Good books against evolution?

by bohm 52 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Gerard

  Evolution does not aim to study the origin of life, but how it changes through time.
• 

  mindmelda

  I've read Darwin on Trial, and while the guy argues so well I'd like to hire him as a lawyer, his scientific arguments are rather specious as he's not a scientist.

  But, my field is psychology, (not a hard science, although I like hard science like physics and biology) and one thing I can tell you is that if an idea is deeply held, people will grasp at anything to support it.

  The belief in God is deeply personal and gives a lot of people comfort. I myself believe that it's an open question as I can't either prove or disprove God, and have no intention using my remaining brain cells on a futile task. LOL I also get more comfort from bourbon and a nice evening of intelligent conversation with friends (socializing, which is a big reason many people like churches that don't demand that they do overly weird and dangerous things) than the whole god thing, so we all have our little comforts. I don't begrudge people theirs as long as they don't screw me over with it in some way.

  However, religion doesn't need God, God needs religion. Religion would exist without the biblical God, it did for a long long time. People seem to have some innate need to believe in God, gods or the higher power, it comforts them, and makes them feel important, gives them structure (sometimes too much!). Humans have a lot of needs that way. They can be met in more rational or secular ways, but restrictive and rigorous religion it is for some. I understand why even if I don't need it myself.

  I tend to subscribe to Universalist Unitarianism which means I can believe pretty much what I like as long as it's not harmful, be ecumenical, be spiritual when I like and keep the religious off my back by having a religion to fend them off with. Works for me.

  Genesis isn't that bad considering it was written by Bronze Age humans. It's slightly less ridiculous than that Atlas story and a few others. But, scientific, nah. It's rather observational about nature by unscientific people, but not scientific in nature. Was never intended to be. It's a myth for the reinforcement of certain spiritual ideas. (A Reform Rabbi told me this...I figure if you want old testament exposition, go to the Jews...its their book!)

  Anyway, one of those spiritual ideas is that man at some point became a spiritual entity, searching for God, or the part of God that is in himself. That's what Adam's creation and subsequently, Eve's represents to the people the myth was written for. It's not a literal story of the actual physical creation of man and woman. Duh.
• 

  HintOfLime

  If you want an intelligent discussion on a scientific concept, look to science. Science knows science best, and science is self-scrutinizing.

  I'd suggest you start at the source: chapter 6 in On the Origin of the Species is entitled "Difficulties on Theory". Naturally, as the book was published 200 years ago, and we've learned an amazing number of things in the past 200 years - these difficulties have largely been put to rest - but t's a good start in understanding what fundamental things could potentially disprove the theory.

  With any book - "Google is your friend". Several books that set out to debunk evolution (Like Behe's) continue making outdated claims and have long since been throughly debunked. TalkOrigins is a handy reference in that regard, as it provides references and links for further reading on each individual claim. Perhaps compare it's insights on each point with that of a good counter-evolution site (does anyone have a link?)
• 

  agonus

  ...evolution no more disproves the existence of God than the existence of God disproves evolution...

  ...but i'm sure most of you smart folks already knew that...
• 

  drwtsn32

  I just find it interesting that (taking out the sun/stars part) the order is pretty close to what evolution predicts and has been verified by evidence.

  But even dismissing the sun/moon/stars, the order of living things is out of whack too. About the only things it gets right is that birds came after fish, and man came last. Everything else is out of sequence.
• 

  darkl1ght3r

  Try the book Life - How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or By Creation?, published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. It does as good a job as any other creationist book at "debunking" evolution, i.e. it fails miserably.

  Seriously, I've read books by Behe, Dembski, Wells, and Meyer. Phillip Johnsons book is sophomoric. Those are the intellectual heavy-hitters on the creationist side. The only one of the bunch that made interesting arguments was Dembski, the mathmetician. But even his arguments fail when examined by his peers.

  I've heard of other more recent books that have been written that supposedly do a more respectable job of making a "case" (LOL) for intelligent design. But I havn't read them. I've given up on giving the other side a fair hearing. All they do is simply keep polishing the brass on the sinking ship of creationism.

  Evolution FTW!
• 

  drwtsn32

  I've heard of other more recent books that have been written that supposedly do a more respectable job of making a "case" (LOL) for intelligent design.

  You mean like Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator? Don't waste your time. I read that book because a Christian coworker bought it for me and challenged me to read it. It was dreadful.
• 

  B_Deserter

  "Experts are on both sides of these arguments."

  But the vast majority of experts are on the side of evolution. In 1986, only about 700 biologists out of 480,000 in the U.S. identified themselves as supporters of "creation science" (what Intelligent Design was called before Creationism was banned from public schools), that's less than 0.15%* of relevant scientists (e.g. Scientists working in the field of biology) who reject evolution. There are simply not enough creationist biologists out there to honestly claim that there is any notable dissent in the scientific community.

  Regardless of this fact, it is the evidence that matters. Even if every single biologist in the world was a literal six-day creationist, it wouldn't change the facts.

  *Source: Edwards v. Aguillard. 1986. U.S. Supreme Court amicus curiae brief of 72 Nobel laureates (and others). (Case 482 U.S. 578, 1987)
• 

  B_Deserter

  I've found that the typical conversation with a creationist goes something like this.

  Creationist uses moronic argument used thousands of times before and debunked thousands of times before, but presents it as if it's the first time it's ever been used.

  Person who accepts biology (PWAB) addresses argument, pointing out either that it's irrelevant because it's not addressing what evolution actually states, or how it is based on faulty reasoning, etc.

  Creationist switches to another argument without addressing PWAB's objections.

  Long, drawn out conversation that ultimately goes nowhere.

  Later, Creationist meets another PWAB (PWAB #2 we'll call him or her) and uses the same argument.

  Rinse and repeat.

  Perhaps the reason you're not finding satisfying logical arguments on the creationist side is because there are none. The creationists I've seen seem to be under the impression that if you repeat something enough times, it becomes true. That seems to be the main "plan of attack." Don't address the answers science has given to their objections, just find a crowd that hasn't heard the answers and repeat those objections over and over as if they haven't been addressed already. It's not science, it's preaching.

  ...evolution no more disproves the existence of God than the existence of God disproves evolution...

  ...but i'm sure most of you smart folks already knew that...

  But evolution (science in general, rather) can and does disprove specific God claims. If everybody who believed in God believed in the Deist idea of a cosmic watch-winder who has otherwise had no interaction with the physical universe, then evolution wouldn't be an issue with anyone. The problem is that most people aren't deists, they are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Bah'ais, etc. all with specific claims about what their God/Gods can do and have done. The claims of the book of Genesis are demonstrably false, from the so-called "order of creation" which claims, among other things, that fruit-bearing trees existed before the sun did to every single species of animal on earth being loaded into a single boat. If a God does exist, and if one is to accept logic, reason, and the scientific methodology as the best means to know what is true, then the God described by a literal reading of the book of Genesis cannot exist. That is the issue here. If the scientific evidence pointed to Krishna being the one true God, then fundamentalist Christians would be just as upset at that as they are over evolution. The only God science does not conflict with is the absentee God of the Deists.
• 

  bohm

  Darklighter: Dempski is a very, very poor example of an 'interlectual heavy-hitter'. I work with information theory every day and while i havent read his book the articles of him i have read are a mess! The only interesting question Dempski raise if he is a moron, or delibrately lying. Enough about him. I want to find the best creation book. I sure hope it aint the Creation book :-).