How can you tell an honest inquirer from a rationalizer? Honest inquirers are ready to follow the argument wherever it leads, while people who just want to strengthen their own views avoid anything that might shake their beliefs.
Which of these are you? If you are an honest inquirer, you will also wish to read the author whom Sarfati is criticizing, in order to get a fair idea of the case. It is a bit lazy to just read Sarfati's attack without looking at the original. That would be like a judge just listening to the prosecutor's side without bothering to hear the defense.
So by all means read Sarfati, but if you are serious make sure you read Dawkins also. Actually, reading Charles Darwin himself would be an even better idea. He's the one who persuaded most people to begin with. Sarfati's work may be useful in getting some people interested in science, but unfortunately many people will use it as an excuse to stop inquiring.
Was this review helpful to you?
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
2 of 4 people found the following review helpful
Four StarsFeb. 25 2015
- Published on Amazon.com
Another good read about the deception by the powers that be.
96 of 162 people found the following review helpful
the greatest hoax on earthJune 6 2010
- Published on Amazon.com
"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation (the fundamental evolutionary principle of uniformitarianism)." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. (2 Peter 3:3-6)
This verse, written in 1st century AD and written about this very time in our history, demonstrates why all the 1 star and 2 star ratings with their comments are here, and why someone like Dawkins who has no fundamental knowledge of Science is the darling of the atheistic world. Someone on her actually hailed Dawkins credentials ("one of the worlds great evolutionary biologists")and tried to denigrate Saftari by saying he only had a Phd in physical chemistry? It just goes to show the abject ignorance by those professing themselves to be wise. As someone with expertise in both disciplines, I can state categorically that Chemistry is a foundational science, and without it, there is no biology (or in dawkins case, zoology).
This author does an excellent job of refuting all of the points dawkins attempts to make. Should one read this book with a desire to understand where the scientific evidence truly does lead in this discussion, they will come away convinced that evolution is exactly what the title of this book states it is; the greatest hoax on earth. And Dawkins? Elmer Gantry of the atheist crowd, who, along with Eugenie Scott, NCSE, Nature, Discovery, NG, and the Smithsonians, and a number of other "evolutionary scientists" (and i use the term scientist here very loosely), are the evolutionary "high priests", worshiped by their followers, and leading the gullible, the deceived, and the "willfully ignorant" (as the Bible refers to them) to a place of complete science fantasy, and the absence of any scientific truth!
Keep leaving your 1 star and 2 star reviews, "scoffers". While your review have nothing to do with science literacy, with each stroke of your keyboards you do simply further validation of the God you don't believe in and His knowledge of exactly what you would be like, and why you do what you do.
29 of 51 people found the following review helpful
Excellent refutation of Dawkins' book, "The Greatest Show on Earth". Demonstrates the superiority of the creationist position!Nov. 16 2013
Big Moe Barks
- Published on Amazon.com
I highly recommend this book as I believe it achieves it's primary objective of refuting Richard Dawkins' book entitled, "The Greatest Show on Earth", which is supposed to provide a great deal of evidence for evolution. I read Dawkins' book carefully two times in order to categorize the primary arguments he provided for evolution, then did the same for this book in order to evaluate the rebuttals. I then did a third cursory review of each book to ensure that no main arguments or counterarguments were missed. I'll go chapter by chapter summarizing Dawkins' book then give the response by Sarfati. I'll then present a hypothetical "what-if" scenario under the assumption that special creation was the dominant paradigm today. I apologize for the length of the review, but I couldn't find a way to shorten it without giving up substance. What follows next is a chapter by chapter analysis of Dawkins' book along with the rebuttal and evaluation: Chapter 1: There are repeated claims that evolution is a fact and a fair number of insults to creationists but no evidence is presented.
Chapter 2: This is about artificial selection and uses dogs and cabbages as examples. The response is that this artificial selection involves loss of genetic information, narrows the gene pool and is consistent with variation within created kinds.
