Book Review #10

Refuting Evolution  Refuting Evolution 2

I bought the above two books for a variety of reasons. First, I got them for $1.50/each.  That’s almost free reading.  Second, added to some books the wife was ordering, the invoice totalled over $25, so the shipping was free.  A third reason was to ‘know thy enemy.’ Last but not least, was the fact that the author is a scientist, and a PhD, and might actually have some valid information that I was not aware of.

The first book is titled Refuting Evolution.  The second, in case you didn’t ‘get it’ the first time, is Refuting Evolution 2, which isn’t really what he does in either book.  I’ve had operators’ manuals for a toaster oven that were longer than the 132-page first book.  Oh well, it only cost a buck and a half.

What he does, or tries to do and fails, is refute well-known evolutionists. He puts words in their mouths, then tries to argue against.  ‘Christopher Hitchens said this about that – but he’s wrong, and I’m right.’  No he didn’t!  And No you’re not!  ‘Richard Dawkins said that, but he means this – to agree with me.’  No he doesn’t.

For an author with a PhD, the cognitive dissonance is thick. He believes in mutations, and natural selection – but not evolution.  A God who created the universe in six days, 7000 years ago is okay – but a God who created the same universe 14 Billion years ago and is guiding its development, isn’t.

While not very good at actually refuting anything, he is quite adept at slinging dismissive language. Friends and scientists who agree with his views, are ‘renowned’, and ‘esteemed’, while Richard Dawkins is merely ‘well-known’.  Am I being finicky if I read that as equivalent to ‘known to police’?  Evolutionary scientists are referred to as ‘the Communist Atheist, Mr. X’ and ‘the Marxist Atheist, Mr. Y.’

Two other of his oft-repeated denial phrases are, ‘particles to people’, and ‘molecules to man.’ His own published fact that 95% of biologists believe in evolution is not a case of the people closest to the situation knowing the most about it; it must be an Atheist Conspiracy.

He claims The Church wasn’t wrong when they declared that the Earth was flat, and the center of creation, and that all orbits were perfect circles.  They had all the facts, but they merely interpreted them incorrectly.  Galileo wasn’t threatened with torture by the Catholic Church…well, he was, but that was because of a bunch of secular politicians who hated him.  (Wait!  Did he just admit that the Pope and the entire Church were led around by the nose by a bunch of bureaucrats?  I find that harder to believe than Creationism.)

He says that the Ptolemaic, flat-Earth, geocentric stuff in the Bible comes from Psalms – but that’s not really ‘the Bible’, that’s just Hebrew poetry, and – it’s been misinterpreted.  Really?  Who could have seen that coming?

He’s pretty good at ‘interpreting’ things too. If an Evolutionist says, ‘be careful how this information is released’, knowing that there are nuts like him out there who will react badly, he’s all over it, claiming that it must be a lie. If a Paleontologist admits that a fossil of an expected transitional form has not yet been found, he claims that it’s because one does not exist.

If scientists don’t have the answer to every question yet, you shouldn’t believe anything they say.  Trust in him, because he has the same answer to every question, drawn from faith in only one book of the Bible, Genesis, which he is constantly interpreting.

Putting words in people’s mouths again, he says that Evolutionists claim that we came from simple aquatic beings like jellyfish – yet no-one has ever found a jellyfish fossil. No, and no-one has ever found the grape Jell-O my kid spilled on the sidewalk last week, just before it rained.  He says we killed millions of buffalo (bison) on the plains last century, but no-one has ever found a buffalo fossil.  I guess if you categorically deny that something happened, you don’t bother to find out how.

The same day that I read his claim that turtles were created in their present form by GOD, because there were no fossils of any transitional form, I read that they had found a transitional-form turtle fossil in the mountains of Germany.  He denies that any fossils were created by sand turning into sandstone through sedimentation, because a few have been found giving birth, or eating.  “They’d have just moved out of the way.” as if they could just sidestep an opening sinkhole, or a flash flood, or a collapsing riverbank, and were later buried in silt.

Like the bumblebee which can’t fly, he mathematically ‘proves’ that the number of mutational occurrences necessary to arrive at Man, would have taken 85 Billion years, not the 4.5 Billion Evolutionists claim.

