Customer Reviews

The Lie: Evolution

5 star:		(53)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(40)

 

 

The Lie: Evolution was written by a conservative Christian for conservative Christians. It is neither a tract nor a science book; it is an apologetics manual. Christians seeking a scientific critique of evolution should look elsewhere. Nonetheless, The Lie should be read by anyone interested in the creation/evolution debate (C/E), because Ken Ham is one of the most active evangelists in the field, and The Lie illumines his motivating philosophy and arguments of first resort.

The Lie is a forceful polemic that will invigorate readers who already agree with Ham's views. These qualities, and the dearth of science in The Lie, ought to alert evolutionists to the true nature of the debate, as conceived by conservative Christians. If Ham can pack this much conviction into 185 pages without deigning to evaluate the science, then it ought to be clear that C/E involves more than weighing evidence and vetting theories.

Ham argues that Genesis is foundational to Christianity. Genesis explains that God created the universe in six days, that creation was perfect at its inception, and that imperfection, sin and death entered the world through Adam. This establishes the need for a Savior, whose atoning work will restore perfection. Evolution, in contrast, implies gradual, ongoing "creation," and that from the beginning life has evolved by mutations (imperfection), coupled with natural selection (death). Evolution dispenses with sin, redemption and restoration as metaphysical clutter. Thus, evolution is incompatible with creation and should be rejected by those who believe the Bible is the infallible word of God.

Ham scrupulously rejects the "evidentialist" approach in favor of a "presuppositionalist" approach: The Bible is a priori true; evolution is ipso facto false. If you accept the truth of the Bible, then evidence is irrelevant. "Faith is . . . the evidence of things not seen . . . Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God" (Hebrews 11:1, 3). Liberal theologians and Christians who incorporate evolution into their worldview are seen as equivocal in their faith. What Ham overlooks is that creation "scientists," by accumulating and interpreting evidence in favor of creation, are engaged in a superfluous endeavor that might be inimical to faith.

The Lie contains weaknesses that may not be apparent to Ham's target audience. First, Ham should have provided a summary of Neo-Darwinism, as currently accepted by a virtual consensus of scientists practicing in relevant fields. Instead, Ham makes passing references throughout the book to mutations, natural selection, and evolutionary "progress," assuming that his readers are familiar with these mechanisms. In many instances he confounds popular misconceptions or outdated concepts with current consensus, when in fact the public is largely ignorant of Neo-Darwinism, and much that scientists once accepted has been superceded or modified. Americans in general and Christians in particular are woefully undereducated when it comes to evolution. And while this book is not a critique of evolutionary theory per se, any discussion that fails to account for the basics is inadequate.

Second, Ham elicits an extremely narrow definition of "science" that allows him to summarily dismiss evolutionary theory as non-science. His definition is consonant with the popular image of scientists performing repeatable experiments in a controlled lab setting. While this is indeed how some scientists work, Ham's definition disqualifies the well-established fields of astronomy, archaeology, paleontology, geology, epidemiology, climatology, linguistics, forensics, and a host of other historical sciences, including history itself. In short, Ham believes that any statement about the past is no better than a guess. He makes no allowance for methodological or evidentiary considerations that might render one "guess" better than another.

Ham's disdain for historical science is matched by his misrepresentation of scientific method. Implicit throughout The Lie is the creationist mantra that evolution is "just a theory." This dismissive attitude might be apt if evolution was "just a hypothesis," but in fact a theory is much stronger than a hypothesis, and requires more in the way of "disproof." One wonders why conservative Christians do not also protest the theory of gravitation, the germ theory of disease, the heliocentric theory of the solar system and the atomic theory of matter.

As a consequence of the points just made, Ham erroneously identifies evolution as a religion. Because evolution is non-science, and because a theory is no better than a guess, belief in the theory of evolution must be based on faith. But if evolution is a religion, then so are archaeology, epidemiology and forensics! In fact, Neo-Darwinism, like any scientific theory, is tentative and subject to disproof. Evidentiary interpretations and evolutionary hypotheses are modified or discarded every year; that's a hallmark of science, but not of religion. The dogmatism of some scientists is beside the point, as is the fact that many laypersons accept evolution on faith. Moreover, to equate science and religion is to rob both of their meaning. If Ham's purpose is obfuscation, he has succeeded. If his purpose is clarity, then he should respect meaningful distinctions.

