Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

To get the free app, enter your email address or mobile phone number.

Refuting Evolution: A Handbook for Students, Parents, and Teachers Countering the Latest Arguments for Evolution UNABRIDGED VERSION Edition

3.5 out of 5 stars 97 customer reviews
ISBN-13: 978-0890512586
ISBN-10: 0890512582
Why is ISBN important?
This bar-code number lets you verify that you're getting exactly the right version or edition of a book. The 13-digit and 10-digit formats both work.
Scan an ISBN with your phone
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Buy used
Condition: Used: Very Good
Comment: While this book has been loved by someone else, they left it in great condition. Hurry and buy it before someone else does and take advantage of our FREE Super Saver Shipping!!! (there is a chance this book could contain a gift inscription)
Access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items.
169 Used from $0.01
More Buying Choices
44 New from $0.99 169 Used from $0.01 4 Collectible from $4.99
Free Two-Day Shipping for College Students with Amazon Student Free%20Two-Day%20Shipping%20for%20College%20Students%20with%20Amazon%20Student

Save Up to 90% on Textbooks Textbooks

Product Details

  • Paperback: 143 pages
  • Publisher: Master Books; UNABRIDGED VERSION edition (May 1999)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0890512582
  • ISBN-13: 978-0890512586
  • Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.5 x 0.4 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 1.6 ounces
  • Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (97 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #845,342 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Top Customer Reviews

Sometimes you can tell a book by its cover. The illustration gives everything away. A menacing hammer labeled "SCIENCE" is crashing through a glass window that represents evolution. Implicit in the image is a promise totally unfulfilled by the contents of this book - that 'science' (as mangled and misused by the author) somehow refutes evolution!

Cynically intended to separate uncritical creationists from their money and the actual facts, this aggressively mediocre publication is typeset in a large 'Weekly Reader' font and format that keeps your fingers constantly busy flipping from page to page. Which is appropriate since "Refuting Evolution" is essentially content-free.

If Jonathan Sarfati has any honest cards to play in the seemingly endless game of whack-a-mole that scientists are forced to play with Young Earth Creationists (YECs for short), he should write them up and submit them for peer review in a credible scientific journal. He won't because science is hard work and Sarfati can make an easy living by taking unfounded pot shots at evolution.

The threads of error woven into Sarfati's tapestry of nonsense are numerous and perverse. Here are a few highlights:

Sarfati postulates that a lack of helium escaping from the atmosphere of the earth supports its 'youth.' He deliberately ignores the evidence NASA, and many others, have accumulated on helium escape that deflates this lighter-than-air YEC balloon.

He also trots out the discredited canard about ocean salinity supporting a young earth interpretation. Unfortunately this creationist gambit conveniently omits well known mechanisms, such as basaltic lava quenching, that removes sodium from the ocean.
Read more ›
14 Comments 223 of 303 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Sarfati's `book' - small pages, large font and all - seems to be a collection of half-truths, bizarre extrapolations, aspersion casting, and nonsense. Does anyone really wonder why the only people that give it the time of day are lay creationists?
The laughable naiveté displayed by Sarfati in his description of molecular phylogenetics
indicates that he has at best a cursory understanding of it. Considering that Sarfati may have had Batten look
over this section for him - a creationist that has made many of the same errors in his own writing that Sarfati does in his book - there is little reason to wonder how such nonsense made it
into print.
Sarfati's 'common designer' alternative is a case in point. He mentions
only similarities - if he had an understanding of how such analyses are
done, he would - or should - have known that it is not mere similarity that
indicates descent.
If this 'common designer' schtick of Sarafti's and other creationists made any sense, should not
the DNA of a whale be more 'similar' to that of a shark, given their
morphological similarity? Sarfati even alludes to this when he mentions the
relationships of crocodiles to chickens rather than reptiles (which
actually, contrary to Sarfati's ignorant implication, makes perfect sense).
Furthermore, Sarfati makes a blatant false claim on p. 83:
"Similarities between human and ape DNA are often exaggerated. This
figure was not derived from a direct comparison of sequences. Rather
the original paper inferred 97% similarity between human and chimp DNA
from a rather crude technique called DNA hybridization.
Read more ›
15 Comments 244 of 357 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Sarfati's science is abysmal. Period. Victoria University of Wellington should be ashamed of itself if this is the kind of "scientists" it is turning out, although I suspect Sarfati's religious pathology would misconstrue the facts of scientific reality no matter where he earned his degrees.

REFUTING EVOLUTION is so full of elementary errors in astronomy, chemistry, geology and the nature of science, that I half-suspected Sarfati to be an 'agent provocateur' really working in the service of science and that he was only offering up this book as 'disinformation' to make the Creationists look bad by assuming they were either too ignorant, too lazy, or too complacent to bother researching his laughable (and patently inaccurate) claims.

The more I read, however, it began to dawn on me that Sarfati actually believed the fantasies he was doling out even though they go against all the basic findings of elementary science. This is downright frightening, to see how religious fanaticism (a kind of mental pathology) should have such a stanglehold on what might otherwise turn out to be a strong and rational mind. It's a pity to see such potential wasted in the service of supernaturalism, magical thinking, and science fiction! What else is Sarfati deliberately and rigorously pretending not to know?
Comment 40 of 59 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Sarfati's book contains countless errors and numerous misused references. For example, when arguing for a "young" Universe, Sarfati(p. 113) claims that no stage 3 supernova remnants exist in our or neighboring galaxies. However, 166.2+2.5, 180.0-1.7, 189.1+3.0, 279.0+1.1, and 290.1-0.8 are just five undisputed examples of these "nonexistent" remnants. Sarfati(p. 113) also claims that a lack of helium escape from the atmosphere supports its "youth." However, recent NASA images show helium being SWEPT from the Earth's atmosphere into deep space. One event occurred on September 24-25, 1998 after a solar coronal mass emission. Considering these readily seen escape mechanisms and the effects of modern helium pollution, the helium content of the Earth's atmosphere in NO WAY conflicts with the ancient age of the Earth. So, why don't creationists use heavier gases(e.g.,argon) that won't readily escape into space for "dating"? Perhaps, it's because the atmospheric 40argon/36argon is consistent with an ancient Earth. Sarfati(p. 114) further argues that salt accumulation in seawater indicates that oceans are "young." However, this argument fails because creationists have refused to properly consider the removal of sodium from seawater by erupting basalts (albitization). Albitization is real and EASILY identified in the glass rims of pillow basalts. All of Sarfati's attacks on radiometric dating are also erroneous. As one example, Safati(p. 110) claims that with radiometric dating, potassium and uranium are "easily dissolved" in water. However, solubility and weatherability depend on mineralogy and oxidation state. Uranium(IV) is generally insoluble, whereas UO2 +2 is highly soluble.Read more ›
Comment 93 of 138 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse

Most Recent Customer Reviews

Want to discover more products? Check out this page to see more: more apples for a teacher