Rating: 
Summary: Brings Evolutionism to it Knees!
Review: Straight to the Jugular! Dr. Sarfati, clearly demonstrates to his readers that evolutionism is nothing more than a belief system, and therefore inaccessible to empirical science. A must read for anyone who is truly a "freethinker" or someone, who just wants to know what vital information has been censored in ordered to keep evolutionary interpretations and beliefs alive. After reading this book, you will understand evolution so well you will know why it is an absurd interpretation for the origin of the world and the life on it.
Rating: 
Summary: Terrible
Review: Hearing that I was an athiest, a co-worker suggested I read this book. Yuck.This book is so poorly constructed that I find myself despairing to see that it sells in America. Does this guy Sarfati even understand what evolution is? This is a list of piecemeal arguments that are individually flawed and as a whole present no convincing alternative to evolution. It seems that the only people that will be able to consume this book are those that won't read anything else about evolution. If someone were to read this and then read something like Richard Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" or "The Selfish Gene", then this book would seem ridiculous, not to mention poorly written. Truly this is bad science writing. I cannot imagine someone could misinterpret things so, accidentally. I believe the authors willfully misrepresent the facts with the intention to mislead the lay public, who they know will most likely not be checking their sources or reading other literature in the field. In the end this is just more fodder for the poor sheep that buy into this stuff. I'm convinced the majority of the readers of this book live in an insulated intellectual environment where this book, their local preacher, and their creationist friends are all they hear from. Scary. My coworker is insane. Or I should say my ex-coworker. Where do they teach people to be so crazy? Did I miss the day when they were teaching insane at school? How does this stuff sell?
Rating:
Summary: As good as it gets!
Review: This book shows very clearly that biological evolution is not solid-fact. In fact it's not even a good theory. The author of this book describes some of the problems with the theory of biological evolution: the addition of information to the DNA molecule, irreducible complexity and the origin of the information within the DNA molecule, to name just a few. I've read some of the other reviews on Amazon posted by self-proclaimed intellectuals and I think these guys have totally missed the point. Although it's obvious that Mr. Sarfari has a Creationist biased, this does not negate the fact that there are insurmountable problems with the microbes to man idea of biological evolution. Evolution is a religious belief system masquerading as science. There is no science behind evolution. Review what the scientific method is and try to apply that to the theory of evolution (biological or cosmic). YOU CAN'T. The people who are propagating these beliefs have only one agenda. For those intellectual elites who uphold the ideas of evolution, let me ask you one simple question: Which belief system requires more faith, the theory that we randomly evolved from nothing over billions of years or the belief that there is a God who cares more about me and you than you could EVER possibly imagine?
Rating:
Summary: You must be kidding? One star as I can't give it less
Review: This book is not only unscientific, it is actually dangerous. I will make a statement that applies to all examples of mysticism masquerading as science; 1. When a person or a group begins with an a priori statement or assumption and then picks and chooses from amongst the existing data to make ideas fit around their a prioir assumption, that is...well its not science people. 2. Science does not seek to disprove an idea, it seeks to draw the most reasonable and cogent conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence. There is always room for "alternative interpretations" as one writer put it, however the most likely and simplest explanation (remember occam's razor) should be chosen all else being equal. The fact is that the fundamentals of evolution are solidly proven up, and creationist ID'er are choosing to play around on the edges where science and philosophy begin blending together somewhere over the horizon of provable science or understanding. But my real criticism is this; if you want to believe in creationism I have no debate with that, people are entitled. When you start calling it science and dressing it up for the classroom, I develop something like outrage at the idea. I recently saw a news item on CNN that reported that something like 35% of Americans are firm believers in some form of "intelligent design", and another 35% or so are unsure. The only question that remains for me is, if there is an intelligent designer, who created these people? This is the kind of thing that will make the United States the laughing stock of the rest of the world. Keep ideas around intelligent design, etc. in its place (religious conversations, campfire discussions, church) and no one will raise an eyebrow, and besides, what is wrong with creationism being faith-based in the first place. Question? Why the driving desire to legitimize it scientifically.
Answer. Science is the new religion, and faith needs a foot in the door.
Of course there is no shaking someone from a deeply held and emotional belief, so this will change no ones mind, but children who grow up with this in the science classroom are done a tremendous disservice. Teach children to think critically and be inquisitive and rational beings who will constantly challenge ideas and the rest will take care of itself.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing
Review: After forcing my creationist friend to read "The Blind Watchmaker", I figured it was my duty to read a book on Creationism. I saw a friend reading this book, and decided to take a look.
I was sorely disappointed. Even after having only one year of High School Biology (and reading several books on evolution), I was able to find many flaws with the arguments- one of the main ones being that genetic material cannot be created by evolution, which I knew had very little basis in reality.