Finally and integrally, Ham sees a causal relation between public acceptance of evolutionary theory and the acceleration of cultural decay: abortion, homosexuality, feminism, pornography, drugs, racism, even oppressive business practices! Darwinism, via moral relativism, is now the ultimate justification for an ungodly way of life. As Ham tells it, evolution has been the midwife of misery and suck-nurse of sin for the last 150 years. In some cases he draws valid connections: viz. Spencer's social Darwinism. What Ham fatally fails to explain, however, is that the worth of an idea cannot be measured solely by its misuse. If it could, then Christianity should be rejected because nominally Christian individuals and institutions have instigated wars, genocide, slavery, racism, infanticide, torture, psychological and sexual abuse, theft, fraud, deceit, environmental degradation, tax evasion, and yes, even oppressive business practices in the name of Christ. Christianity's association with these crimes is a matter of historical fact. But to conflate the ideal of Christianity with Christianity's blood-spattered past and ethically compromised present would be fundamentally unfair.

I read this book several years ago while going through a "seeker" experience. I honestly wanted to find out if there was anything to scientific creationism: this book convinced me that there was not. Like Benjamin Franklin, who became convinced that the Bible was not inerrant through the bizarre explanations of a preacher trying to prove that obvious discrepencies weren't really discrepencies, I lost faith in creationism when I read this collection of baroque theories and empty rhetoric. The last straw for me was Ham's theory that Satan created evolutionary theory because he didn't want to believe that he was created by God. How can people take this guy seriously?

Creation science does violence both to science and the Bible. I became a Christian in spite of foolishness like this, but I hate to think how many people are driven away from Christinaity by "scientists" like Ham. To look at the authors of Genesis as authorities on natural history is like looking at Jesus as a lecturer on botany when he siad that the mustard seed is the "least of all seeds" He was incorrect from a scientific standpoint, but that wasn't the point he was making.

If you are truly interested in the relationship between science and religion read books by John Polkinghorne or Howard Van Til. Brian McLaren's "The Story We Find Ourselves In" is also a good resource for Evangelicals who want to free themselves of pseudoscience and dishonesty.

Just wind Ken Ham up and watch him go. Like an irrational Energizer Bunny he just keeps going, and going, and going - in the wrong direction. Particularly amusing are his inane and inchoate views (one can hardly call them reasoned or self-consistent) on the false dichotomy of so-called microevolution and macroevolution. Mr. Ham clearly believes that it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. But the dogma-driven overdrive really kicks in when Ken leaves his generously and obviously flawed arguments against evolution behind and enters the social arena.

Ham is an accomplished liar for Jesus in the grand Protestant tradition of Martin Luther:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

- Martin Luther

He also generously embraces Catholic maxims:

"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

- Ignatius Loyola

Ham channels Jacques Derrida (French philosopher, founder of deconstructionism) and literal biblical inerrancy: everyone's view of reality is invariably shaped and determined by their starting assumptions. Truth is an illusion and no one can ever really know anything - unless it ended up in that mismatch of myths, superstitions, and unverifiable special revelations known as the bible.

Throughout "The Lie: Evolution" ludicrous conceits are presented in ways that seem, if not actually true, at least not quite so patently false - truthiness theology or alternate reality apologetics. Stock-in-tirade for Answers in Genesis (AiG) the creation-cult ministry behind this sophistic screed.

If you accept Ham's histrionics then issues such as abortion and warfare, along with racial, social, gender, and economic injustice, are the direct result of secular horrors unleashed by a 'religion' based on a techno-trinity of naturalism, materialism, and humanism - demonized in this book as 'Darwinism.'

Never mind that all of the above were intrinsic to the human condition for nearly two thousand years across Christendom, and since the dawn of recorded history throughout civilization in general, before Darwin was even born. Religions, including Christianity, have shed, and will continue to shed, more blood than Ken's Darwinian boogey-man ever will, as the religious conflict masquerading as the 'war on terror' amply illustrates. In fact medical advances driven by evolutionary insights into biology save lives every minute across the globe. The alternative Ken sells saves nothing.

Ken pimps half-baked ham at a farcical 'Creation Museum' that, among other howlers, features a dinosaur sculpture complete with a saddle - a nice English riding saddle no less - perhaps this dinosaur is about to be part of a dressage competition! Mistaking "The Flintstones" cartoons for historical artifacts exemplifies the rampant anti-intellectualism that leaps off of every page of this book.

