Customer Reviews

Refuting Evolution 2

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

This book should be purchased by anyone interested in the origins debate. Creationists will like it because it is written from a strongly Biblical point of view. Intelligent designers will like it for the broad scope of evidence it provides supporting the ID position. Evolutionists probably will not like it :-) but since this represents close to the "state-of-the-art" arguments on the other side it is a quick way to be familiar with the logic they'll face in any debate type situation. Those who are unsure where they stand should read this with an open yet critical mind, ready to be persuaded. Those not interested in the origins debate should read it to see why they should be - in my opinion the point of view expressed in this book is literally being censored from our classrooms and this should be cause for concern in any society believing in the benefits of pluralistic inquiry.

For all this gushing, quite frankly I thought the book could have been easily twice as long. Some sections clearly require thought to flesh out fully the underlying rationale. Relative brevity might be a benefit, however: the main parts of arguments are stated free from what some might view of distracting detail while adequate citations are provided for those interested in digging deeper.

Particularly useful is the section on "Arguments Creationists Shouldn't Use." This is a very needed corrective: such a book as this not only will serve to push evolutionists toward greater honesty but will keep the creationist side more honest as well, both of which should be expected by letting both sides of a debate fully air their arguments (which, sad to say, doesn't seem to be happening to the extent that it should). This section also gives the lie to notions that creationists are rigidly wedded to an unchangeable array of out of date arguments, given that the author is clearly arguing (though not in these words) that some of these doubtful arguments should be considered "vestigial." ;-)

In sum, this book strengthens my opinion that the theory of evolution will one day go the way of the dinosaur, (theoretical vestigiality, if you will) and I consider it required reading.

Jonathan Sarfati says in this book, Refuting Evolution 2, "Evolutionists brag that natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but these studies show that it has nothing to do with evolution of more complex life forms! All we observe it doing is removing information, not adding it. " Later he goes on to say, "Once again, there is no new information, but sorting and loss of already existing information." It seems like creationists like Jonathan are hooked into believing that this is a problem for evolutionists. What creationists need to know before they go on any further is to look at what evolutionists have to say about this. Evolutionist Steve Olson says, "Mutations can occur in other ways. Parts of our DNA can move around and alter existing sequences. A stray bit of radiation or a nasty chemical can garble a section of DNA. The cell has repair mechanisms that attempt to fix such damage. But these mechanisms don't always leave the DNA the same as before. The result is a new mutation." I think creationists like Jonathan Sarfati knows that this happens but fails to understand the evolutionist view and that is, they believe that the reshuffling or loss of DNA can create new species. Jonathan Sarfati goes on to claim that, "speciation has nothing to do with real evolution, because it involves sorting and loss of genetic information, rather than new information." This so-called new information is not what evolutionists believe in. Speciation is yes the loss or reshuffling of genetic information but also the gaining of extra parts or functions. Paul Berg and Maxine Singer say in their book, Dealing With Genes: The Language of Heredity, "The modification of the DNA sequence of germ cells through changes in base pairs or rearrangements underlies the emergence of altered or new traits, and thus of new species, in the course of evolution." Now, are we creationists misunderstanding what evolutionists really believe? Maybe we need to go further in these studies with an open mind. What creationists don't tell you is that they want to believe that increase of genetic information is problem but really it's a problem for young earth creationists because they have to twist the truth in order to get people to believe that there's a problem with believing in a old earth and the Bible at the same time. I'm not sure I can trust young earth creationists if there going to twist the truth. This is mostly why I'm an old earth creationist. I'll end by saying, don't trust this book.

Excellent book, embarrassingly exposes the deception employed by the PBS 2001 series "Evolution" and the journal Scientific America. Refuting Evolution is a great rebuke to a corrupt government, society & media that suppress the truth.

Yes that is the same PBS that is facing it's federal funding eliminated for it's bias. Yes the same PBS that fired one of their own liberal stars "Juan Williams" for "yikes" being nervous around people in Muslim garb at airports! Wow why so uptight Juan? Muslims only occasionally blow up airplanes and attack people in airports. Juan don't you realize you can't live forever everybody's got to go some time?

The book is easy to read makes scientific knowledge enjoyable, interesting and understandable to the average reader. Amazing what a boat load of lies evolution is, it is no different deception than Greek mythology only now the lies & mythology are disguised as scientific and not a very good disguise at that. I would say this is a must have book for the creationist. Christian churches & schools should use this book to train their people they would become little Davids, a lot less intimated by the phony Goliath of Evolution.

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!

Jonathan Sarfati wrote this book to specifically refute some of the claims made by Scientific American, and PBS TV. There are three sections corresponding to three claims, and the chapters in the sections are rebuttals of specific arguments.

He is very systematic and logical, as a national chess champion is apt to be. He quotes the claim made for evolution or against creationism, and then step by step refutes it. He also has an appendix listing several arguments that creationists use, that are invalid. If we are going to defend our position, we must get our facts straight!

I enjoyed the book very much. I learned a lot about science and biology, which is usually hard for me to study. Sarfati points out that just because you can demonstrate that micro-evolution occurs, that doesn't prove macro-evolution. The fact that the fittest animals survive doesn't prove evolution, either. Before you can "prove" evolution by showing changes within species, you have to know the origins, and that's what the evolutionists can't prove. Also, he shows that although species do change, they aren't gaining any new information. Even though they may be improving, it's always through a loss of information.

Jonathan Sarfati is brilliant and his work reflects that. Highly recommended for those willing to approach this subject with an open mind. Of course the evolution apostles will come on here and give one star ratings for any book that threatens their stranglehold.

Secret: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_sarfati.asp provides the biography of this author. Anyone can see that someone with his credibility should not dare write such a book.

"He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled `A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules'. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22."

His arguments in this book intend to open our minds away from the more popular closed minded dogmatists' proposals. Years ago, after completing an undersgrad degree in Physics, I found myself shocked that important relevant scientific data like these were kept hidden in the remote parts of the library. To this date, I do not know why so many who seek objective analysis of scientific data will not allow our students to make up their own mind by allowing them to read books that present both viewpoints for and against evolution? All I hear is how dare scientific scholars expose readers to such data and how horrible it is for anyone to have an open mind on an imperically tough to understand subject like creation. Hope authors like Dr. Sarfati can bring us out of the dark ages of scientific mysticism and help all of us have access to more relevant data before making up our minds about what science proves and where it leaves us hanging in the dark.