Which is why Dr Jonathan Sarfati jumped at the opportunity. In his book, The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution, Dr Sarfati deals with the evidence chapter after chapter, covering a vast range of disciplines in his trademark crisp, clear style. He convincingly shows, for those with ears to hear, that to believe the Bible’s account of Creation/Fall/Redemption straightforwardly not only does not commit intellectual suicide, but is the intellectually superior position.
Check out Dr Sarfati’s book.
Laurie Appleton
Thank you for your message and the sites to check out. I must get Johathan Sarfati’s new book.
God bless you and your great work.
Daniel Chew
This shuld be interesting
Ben
The only hoax is that a person can get away with publishing creationist garbage.
Clint
This “Doctor” Sarfati has a PhD in chemistry.
What the hell would you know about evolution if you have a PhD in chemistry??
We all know that this is nothing but a money making fiasco aimed at die hard, desperate creationists.
This book will be filled with vomit and lies.
Here’s some advice with the someone with the right background on the topic:
“God’s handiwork in biology is undetectable. I get a lot of people who don’t know what to think. Or they believe in intelligent design but they want to hear. Evolution is a well-corroborated scientific theory. The belief in evolution does not rule out belief in God, in fact, evolution is more consistent with belief in a personal god than intelligent design. Besides, in his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in October 1996, Pope John Paul II endorses evolutionary teachings.”
Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, a former Dominican priest who as an evolutionary geneticist, He has been President and Chairman of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Clint
“If God has designed organisms, he has a lot to account for. Consider that at least 20 percent of pregnancies are known to end in spontaneous abortion. If that results from divinely inspired anatomy, God is the greatest abortionist of them all. Or consider, the “sadism” in parasites that live by devouring their hosts, or the mating habits of insects like female midges, tiny flies that fertilize their eggs by consuming their mates’ genitals, along with all their other parts.
Evolution is not only NOT anti-Christian, but the idea of special design, which many fundamentalists adhere to, might be – because it teaches the view of God that is blasphemous. The Special-Design-God is a God who messes up. Think about all the backaches, infected wisdom teeth and painful childbirth that exist because we humans evolved incompletely! ”Do you think God is absent-minded?” I ask them.”
Dr. Francisco J. Ayala
Tas Walker
Clint,
Answering your first post:
Don’t dismiss someone on the basis of their formal qualifications. In his book, Dawkins talks about geology, yet he has no formal qualifications in geology. He talks about geochronology but has no professional expertise there either. But he is well read, so you take notice of what he says. You should do the same for Dr Sarfati.
Sarfati’s book was not written for “desperate creationists”. It was written for people who want to understand the issue by hearing both sides to the argument, which is why I recommend you buy a copy and read it.
Concerning the statement, “evolution does not rule out belief in God,” it depends what you mean by evolution, and what you mean by God. The idea that molecules changed gradually into people over billions of years by natural processes alone is certainly incompatible with the Creator God who has revealed Himself in the Bible and told us how He created this world.
Tas Walker
Clint,
Answering your second post where you quote Ayala:
Ayala’s error is that he is trying to understand the biblical doctrine of God within a long-age evolutionary worldview. To understand the God of the Bible you have to understand the biblical worldview, and look at things that way.
The Bible says that God created a good world (about 6,000 years ago), a world in which there was no backache, disease, bloodshed or death. These horrible things entered our world as a result of the rebellion of the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, something the Bible calls “sin”. The Bible identifies sin as the #1 problem in our world, a problem that we all need a solution for. There are many articles on creation.com about the issue of the Fall and the problem of sin. Do a search on that site. This issue of disease, death and suffering, and Darwin’s attempt to deal with it, is also covered well in the DVD Darwin: The Voyage that Shook the World.
Clint
Hi Tas,
You say: “… The idea that molecules changed gradually into people over billions of years by natural processes alone is certainly incompatible with the Creator God who has revealed Himself in the Bible and told us how He created this world. …”
This has nothing to do with evolution, this is Abiogenesis.
Evolution does not talk of how the single cell formed, call it God, Aliens, Abiogenesis… you’re choice.
The main problem I think lies where God created everything as it currently is,
If this is the case what species would Adam and Eve be? would they be human? or would they be one of the transitional forms that gradually became human? So I ask is Adam and Eve Australopithecus africanus? would they be Pithecanthropus erectus? or maybe Homo erectus or Sinanthropus pekinensis?
