Rating: 
Summary: An Excellent Primer on the Fallacies of Evolution
Review: If you are open-minded, willing to buck the crowd, and check out for yourself why thousands of qualified scientists reject evolution, this book is for you. If you are one who is intimidated by overly-technical writings, don't worry--this book is nontechnical and easy to read. I must confess to being amused by the ignorance of the negative reviewers. Yes, Darwin DID say that his theory did away with the intelligent design argument (although no evidence has emerged to substantiate the claim that orderly biological systems could arise spontaneously--even step-by-step). The reviewer who says that koalas could not have migrated from Ararat to Australia should go back to class and learn some biology of long-distance migrations. And those who imagine that science and religion can be locked into watertight compartments will never appeal to those who wisely reject such schizoid thinking. Finally, the facts presented in this book DO matter--and show the utter fallacy of organic evolution just as the title of this book indicates.
Rating: 
Summary: Scientific training doesn't necessarily produce......
Review: thoughtful scientists, and this book's primary author is a testament to this claim (other reviewers have already provided some critiques that illustrate this). If you are looking for a high quality treatment of evolution, try The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. If you are religious/spiritual or trying to talk yourself into becoming religious/spiritual, don't bother with either book. Religion is about faith, not logic and rationality--and if you choose to have faith that is perfectly fine. If you are trying to find rational proof of God's existence by reading a book that tries to discredit evolution, you are missing out on the most rewarding, experientially based aspects of spirituality -- aspects involving an experience of expansiveness and connection that is not possible through literal adherence to language (see, for example, Martin Buber's book, I and Thou, or Pema Chodron's When Things Fall Apart). If you hope to convert atheists and agnostics to Christianity with the biased 'rational' arguments presented in this book, they will miss out as well.
Rating:
Summary: One more reason not to be an atheist/evolutionist.
Review: I found this book intellectually stimulating. However, I do wish the author had been a little more in-depth with some of his reasoning, etc. However, as another reviewer pointed out, there is a vast amount of references in the footer. This book performs a great service by illustrating how supposed "genetic mutations" were not truly mutations - the genes already contained the necessary coding (pages 34-46). As shown on page 46, some very important links are missing. After studying geology for several years, I have found that even many soft-bodied organisms left traces of their passing. Since evolution supposedly occurs over millions of years, there should be some record of the various mutations of humans. There are none. As far as geologic timing goes, humans have only existed the barest fraction of time. I did enjoy the book. I have recommended it to many friends - both Christian and non-Christian. If you're searching for the Truth, you should definitely read this book.
Rating: 
Summary: An average book
Review: For the most part this book presented a good technical look at the scientific problems of evolution; however, there were a few points that troubled me. 1) on page 24 of the book, Mr. Sarfati stated that science flourished in Christian Europe while it stagnated in the rest of the world and that it was a fact attested to my historians of many religious persausions [including some athiests]. However, when he went to provide documentation for this claim, he cited a young-earth creationist source. He could have make a more powerful claim by citing one of these other historians, particularly one of the athiest ones. 2) I was dissapointed by the inclusion of young-earth creationism in the book when the arguments refuting the neo-Darwinian paradigm was in no way enhanced by such inclusion. The material was of a high enough quality to stand on its own. Point number two, as stated above, is perhaps the most damaging charge. The title of the book clearly states that the purpose of the book was to refute evolution [by evolution, I mean the neo-Darwinian paradigm]. Its stated purpose was not the propogation of the young-earth position. By including such material, it detracted away from the excelent anti-evolution material presented and calls into question what the true purpose of the book was. Was it written to refute evolution as the title of the book implies, or was it written as a means of proselyting readers to a specific theological interpertation [i.e. the young-earth interpertation of Scripture]?
Rating:
Summary: This Book Cannot Be Answered
Review: Well, I suppose it could be answered with lies. I think it has been answered only with a nervous silence. I bought a dozen copies and sent them to the science teachers in our local public schools - heard nothing yet. Sarfati meets the evolutionists on their own terms and debunks the weak arguments that the National Institutes of Science ask educators to foist on our children. Other creationist books are more comprehensive; this one is a designer response to the latest lies cooked up to "prove" that animal kinds evolve.
Rating:
Summary: This book is so good it inspired a web discussion group!
Review: I just joined an Internet discussion group exposing the foolish assumptions of the evolutionary paradigm! Get a copy of "Refuting Evolution" and share your thoughts and insights on this great site!