Chapter 3: Dawkins describes how natural selection works and proves it is true. Creationists agree that it is true and did long before Darwin. It removes genes from a population and drives changes in the wrong direction needed for particles-to people evolution. Many problems are presented for evolution (including decay of the human genome).
Chapter 4: Argues that the earth is very old and gives examples of dating methods which support this. In the rebuttal, serious problems with dating methods showing old ages are demonstrated and accumulating evidence for young earth is presented. It should be noted that even if the earth were very old, it would only be a prerequisite for evolution, not evidence.
Chapter 5: Modern day examples of supposed evolution are presented. These are shown to be minor variation within created kinds, and the changes lose information and functionality. No evidence is put forth for molecules-to microbiologist evolution.
Chapter 6: This chapter is about the non-human fossil evidence for evolution. Dawkins presents proposed intermediates, but claims evolution would be a fact even if there were no fossils. He tries to explain away the absence of Cambrian ancestors. In response, the widespread absence of fossils documenting evolutionary change is said to be evidence against evolution. The fossil record is substantially complete as most currently living creatures have been found as fossils. There are very few fossils which can be considered as intermediate and these are often fragmentary without transitional features. The Cambrian Explosion is emphasized with no ancestors being found for the myriads of life forms which suddenly appear. It is noted that the fossil record is very rich in end forms, with the paucity being in intermediates.
Chapter 7: Human fossil evidence is presented. Specifically, the australopithecines are asserted to walk upright, followed by homo habilis, homo erectus, then modern man. It doesn't address the "higher powers" humans have such as spirituality, language, etc. In the rebuttal, it is noted that evidence is very small in amount and fragmentary. Australopithecus was shown to have chimpanzee brain size and not walk upright. Homo habilis was considered to be a taxonomic waste bin. Homo erectus was shown to be modern man with seafaring abilities. The "intermediates" disappear upon closer analysis and are either apes or men. Our brains are far more complex than needed for survival and evidence of interbreeding between Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and modern man exists.
Chapter 8: This is about embryology but provides no evidence for evolution but instead an argument that embryology need not be very complicated if we understand that there is no overall plan. Instead there are only individual local rules being followed at various places based on chemical affinities. There is not much to answer, but it is noted that the right sequence is needed for local rules to work, the original cells lacked embryonic programming, and the transition from one-celled to two-celled organisms is ignored
Chapter 9: This discusses geographical distribution of plants and animals and states that most evolution takes place when species are geographically isolated and are no longer able to interbreed when they get back together. The claim is made that biogeography is evidence for evolution (marsupials in Australia, lemurs in Madagascar, etc.). He assumes fixity-of-species and centers-of-creation as creationist doctrines, and explains how plate tectonics works. The rebuttal contends that the existing biogeography is also consistent with and expected by the model of the Flood and post-Flood migration. Plate tectonics are accepted, with the caveat that the continents separated much quicker than generally thought. Substantial, detailed evidence is given for this. Variation within kinds is to be expected and there is no problem with all kangaroos or lemurs being one created kind. Marsupials may have survived only in Australia due to competitive pressures or have been brought there by humans when they settled there. Examples are given to show that biogeography presents problems for evolutionists.
Chapter 10: This presents similarities between living things as evidence for evolution, such as mammals and crustaceans. Molecular genetics is said to give the same tree of life that we expected and pseudogenes and junk DNA are said to be leftovers from a time when they did have a function. It is answered that molecular genetics, in fact, give widely differing trees of life not expected by evolutionary theory. In addition, homologous structures are not explained by homologous genes and/or developmental pathways and this was not expected by evolution. A single common Designer explains the similarities. Pseudogenes (Junk DNA) are continually being found to have useful functions. They have been considered junk DNA only because of evolutionary assumptions and our incomplete knowledge.