At least "The Lie: Evolution" is partially true to its title. Every chapter is loaded with aspersions, backbiting, calumniates, and corkers. Instances of deceit, deception, defamation, detraction, dishonesty, disinformation, and distortion abound. Scientific facts are rejected in favor of fables, fabrications, falsehoods, fibs, fictions, fraud, guile, and hyperbole. Inaccuracies, inventions, libels, mendacities, misrepresentations, misstatements, and myths abound. Obloquy joins perjury, prevarication, revilement, slander, and subterfuge at every opportunity. Tales, tall stories, terminological inexactitude, and vilification are ever present. Ultimately "The Lie: Evolution" is a whopper. Luther and Loyola would have been proud...

Ham is a noted buffon in scientific circles in that while the man acts is if he is some expert on the evolution/creation debate, he is clearly biased by his religion, as are all creationists. This shallow work of faith-based drivel is classic creationist nonsense. While it does not qualify as anything remotely scientifc, it makes for great reading by those who wish to understand just how desperate a case the creationist camp has. Ham is great at quoting out of context, villifying scientists and generally misinterpreting the facts but worse still, he does not even understand nor practice the scientific method with any degree of credibility. This will be the first book I toss into the pyre at the next book-burning festival.

As a devout Christian... this totally embarrasses me. Ignorance like this is what pushes people away... obviously he knows nothing about science!

Well the books title is partially correct, it does explain why Ken Ham Lies.
Not actually much about evolution (the through natural selection type) except that Ken Ham finds it conflicting with his interpretation of genesis in the christian holy book (whichever version he uses, most likely King James). He has strange bedfellows in that some muslims spout the same lies. At least muslims can claim backing for telling untruths ,if they help islam prospere, from the sayings of their prophet. Mr Ham, as a self named christian, should know that telling untruths (by implication or directly) is forbidden by his holy book as is impugning the honesty of others.
Given that, it is well written though factually incorrect.
One can hardly blame evolution for all social ills; murder, rape and other bad things happened before Charles Darwin was born so the explanation of how living things change via natural selection can hardly be blamed.
Mr Ham should return to his reference book, bad people do bad things and have been known to use the christian bible and other holy books to justify their acts (i.e. slavery is condoned in the christian bible and the koran, to name but two religious tracts).
Young earth creationists will like this book, more thoughtful christians will feel saddened that such distortions and lies are published in Christs' name.

From this book:

"...[Ken Ham's] background as a biologyteacher in the public school system has aided him in comprehending themost complex scientific implications of the creation/evolution debate."

To paraphrase with less glittering generality, this book claims that Ken Ham must be an expert on the creation/evolution debate because he taught public school biology. This should be enough to throw anyone with half a brain right out of this book. Does teaching public school reading qualify one as an expert in linguistic derivation? Ken Ham is an expert in forcefully asserting dogma. No more, no less.

His book claims that evolution is religion. Since evolutionary theory changes with the discovery of new fossils and with the postulations of new scientists, evolution could hardly be considered religion. It is taught as a "best match" to the historical fossil record.

Ken Ham **THROWS OUT** the fossil record as immaterial. Furthermore, he denounces known non-evolutionary science.

From this book:

"The reason that people do not want to accept creation is that it means there is a creator who sets the rules. Thus no person can write his _own_ rules."

This is inane when you consider that there are over 50 major sects of Christianity, none of which agree with one another.

From the book:

"Over the years, many have used evolution to justify abortion, Communism, Nazism, drug-abuse, homosexual practices, and worse."

First, this is a mixup of Social Darwinism and biological evolution. Make up your mind, Ken.

Second, over the years, many have used Christianity to justify murder, torture, genocide, racial cleansing, slavery, war, censorship, intolerance, gay-bashing, misogyny, sexism, arranged marriages, and the brutal practice of circumcision. Ken Ham, in his dogmatic fog, thinks that Hitler was an atheist. He is as uninformed as he is prejudgmental.

This is as one-sided a published text as I have ever encountered. I wish I could give it Zero stars. You can definitely find a better text that treats both issues with an open mind.

I read this book over Christmas and was completely surprised at how incredibly weak it was as an argument against evolution. In coming here to write this review, I'm pleased to see so many people in agreement that the book totally misses the mark.

To its credit, the author says quite clearly (with a table, no less!) that he is biased against evolution. Of course in the same place he claims that all scientists are biased in favor of evolution and plainly states that no one can be unbiased... go ahead and figure out that one for yourself. While I appreciate his honesty, I don't think it lends his argument any credence.

The argument, as others have noted, is that evolution must be a lie because to accept it would mean that the Bible is a lie or (at least) fallible. Since all good Christians believe in God and the Bible is the word of God, the Bible wins out against any mamby-pamby theory - end of argument. Of course you may wonder why the book doesn't end after 10 or so pages as this argument seems to be easily concluded in a paragraph. Ham continues his "argument" with further attempts at reason by pushing the 'evolution is only a theory' line, most specifically stating that it can't be proven because no one was there to witness it. He backs this up with by defining scientific method as something that can only exist in a laboratory in the here and... really, it's pretty ridiculous. He then goes on to insist that evolution is actually a religion on its own, and a false religion at that.

