Victoria A. reviewed The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design on + 3 more book reviews
I picked this up in a book store and instantly enjoyed what I read. I will be getting a copy of this book and can later finish this review!
Mike S. (mikesmith) reviewed The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design on + 50 more book reviews
The synopsis alone of this book should raise a battalion of red flags for anyone who cares about real truth and actual logic.
"There is no overwhelming evidence for Darwinism."
For starters, don't call it "Darwinism." It's called the theory of evolution, and just because Charles Darwin first proposed it, there's been more than a century of additional research done to confirm it since. People have used the theory to make countless predictions, those predictions have repeatedly turned out to be true, and the theory has become stronger and stronger. As Michael Shermer points out in WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS, evolution isn't a theory that can be disproved by one or two or even a dozen criticisms; it is a vast matrix of supporting information: of studies such as the one recently done over twenty years involving 40,000 generations of e.coli in which the evolution of e.coli was observed and documented--major evolution in which the e.coli developed the ability to absorb and digest a substance (citrate) that had previously been as inedible to them as cellulose is to humans; of a fossil record too enormous, too deep, and too epic to dismiss as a trick played by God or as the aftereffects of some past catastrophe; of observed evolution in everything from butterflies to lizards; of genetic tests, DNA, chromosomes, and so forth. Chipping away at any tiny aspects of the truth of evolution does not in any way refute the logic of the overall theory, because the theory has proven itself over and over again.
"Intelligent design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief."
Oh, is it? That's interesting to hear, because one of the most popular Intelligent Design books (OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE) has been proven to have taken large sections of its text from an earlier creationism book. It appears to have been done with a "Find and Replace" function, as at least one very embarrassing and telling typo resulted from it. (Visit Expelledexposed.com for a short video on that subject.) Add to that that literally everyone at the Discovery Institute (a.k.a. the biggest proponents of the ID idea) are born-again Christians, and it becomes very apparent that the notion of Intelligent Design is a duplicitous ruse meant to sneak religion into science classes. In the recent case of Kitzmiller vs. Dover, in Kansas, the admittedly religious judge ultimately derided ID as nonscientific, as obviously religious in nature, and as having no place at all in a science classroom.
"What many public schools teach about Darwinism is based on known falsehoods."
I love how he gives examples. No, wait, he doesn't. Sure, there are misconceptions about evolution--such as that evolution says we evolved from monkeys--which it doesn't, it says humans and monkeys evolved from a remote common ancestor--but that some teachers might not properly educate themselves about the theory before "educating" their students doesn't negate the truth of the theory itself.
"Scientists at major universities believe in intelligent design."
This is an appeal to authority, an example of a logical fallacy. Just because some scientists believe something doesn't have any bearing on whether or not that something is true. It also leaves out the fact that MOST scientists at MOST major universities believe that intelligent design is complete and total nonsense--because that's what the evidence suggests.
"Scientists who question Darwinism are punished --by public institutions using your tax dollars."
Aside from being questionably punctuated, there's a lot to be said about this statement. One: scientists are probably not being punished as much as they say they are. For instance, the man who allegedly lost his job at the Smithsonian for promoting ID--a guy celebrated by the recent Ben Stein movie "Expelled"--still works there. Two: nothing rallies a base of people behind a cause like a persecution complex. It's worked for the Mormons and for religions throughout history. Three: there are undoubtedly some vocal proponents of ID whose contracts have not been renewed at various universities, or maybe who have even been fired. The fact is, no one likes to be around zealots, and no one wants science teachers who are blinded by preconceived notions, religious or otherwise.
"Battle-hardened veteran with doctorates in biology and theology sets the record straight in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwin and Intelligent Design."
And finally: Intelligent Design is allegedly not at all religious, and yet somehow a co-author's doctorate in theology is a selling point for the book.
Be skeptical, people. Whatever you read, do it with your mind turned on. And if you do read this book, read something from the opposing camp as well; I recommend anything by Michael Shermer or Mathew Chapman.