Chapter 11: Here the claims are made that there is bad design and suffering in nature and these are evidence against a Designer. Examples are blind fish in caves and birds which have lost the ability to fly. Bad design examples are given such as the backwardly wired retina, etc. An example of suffering in nature is that of the Ichneumonid wasp which lays its eggs inside a live caterpillar. It is answered that loss of function is loss of information expected by creationists and that there is evidence that it happened very recently, inconsistent with long ages. The "bad design" examples are shown in detail to actually be good design. Suffering is attributed to the Fall and it is noted that there is evidence that insects do not feel pain and conscious suffering appears to be less than supposed by evolutionists. This is basically a theological, 'God wouldn't have done it that way' argument. There is nothing in this chapter which shows how anything was created by evolution.
Chapter 12: The argument is that nature should be carefully designed to eliminated waste and extravagance, but it isn't. Dawkins says that tall trees and arms races between species (i.e. cheetahs and antelopes) are wasteful and inefficient. Suffering in nature is brought up again. There is really nothing to answer here in terms of evidence for evolution, but it is said that tall trees provide good biodiversity. The Fall is then mentioned again, that carnivores need not have originally been so disposed, and that many germs seem to be degenerated forms of benign ones. The arms race is strictly speculative, not historical.
Chapter 13: The last paragraph of the Origin of Species is commented on in detail. The RNA World theory on the origin of life is favored, but no evidence is given of how it might have happened. Dawkins claims we don't need a plausible theory for the origin of life in order to believe in evolution. Again, there's not much to answer here, but Sarfati devotes an entire chapter to the origin of life presenting the problems for a naturalistic origin in substantial detail (including why the RNA World theory doesn't work). We are not even remotely close to understanding how life could have originated without a Programmer.
Chapter 14: Appendix - Dawkins laments that over 40% of Americans believe in recent special creation and that the percentage is growing in Europe, including Great Britain. There is no evidence for evolution presented here, thus nothing to answer.
In summary, a detailed analysis shows very little evidence for evolution and many major problems for evolution which do not seem to have adequate answers. Now for the "what if" scenario.
What if creation were the dominant paradigm today, with all the public backing (funding) evolution currently enjoys and was challenged by a minority evolutionist view with very limited financial resources and open opposition by the establishment? The hypothetical evolutionist minority would be asked to give a plausible detailed explanation for how life originated and would be completely incapable. They would be asked for the vast number of transitional forms that must have existed and would not be able to supply them. The would be asked why homologous genes and embryonic developmental pathways do not lead to homologous structures in adults and be unable to give convincing answers. They would be asked about the myriad examples of apparent design in nature and how it came about by chance, such as insect metamorphosis, the bat's echolocating machinery, the origin of multi-celled organisms, etc. The answers would consist primarily of hypothetical stories, not empirical supporting evidence.
Natural selection, comparative anatomy/biochemistry and biogeography would be put forth by the minority evolutionist camp, but would immediately be recognized as being entirely consistent with the biblical model. The question may then arise as to why the earth and the living creatures in it should have such beauty, intricacy, complexity and interconnectedness if it was not designed. The answer may be that it had to be this way for us to be aware of our existence. This answer would be inadequate because the Creation did not have to be this complex as to "stagger the imagination" (Dawkins' words), far beyond what natural selection would have needed to provide for survival. These types of questions, for which there is no good naturalistic answer, can be multiplied exponentially when looking at the physiology of specific creatures.
It seems that being in the minority and challenging the hypothetically dominant creation science paradigm, so poorly armed from an evidentially perspective, would probably produce few converts to evolution. Hopefully, in this situation, public debates and open presentation of both sides of the issue would be encouraged, unlike today. There would not even be a pragmatic reason to suppress and silence the minority viewpoint as it would not have anywhere near the evidence needed to overturn the prevailing creation science paradigm. In contrast, today the public presentation and debate of both sides of the issue are avoided and discouraged. The best explanation for the Creation remains:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created." (John 1:1-3).
Thanks for reading.
