|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: any good anti-evolution books? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lefnire Inactive Member |
I'm not a christian, but i'm open for anything that's credible. What are the more popular and credible creationist books out there? (specifically refuting evolution that is)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" is not too awful, but it's arguments are fallacious. It's just that he makes fewer errors than most Creationists because he's an actual scientist. He still makes fatal errors, however. There aren't any books which claim to refute evolution that are entirely scientifically or logically credible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
A fallacious argument isn't an untrue argument.
Nevertheless, I don't see how Behe made any mistakes. It's far more logical to see intelligent design, in intelligent design. It's the simplest explanation according to the priniciple of parsimony. Evolution is a good idea, but it's not enough of a mask to hide the beauty and intelligence and information found in nature. It seems that any system must have all it's parts or it won't work. That is an entirely logical position. All mutations would have to be part of a system, while at the time leading to a better one. The answers are just silly, naturalistically there is just too much to believe in when the intelligent designer is the obvious answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
To Mike the Wiz:
mike the wiz writes: It's far more logical to see intelligent design, in intelligent design. I thought this was funny - a typical ID argument. To lefnire: Hi Lefnire, Evolutionary theory is pretty much unassailable so there aren't really any "good" anti-evolution books. You might be able to find "influential" books though. Mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dsv Member (Idle past 4755 days) Posts: 220 From: Secret Underground Hideout Joined: |
The Holy Bible.
Just kidding. Seriously though, Anti-Evolution : A Reader's Guide to Writings Before and After Darwin by Tom McIver -- the book itself is not anti-evolution but it's a reference to all sorts of anti-evolution literature. As for actual "anti-evolution" books, they are hard to come by really. Serious ones anyway. You'd have more success looking for Intelligent Design. I must say I haven't read too much ID but I will give you my suggestions from what I have: Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. BeheDarwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel Uncommon Dissent by John. Wilson Hope this helps. I encourage the reason-minded free thinkers and believers alike to explore all possibilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Yes, at present there's not that much around. I recommend those menitoned above.
Otherwise you're left either with (i) Old material which has not been updated (eg Morris et al). Books on the fossil record by people like Gish however, still have a lot of good points to make.(ii) Kids books. (iii) Highly technical stuff. Like the RATE book on the new helium diffusion method of dating that shows that radiodecay was probably accelerated (helium from radiodecay is still present but hasn't diffused out of the granites despite supossedly plenty of time to do so).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dsv Member (Idle past 4755 days) Posts: 220 From: Secret Underground Hideout Joined: |
I also have Intelligent Design by William A. Dembski on the bookshelf but have not yet read it. Anyone here read it? Is it any good?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lefnire Inactive Member |
So it seems that ID is the common consensus in the creationist community. I guess I should have been less facetious with the whole "anti-evolution" thing. I've read Darwin's Black Box and some Dembski, and for all the anti-evolutionists I know, I haven't found much non-children literature strictly anti-evolution. Now macro/micro bla bla bla, but ID seems to accept even macroevolution in its fullest, minus the freak-accident part (at least from what I'd surmised from Behe's works?)
So maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree and should be looking into how evolution is biblically permissible to the IDists. Thanks for the suggestions, I think I'll pick some of those up as the same ones were recommendations from other sources as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Mike,
A fallacious argument isn't an untrue argument. There is no compelling reason to accept it as true, either. That's rather the point of showing a fallacious argument. A fallacious argument is moot.
Nevertheless, I don't see how Behe made any mistakes. It's far more logical to see intelligent design, in intelligent design. It's the simplest explanation according to the priniciple of parsimony. Behe's mistake was that he made an unwarranted conclusion from an unwarranted assumption. He failed to show IC is unevolvable, which his conclusions require. Invoking a deity is not the most parsimonious explanation. An explanation that requires the "rules" of chemistry & physics that we observe today would be the most parsimonious. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
I would check out
ICR's layman's IMPACT articles The Institute for Creation ResearchICR's intermediate level articels Topics | The Institute for Creation Research ICR's tech papers ICR Research | The Institute for Creation Research AIG's layman's articles Article Archives | Answers in Genesis AIG's tech journal (TJ) Answers | Answers in Genesis The Recolonisation Flood Model recolonisation.org.uk for easy to read layman's and also tech/scientific material on young-earth creation approaches if I was you before you presume that theistic evolution is the only possibility. I'm a mainstream PhDed sceintist and there's simply no need to go down that track. Recent creation is a viable possibility if you take the Flood and its aftermath seriously. I subscribe to the TJ hard copy (see above list) and it is fascinating high quality peer-reviewed material three times a year. This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-20-2005 09:20 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lefnire Inactive Member |
dsv, I'm almost done with "the case for a creator," now... thanks for that! I'm really impressed with Strobel's attitude... he's very fair, and doesn't presume authority, but allows the authorities to speak, which I like. He's a wonderful exception to my creationist experience with the likes Josh McDowell and Kent Hovind, who are really mean, which just makes me want to stop listening. I read "darwin's black box," and I'm still having trouble distinguishin ID from deism, which just seems to me like more spiritually speculative aethism.
Tranquility, thanks for those articles.. i've browsed over ICR and AIG, but was overwhelmed with how many articles there were, so thanks for giving me a starting point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paleolutheran Inactive Member |
I found Cornelius Hunter's book "Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil" a pretty good anti-evolution book dealing with the history and philosophy of evolution at the time of Darwin. He argues (rather well) that Darwinian evolution was just as much a religious idea as an areligious idea at the time. He is a scientist (PhD in biophysics from U of IL) and does spend some time talking about some more popular icons of creation, but his philosophical and historical interpretations are very interesting (and the primary reason to read the book) and give both creationist and evolutionist a new way of looking at the controversy. I don't know why it's not as popular as many other books. Maybe it's because he doesn't come straight out and say his views about the age of the earth (just from his interpretation of what the fall is and how it affects structures in lower organisms I'm guessing young).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
The web site Was Darwin Wrong reviews a number of anti-evolution books. It might be worth taking your browser there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
I've not read Hunter's book but his main argument is bullshit.
Sicne the dominant pre-Darwinian view was divine creation, arguing for Darwinism required comparing it with Divine Creation. Those arguments have a religiosu element sicne Divien Creation is a religious view. THus they do not indicate that Darwinism is religious in itself. Yet it is precisely such argumentss that Hunter appeals to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins actually sets out very good arguments against evolution, generally much better than is found in most Creationist books.
Of course, he then tears those arguments to shreds, but I find it telling that it takes a scientist who accepts evolution to make the most intelligent arguments against it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024