Customer Reviews

Telling lies for God: Reason vs creationism

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

I read this book years ago and recommend it to people highly as an example of how people use and misuse facts and language, especially by quoting out of context, to push their point of view. I find it bizarre that people are interested in convincing others of a point that the evidence is against, by misrepresenting that evidence. In many cases, as shown in Plimer's book, they themselves do not believe the evidence - their understanding of it can be quite sophisticated - but it is useful for them to make a point, even if it IS wrong. I therefore was surprised to see Taylor Adams' review on this page - I had not noticed these bizarre errors he mentioned - so I dug out my copy and looked them up.

What I found was that Adams has, for whatever reason, misrepresented many of the points in the book in his review.

Plimer does incorrectly state that sulphur is solid up to 444 degrees, but the fact that it is solid at a much lower temperature actually makes his argument even stronger.

He does NOT state that "nuclear reactors are powered by alpha-decay" (p. 25), merely that the physics of alpha decay is the same physics of fission reactions. Nor does he state that the sun is powered by nuclear fission (he refers to it as a giant nuclear reactor - which it is, albeit a fusion reactor).

Plimer did make the claim (p12) that "no item in science or technology has been developed by creationists" and it is true that Raymond Damadian developed the mri. But this scientific development was derived from orthodox science - the point he is making is that no useful technological development has arisen from creationism per se. MRI technology does not arise from creationism - it derives from an internally-consistent scientific understanding of the world - which is incompatible it seems, with creationism's claims.

The criticism re: PI ("Plimer claimed that Pi is 3.14159 (p. 18) when this is still an approximation") is valid, although he does say "even schoolchildren know it is 3.14159" - and I think that any reader with any maths past year 8 at school knows it is an irrational number.

But the irony of his last criticism is just bizarre!

"my all-time favorite blunder continues to be when Plimer stated categorically that the english alphabet contains 23 letters (p. 224)"

This is a complete misreading of the text. Plimer is writing about a sentence: "Methinks it is like a weasel" which has 23 letters in it. His sentence "a random selection of the 23 letters of the alphabet", may well be a typo and should read "26", but perhaps it should read "of the 23 letters _from_ the alphabet". His next sentence does NOT go on to repeat the error as Adams claims, but is specifically about the number of letters in the target sentence which is, as it states, 23.

This is a fascinating book, which causes you to wonder on the true motivations and psychology of people in general, and the absurdities that arise consequent to the creationist arguments are just a delight. One of these is that if the creationist theory were correct that all of continental drift had occurred in the last 4,000 years, that amongst other bizarre effects, there would have been a giant bow wave off the coast of each major continent as it ploughed its way through the oceans.

Certainly the book could have been improved by some tighter editing and proofreading, but the examples given are not evidence of anything more substantial than that. In particular, none of the "errors" actually are with the underlying themes of the book, nor with his representation of creationism.

This is a great book for anyone interested in facts ! Don't worry about the few fanatical reviewers who are attempting to bring the everage rating of the book down.
This book is brave in the way it calls a spade a spade and demasks the so-called "scientists" who preach Creationism without offering credible evidence.
It's time for intelligent people all over the world to stand up to lies. Remember, silence is usually taken as assent. If we're not careful, we'll be returning to the dark ages and science will be replaced in school by creationism.

I read this book and found it to be a wonderfully easy to read, yet educated book that dealt admirably with its subject matter.

Plimer skilfully takes apart the arguments used by creation *scientists* and exposes the coverups and lies used by these people, in particular, Duane Gish, who is a renowned creationist who is rather fond of bending the truth and decieving his believing audiences.

This book presents many very good and very credible arguments against creationism, whilst maintain respect for the believer.

I am sure this book will be invaluable in stemming the tide of dogma and untruth flowing from the lips of the creation *scientists* and is a very useful tool for those trying to make head or tails of the whole evolution vs creation debate.

I found it a superb read, very educational, entertaining and thought-provoking.

I would recommend it to all folks who are interested in this matter, regardless of what side of the fence they are on.

I read this book within about a year after it was published. It was one of my first introductions to the other side of the debate about the truth (or otherwise) of Noah's flood.

Two arguments I found particularly compelling, so I went and checked the facts. 1. The dimensions of the Ark and the number of known species are completely mathematically incompatible. If the Ark was built to the dimensions in the Bible the few people on board would have to move so fast to feed the animals that the friction from their feet would ignite the floor (not that they could fit in all the animals or their food). Checking my Bible, standard measurement conversions, and checking with a population biologist and a physicist I believe Plimer's argument is factually accurate. 2. Had there been such a flood, the amount of silt in the water would have killed all sea life, so they would have to be in tanks on the Ark (as if it wasn't already impossible to fit in all the animals and their food). Looking at the color of the water in the 2004 South East Asian Tsunami's you can see with your own eyes that this is correct. But, even before then, the hydrologists and soil scientist I talked to confirmed this.

