17 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The Second Book of Gish, August 16, 2009
This review is from: Refuting Evolution 2 (Paperback)
Since Duane Gish retired, the Creationists have lacked a charismatic leader to take his place. Sarfati & Matthews are probably trying for that position. In their book, Refuting Evolution 2, they copy many of Gish's arguments, but they also add some arguments of their own.
Like Gish, S & M portray their opponents as atheists. In Chapter 3 especially, they wax vitriolic against Evolutionists with their "materialistic bias, which rejects a common Designer a priori." In chapter 3 alone, they write that "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." "Particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent Designer." "Modern evolutionary theory is all about providing a plausible mechanism for explaining life's complexity without God." The authors must have had another spurt of adrenalin in chapter 10, when they referred to "Darwin and his God-hating successors."
Like Gish, S & M confuse abiogenesis with evolution, and hope that the reader will also. "Life came into being without an intelligent Creator."
Like Gish, S & M present Goldschmidt's saltation theory because it sounds ridiculous. Like Gish, they then fail to tell the reader that this theory has been rejected by mainstream science.
Like Gish, S & M attack the gradualists as well as the punctuationists. Like Gish, they expect the gradualists to show exhibits with half-legs or half-wings. When shown an exhibit possessing features of both the preceding and succeeding species, they reject that exhibit as a "chimera."
Invoking the Second Law of Thermodynamics seems to be Gish's own idea. This law supposedly states that everything is running down and evolution is impossible. Gish began nearly every debate with a highly emotional warning that "the day will come, when every star in the universe will have exhausted all of its fuel, and when that day comes, the lights are going to go out."
In Chapter 9, the authors claim that Creationists understand the law and Evolutionists don't. It so happens, though, that Frank Edwords, editor of Creation/Evolution, got tired of hearing Gish's monologue, so he invited Gish to write a technical article on the subject, explaining to the trained scientist just where he or she has gone wrong in interpreting the law. Gish never responded to the invitation.
There is one argument which was not advanced by Gish, but by Henry Morris, also of the Creation Research Institute. If we were evolved animals, goes the argument, then we would abandon all morality and act out only out of our self-interest. This argument ignores the highly structured lifestyle followed by most other animal species, and all without the help from a Sky Daddy.
In fairness to S & M, they tackle some questions which Gish ignored, such as "Why is our DNA so closely similar to that of chimpanzees?" and "Why do squids have more efficient eyes than we do?"
They also put in a plug for Michael Behe and his irreducible complexity. They discuss the flagellum of the bacteria, but they ignore Nicholas Matzke's well-known dissertation on the subject.
According to S & M, sexual reproduction serves no evolutionary function, so it must be simply the will of God. Never mind the hybrid vigor which comes from having two parents. Never mind the DNA repair which often results from cell division in sexual reproduction.
Funny that Gish never mentioned Haeckel's embryo drawings. S & M do, though, arguing that if the drawings were honest, ontogeny would recapitulate phylogeny. The drawings are not honest, therefore ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny. In logic class, this is known as "the fallacy of denying the consequent," and is diagrammed as "A implies B, A is not true, therefore B is not true."
Gish always avoided the topic of vestigial organs. S & M admit that such a term exists, but argue that organisms possessing supposedly useless organs do indeed use those organs. S & M do not want their readers to know the terms "homologous structures" and "exaption."
In some cases, S & M even refute Gish. Gish often argued that Evolution was not scientific because nobody was around to see the first microbes develop. S & M, on the other hand, make a distinction between normal science and historical science.
S & M caution the reader against using the why-are-there-still-monkeys argument. They realize that one species does not go extinct once it branches into another species. Gish did not seem to ever realize this. Arthur N. Strahler, in Science and Earth History, calls this "the linear, or bamboo-stalk, model of evolution."
S & M's greatest innovation is probably that of claiming that "real evolution requires changes that increase genetic information." They never define what an increase in genetic information would be. For every example that the evolutionists present, they say no, that's only an increase in complexity. They deal with current-day examples, such as peppered moths and anti-antibiotic bacteria, but in every case, they find some way to weasel out.
