A lie a thousand times repeated becomes a truth
- Goebbels
Thanks to JR for
proofreading.
copyright notice: This review can be freely copied or quoted or distributed.
The book starts with the layout of a 12-point plan, each point
building upon the foundation of the previous one. After that promising
start, the book falls apart.
The first two chapters (1. Truth about reality is knowable, 2. The
opposite of true is false) are utterly unnecessary and can only be
intended to flesh out the book and perhaps flaunt the author's
knowledge of philosophy.
The third chapter contains the purpose of the book. It purports to
prove that the universe is created and that evolution is false. A
motley crew of creationist extremists is
paraded in front of the unfortunate reader to argue various points. The
author's ingenuity is stretched to the limit here. All possible methods
of obfuscation are used: straw man fallacy, omission of evidence,
invincible ignorance, deliberate errors, mistakes, selective quotation,
and of course the straight lie. Sadly, after disgracing themselves in
this way, the authors use the false conclusion at the end of chapter 3
as a cornerstone for proving that miracles exist in chapter 4-5 and
that Christianity is the true religion in chapter 6-12.
Generally the authors seem to have a fair command of scientific jargon
but fail to understand the very basics of science.
Inevitably in a book trying to prove falsehood the authors contradict
themselves a number of times. From chapter 6 things get worse very
quickly and the exhortations of chapter 1 about truth are joyfully
thrown out of the window.
After tediously perusing the book the tired reader realizes that
there is no 12-point plan. There is a 1-point plan to prove that the
universe is created and the point fails to be made.
spelling mistakes
surprisingly few: good spell checker.
| page |
type
|
description |
|---|---|---|
| title |
contradiction |
Bad start. The title of the book "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" is unfortunate. Why? because it implies that it is better to have less faith, and taken to the extreme, no faith. |
| INTRODUCTION |
||
| 17 | straw man phallacy |
Phillip E. Johnson triumphantly
crows:
"One who claims to be a skeptic is actually a true believer in another
set of beliefs." The authors attempt to sow confusion by equating two different
meanings of the word believe. The religious believe relates to faith.
The skeptic believe relates to opinion. |
| 19 |
error |
"University": The term
university is a composite of the words unity and diversity."
This blunder proves that the authors are eager to deceive university is derived from the Latin
universitas (corporation). |
| 26 |
ignorance |
The authors disagree with Carl
Sagan
saying "the Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." But
Carl is perfectly entitled to specify a set named "Cosmos" with
elements
being all there is. The author's alarm obviously stems from the fact
that God is an element of a set. |
| 27 |
straw man
fallacy |
"skeptics have faith that
skepticism is true." This statement is false. Scepticism is not a belief but an attitude of doubt and scrutiny.
The authors "prove" later
in
the book that a belief system cannot prove itself using the
verification principle. Here they are setting skeptics up to be proven
wrong later. |
| 27 |
contradiction |
"atheists are skeptics." The
authors demonstrate elsewhere that people can be atheists for a number
of
reasons not necessarily including scepticism. |
| 30 |
straw man
fallacy |
Nietzsches statement "if one
where to prove this God of the Christians to use, we would be even
less able to believe in him" is based on his conviction that Christians
have distorted and misunderstood the teachings of Jesus. |
| 31 |
contradiction |
C.S. Lewis in his usual
style decides that God has limits. The authors prove elsewhere
He has not. |
| location | type | TRUTH ABOUT REALITY IS KNOWABLE |
|---|---|---|
| 35 |
ignorance |
This whole arduous chapter
"proves" that truth is knowable. Incredibly the authors are not aware
of the
incompleteness theorem proven by Kurt Gödel in 1931 (For any
consistent formal theory that proves basic
arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical
statement that is true but not
provable in the theory.).
Truth is not always knowable. |
| 44 |
straw man
fallacy |
"They say truth can't be known."
