refreshing to learn the ACTUAL account of the Scopes Trial and how the makers of the movie INHERIT THE WIND completely destroyed the facts. If you want a no holds barred expose on evolution, look no further... HERE IT IS! And don't worry about those that are trashing this book. People react that way when their religious beliefs are proven flase. Thank you, Perloff, for this excellent work.
Rating:
Summary: orthodoxy
Review: An evangelical with adult onset christianity, who still thinks dinosaurs were reptiles, discovers you can write a book by filling it with quotes and finds a publisher who has problems aligning his type.
Rating:
Summary: Darwin is dead get over it
Review: Sir Fred Hoyle, noted astronometer once said "The probabilty of higher life forms emerging by chance are comparable to the odds that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a fully funtional Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hence the title of this book. Unlike many books on the subject of Creationism VS Darwinism, Most notably the excellent yet very technical "Dawins black Box" by Micheal Behe, this book is an easy to read and understand book without dumbing down the content. Darwinism has more holes in it then a finely aged swiss chesse and James Perloff shines a 500 watt spot light on each and every one off them, from the fossil record to irreducible complexity to the DNA evidence. MR Perloff tackles the complex subject matter in terms any reasonably intellgent layman can understand. whether your interested in creationism for religous reason, academic research or you simply want both sides in the Darwin/creationism debate, "Tornado in a Junkyard" is an excellent book.
Rating:
Summary: Honesty at Last
Review: An honest and objective look at the truth about evolution based on facts and not agenda. Perloff does not use information to support his agenda, he uses factual and observable information to point out that the myth of evolution has been developed and maintained by athiests, not scientists; people with an agenda, not a desire to truly educate about science.
| 
