• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Book on evolution and intelligent design

You think you know about Darwinism and intelligent design, but did you know: *There is no overwhelming evidence for Darwinism; *Intelligent design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief; *What many public schools teach about Darwinism is based on known falsehoods; *Scientists at major universities believe in intelligent design; *Scientists who question Darwinism are punished --by public institutions using your tax dollars. Battle-hardened veteran with doctorates in biology and theology sets the record straight in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwin and Intelligent Design.
Click to expand...
I don't believe I have to have read this book to know what is in it. My guess: watchmaker argument, lucy was a fraud, piltdown man was a fraud, shells on land prove that there was once a great flood, etc. I think this book will simply contain the same old arguments creationists give that have been refuted a million times over. If you have done independent research into the arguments for and against creationism, my guess is you will see nothing new in this book.
 
The Panda's Thumb Blog has been doing a chapter by chapter review of it.

I've not read all of them, but what I've read so far has show the book to be creationist nonsense.
 
Last edited:
I saw this in the bookstore, and took a look. Utter crap. After the Panda trial, you'd think someone would be ashamed to recycle the same old manure.

When you said "it looked interesting", what was your point? It was interesting enough to pick up at the bookstore, but your link already shows more than enough in the reviews to make the same determination I did: the book is a waste of trees. Hell, it's a waste of resources even if it was printed on recycled toilet paper.

In case you were wondering--no, I did not read the whole thing. One does not need to take more than a sip to know the milk is sour. I looked through it enough to consider buying it as a resource for one class I teach, but thought it best not to pay full price and encourage the author or publisher.
 
The question is, why does T'ai find it "interesting"?

Is it interesting because it presents convincing arguments in favor of Creationism?

Is it interesting because it is a good example of how Creationists argue, using false claims, faulty logic, etc?

Simply saying it is "interesting" says nothing. It is a vapid statement.
 
One is not obligated to explain a basic and obvious opinion to anyone.

You should write it into the forum rules perhaps.
 
T'ai Chi said:
One is not obligated to explain a basic and obvious opinion to anyone.
Click to expand...
Did anyone -demand- that you explained anything? They asked, and you then, typical of your style, evaded actually answering. Why do you oppose people asking questions of you?

And what is so obvious about the same old creatonist lies - such as the TOE, which they keep on calling "Darwinism" is an active opponent against religion - that is being repeated yet again being interesting? I mean, I guess it could be interesting from a psychological point of view (one could make a thesis on the escape from reality these kind of people do)... But otherwise, it's in itself rather boring to read the same old crap, naturally complete with such feats as quote-mining, following the highest traditions of creationists for more than a century now.
 
Hawk one said:
Did anyone -demand- that you explained anything?
Click to expand...

Where did I claim that they demanded me to answer?

And what is so obvious about the same old creatonist lies - such as the TOE, which they keep on calling "Darwinism" is an active opponent against religion -
Click to expand...

Actually, many people use Darwinism. Dawkins, for example, often says Darwinism. There's nothing inherently wrong with using that word.
 
T'ai Chi said:
One is not obligated to explain a basic and obvious opinion to anyone.
Click to expand...
What about an ambiguous opinion? You have more than one person asking you to elaborate; might one deduce from that, that one's opinion was not "basic and obvious"?

And you are right, the only obligations are those we put on ourselves. I try, for myself, to clarify my views. Others may not hold themselves to the same standard; that is their prerogative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom