<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Religious Fanaticism 1, Objectivity 0
Review: After reading both Refuting Evolution and this follow up, the one thing that Sarfati could never be accused of is being objective. There are some interesting points raised regarding the nature of scientific observation and the risk of making over-generalizations but then the discourse falls flat when every single discussion ends with something akin to evolution must
therefore be impossible and creationism is the only possible explanation.I used this text and Refuting Evolution once in a course I teach that examines the creationism/evolution public education controversy. With so much of Sarfati's over-simplification of issues and claims regarding evidence, most college students roll their eyes after 5 minutes with the text and none have viewed any of the explanations the author puts forth as even remotely plausible or worth their consideration. The only observation that students consistently point out is the fanatic nature of author's failure to offer a scientifically credible alternative to any of the issues he raises. If you are looking for a good example of creationism reasoning (or lack of reasoning), this is your book. I know I'll be using it on regular basis for that purpose.
Rating:
Summary: Religious Fanaticism 1, Objectivity 0
Review: After reading both Refuting Evolution and this follow up, the one thing that Sarfati could never be accused of is being objective. There are some interesting points raised regarding the nature of scientific observation and the risk of making over-generalizations but then the discourse falls flat when every single discussion ends with something akin to evolution must
therefore be impossible and creationism is the only possible explanation. I used this text and Refuting Evolution once in a course I teach that examines the creationism/evolution public education controversy. With so much of Sarfati's over-simplification of issues and claims regarding evidence, most college students roll their eyes after 5 minutes with the text and none have viewed any of the explanations the author puts forth as even remotely plausible or worth their consideration. The only observation that students consistently point out is the fanatic nature of author's failure to offer a scientifically credible alternative to any of the issues he raises. If you are looking for a good example of creationism reasoning (or lack of reasoning), this is your book. I know I'll be using it on regular basis for that purpose.
Rating:
Summary: Both Bad and Good
Review: On one hand the critques of evolution are good, even if they written better by others (such as the Discovery Institute's "Viewers Guide" to the PBS series). The author tries to clean up some bad creationist claims, yet destroys all credibility and the root of his message by holding on to young-earthism. Young-earthism - and its contradictions and outright errors - continue to be a stumbling block for many. Skeptics hold up its obvious flaws as a reason that Christianity is fake. Its sad that young-earth hardliners can't see the damage they do, especially as they attack fellow Christians who take an accurate and scholarly approach to creationism. Young-earthers continue to propagate the lie that old earth = evolution and if you don't agree with them, you are an apostate. It's sad Christians let this go on, but as young-earthism continues to crumble, maybe someone will have the courage to change it all.
Find out more why young-earthism is not biblical in books like Darrick Dean's "Is The Truth Out There?" Hugh Ross' "Creation & Time" and Don Stoner's "A New Look at an Old Earth."
Rating: 
Summary: DEMYTHOLOGYZING SCIENCE
Review: Since the eighteenth century, a new myth has evolved, according to which, science would expose all "myths" in the Bible. The end result would be a purely rationalist, materialist and naturalist account of the christian message. Or better still, its total destruction. Rationalism and darwinism played an important part in this programme. Armed with their own naturalistic prejudices, theologians like Graaf, Welhausen, Bultmann, have spent their lives attempting to demythologizing the Bible. Darwinism was seen by many, including christians, as a fatal blow in the authority of the Bible. Well, after two centuries we are lucky enough to know for sure that they have failed. We can now clearly see that their strategy has been flawed since the begining. I specially enjoyed that one about the creationist founder of Scientific American. Creationists do care about science after all. Jonathan's Safarti's work demonstrates that the time has come for the Bible to strike back and demythologize science. The first victim, as Safarti notes, should be the silly Gould's NOMA concept, that relates science to the real world and confines religion to your head. This idea couldn't be more nonsensical, once you believe that God created the real world, including your mind. In fact, it is God that makes any objective scientific knowledge of the real world by your subjective mind both possible, reliable and meaningful. Many evolutionists's arguments are so silly that they seem to be deliberately designed to prove, beyond any doubt, that there is no essencial difference between men and apes in the way they think. But the simple fact that evolutionists like Dawkins or Gould are able to articulate and express thoughts, as silly as they may be, through language is enough to differentiate them from primates in an essential way. The best way for evolutionists to prove their point about the lack of any significant difference between man and apes would be for them to stop with all their scientific writing and with all other specifically human activities. We can now state that evolutionism in itself is a myth based on an inconsistent set of myths. Just think of the "big bang", "prebiotic soup", "cambrian explosion", "fossil record", "gradualism", "punctuated equilibrium", "vestigial organs", "junk-DNA", "macroevolution", "transitive forms", "dino-to-bird", "embrionic recapitulation", etc., etc. Darwinists like Gould, Mayr, Lewontin, and Dawkins are some of the most creative mythmakers these days. They have never generated one single compelling fact that could prove evolution beyond reasonable doubt. The overwhelming majority of scientists that believe in these myths do so because mostly because they have never really confronted the evidence to the contrary, as I myself had the opportunity to realize several times, when I confronted some geology and biology's PhD's in my University. They were surprised at the strenght of my "fundamentalist" arguments, but just couldn't answer them. They simply conceded that I had done my homework. That experience made me realize creationists were really on the right track. Jonathan Safarti's book demonstrates that Richard Dawkins' "right reasons" to believe in evolution are not quite right after all, as even Steven Jay Gould would agree, and that Steven Jay Gould's huge leaps of evolutionary faith are not in fact scientifically grounded, as even Richard Dawkins would agree. We know for sure that both Gould and Dawkins represent the most fervent and devout evolutionists. But we also know for sure that their arguments, in spite of their inherent flaws, cancel each other. As Safarti points out, we don't have to misquote them to figure that out. We only need to quote them. Evolutionists of the world... give me a break!
Rating:
Summary: Dr. Sarfati nails the coffin shut on Evolutionism
Review: Through logic, and real science, Dr. Sarfati nails the lid shut on the coffin of evolution. Between his two books the short lived life of absurd notions of evolutionism should be over and done with. However, we know that the devoted evolutionists will not let her die that easy. They will lie, and use all manner of fallacies to convince us it is only a "mere flesh wound" and that give they need more time to over come even the solid arguments and science that have crushed our evolutionary worldview and have reduced it to rubble.
<< 1 >>
| 