False: They say some
truths can't be known. |
| 54 |
half truth |
<either-or> logic and <both-and> logic do not exist. The
logic terms are <inclusive or> and <exclusive or>. It is
clear from the context however that the authors mean <either-or> religion and
<both-and> religion. |
| location | type | THE OPPOSITE OF TRUE IS FALSE |
|---|---|---|
| 59 |
straw man
fallacy |
Empirical verifiability. "That
was it and I sat down". The authors indulge in some smug
self-aggrandizement
here. It is well known that the principle of empirical verifiability
cannot prove itself directly. In such a case proof by contradiction or
proof by exhaustion is used. It is inconceivable that a professor would not
know this. Therefore the whole scenario is a lie. |
| 59 |
straw man
fallacy |
"Immanuel Kant says there is no
way to know anything about the real world". The philosopher says
nothing of the kind. Kant actually said the opposite: there are a
priori and
a posteriori truths. Kant firmly stated that his work does not
deny the
reality of external objects. The senses can be deceived however. e.g. A
prism shows that white light is a mixture of colors. |
| 61 |
contradiction |
"Assume that... the idea in your
mind accurately represents the thing in the real world". This is
madness and dangerous. Anybody would be a sitting duck to liars.
Nothing would ever be investigated. A drunk would see two trees and
bump into both of them. The authors contradict this later when Norm
mistakes
plastic flowers for real ones. |
| 61 |
error |
"How does Kant know the real
world is there?" answer: a priori and
a posteriori truths. |
| 62 |
error |
"The law of the excluded middle"
means only true/false results are allowed. This law is not applicable
to real life. A famous counterexample is Schroedinger's cat that is
alive and dead at the same time. The law is applicable however to some
limited logic systems. |
| 63 |
error |
"Your eyes must be built into
your body for you to see anything." False. Bats and dolphins see with
sound. Some fish see with electrical fields. The authors perforce have
to use
bad analogies because they try to prove a false statement. |
| 64 |
contradiction |
"All the letters on this page
are black." False. There are an infinite number of white letters on the
page. The author's uncertain grip on the rules of logic shows up, not
for the last time. |
| 65 |
ignorance |
"Only people write books" Not
true. Books and music have been written by computers. The authors
should have
written "up to 2006 only people have written good books". |
| 67 |
half truth |
"black were the property of
their owners". In reality all slaves, some being white, were
the property of their owners, some being black.(Michael A.
Hoffman II) |
| 68 |
insult |
"People are pigs with brains".
Traditional insult to skeptics. When common sense fails, use emotion. |
| 68 |
insult |
"Hindus ignore the cries of the
suffering". For good measure another billion people are insulted.
Rich Hindus traditionally give alms to the poor. |
| page | DIVINE DESIGN |
|
|---|---|---|
| 95 |
insult |
"James Tour: Only a rookie who
knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith."
James demotes just about all scientists to rookies, himself excluded. |
| 98 |
ignorance |
"If oxygen were 25% fires would
erupt spontaneously" Wrong. During the Perm period oxygen level reached
31%. The oxygen level in Apollo capsules used in the moonlanding was
100% and this caused one disastrous fire. |
| 98 |
ignorance |
"Below 15% oxygen humans would suffocate" Wrong. Humans can survive 8%, equivalent to an altitude of 8000 meter. |
| 100 |
half truth |
"Atmospheric transparency".