104 of 177 people found the following review helpful
Just because you have a PhD doesn't give you the right to ignore realitySept. 29 2011
G. 'Monk' Stanley
- Published on Amazon.com
This book was loaned to me by a religious friend who decided to see if I would be opened minded. Well, as a man of science, I am open to possibilities when the evidence is there to be peer reviewed. However, when I read the first few chapters I thought it was a joke. Elementary logical fallacies out the wazoo are present in this book. The author clearly does not understand the theory of evolution or anything else for that matter, due in part to his faith in a supernatural, cosmic space daddy. Everything in the book is creationist propaganda used to appeal to massive amounts of ignorant religious people who don't care about simple things like the truth. The authors motives are quite clear, they want to discredit anything that conflicts with a literal interpretation of the bible.
CHAPTER 2, the author attempts to justify a worldwide flood with no evidence at all; also make no attempt to explain exactly where the water originated from to support his statement. The total water supply of the earth is roughly 326 million cubic miles. A cubic mile is defined as the volume of a cube with sides of 1 mile exactly. Due to the rotation of the earth, the earth has a bulge on the equator compared to the poles, so some tricky math is involved to calculate exactly how much water is required for this ridiculous statement. Genesis 7:19 outlines that a flood covered all of mountains, and Gen. 7:20 states that "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.", so that means that water was 15 'cubits' above the tallest mountain. I won't add that figure into the math below, I'll just use Mt Everest's height instead. Everest is 29,028 feet in height (Google; Height of Everest). Someone commented on my review and stated that Everest wasn't at it's present height 6000 years ago, but no matter what I've read about Everest it's been there for eons. This is yet another sad attempt to fix the holes in the bible by people who take it literally.
Per the bible, and the amount of water required to rise to a height of 29,000 feet in 40 days is around 360 inches an hour. 348,336 inches of rain in 40 days. (362.85 * 24) * 40 = 348,336 inches. (The rainiest place on earth gets 200 inches a year, for comparison.)
In order to justify how much water this is, we will have to perform some pretty difficult math as the Earth isn't exactly even due to tidal bulge. The volume of a oblate sphere is v = 4/3 * pi * a^2b, where a is 6378.137 km and b is 6356.7523 km. (Google: Volume of a oblate sphere) The earth's total volume is about 1.08321x10^12 km^3 in scientific notion (Williams, 2004 "Earth Fact Sheet"). To express this in math terms, V = 4/3 * a^2 * b * pi where a/b are the 2 different sizes of the earth, A for the equator and B for the polar region. (Wikipedia: Geodesy , Volume of the Earth), So, V = 4/3 * 6378^2 * 6356 * pi and V = 4/3 * 6386^2 * 6365 * pi for the formula. We subtract the height of Everest from the Earth, using this: (Everest - Earth) = (1.08773 x 10^12 cubic kilometers) - (1.083032 × 10^12 cubic kilometers) = 4.7×10^9 cubic kilometers.
4.7×10^9 cubic kilometers is 1.13×10^9 cubic miles. There is approximately 1,101,117,150,000 gallons of water in 1 cubic mile, so therefor the flood of 'noah' would need to leave behind 1,244,262,379,500,000,000,000 GALLONS (which is roughly 1.2442623795×10^21, aka 1.2 sextillion gallons of water). The final estimate is roughly 3.6 × volume of Earth's oceans (1.3×10^9 km^3). To place this into perspective, the 'flood of noah' would have [more/just slightly less] gallons of water than grains of sand on the Earth; ie (0.0012 to 12) × the number of grains of sand on the earth (~~ 10^20 to 10^24). So my questions, Where in the world did the water 'come' from and 'go' ? That much 'water' would have dynamically altered the various gases and density in the atmosphere. Since adding another few miles of water, the atmosphere would be pushed outward into space, causing /massive/ changes in the atmosphere. There, is however, another problem. HEAT.
