Customer Reviews

Evolution?: The Fossils Still Say No!

5 star:		(23)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(32)

 

 

Although the first half of the book is very useful, the section dealing with paleoanthropology is not very reliable. For example, Gish STILL believes that homo erectus was 100 percent ape, while it clearly cannot be. In fact, fellow creationist Marvin Lubenow in "Bones of Contention" believes homo erectus to be 100 percent human, which, I believe is a much more believable assessment, as the characterisitics of H.E. fall in the "increasing" range of modern humans. Despite a few errors such as these, however, I found the book to be rich in facts. While evolutionists do not agree on all things, I do not think it is fair to discredit this book and all the material it contains because the author is a creationist. Donald Johansen and Richard Leakey may disagree on the role that homo habilis may have played in human evolution, but that does not mean one of them is filled with "wicked" lies. Because Gish is a creationist, many have responded in this way. Furthermore, as I read the reviews people have written (on Amazon), I cannot help but question the grounds by which many make their claims against the book. I continuously see reviews that say Gish is a liar. It is one thing to make a claim like that, but it is another to actually document and show why this is so. One remark of the book I continue to hear over and over is the repeated claim that Gish believes and states that the precambrian rocks do not contain fossils. While this is true of his 1972 version of the book, this print is updated (1995), and this claim is no longer made. Furthermore, Gish even argues with very good reasoning, that the presence of precambrian fossils makes the scenario even worse for evolution. This is because it puts a damper on the idea of the transitional forms leading up to the cambrian having been too soft to fossilize. Even if the conditions were not good enough for a period of time, the gap is too big--roughly 3 or so billion years. Furthermore, the invertebrates of the ediacaran fauna suggest that soft-bodied organisms can indeed fossilize quite well. So then, the discovery of microorganisms in the precambrian actually add fuel to his arguments, as it creates a gap that will probably never be filled. Overall, Fossils Still Say NO! is a great source for those interested in the creation/evolution debate, but other sources should be used and researched along with it...I also tend to think Gish's tone throughout the book is very blunt and biased, but that doesn't necessarily mean his views are incorrect. If you read the book, do not read it from an "Evolution is true, PERIOD" standpoint,but rather be willing to acknowledge, based on the material provided, that supernatural creation is certainly a possibility.

Ardent evolutionists may demean the author and work all they want, but the facts presented by it just won't go away. Using quotes, in context, from evolutionists themselves, scientist Dr. Gish clearly shows how the fossil record is full of discontinuities. Molecules-to-man evolution, as ostensibly supported by fossils, is far from proven.

The evolutionists reviewing this book are generally easy to spot. As a former evolutionist, I can tell you--the book is not as full of bull as most evolutionists will insist. A realization that the fossil record cannot account for creation invokes fear and hatred from those who hold that theory dear. This book does a fine job bringing that theory into question with consistent focus on the lack of evidence in the fossil record. As Gish aptly states, the fossils don't support the theory.