Read this book with an open mind. Just because one myth in the Bible's old testiment is just that, a myth, it doesn't make the basic message of compassion for your fellow human beings that Jesus delivered any less true. Compassionate ethics drawn from Christianity and factual science are compatible - even if scientific evidence does not warrent any belief in the supernatural.

I have read this book several times now, after being loaned various creation books. I was astounded this kind of book needed to be written, i thought it was accepted scientific fact the Earth was some 4.5billion years old and all life evolved from simpler organisms (I was wrong). The book exposes the lying and deceitfull tactics used by creationists. I won't go into the details you can read it for yourself (after reading The anwsers book among others that were given to me to read this book is like a breath of fresh air, a better title may have been Sanity Vs Insanity for that is the creationist argument.

Also take note of some of the negative reviews on this page. The book is highly one sided and does not hold anything back. Basically it lacks manners and dosn't hold any punches. But given the argument its excuseable. 23 Letters of the alphabet (he was talking about the 23 letters in the phrase "Methinks it is like a weasel" a line from Hamlet not the alphabet. The use of Uranium 238 which is not directly used in nuclear reactors no U238 when bombarded with nuetrons becomes U239 an unstable element which decays into Neptunium 239 itself unstable with a half life of 2.355 days and decays into Plutonium 239 which is used to Power reactors.

("In a nuclear reactor, uranium-238 can be used to breed plutonium, which itself can be used in a nuclear weapon or as a reactor fuel source. In fact, in a typical nuclear reactor, up to a third of the generated power does come from the fission of Plutonium-239 (not supplied as a fuel to the reactor, but transmuted from uranium-238)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-238)

You can research the rest of this reviewers biased and innacurate review yourself. Ultimatley this books asks you to think for yourself you read it you research it and YOU DECIDE!.

Although I am an avowed atheist, I feel I have no right to attack the beliefs of others. That is, until they try and force those beliefs on myself, or insinuate them into societal structures. The Creationist push to alter the teaching of science in school is just such an example, and books like this are important in the battle to prevent beliefs and illogical ideas being taught as fact to an audience that is not yet equiped to determine one from the other.

Plimer is right in his stance that tolerance is not an effective counter to organisations that will actively lie and mislead to support their message, and more aggressive tactics are required. His arguments may lack subtlety and restraint, but his targets do not require it, and quite frankly, do not deserve it.

Because creationism is such a hollow argument, his opponents' arguments and tactics are often set up for a pummelling. However, if intellectual bloodsports are your cup of tea, you will be a most enthusiastic spectator.

An important note: This book is not anti-Christian, and does not attack moderate religious beliefs in any way. It is an attack on those that are using active fraud and self-delusion to push an agenda that is dangerous to the freedoms of society and the intellectual development of our youth.

Review of 'Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism' by Ian Plimer. Milsons Point, NSW: Random House, Australia, Pty Ltd, (1995).

Reviewed by W. P. Palmer.

This book is being reviewed for science teachers, particularly for those who feel that one day they may be prevented from explaining the truth about evolution. It is an account of Dr Ian Plimer's battle with the group who are called 'the creationists' and explains why he rejects their views on evolution.

Firstly Dr Plimer makes an extremely strong case, a watertight case, in fact, for rejecting the view that the earth is about 6000 years old. In particular he attacks the views of the 'Creation Science Foundation', who might wish to impose their views on those teaching evolution in their science classes, so the debate has relevance to science teachers.

It is an easily readable book which is well argued and generally provides correct science; unfortunately it will not convince partisans on either side of the debate.

ADDENDUM: Dr Plimer disrupted meetings where creationists held the stage and eventually took them to court. He lost and had to pay total costs of $0.5 million. Wikipedia gives a fuller account at URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer.

BILL PALMER

There was a period in western history, when the Christians held sway, that we now call the dark ages. There is a concerted effort by remnants of these zealots, and they are called creationists, who mostly reside in the USA, to debunk scientific thought. When science was weak god always appeared to men, as in the old testament. When science is strong he is conspicuous by his absence. In the so called dark ages the Christians would be burning Ian Plimer for his opinions, as they wanted to do to Copernicus and Galileo. Yet they contribute nothing other than regurgitating quotes from a book written by a bunch of unknown Jews. Unfortunately not one written by Woody Allen. A fun read.

This was not a well written book. It was an informative book, if one has a more than passing knowledge of Archeaology and Paleontology, but not well written. If the purpose of this work was to amuse the general scientific community by pointing out the flawed logic of Creationists,it succeeded.If the purpose of this work was to educate those outside of academia it failed. I rated it with five stars because it does offer real scientific and rational reasons why the creation science movement is neither scientific or truly christian. This alone is worth 5 stars. But I am in the Trade so to speak. I would say "buy it" but be prepared to spend some time in a university libarary.

Plimer does a great job demolishing the pathetic arguments of creationists in general and Gish in particular. I wish more defenders of science and knowledge would take the gloves off when attacking know-nothing creationists.