I was even further turned off by the discussion of the Young Earth hypothesis, and of evidence to the flood. While by no means an agnostic or atheist, I could not bring myself to believe that the Bible tells the exact story of creation, due to the overwhelming evidence to the countary, i.e, the earth is billions of years old.
Also, after finishing the book, I found it quite easy to find numerous arguments against those presented in the book, furthing my disbelief.
And yes, I do realize their are arguments against evolution, and that some evidence used to support it- such as drawings of embyros in early stages of development- is faulty. I remember seeing the drawings my freshman year, and at the same time, my teacher and textpoint pointed out their falsity. This book has no such tact in pointing out it's old, many times refuted arguments.
Rating:
Summary: A MUST READ!
Review: In this book, Jonathan Sarfati points out why evolution cannot be true. I especially liked what Mr. Sarfati said about the bird, whale, and human evolution theories, and how he proved them wrong by scientific facts. I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the creation/evolution debate.
Rating:
Summary: The inability to think equates to the inability to vote !
Review: This (comic) book tells us much more about the mentality of it's authors and readers then it does about evolution. And more importantly it helps to explain how the Repiblicans could convince a majority of voters to vote for an intellectual midget like G.W. Bush.
It is now clear that an American conservative is one who believes that there is proof that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, but that evolution is an unproven fallacy!
God (or Darwin) help the United States of America!
Rating:
Summary: The "dumbing down" continues.
Review: We lament the "dumbing down of America", yet books like this one, with conclusionss reached in advance of writing and research, deceptive "citations" of authority, syllogistic reasoning, and outright lies contined therein, continue to sell like hotcakes. All of this proves little more than that Darwin was probably right. Many men are DESCENDED from the higher apes.
Rating:
Summary: 20 years
Review: I have been researching the creation evolution issue for over 20 years. this book is on my top 10 list. I suppose the bad reviews are from humanists who do not like the idea of a Creator. They willingly want to believe in evolution (opposed to God), and they read this book and cannot deal with the evidence so they slander it. The book presents "FACTS." For example In the foreword of the book, Ken Ham writes of a woman coming to him after a seminar and saying she was angry. She was angry, she said, at her college professors. Why didn't they tell her there was all this contradictory evidence about evolution? How come they taught her ideas that were discarded years ago (Heackle's Embryos for example)? Why didn't they tell her that not everyone believes in the smooth transition of the fossil record? Why didn't they let her consider evidence put forth by creationists? The way she conducted her life was very dependent on her belief in origins. Why hadn't she been told about this evidence and been allowed to decide for herself if she had evolved or was created - isn't that what education is all about, she said. (Mr. Ham goes on to discuss the possible reasons for this, but I will not include them here).
Safarti says it is a fallacy to think that facts speak for themselves - facts are always interpreted according to a framework. The evolutionists' framework is naturalism. Naturalism is a philosophy, a philosophy which holds that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes and laws. In other words, even if the evidence being reviewed suggests that the event in question has supernatural cause, according to naturalism, a supernatural cause must be automatically ruled out and not even considered. It is not really a question of objective unbiased scientists versus religiously biased creationists, rather the question is whose biases are correct.
The facts presented in this book do not have an evolutionary spin put on them. It deals with scientific, historic, and emperical evidence.
Rating:
Summary: Aggrivatingly Deceitful
Review: It is no surprise to me that creationists regard this book as a triumph to their cause. Sarfati skillfully mixes real science sources with creationist pseudo-science sources to provide anyone with only a weak scientific background enough selective information to make it seem like the entire scientific community is composed of ignorant imbeciles who's sole intention is the dismantling of evangelical Christianity. Most creationists have no clue (nor do they care, nor understand the difference) that Creation or the CEN Technical Journal are not scientific journals. However Sarfati references them and other non-reputable sources repeatedly for scientific data, often deftly combining them with reputable scientific journals, to give the false impression that the scientific community at large validates in some way his absurd conclusions. To anyone not moderately skilled in analyzing references on which conclusions are based, combined with a limited scientific understanding of the many different topics he discusses, Sarfati deceivingly presents what could pass as a somewhat sound and logical case for creationism.
Unfortunately few people are knowledgeable about any one of the fields Sarfati discusses, much less many of them. This gives way to perhaps the single most aggravating aspect of any piece of creation literature; in a creationist book, it is the creationist who is defining and explaining the concepts of, as well as presenting the case for (and against), evolution, of which most people are completely ignorant. If the sum total of all of the definitions and explanations of evolution and evolutionary theory were excised from this text (or any other creationist work) and isolated, for the sole purpose of being judged on their merit of explaining evolution or evolutionary theory, Sarfati (or any other "scientific" creationist) would be regarded within the scientific community as utter failures.
Although I have voluminous other issues with this book, the deceptive nature of his references was my greatest contention.
|