There is no doubt that biological systems can adapt to different levels
of atmospheric transparency. Some life forms survive without any light
at all. |
| 100 |
error |
"Tidal effects too small or too
large would make life impossible." The moon was about 15 times
closer 4.5 billion years ago at 26,000 km. Tidal effects were 225 times
greater. The authors seem to hint that without tides life is
impossible; science is eagerly awaiting evidence to support this
hypothesis. |
| 101 |
half truth |
"CO2 level higher...we would
burn up." No. The CO2 uptake of biological systems would increase in a
biological feedback loop, decreasing CO2 levels. Also there would be
more rainfall, washing CO2 out of the atmosphere. |
| 101 |
error |
"low CO2...plants would not be
able to maintain efficient photosynthesis." This would increase CO2
again in a biological feedback loop. Volcanoes replenish CO2 |
| 102 |
error |
"Gravitational force altered by
1/10^38 ; %...sun would not exist." Good Heavens! The constant of
gravitation is not even known to that accuracy, (6.674 +/- .001) *
10^(-11) ). Someone seems to have stumbled upon the statement "the
force of gravity is 1/10^38 % of the electromagnetic force." |
| 105 |
ignorance |
"1. If the centrifugal force of
planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces
nothing could be held in orbit around the sun." What the heck? This is
the kind of statement one would expect in a lunatic asylum. On the other hand it
neatly sums up the whole book in one sentence. |
| 105 |
ignorance |
"2. if the universe had expanded
... more slowly ... or faster." The rate of expansion is increasing
even now for an unknown reason possible related to dark energy. It is
impossible to give an exact value of the rate of expansion necessary
for life to exist. Most people don't notice the expansion. |
| 105 |
ignorance |
"3. .. slight variation in the
speed of light...impossible for life to exist." Not true. The speed of
light has changed over the eons with a very small fraction. Although
the speed of light affects a lot of natural constants there are many
combinations of constants that would allow some form of life. |
| 105 |
ignorance |
"4. Water
vapour...greater...temperatures too high...less...too cold to support
human life." True, but water vapor
is in a negative feedback loop. Heat causes evaporation, causes clouds,
causes cooling. |
| 105 |
ignorance |
"5. Jupiter...cosmic vacuum
cleaner." Not true. Comets are in a hyperbolic orbit and will be
deflected by Jupiter, not removed. Worse, Jupiter disturbs the orbits
of asteroids and comets in the Oort Belt, sometimes causing them to
fall towards the sun. Jupiter is a cosmic troublemaker. |
| 105 |
ignorance |
"6. If the thickness of the
Earth's crust were greater...oxygen would be transferred, if it were
thinner...volcanoes." The ignorance of the authors is hilarious. 46% of
the Earth's crust is oxygen. The authors must please explain where the
oxygen will travel to and what it will do
upon arrival. Volcanoes are caused by convection currents in certain
areas, never mind the crust. |
| 105 |
ignorance |
"7. Earth rotation
slower...temperature differences...greater...winds." Earth is
slowing down 1.4 ms per day per century. A day lasted 6.5 hours 4.5
billion years ago. A longer day will increase temperature differences
between day and night. The solution is to sleep late. |
| 106 |
ignorance |
"8. 23 Degrees axial tilt." The
tilt varies in a small range at present. In 2 billion years it will
be 66 degrees. In the past it probably changed chaotically but life
persisted. |
| 106 |
ignorance |
"9. Lightning...too
much...destruction...too little...too little nitrogen fixing." Wrong.
Nitrogen is fixed by bacteria. Some places have no lightning, some have
a lot. There is no evidence of lightning affecting population levels. |
| 106 |
ignorance |
"10. Seismic activity." Some
places have a lot of earthquakes, some none. People live with it.. |
| 106 |
error |
"122 constants necessary for
life." Most are irrelevant as shown. There are 6 physical constants
that have to be in a certain range for life to develop: Nu,
Epsilon,Omega, Lambda, Q and Delta. Other constants are constrained by
these 6. The
age of the universe and the fact that it exists calibrates these values
automatically to values that favor life. |
| 106 |
error |
"One change in 10^138 for all
constants to be right." That is wishful thinking, not calculation.
Scientists use the Drake equation to calculate a somewhat
different figure of 1 in 10^7 which means 10,000 planets supporting
intelligent and
communicating life in our galaxy. This is a worst case scenario. |
| 106 |
appeal to
authority |
"Hugh Ross." Has already rejected intelligent design. |
| 107 |
error |
"We happen to be lucky enough to
be in a universe with the right conditions." Causality is violated
here. The assumption is that the environment had no influence on human
evolution. |
| 107 |
error |
"Multiple universes...there is
no evidence for it."