These are fossils that you can go to a museum, look at it, touch it or smell it or are these all very clever conspiracies formed by those evil scientists that are trying to take over the world?
if you are interested in Abiogenesis check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
The problem in the end is that you’re imagination is more important than truth, science or education.
It seems company in the shadows is what you seek and the more company the more real sky daddy and imagination land feels.
I generally have no problem with people and their beliefs I have friends that believe in God(s) Unicorns and fairies and that’s great, I think I agree with most Christians when they that religion belongs at home and in the Churches and if you want it in schools there is a place for it there too, Philosophy!
This quote can be found directly out of the evolution article in Wikipedia but I know that depending on how religiously inclined you are there is a great chance that you pretty much don’t care on learning about it:
“The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
(oh wheew I never entered the spam protection nice work on the website by not losing my post :D)
Tas Walker
Hi Clint,
I’m glad your post was not lost.
The word evolution has many meanings and I defined it as “molecules-to-man” to distinguish from “natural selection”. We are talking about a worldview that seeks to explain everything by natural processes only. Biological evolution is only part of that story. Google “stellar evolution”, “cosmic evolution”, “geological evolution”, “chemical evolution”, etc. These are all aspects of the over arching naturalistic explanation for the universe. In spite of the confident tone that evolutionists exude, the evolutionary story is filled with unanswerable problems.
You ask, “is Adam and Eve Australopithecus africanus? would they be Pithecanthropus erectus? or maybe Homo erectus or Sinanthropus pekinensis?” You say that we can see the evidence for these in the museums. True. However, you are asking the wrong question. The correct question is, “What do these bones mean?” The answer to that question depends on your worldview, on your interpretive framework.
The evolutionist interprets these as transitional forms between “apes” and humans. The creationist interprets these as the remains of post-Flood creatures, some of which are human and others are non-human. See for example The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’—on evolutionists’ terms. This article concludes:
There are lots of articles on this listed here—Anthropology and Apemen Questions and Answers—including articles about some of those bones that you mentioned.
Phil Hart
Let’s face it. The authority for the existence of God is the Bible. Unless you accept the Bible, you are rejecting God. I reject the Bible, as it claims that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old, which flies in the face of all the independent evidence. Ergo, Dr Sarfati is wrong imao. End of story.
Ailsa
Clint: Along the lines of your post above, Professor Dawkins “only” has a PhD in zoology – I could ask what he knows about theology? If the quality of the arguments in his book is anything to go by, the answer is not very much. But he still feels he is qualified to write books like the God Delusion…
Tas Walker
Hi Phil,
You said: “The authority for the existence of God is the Bible.”
No, it is not that way at all. When we see a painting we know there was a painter (even if we can’t see the painter). When we see a building we know there was a builder. The evidence for the existence of the creator God is creation. Have a look at the book By Design: Evidence for nature’s Intelligent Designer—the God of the Bible.
Andy
tas walker,
you are the best. keep up the work!
I don’t think Clint is knowing what he is talking about. He probably thinks “evolution” is just the biological evolution. But there are actually alot more like you said. 6 kinds actually. cosmic evolution (big bang), chemical evolution (how all the chemicals evolved), stellar and planetary evolution (how stars form etc.), organic evolution (how life formed from non-living things), macro and micro evolution (biological evolution). But the difference between macro and micro evolution needs to be clarified, as people would give a example of micro evolution and think that proves the rest of the defenitions of evolution. My conclusion is that evolution is stupid.
Jean-Sebastien
@Tas Walker & Andy : And “theory” just means unsubstantiated scientific concepts, right?
What a bunch of dishonest “thinkers” you are, attacking people on semantics that are irrelevant to their argument.
Mark
Since the dating methods used to verify the earth’s age cannot be verified (without going back in time) and no written records exist past 5,000 years, I have no reason to believe the earth isn’t 6,000 years old and that the Fall and Flood caused some major changes to the earth’s composition.
Also, death and disease were not caused by God creating an imperfect creation (heaven forbid), but by the Fall mentioned in the book of Genesis.
Kam
This is retarded. We all know evolution is fact, and while dawkins discussed areas that arent his expertise, the funny thing is, the experts agree that the evidence shows he is CORRECT. its called peer-reviewed science. this creationist jargon is a joke and you are clutching at short straws if you REALLY think a word in it is true.