Detractors of Gish can be spotted a mile away. As usual, the hurt and insulted Evolutionary smpathisers throw baseless insults and pro-evolutionary propaganda out as fast as they claim Gish throws what these inviduals refer to as "lies" out. As is typical of these detractors their claims are just that: claims. Never do these people back up their statments and claims with proof, not even one qoute from any of Gish's books to show an example of what these detractors claim as lies and mis-qoutes. The strategy of these desperate religious Evolutionists is to throw out insults and, almost always, baseless claims to make Creationists look as bad as possible in the hope that you won't read Gish's are any Creation Science material. But note my friends, the farthest these critics usually venture, if insults are not enough, is the land of qouting out context; a domain that is ironiclly dominated by the very Evolutionists who claim in emotional rages that they are victims of out of context qouting and criticism. Some "victims"-they insult, practice bad scholorship, and qoute out of context to try and bolster their own viewpoint while usually never presenting a shred of evidence to support or back up their own claims. Just read the the anti-creationists works avaible-and you will begin to see the emotion these Evolutionists hold for their precious theory, and this is besides the usualy baseless claims, out of context qoute and bad examples they give in feeble attempts to defend Evolutionary theory. (One of the avaible works on a Creationist defendinding him/themself against detractors is Gish's book: "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics". Other papers and articles have been produced by authors defendinding themselves against the Claims of Evolutionists as well)These actions my friends are characteristic of ignorant individuals who wish to have us remain as ignorant as they are without being allowed to examine both sides of the debate for ourselves. You see, the supposed validity of a Naturalistic world view is at stake in this great debate, and those who hold to it will do whatever is necessary-ANYTHING-to make sure their world view remains dominant and unchallenged. Read Gish's books for yourselves, if your suspicious after reading the detractors claims know this: Gish, like every Creationist I am aware of, backs up every qoute and provides complete references and notes at the end of each of his chapters. Think for yourselves and examine Gish and his works for yourself-don't let an Evolutionary zeleot think for you. (By the way I had enough confidence based on prior works by Gish to purchase a copy of the book in question for myself despite vehemonant opposition from certain individuals at the time, and despite baseless claims made by the detractors-the book is fine. Be open minded and check Gish's references for yourselves, in doing this you can form your own ideas about Gish's book-whatever your ideas may be. )

How can one rate highly enough this fantastic book by Dr. Gish? Indeed! When it comes to disproving evolution, there are few books which can equal this one in both science and logic. As one can easily see by the inflammed reviews given to this book by evolutionists, it has hurt them and their religion (i.e. evolution) badly!

Tired of hearing, reading, and seeing the biased
interpretations of evolutionism? Dr. Gish tells you what they will not.
Must you give up on your biblical understandings? NO! The
evidence is clearly not set "set in stone" as Evloutionists
would have you believe. In fact, Dr Gish exposed the degree
of faith they must have in order to believe as they do.
This book is excellent if your looking for answers to
what the fossil record actually shows, and what is fact and
what is speculation put forth as fact by the biased reasoning
of secular educators. After reading this book, one can see
that just "because it says so" in an evolutionists textbook
is not necessarily the way things are. Note that the book is
listed as "not available" on this list. This book is available
from "Answers in Genesis" among other Christian book sources.

It has to be a testament to the poor state of science education in America that books of this kind can stay in circulation. Despite the fact that the wild claims made by the non-paleontologist author can easily be checked and turn out to be completely bogus, creationists continue to fall for the slick rhetoric without ever bothering to actually see if the claims of the book have any merit. In typical creationist fashion, Gish's book is long on unsupported claims and weak on facts. He repeats a variety of arguments falsified a good decade before the book was published, but does modify a few from from his previous work, "Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!" which he has been taken to task on so frequently he could no longer repeat them with a straight face. For example, his previous claim that no Precambrian fossils existed (a silly claim since Precambrian fossils were known 30 years before the first book was published) has been slightly modified in the face of enormous criticism to a bogus new claim that now admits they do exist, but don't have any link with the Cambrian. Once again the facts are easily checked and disagree with Gish. I would actually encourage anyone interested in the evolution/creation issue to read Gish since, although the arguments he makes are the standard creationist fare, a diligent reader can then follow up on Gish's quotes and sources and receive a terrible shock when they realize how extraordinarily poorly researched the book is. Don't take my word for it-- read and and do your homework. Follow up the quotes and claims yourself. Will you find careful scholarship in "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO!" ? The facts still say NO.

Terrific book! There are few critiques of evolution available, which can surpass this fantastic book! This book has caused tidal waves among evolutionists, it has "rocked their religion," so to speak. Absolutely fantastic book.

Firstly, I should say that I am a born-again Christian, and do subscribe to the notion that there is an ultimate creator. I do not subscribe to the young-earth creationist belief.

Having read Coppedge's "Evolution: Possible or Impossible", "It Couldn't Just Happen", "Scientists Confront Creationists", and "The Creationism Controversy", and having browsed the websites of several creationist organizations as well as the Talk Origins site, I thought I would read Gish , as he along with Henry Morris are considered by most to be the most important and influential young-earth creationists.

My overall impression is that the objections to Gish that are well-rehearsed in many places are justified.