To flood the Earth, we use the previous estimate 4.7 x 10^9 km^3 of water with a mass of 4.525 x 10^21 kg. When this 'flood water' is floating on the surface of the earth, it's storing a gigantic amount of energy, which is transferred to kinetic energy when it's falling from the sky (Per Genesis 7:12 where that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights continuously); When this happens it's turned into heat due to friction, for example:
E=M*G*H, M/G/H being M = Water Mass G = Gravity constant H = Height of water (using previously mentioned calculation)
The flood has to last 40 days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth, daily, is 4.525 x 10^21 kg/40 over 1 day (24 hours, 86400 seconds)
This equals to 1.1068 × 10^17 metric tons daily. Using H as 10 miles, the energy released each day is 1.73584 x 10^25 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to radiate per m^2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times number of seconds in one day (86400 seconds, which is seconds * minutes * hours). That is: E = 1.735384 x 10^25/(4*PI* ((6386)2*86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m^2/s.
Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 joules/m2/sec (Per Modeling Earth's Climate System with STELLA, PSU) and the average temperature is 280 K.
E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal) E (normal) = 215 E (increase) = 391,935.0958 T (normal) = 280.
T = 1800 Kelvin. 1800 Kelvin which is 1526.85C, therefor completely destroying the surface of the planet/all life. Noah wasn't equipped with Star Trek transporters, or force fields, to stop the heat from setting fire to his archaic tugboat. Of course, if I wanted to make a bronze age story seem rational, I'd 'inject' things to make it work as well.
Someone commented on this review by stating that the water originated from 'Fountains of the deep' (Gen 7:11-12). The deepest borehole in the world, Kola Superdeep Borehole, was drilled down to 40,000 feet. At that depth, the temperature was 365F / 180C (Per "Legendary Kola Superdeep" (in Russian). (Journal of Science and Life). The temperature gradient overall is 1º C for every 30 meters, so realistically there is a 166º C increase in temperature / depth ("The Heart of the Earth, San Francisco: Freeman & Cooper, 1968, p. 138.") 166 + 25º C (average earth surface temperature at sea level) = 191º C (Morton 1995). Since the bible doesn't explain how much water in terms of depth/size/layer, I'll just use a 1km , since creation.com and other nonsense sites try and justify it by using either no numbers or vague numbers. So, 1km of water deep underground, below the crust, it would contain roughly 2.399×10^8 cubic miles of water using previously mentioned calculation with height/depth. At 191ºC, the high temperature water would contain energy equivalent of 1.7×10^17 tons of TNT (Steam Tables, New York: Combustion Engineering Inc, 1940, p. 5.) , which is 1.8 times energy output of the sun in one second. 1.7×10^17 tons of TNT /2.399×10^8 = 708.60 megatons of TNT as energy for every cubic mile of water released from 'fountains of the deep'. 700 megatons of TNT would've clearly destroyed Noah and his little leaky boat. This is a rough estimate, but no matter how much of a mistake I make, the released energy is enough to vaporize the atmosphere.
Chapter 11 "Is the earth ancient" is absolutely absurd. Amino acid racemization, Baptistina Asteroid family, Continental drift, Cosmogenic nuclide dating, Erosion, Geomagnetic reversals, Impact craters, Iron-manganese nodules, Length of the prehistoric day, Naica megacrystals, Nitrogen in diamonds, Petrified wood, Relativistic jets, Sedimentary varves, Stalactites, Space weathering, Radiometric dating, annual ice layers, tree ring dating, etc, all point to an ancient earth. The author clearly has an electrical fire in his head, by suggesting all modern scientific dating methods are wrong, and his goofy faith is right. China and many older cultures have history of pottery and some written that are far older than his goofy doomsday cult.
Page 177 - Runaway subduction. This is the same 'theory' purposed by John Baumgardner, which he stated that would release 10^28 joules of energy, about as much as the kinetic energy of the Moon in its orbit around the Earth, which is estimated at 3.856×10^28 joules. That much energy release would've left behind something, such as freaking evidence! Why is it people like the author 'make up' stories to fix the bible's flaws?