If what you believe is true, you have nothing to fear from learning all the facts, because facts support the truth.
Mike Smith
antarcticsuburbs@yahoo.com
"There is no overwhelming evidence for Darwinism."
For starters, don't call it "Darwinism." It's called the theory of evolution, and just because Charles Darwin first proposed it, there's been more than a century of additional research done to confirm it since. People have used the theory to make countless predictions, those predictions have repeatedly turned out to be true, and the theory has become stronger and stronger. As Michael Shermer points out in WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS, evolution isn't a theory that can be disproved by one or two or even a dozen criticisms; it is a vast matrix of supporting information: of studies such as the one recently done over twenty years involving 40,000 generations of e.coli in which the evolution of e.coli was observed and documented--major evolution in which the e.coli developed the ability to absorb and digest a substance (citrate) that had previously been as inedible to them as cellulose is to humans; of a fossil record too enormous, too deep, and too epic to dismiss as a trick played by God or as the aftereffects of some past catastrophe; of observed evolution in everything from butterflies to lizards; of genetic tests, DNA, chromosomes, and so forth. Chipping away at any tiny aspects of the truth of evolution does not in any way refute the logic of the overall theory, because the theory has proven itself over and over again.
"Intelligent design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief."
Oh, is it? That's interesting to hear, because one of the most popular Intelligent Design books (OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE) has been proven to have taken large sections of its text from an earlier creationism book. It appears to have been done with a "Find and Replace" function, as at least one very embarrassing and telling typo resulted from it. (Visit Expelledexposed.com for a short video on that subject.) Add to that that literally everyone at the Discovery Institute (a.k.a. the biggest proponents of the ID idea) are born-again Christians, and it becomes very apparent that the notion of Intelligent Design is a duplicitous ruse meant to sneak religion into science classes. In the recent case of Kitzmiller vs. Dover, in Kansas, the admittedly religious judge ultimately derided ID as nonscientific, as obviously religious in nature, and as having no place at all in a science classroom.
"What many public schools teach about Darwinism is based on known falsehoods."
I love how he gives examples. No, wait, he doesn't. Sure, there are misconceptions about evolution--such as that evolution says we evolved from monkeys--which it doesn't, it says humans and monkeys evolved from a remote common ancestor--but that some teachers might not properly educate themselves about the theory before "educating" their students doesn't negate the truth of the theory itself.
"Scientists at major universities believe in intelligent design."
This is an appeal to authority, an example of a logical fallacy. Just because some scientists believe something doesn't have any bearing on whether or not that something is true. It also leaves out the fact that MOST scientists at MOST major universities believe that intelligent design is complete and total nonsense--because that's what the evidence suggests.
"Scientists who question Darwinism are punished --by public institutions using your tax dollars."
Aside from being questionably punctuated, there's a lot to be said about this statement. One: scientists are probably not being punished as much as they say they are. For instance, the man who allegedly lost his job at the Smithsonian for promoting ID--a guy celebrated by the recent Ben Stein movie "Expelled"--still works there. Two: nothing rallies a base of people behind a cause like a persecution complex. It's worked for the Mormons and for religions throughout history. Three: there are undoubtedly some vocal proponents of ID whose contracts have not been renewed at various universities, or maybe who have even been fired. The fact is, no one likes to be around zealots, and no one wants science teachers who are blinded by preconceived notions, religious or otherwise.
"Battle-hardened veteran with doctorates in biology and theology sets the record straight in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwin and Intelligent Design."
And finally: Intelligent Design is allegedly not at all religious, and yet somehow a co-author's doctorate in theology is a selling point for the book.
Be skeptical, people. Whatever you read, do it with your mind turned on. And if you do read this book, read something from the opposing camp as well; I recommend anything by Michael Shermer or Mathew Chapman.
If what you believe is true, you have nothing to fear from learning all the facts, because facts support the truth.
Mike Smith
antarcticsuburbs@yahoo.com