Nobody is qualified to make that statement. A correct statement would
be: "There is no evidence for or against it as yet", as the authors
tacitly
admit one line later: "they're beyond our ability to detect." The
multiverse theory is indeed a hypothesis but it is built on quantum
mechanics, not blind faith. |
| 107 |
error |
"There can't be an unlimited
number of universes." The theory is that universes can sprout new
universes, especially in the first femtosecond when energy density
is high. That this behavior leads to infinity is 5th grade mathematics.
|
| 107 |
error |
"Multiple universes...they would
need finetuning."
Not true. According to string theory natural constants would be random
when a universe started expanding. Inevitable a fraction of this
infinite number of universes would have the right conditions for life. |
| 107 |
scary |
"Multiple universes...any event
can be explained by
it." One hypothesis of quantum mechanics does just that. If it is true
then there is a universe where I am a religious fanatic and the authors are
skeptics. |
| 109 |
error |
"If the stars were closer
together or farther apart, planetary orbits would be affected." No they
would not. Binaries have been found with planets. The authors must
explain how orbits would be affected if stars were farther apart. |
| 109 |
error |
"No limits...the heavens."
According to the Bible the heavens are a crystal half-sphere containing
about 4,000 light bulbs. That's the limit. |
| 109 |
contradiction |
"Infinity of God." The reader
must now forget previous "proofs" that infinity is impossible. |
| 109 |
error |
"Infinite power." All but the
most stubborm fanatics acknowledge God must have limited power because
of the paradox "can God make a stone so heavy he can't lift it?" |
| 109 |
error |
"Infinite knowledge." Proven to
be impossible because of the principle of undecidability. |
| 110 |
error |
"How high are the heavens above
the Earth?" When pressed, any Jew living in Biblical times would have
said about 5,000 km. |
| 111 |
appeal to
authority |
"John Glen: not believe in God
is impossible." This may be true for John. It is known to be false for
other people. |
| page |
THE FIRST LAW: NATURAL LAW OR
DIVINE AWE |
|
|---|---|---|
| 115 |
straw man
fallacy |
"Amoebae ...came together by
spontaneous generation." This was believed by scientists and
theists alike up to the 18th century and was disproved by Pasteur.
Amoebae are in fact very advanced. |
| 115 |
straw man fallacy |
"All life evolved from that
first amoeba." A simplification based on wilful ignorance. |
| 115 |
insult |
"From the goo to you via the
zoo." A poetic image used to insult so-called "evolutionists." Inspired
by American preoccupation with bathroom jokes. |
| 116 |
error |
"Information in amoeba
DNA...1000 sets of encyclopedias." Wrong. Up to 99% of DNA is
non-coding introns. The authors decline the challenge to explain why a
Superbeing would put garbage in DNA(refusing to speculate). A
highly specialized human cell has about 9
Megabytes of data in its DNA, that is 10 "I don't have enough faith"
books or 1 small encyclopedia volume. |
| 116 |
begging the
question |
"Intelligent being...why doesn't
a message 1,000 encyclopedias long require one." A message has a
well-defined source, destination and content. If DNA is a message then
random data is too. Current thinking is that DNA functions like a
computer operating system. The "message" mistake is repeated many times. |
| 116 |
error |
"Darwinists can't answer that
question." They can. The mechanism is called evolution. |
| 116 |
half truth |
"Intelligence is ruled out in
advance." That's true. Religion can be proven by eliminating all
alternatives, not by ignoring them. |
| 117 |
false assumption |
"The emergence of the first life
was a one-time...unrepeatable event." First the authors state that no
human observed
this event, then they claim knowledge about it. In any case, emergence
of life was a series of steps, not one event, and scientists of course are trying to repeat it. |
| 118 |
half truth |
"Principle of uniformity...
presidential faces on mount Rushmore." This is only half true.
Stalagmites are known to produce shapes that resemble existing objects.