The biggest problem is the classic "false dichotomy." Gish claims to be able to show that evolution is false, therefore young-earth creationism must be true. Even if Gish could prove that evolution was false, this would not necessarily mean his brand of creationism was true. One would have to evaluate Gish's creation model independently to see if it holds up under scrutiny.

Gish's tactic is essentially like saying in a legal setting that if we can prove defendant A is innocent, then we would be justified in picking anyone we like off the street to be defendant B and concluding, without even having a trial, that B must be guilty.

Gish spends much of the book arguing that there are no transitional forms, and that these forms must be produced by evolutionists before they can conclude that their theory is worthy. Certainly many evolutionists would argue and have argued that a multitude of transitional forms have been found, and that Gish is either unaware of them or deliberately ignores them. However, even granting that transitional forms do not currently show sufficient continuity to justify evolution, this would not falsify evolution.

Gish does not say anything at all about how rare or common fossilization is. He implies by his arguments that most species that have ever existed must have been fossilized in sufficient numbers for us to have already found them. This is ridiculous. Biologists estimate there are currently about 2 million known species alive today, and only 250,000 different species have been found in the fossil record. From the species that do exist in the fossil record, we can infer that a typical species lasts a few million years. Even if we only assume 100 million years of life on earth, there would have been many millions of species that have existed over time. It is reasonable to assume that we have found only a small percentage of these in the fossil record. Given this, it is understandable that the fossil record will have substantial gaps. This doesn't seem to me to be at all inconsistent with evolution.

Also, Gish repeatedly asserts because the gaps in the fossil record are inconsistent with evolution, the fossil record thus supports creationism. He often says "just as the creation model would predict" after citing the fossil record's gaps. If there is one thing that his creation model would predict about the fossil record, it's that all the species that are alive today should be found throughout all the geological strata, and even Gish seems to acknowledge that this is not the case.

Others have claimed that Gish has many inaccuracies. I certainly can't evaluate all of these claims, but will comment on one very glaring falsehood. Gish claims that the geologic column is based on evolutionary theory. This is false, as the geologic column as first developed by Lyell and others predates Darwin by a good 50 years. It is, in fact, not based on any biological theory at all. The dating of the rocks is based partly on radiometric dating, which may not be perfect, but is commonly understood to be very reliable in a statistical sense, and certainly would not be off by the order of magnitudes necessary for an earth of less than 20,000 years of age. To the extent that the fossil record is involved, it is only contributes the basic fact that fossils of species A are nearly always below fossils of species B, etc. Again, Gish is either unaware of this, or has deliberately twisted the facts to his own ends.

Gish tends to depend a great deal on quotations from those he refers to as evolutionists, trying to show that evolutionists admit to the weakness of the fossil evidence for the Theory of Evolution. Not being an expert on who is who in the world of evolutionary biology, it is hard for me to say how representative these quotes are of the general thinking of biologists. Even if they are, however, they really do not say very much about whether evolution is true or not.

In my humble opinion, Gish's arguments are woefully inadequate and illogical. I certainly would not recommend this book as having any intellectual merit. If you are looking for arguments in support of creationism in general, I would say that Hugh Ross' Reasons to Believe website has much more intellectual integrity than Gish. In fact, Ross does a good job of debunking many of the young-earth creationist positions, including the world-wide flood.

An objective reader should also consult the Talk Origins website where some of Gish's tactics of misquoting or selectively quoting sources, as well as misrepresenting or selectively including evidence from the fossil record are discussed.

Whether one is looking for information on evolution, or is merely attempting to find out something about the arguments against evolution, there is no way I can praise highly enough, this work by Dr. Gish.

In view of the reviews given by the evolutionists below I invite those who are reading this review, to buy the book and see for themselves whether the claims made by the aforesaid evolutionists have any basis in fact.

In my opinion, the only reason for their anger towards the book "EVOLUTION: THE FOSSILS STILL SAY NO!" is that they know they cannot defeat it in science, they know they cannot defeat it in logic, and they know that it is they (the evolutionists) who have been defeated.... not Dr. Gish.