Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   any good anti-evolution books?
lefnire
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 29 (216929)
06-14-2005 7:33 PM


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)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 06-14-2005 9:29 PM lefnire has not replied
 Message 5 by dsv, posted 06-14-2005 10:44 PM lefnire has not replied
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-14-2005 10:53 PM lefnire has not replied
 Message 7 by dsv, posted 06-14-2005 10:53 PM lefnire has replied
 Message 16 by Truth, posted 09-17-2005 10:28 AM lefnire has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 2 of 29 (216963)
06-14-2005 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lefnire
06-14-2005 7:33 PM


quote:
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)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lefnire, posted 06-14-2005 7:33 PM lefnire has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 3 of 29 (216968)
06-14-2005 9:37 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by mick, posted 06-14-2005 10:28 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 06-20-2005 7:08 AM mike the wiz has not replied

mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 4 of 29 (216979)
06-14-2005 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mike the wiz
06-14-2005 9:37 PM


tautology
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 06-14-2005 9:37 PM mike the wiz has not replied

dsv
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 5 of 29 (216984)
06-14-2005 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lefnire
06-14-2005 7:33 PM


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. Behe
Darwin 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lefnire, posted 06-14-2005 7:33 PM lefnire has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 29 (216986)
06-14-2005 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lefnire
06-14-2005 7:33 PM


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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lefnire, posted 06-14-2005 7:33 PM lefnire has not replied

dsv
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 7 of 29 (216987)
06-14-2005 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lefnire
06-14-2005 7:33 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lefnire, posted 06-14-2005 7:33 PM lefnire has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by lefnire, posted 06-20-2005 2:16 AM dsv has not replied

lefnire
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 29 (218153)
06-20-2005 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by dsv
06-14-2005 10:53 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by dsv, posted 06-14-2005 10:53 PM dsv has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-20-2005 9:18 PM lefnire has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 9 of 29 (218165)
06-20-2005 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by mike the wiz
06-14-2005 9:37 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 06-14-2005 9:37 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 29 (218268)
06-20-2005 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by lefnire
06-20-2005 2:16 AM


I would check out
ICR's layman's IMPACT articles The Institute for Creation Research
ICR'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by lefnire, posted 06-20-2005 2:16 AM lefnire has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by lefnire, posted 06-21-2005 4:15 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

lefnire
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 29 (218451)
06-21-2005 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
06-20-2005 9:18 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-20-2005 9:18 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

paleolutheran
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 29 (244009)
09-16-2005 12:01 AM


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).

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2005 3:22 AM paleolutheran has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 13 of 29 (244011)
09-16-2005 12:08 AM


The web site Was Darwin Wrong reviews a number of anti-evolution books. It might be worth taking your browser there.

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 14 of 29 (244045)
09-16-2005 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by paleolutheran
09-16-2005 12:01 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by paleolutheran, posted 09-16-2005 12:01 AM paleolutheran has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 15 of 29 (244101)
09-16-2005 9:12 AM


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.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024