Rating:
Summary: Concise and Logical
Review: Refuting Evolution is the best book I have read to date on the subject of Evolution vs. Creationism. As a college student, I appreciate Dr. Safari's giving the Creationist view based on sound reasoning, well documented sources, and weighing evidence. Refuting Evolution provides a clear presentation of the major flaws of the theory of Evolution and is an absolute must read for anyone interested in reasearching the truth in the current debate on the validity of Evolution.
Rating:
Summary: Educator
Review: Great book. Even if you don't accept Creationism, you can not help but to perceive evolution in a new light. Evolution is a theory not a science. Since I began teaching, the Theory of Evolution has changed so much. What was taught as fact 10 yrs ago, has since been proven incorrect. The theory changes too much for a science. Until two years ago, Astronomers believed that the oldest star in the universe was older than the universe itself. This was not at all logical, but they accepted it and continued their faith in their dating methods. A fellow from South Africa was able to prove that their measurement methods were incorrect. Thus the Universe is older than the oldest star. Now let us consider the possibility that the dating methods for determining the age of the earth and fossils are also incorrect. Evolution has become a religion for those wanting to disprove the existence of God. If we teach our children that we accidentally evolved from pond scum, why should they feel special about themselves? I can not accept that we were an accident. Logic would dispute that two humaniods spontaneously evolved in the same area that were biologically compatible enough to produce offspring. In addition, If all creatures are evolving to a higher state, why do we see so much extinction? I propose a lesson in genetics would explain that mutations provide a loss of genetic information not an addition. As a species becomes more specialized, they lose information that is never regained. Thus they are not able to adapt to changes in their environment because the genetic pool that provides their variations has become too shallow.
Rating:
Summary: Young-earthism has no scientific support
Review: The objections to evolution are valid, but the author destroys is credibility by trying to prove "young-earthism." Apparently those who believe YECism haven't bothered to study basic science, which proves through hundreds of methods, that the universe is old. One reader (Ann) says the author has refuted Dr. Hugh Ross. If one carefully compares Ross' works with this author or Ken Ham's, one finds that Ross is the only one whom adheres to logic, common sense, and accurate Hebrew scholarship. Sarfati's YE claims fail basic science and logic. Readers should study science and logic before blindly believing Sarfati's claims. Hypocritically, Sarfati's anti-evolution science is from old-earth science. Yet he chooses to ignore the same science when it comes to dating the universe. Old-earthism lacks the contradictions of YECism and agrees with the Bible perfectly, all the while defeating evolution. Before jumping on the YE bandwagon, test the claims of YE "leaders." Compare their (often emotional) claims with the scholarly works of Dr. Hugh Ross such as "The Genesis Question" and "Creation and Time." Some of the leading authorities in Christianity support Ross (and not Ham, et. al.) not from compromise, but because of Ross' adherence to literal and complete biblical scholarship.
Rating:
Summary: Let the truth be told
Review: The Amazon reviews are not meant for the type of gratuitous personal attacks on matters not pertaining to the book in question, as 'Reader', 17 Nov. does. Dr Sarfati never mentions Hugh Ross in this book, but does devote a whole chapter to defending a 'young' earth on both scientific and biblical grounds. This 'reader' hasn't said a single thing to refute anything in this chapter. For as long I've read Mr Ham and his associates, they have always stated Dr Ross's views accurately, so falsely accusing a Christian brother like Ken Ham of 'purposeful deception' is wrong and hardly the way for a Christian to behave. In fact, well before the Nov 17 'Reader' wrote his inflammatory review (so there is simply no excuse for it), the same author of Refuting Evolution published a devastating rebuttal of Hugh Ross's teaching in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13(2):22-30, 1999 (also posted on the Answers in Genesis and True Origins websites), refuting all his anti-young-earth arguments. Sarfati wrote: 'While he [Ross] is insistent about distinguishing himself from 'theistic evolutionists' (TEs), Ross adopts the same basic philosophical approach. That is, he makes uniformitarian (i.e. essentially materialistic, billions of years, etc.) 'science'his authority over Scripture. This means that he must try to fit billions of years into Scripture, with corollaries of a local flood and pre-Adamite soulless man-like creatures, and death of nephesh animals before sin. The only real difference between the two positions is that PCs deny transformism, the changing of one kind into another.' This is hardly claiming 'old-earth = evolution', but is instead fairly noting the similarities and differences. What is 'deceptive' about that! Sarfati goes on to point out that Ross denies transformation to the absurd extent of almost endorsing 'fixity of species'. Adherents of Ross's approach would be helpless against the examples of speciation (within a kind) in the NAS book rebutted by Refuting Evolution. Sarfati also points out -- 'Reader' please take note! -- that if, as Ross claims, a 'literal' meaning of 'six days' is billions of years, then Ross surely has a very non-literal usage of the word 'literal'!
| 