Maybe they are afraid that if they define the term precisely, someone will present an example which meets that definition. Then they will have to move the goalposts.
And I would hate for them to have to do that.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
160 of 236 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Religious Fanaticism 1, Objectivity 0, November 20, 2003
This review is from: Refuting Evolution 2 (Paperback)
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
95 of 140 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Refuting Evolution 2: Another Handbook for Scientific Illiterates, August 23, 2006
This review is from: Refuting Evolution 2 (Paperback)
Generic apes - a composite of Chimpanzee, Gorilla, and Baboon - sit around a table looking puzzled and troubled on the cover of this book. They are probably trying to separate scarce facts from the copious cornucopia of creationist distortions and crank conspiracy theories that infest "Refuting Evolution 2" subtitled "What PBS and the Scientific Community Don't Want You to Know."
This sequel to "Refuting Evolution" (reviewed separately) only confirms that farce is tragedy the second time around. The rubber-band reality of this tract is glaringly evident with Mr. Sarfati attempts to prove that creationism is science. As an employee of Answers in Genesis (AiG) Sarfati had to sign a "Statement of Faith" that, among other things, includes the following:
BASICS ARTICLE 3: "The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe."
GENERAL ARTICLE 6: "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
Based on these rather frank admissions the only conspiracy is between AiG and Sarfati, not PBS and the "Scientific Community." By these standards Alchemy and Astrology (among others) - both thoroughly discredited and discarded by global scientific community - would be valid "science," and wizarding and witchcraft would be perfectly acceptable examples of "technology." Sarfati knows his cause is hopeless when he has to redefine science and the scientific method just to sneak into the tent.
Since a chapter by chapter refutation would be longer than the book let's focus on one topic: "Refuting Evolution 2" categorically claims that evolution cannot "increase genetic information content." If this claim falls the entire book collapses.
Unfortunately for Sarfati, none of his arguments based on creationist "information theory" (with apologies to Shannon, Kolmogorov, and Chaitin), adequately address the obvious increase in information that can occur when a gene duplicates, and the two copies undergo independent mutations leading to two genes with somewhat different functions. Gene duplication, mutation, and selection are all known to occur due to natural biochemical processes in a variety of organisms studied in laboratories around the world.
Many gene families are known with members that encode proteins having related structure and related but distinct function. Each family can be explained by multiple gene duplications followed by random mutation and differentiation of the functions of the individual gene copies. Any expansion from a single primordial gene to a large family of genes with distinct functions clearly represents an increase in genetic information.
One instance of gene duplication resulting in additional information and functionality is the hemoglobin/myoglobin family. An ur-gene for an oxygen-carrying protein duplicated, leading to myoglobin which oxygenates muscles, and hemoglobin which carries oxygen in red blood cells. A subsequent duplication of the hemoglobin gene resulted in alpha and beta forms. Additional duplications produced hemoglobin-alpha and hemoglobin-beta gene clusters. The genes within these clusters are different, as a result of subsequent mutation after duplication, and express themselves at different stages of development. Gene duplication and subsequent divergence are observed in the laboratory - consequently an evolutionary causation based on processes known to occur today is inherently more plausible than invoking a superfluous supernatural agent or agency.
A large part of the increased information in our genomes, compared with those of "lower" organisms, results from such gene duplication, followed by independent evolution and differentiation of duplicated copies into multiple genes with distinct functions. Any information theory analysis which ignores these naturally occurring and readily observable mechanisms, and then goes on to claim that any increase in genetic information is impossible, is fundamentally flawed and thoroughly dishonest.
Like a cheap parlor magician Sarfati diverts your attention away from what he doesn't want you to see, know, or hear. He commits errors of omission and commission, and calls the resulting fable fact. So much for integrity when "Statement of Faith" based creationist apologetics, and the dogma it enforces, matter more than the truth.
Earth to Sarfati: Evolution is still a scientific fact. Get over it. Playing "whack-a-mole" with you is tiring and inane. Besides I hear you're much better at chess.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