Page 189, Dr Sarfati states something about accelerated nuclear decay of isotopes in the past (more or less). There is obviously a problem with this statement; THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO THIS. The internal Earth's heat, 80% of it, comes from heat produced through radioactive decay (Turcotte, DL; Schubert, G (2002). "4". Geodynamics (2 ed.). Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 136-7.), so if you cranked up the decay of isotopes, the internal heat of the mantle/core would rise by a factor of million (guesstimate), and would melt the crust of the earth, boil away the oceans, change the atmospheric gases, burn noah alive, etc. The Earth would look like a small sun! Clearly, the author doesn't care about explaining how the crust of the earth would state solid after being exposed sun-surface like temperatures from miles below, and increase in the atmospheric density, due to the simple fact that water vapor is mass, and Runaway greenhouse effect would cause Earth to become a Venus like planet with a super high atmospheric pressure. The Earth's upper atmosphere would have been contaminated with an enormous concentration of aerosols and solid particles (perhaps massive amounts of radioactive particles), rendering the atmosphere almost opaque due in part to the oceans boiling away. Why doesn't Sarfati explain this? Consider for the fact that there is simply ZERO evidence to support this nonsense, I guess people who voted 5 stars are ignorant of basic things like 8th grade science.
There are many other examples of dismal science in this book. It's clear to me that people like the author of this book want to perpetuate ancient bronze age nonsense as 21st century science. Speaking of dishonesty, the author's association with creation.com makes his 'position' clear. Under their 'About Us':
"(A) PRIORITIES: The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge." and "(D) GENERAL: By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. "
123 of 211 people found the following review helpful
A Polarized and Unscientific AmericaSept. 21 2011
- Published on Amazon.com
What a can an objective reader tell from the widely differing reviews of Jonathan Sarfati's "The Greatest Hoax on Earth - Refuting Dawkins on Evolution? Clearly, America is sharply divided about the validity of biological evolution and deeply troubled by its theological implications. Folks who give this book 5 stars are doing so because it reconfirms what they want to hear, albeit with Safarti's pseudoscientific spin. It helps to link young earth creationism into a general attack on atheism, and Richard Dawkins- the British biologist who also happens to be a controversial and widely published atheist. This book provides comfort for a so-called Christian world view, mostly because readers will be predisposed to accept what Safarti claims "on faith". Other reviewers, like me, will take Safarti to task for his steady stream of inaccuracies and reliance on "god can do anything he wants" explanations. To anyone who understands the scientific methodology (with many Christians, being among them) Safarti's writings seem disingenuous - clearly he has to carefully skirt around the evidence which undermines his credibility. Safarti says, "despite claims by Dawkins and other evolutionists that "perfect missing links" have been discovered, the claims evaporate under careful analysis. However, Safarti avoids giving his readers a serious look at the morphological adaptations in countless transitional fossils. He simply "pooh pooh's" serious anatomical studies that have been going on for a century and a half. I actually challenged Jonathan Safarti to back up a few of his claims on these Amazon forums a few years ago and he deflected my simple questions about his interpretation of the "Cambrian Explosion." Although I won't buy his books and will only read them in bookstores, I'm very familiar with his writings and theological assumptions. It is simply amazing, that in this day and age, those Americans who view the Bible as an infallible natural history - and they represent a slight majority, according to most polls - won't take the time to read a single "real" science books. They do not accept the findings that their nations colleges, finest universities, research hospitals, scientific organizations, biotechnology companies and museum curators teach and incorporate into their work, every single day. They never stop to contemplate, why would thousands of evolutionary biologists, paleontologists and geologists continue with this grand delusion, if it did not produce tangible results? Is it really a vast "godless" conspiracy that involves the Smithsonian Institution, The National Science Foundation, The United States Geological Survey and millions of scientists, worldwide? For too many fundamentalist Christians, their local pastor, a TV evangelist and a creationist author, like Safarti, provides all the information needed to convince themselves that the earth is just a few thousand years old and that dinosaurs and man once coexisted. We are a polarized society and an increasingly unscientific America. This is a national tragedy with serious intellectual, economic and social consequences.