My Statistics professor stated that, “Figures lie, and liars figure.” The above might be true, if they happened one at a time. On any given day, it is estimated that there are 86,000 lightning strikes, about half of them over the ocean.  It was probably more than twice that, when the atmosphere and seas were still thick with chemicals.  Possibilities for that energy to fuse some of them into a primitive type of protein occurred simultaneously, dozens of times every second.

The other thing Mr. Scientist got wrong, is that statistics say that there may be 85 billion chances, but it doesn’t have to go all the way to the last one to happen. Life may have arisen on the hundredth, or the tenth, or even the first time.

It wasn’t long before I was reading just for entertainment and amusement. He got a rant about atomic deterioration wrong on a scale of 10/7th power, a minor mistake which would have blasted the Earth to dust.  The second book is a bit longer than the first, but he offers no new arguments, just the same old ones, only SHOUTED LOUDER, and repeated more often.

These books are printed and distributed from six places in the world, Australia, New Zealand, England, Kansas/USA, Japan (?), and five miles away, in our sister city, Waterloo, Ontario. I’m a bit worried.  Are Mennonites involved?   😕

What We Say – What We Think

Cognitive dissonance.

No, no!  Don’t reach for the mouse yet.  This isn’t a post about difficult English words.  That will come a little later.  Cognitive dissonance is just a term to describe holding two conflicting opinions in your mind at the same time.  This happens in everyday life, but is most common in politics and religion.  The scientist who carbon-dates fossils goes to Catholic Church on Sunday, and Believes that the Earth was created seven thousand years ago.  It’s a delicate mental balance.  Some people are much better at it than others.  George Orwell, in his book 1984, described the process perfectly.  He also showed how people can be trained to change their opinions, without even noticing that they have been changed.

Having given a Christian example, I also have a couple of Canadian Muslim female examples.  The weekend paper had an article about The Veiled Vogue.  This is a new type of fashion show where the models are veiled, or head-scarfed Muslim women.  The clothing isn’t quite as outré or revealing as normal, but the point of the veil is supposed to be modesty.  It’s pretty hard to claim modesty, when you’re strutting your stuff, on the runway.

Speaking of modesty, I almost had a Muslim-modesty car-crash the other day.  I stopped at a red light, near a high-school.  Students streamed across the crosswalk in front of me.  Almost the last to cross on the green….well, it had gone to orange, but high-school students don’t give a damn, were three 14ish girls.  Two appeared “normal Canadian”.  The third, definitely a Muslim, was identifiable by the scarf concealing all of her head and neck, except the face.  This was two feet above a skirt which didn’t have quite as much fabric.  She buys her yellow panties at Muslims-R-Us.  I know.  If she wanted to look like a little slut, why didn’t she just do it like her two slutty girlfriends?  This outfit speaks two conflicting opinions at the same time.  Who’s she lying to?  Herself, or the rest of us.  Or both?

The Church has always been good at this type of two-faced, or two-brained stance.  One of the most obvious instances was Joan of Arc.  When she was winning battles and saving the country, she was a heroine.  When the war had been won, she was an embarrassment, able to do what the Church and its knights could not do.  Suddenly she was declared a heretic and burned at the stake.  A couple of hundred years later, when the Church needed heroes, especially outstanding women, in an organization too full of men, she was hauled out, dusted off, her “heresy” ignored, and she was raised to the status of saint.  The “unchanging” Church has many of these volte-faces, where conflicting positions rapidly reverse themselves, or where both are held at the same time.

In the Middle Ages, the Holy Catholic Church sold indulgences.  People with enough money could donate to the Church, and be forgiven their past sins.  This soon progressed to prepaying for sins which were anticipated to happen in the future.  Sort of a Cosmic Monopoly, get-out-of-Hell-free card.  The Church eventually realized, but didn’t publicly admit, that the selling of indulgences was immoral, and wrong.

Several hundred years have passed, and the Church’s revenues are going down as more and more people leave the Church, or can’t afford to pay the tithe.  Suddenly, indulgences are back.  This time, instead of giving money directly to the Church, those who wish to pay for play, can donate money and/or time and effort to Church-approved charities and projects.  See how different this way is from the old way?!  I guess immoral and wrong are actually okay – for the right price.

Priests diddle little boys, and little girls.  Family-values political figures hire hookers.  Anti-same-sex-marriage Senators have gay washroom assignations.  Flag-waving patriots are caught selling military secrets.  My head would explode from the stress of trying to go in two opposite directions at the same time.  It’s too bad some or all of these people couldn’t manage to do that.