Customer Review

145 of 190 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Very angry after reading this book., November 29, 2000
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (Hardcover)
Until recently I was solidly in the Darwinist camp, and I couldn't even imagine what could ever change my mind. I was raised with a Darwinistic world view. As an undergraduate, I took a science major where the rules of science were emphasized and I was privileged to attend lectures where one of the greatest living scientists explained to our philosophy department how science works.
Recently however, I read Johnson's Wedge of truth, and Well's Icons of Evolution. I was outraged to read about the thin evidence, sloppy evidence and yes, even outright fraud that are presented by Darwinists as the pillars of Darwinsim. I feel a great sense of betrayal that these case studies were presented to me as fact when in one instance the fraud has been known for generations. At best what Wells presents is negligence on the part of text book writers, at worst it is the widespread systematic suppression of dissenting opinions. ...
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
 

Comments

Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 37 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 11, 2009 7:33:56 AM PST
I, also, used to be an evolutionst, for over 40 years. I was very surprised to hear that what I had been taught all my life was a lie.
X
http://X-Evolutionist.spaces.live.com/

Posted on Mar 23, 2009 6:42:04 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 25, 2009 9:12:37 AM PDT
You are kidding yourselves. I get the impression you feel if ANYONE working in science knowingly or unknowingly presents false evidence, we should discard that branch of science entirely. I have a shock for you. Based on that rule, we can discard virtually all of human knowledge including religion. Certainly we can discard the works of people like Wells, Johnson, and Behe using your measure. But then, I think your 'outrage' is a posture. If you knew anything at all about biology, you would not be taking Wells seriously. Next time before you write, do a little thinking first.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2009 9:26:37 AM PDT
DM says:
Sure, every branch of science, or human knowledge in general, has cases where people have (knowingly or unknowingly) presented false evidence. That's not the point here. The point is that evolutionism DEPENDS ENTIRELY on falsely interpreted evidence. It is not a science that can be tested in the laboratory; it is basically a big game of "How do we explain the existence of life, etc., if we assume there is no Creator, and absolutely refuse to compromise on that assumption?" In other words, it is philosophically, not scientifically, driven.

If you know the FACTS of biology, and put aside all the hypothetical imaginings that have gotten attached to it, you can see that Behe, Wells, etc., must be taken seriously indeed.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2009 9:19:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 30, 2009 1:29:12 PM PDT
If you take your car to an auto mechanic, do you first demand that the mechanic include supernatural explanations for car malfunctions? When you take a dog to the vet, do you insist that he take into account the impact of magic? Of course not because we understand that the cause of our problems is a material one. In his book On the Origin of the Species, Darwin presents page after page of observed phenomena to support his theory. No where does he suggest that he has assumed the non-existence of God or that it was his purpose to attack religion. Instead, he suggests that patterns observed in nature are consistent enough to suggest a definite natural cause. I think your contention that this is all a game to exclude a Creator from the equation by any means necessary is not supported by any of the work produced by Darwin. It is a misinterpretation of the facts.

Darwin notes that any group of organisms will produce far more offspring than will be able themselves to reproduce. What determines an organism's chance of reproducing itself? Is it blind chance as ID would seem to suggest? Or would environmental factors like ability to find food, find a mate, survive temperature and climate change, etc. also have an impact? And if these environmental factors had an impact, would it not follow that the creatures that survived showed greater facility for functioning in that environment? This simple set of ideas generates a vast range of possible predictions about organisms all of which are testable. Science journals are full of these tests. We can see that any organism derived from an ancestor and did not magically appear, that an organism present in an environment will have features that allow it to function in that environment, that if the environment is significantly altered those creatures will die. What predictions does ID make? It predicts that we have no way of knowing anything about the origin of any biological organism. They simply appeared out of nowhere with a design dependent only on the whim of an unknown creator and having little if any connection to the environment at hand excpet insofar as the creator took the environment into consideration.

You talk about the FACTS of biology but you have presented none. You have presented opinions with no supporting evidence as if they were facts. They are not. The measure of the value of an opinion is a measure of the supporting evidence and lacking that, the measure of the person putting forth the opinion. In this case, it is an anonymous person making grandiose claims that lie in open contradiction to work in evolutionary science. In other words, they seem to be opinions of little merit.

Posted on Jun 18, 2009 4:31:23 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 18, 2009 4:37:02 PM PDT
Leon Baradat says:
If your thinking really was turned around by Wells's book, then you should be outraged, but for a different reason. The evidence for evolution is actually very solid, not shoddy as Wells portrays it. Remember, for a start, that he didn't go after the scientific literature--he was reviewing high school biology textbooks, which are notorious for presenting wrong information on any given subject (partly because the publishers are lazy or afraid to offend, but also partly because they're supposed to be general intro texts for kids who aren't ready for a serious discussion of the subjects discussed).

Please don't take my word for it. There are books out there about evolution, by members of the biological science community but written for us layfolks who don't need or want to know the technical details.

Posted on Apr 4, 2011 3:40:19 PM PDT
I can understand your outrage and can empathize. I grew up reading the traditional books . . . only to find out much later that much key information was completely fabricated or just misleading.

However, now I am no longer angry but just amused:)

Posted on Nov 13, 2012 11:55:23 AM PST
Hey thank you for being honest. That takes a lot of courage and humility.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 1:07:19 AM PST
I did not get the impression that the reviewer was stating that anyone should "discard" anything; but that we MUST return to True & Honest Science! Allowing EVIDENCE rather than PRESUMPTIONS to lead research.

If a scientists declares Intelligent Design, they are threatened w/ losing their job. Even tenured professors. The liberal higher education uses threats & intimidation to silence any other thoughts. This, my friend, is NOT Science! They then mock and ridicule, declaring that ID is not Science... But Why? Why wouldn't it be? Isn't Science the following of evidence? Allowing all hypothesis, & then trying to prove or disprove? Yet, w/ our understanding of the sheer complexity of even a single felled organism, Darwin, himself, stated his 'Theory' would fall a part! Darwin also stated that we should be able to find tons of transitional fossils, and if we couldn't... His 'theory' would, basically, fall apart.

Some of the greatest mathematicians, even Nobel prize winners, have stated that Macro (or Darwin's) Evolution is absolutely impossible! Even having eternity to form just one life, it can not happen! Even giving a visual of the absolute impossibility of an amoeba evolving to that of a Tornado, sweeping through a junkyard, & assembling a perfect & working Boeing 747- and even that is way more likely.

Or, even w/ being given all the building blocks of, lets say, a Frog. Say, we take a frog and blend it in a blender. Take all of the mushy contents and place in the sun (or where ever you like). Allow to 'cook' so to speak, for millions or billions of yrs, or even eternity. When you return, will you find a perfect frog? NO! You have everything one needs to make a frog, but no matter how long you wait, it will NEVER become a frog. And this is a MAJOR head start! So, you see?

To believe in Darwin, one would have to believe that somehow a magic, VERY COMPLEX, single cell (& ill even give you that cell- another major head start), evolved into EVERY tree, flower, animal, vegetable, plant that has ever existed! Do you see how absolutely impossible that is? And, one would rightfully think, that w/ all of this evolving going on, we should find tons of transitional fossils of every sort. But not even one has EVER been found! Nor does it explain why we do not see Macro-Evolution happening today! Or why these same early cells, that allegedly evolved, are still here. Or why there are so many animals that are still in the exact form as our earliest fossils of them!

What "Expelled". A Documentary by Ben Stein, that you can watch for free on Netflix. It is extremely well done, & presents all sides.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 10, 2012 11:18:47 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 11, 2012 12:07:14 PM PST
"Some of the greatest mathematicians, even Nobel prize winners, have stated that Macro (or Darwin's) Evolution is absolutely impossible!" Go on.

"You have everything one needs to make a frog, but no matter how long you wait, it will NEVER become a frog." I suspect anyone who has ever seen Jurassic Park knows that you can clone a frog from its DNA. A whole frog is not necessary. Not sure what your point is beyond that.

"To believe in Darwin, one would have to believe that somehow a magic, VERY COMPLEX, single cell (& ill even give you that cell- another major head start), evolved into EVERY tree, flower, animal, vegetable, plant that has ever existed!" Darwin wrote his work in the 19th century. There has been a lot of research done since then. Maybe you should try reading some of it. Try taking a look at the work of W. F. Doolittle. Darwin's writings are not some holy writ nor are they viewed as such. If he wrote something that does not match observed reality, it is discarded or modified. Science is not religion and Darwin is not a holy figure.

"This, my friend, is NOT Science!" Yes, actually it is. And science has rules just like any other discipline. ID and creationism fall outside the purview of science. They cannot be disproved. If Darwin's work troubles you so much, then ID and creationism should have you climbing the walls.

If you would like to find out more about the people in Expelled, look up some of the people who were 'fired' and see if their stories hold any water. Start with Richard Sternberg. Not only was he never fired from the Smithsonian, he was not even a paid employee.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 7:22:57 AM PST
http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithsonian.php?page=summary

Nuff said about Sternberg...
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›

Review Details