Grahame Gould
And even “written records” of “5,000 years” ago are questionably dated. There have been a number of articles in the Journal of Creation (a CMI publication) that point out the inflated ages of the Egyptian chronology and how untrustworthy it is.
The flood was about 4,500 years ago. The only records that exist older than that is found in the most-trustworthy, best verified, and most vilified (as well as most loved) book on earth.
No matter the blind hatred of God’s word, I’ll continue to trust it. It’s not blind faith – it’s the most logical and solid position to take.
rameshraju
Adam and Eve are first Homo Sapiens. Homo Neanderthalensis (Neanderthal Man) was extinct about 25,000 years ago, where as Bible was started in 1800 B.C., during middle of vedic period. In ancient times the other species of Homonoids were not considered to be humans.
Tas Walker
Hi rameshraju,
According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were created about 6,000 years ago (See Genesis chapters 1–11). All their offspring perished in the global Flood, except for eight people: Noah and his three sons and their wives. Everyone alive today is descended from Noah, so we are all related, including you and me! Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and H. erectus are fully human—they illustrate the sort of morphological variation among humans, a variation that we still see today. The fossils that are used to illustrate the evolutionary story are mostly individuals that died and were buried after the Flood, although some could possibly be the remains of individuals that perished during the Flood. For a comprehensive list of articles dealing with this subject see: Anthropology and ape men questions and answers. What confuses this issue is the dates assigned to the fossils. It is important to remember that these are based on assumptions that already accept the evolutionary long-ages (see The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods). The fossils would be less than 4,500 years old.
SK
Young earth creationism is not just bad science, it’s absolutely bad reading of the Bible without a robust hermeneutic backing. Biblical literalism is populist evangelicalism went awry.
Tas Walker
Hi SK,
That is a ridiculous assertion. You have obviously not read any young-earth literature on science and the Bible. See, for example, the articles under this Bible, God, Theology topic.
Sid
Mark
Cannot be verified? Well, if the data we’ve compiled over more than a century from which we can conclude the universal scientific laws and theories that describe the observable phenomena of radioactive isotope decay (and thus with some degree of accuracy, dating) cannot be verified, we need to completely rethink Atomic theory, and therefore the entire fields of Chemistry and Physics redesigned from the bottom up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
Tas Walker
Hi Sid,
There is a difference between experimental science, where the processes can be studied over and over and ‘historical’ science where the processes, which occurred in the past, cannont be observed. Have a look at this article, which talks about the nature of science.
John Heininger
Says Clint,
As Charles Darwin had absolutely no scientific degrees. So I would assume on the basis of this logic that Clint will now disregard every thing Darwin said or wrote, and buy more copies of Sarfati’s book, who, after all, is better qualified.
SSB
I realise this is a late entry but consider the information issue:
Evolution (biological / morphological) runs on natural selection and the mutations it generates (supposedly beneficial mutations), in order to go from a lower to a higher organism there needs to be a gain in/of information in the genome.; which is the basic tenant for evolution to occur.
Yet when observed it has been proven that mutations actually only degrade the genetic code and certainly don’t add additional new information.
Even bacterial resistance to drugs has proven to be information loss. The bacteria gene-receptive area has lost shaping information so now the ‘drugs’ do not fit into the active site and effect/kill the bacteria. While the ‘benefit’ is obvious to the bacteria and the observer, the bacteria are actually much less ‘fit’ than their non-mutated cousins in the general environment.
[see the example of nylon degrading bacteria also]
To say the so called ‘benefit’ proves evolution is spurious reasoning and unscientific; real scientists investigated how the bacteria adapted and found it is due to genetic information loss – which is contradictory and in opposition to Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.
Due to the findings by bio-chemists and geneticists in the field of Information Sciences; Proof exists that evolution simply cannot take place…this is a fact of science.
Edward Macguire
If the Bible version of creation is the ‘correct’ one, why is it more correct than ancient Egyptian creation stories, or the creation stories of the Maya or the Mesopotamian’s etc.? What fact(s) makes the Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation story any more believable that other creation stories? Someone once said that everyone is an agnostic; we all disbelieve in every god but our own.
Tas Walker
Hi Edward,
That is a really important question. How can we figure out which claims are true? Basically, you need to test the claims against other sources. It’s a fact that the Bible is well supported by archaeological evidence (see Heritage of Evidence in the British Museum). Other articles that deal with this include Who is the rightful owner and Holy books?