One of my favorite characteristics of his "argument" is his experiences from his lectures where people try to question or contradict him and he craftily rebukes and rebuts their statements. When one naysayer tries to say that he's being unfair and that, if he expects people to consider his argument, he "must" consider that evolution may be possible, Ham shuts them down with the supreme logic that it's unfair of them to consider that he might be wrong or to question himself - ah, unfair vs unfair. In another, he argues with someone who says science keeps progressing and that there's no way we can ever know everything that, since we can't know everything, we won't know for sure if evolution could be a lie. Ah... clever boy, that Ken Ham!

I will say there are some fun little illustrations and a few graphs, etc. to fill some space. They don't really do much convincing (and many actually serve to make his argument even weaker, honestly) but they are entertaining and will make the rest of the reading a little more palatable. One of my favorites is one that pushes his "no one was there" argument with a scientist standing over a bag of bones making statements that he believes that two dinosaurs must have been fighting while an artist paints the picture... pathetic in its logic against evolution, but entertaining.

Honestly, this book is a great read, but great only to show the lengths to which one will go to attempt to prove their point without really having an argument. I also noticed most of the favorable reviews here following the same pattern of quoting the Bible and saying God is always right in their support of creationism. Saying people are biased and pouting about how it's inconceivable to question Genesis is no basis for argument with the sort of rational mind that would consider evolution. Basically this is a book for people who already believe to make them feel good about believing, and that goes for both creationists and evolutionists. It relies completely on faith and not one argument serves any credence to change any but those possessing the weakest of logic.

Quite simply, I really don't care what anyone believes as long as they can defend it. Personally I believe in evolution because there is plenty of evidence to support it... and despite Ham's claim that no one was there, this evidence has been tested in the modern day with genetics and mutations that mark an evolution between generations have been both observed and documented. If he wants to discount this because the Bible is infallible, he's welcome to do so... but that doesn't mean he's correct in his belief. It doesn't affect me and no one should really try to sway him if he's comfortable, but nor should he try to sway anyone else and insist they're wrong simply because he insists he's right. Not because it's rude, but because it's just flawed logic and a sad argument. Give me a good argument and I'll gladly read it, but this one fails miserably.

I'm a Christian and I still thought he did a horrible job defending creationism. The book had very few scientific statements and came off more emotional than logical. In my opinion, it seemed like his whole argument kept coming back to a "...because God said so..." type response. He discredits ALL science that cannot reproduced in a lab. This guy would get shredded in a debate.

He goes on to say that Evolution is a religion and is the reason for the decay in society. I'm sorry, but the "decay" began way before Darwin was even born. To me, he comes off as an angry man shouting from his soap box casting judgement on non-believers. He's misdirecting the cause for sinful behavior on Evolution. I'm not saying Evolution is right, but this not the right book if you're looking for answers.

I applaud his passion, but I believe he lacks focus as well as legitimate arguments disproving Evolution. I feel this book is irresponsible and should not be added to anyone's library. If I was not already a Christian, this book would push me in the opposite direction. This book was a reach at best.

Beset by demoniacs and dinosaur poop, life is never easy for Professor Ham as he prayerfully battles away in the fields of the Lord. Some air-cover would have been apt. One wishes that the Four Evangelists had been more selective in their endeavours. Why bother with the Sermon on the Mount or the encounter on the Road to Emmaus when they could have transmitted Jesus' philippics against Darwinism and those monkeys with the pink bums. It was a missed opportunity.

True, Dostoevsky once said there is a spark of God in every creature but surely he was beguiled by Lucifer at the time if not the firewater (not that there is any real distinction between the two). Who can doubt that Evolution leads directly to drug use, pornography, home-brewed beer, Catullus 5 and membership of the Democratic Party?

This book is just as impressive as Professor Ham's other works. Drawing upon his deep-domain scholarship, Professor Ham cobbles together a satisfying creationist cosmology. His integrity is indubitable. On many occasions, the author unsheathes the Sword of Faith to parry Ockham's Razor and he does so with great exuberance. Any temptation to liken this Opus to the Race of the Three Legged Dogs, "it's not done well but it's amazing that it's done at all," is surely infernal.

The Devil must hate his guts. Bravo, Professor Ham ! Bravo!