Some people see saints in pancakes. |
| 118 |
straw man fallacy |
"discredited Urey-Miller experiment." The purpose of the experiment was to prove that amino acids could be created in the atmosphere of early Earth. Like it or not the experiment was 100% successful. The experiment was not intended to generate life. Jonathan Wells (aka Icon of Obfuscation) claimed that the parameters of the experiment (e.g. early Earth atmosphere) were wrong. He has been proven wrong. |
| 119 |
straw man fallacy |
"Richard Dawkins refuses to
allow observation to interfere with his conclusions." Apparently it was
time to insult another scientist. Richard explains his elegant
conclusions in his book, sadly unread by the authors. |
| 119 |
straw man fallacy |
"Darwinists must keep repeating
that reminder to themselves..." Johnson's hopes are inversely
proportional to reality. |
| 119 |
ignorance |
"Which came first, DNA or
proteins." The authors pretend not to know this: amino acids -
proteins - self-replicating molecules - RNA - DNA |
| 121 |
straw man fallacy |
"Top evolutionists have to
resort to Aliens." Ridiculous statement. It assumes that Fred Hoyle is
an evolutionist. He is not. He is primarily known for outlandish ideas. |
| 121 |
error |
"Panspermia advocates
recognize...intelligence...must be behind life." No they don't. The
theory is that large organic molecules originate in comets. |
| 121 |
straw man fallacy |
"Michael Denton, though himself
an atheist..." Michael first wrote a book called "evolution: a theory
in crisis" Then he wrote "nature's destiny" convincingly debunking his first book.
By then he had probably confused even himself. |
| 122 |
error |
"Darwinism...not philosophically neutral..." To the contrary, believing in magic is not philosophically neutral. Magic cannot be investigated. |
| 123 |
straw man fallacy |
"Dawkins: commitment to a real
explanation as opposed to a lack of explanation." This is the strongest
chastisement the authors are going to get from Dawkins. It is
equivalent to being drawn and quartered by a less kind-hearted
scientist. |
| 123 |
straw man fallacy |
"...we cannot allow a divine foot in the door." This is not the complete paragraph. The authors forgot to add "The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything." which throws a different light on the statement. |
| 125 |
error |
"The probability of getting a protein molecule..." Probability not stated but the number 10^-156 can be inferred. This is a red herring. It is only true if 1) amino acids molecules are postulated and not bigger organic molecules 2) one specific type of protein molecule has to be produced and 3)there is no catalyst present. Using common sense assumptions the probability becomes an estimated 1%. |
| 126 |
straw man fallacy |
"I do deny that science can
account for everything." True, because science is a tool.
Ironically examples given to prove this also deny that supernatural
forces can account for everything. Atkins should not have said "for
everything" but instead "for everything in nature." He obviously
assumed that this was the topic of the debate and got caught by a
philosophical trick.. |
| 127 |
straw man fallacy |
"It [Science] is not the only
means of finding truth." That's not the point. The point is science is
the only means of finding truth in
nature. |
| 127 |
error |
"Science is built on philosophy". False. Science is built on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism. Science can investigate philosophy. |
| 127 |
error |
"Science cannot be done without
philosophy." It's getting worse. Scientists proceed in serene
indifference to
philosophy. What's more, in later pages it becomes clear that with philosophy the authors actually
mean religion. |
| 128 |
error |
"Philosophical assumptions can
drastically impact scientific conclusions." Now it becomes clear. From
the context is
clear the authors really meant religious
assumptions. |
| 128 |
error |
"If a creationist rules out
natural causes beforehand (and we don't know of any who do)...." Let's
refresh the author's memory: James Tour, Robert Jastrow, Michael Behe, William Paley,
Phillip Johnson, Hugh Ross, William Dembski, etc ... |
| 128 |
error |
"Science doesn't say anything - scientists do Here is a conspiracy theory. The authors have to explain how one million scientists keep the secret. |
| 128 |
straw man fallacy |
"Materials makes reason
impossible." Materialism is the wrong word. The right word is
naturalism, the opposite of supernaturalism. The authors want to prove
that abstract concepts like thought are supernatural. As this is
impossible they attack a small part of naturalism and pretend
it is the whole. |
| 128 |
error |
"Thoughts ... are not
chemicals." And authors are not books.
Thoughts are the result of chemicals and electricity. The authors state
without proof that thoughts are supernatural. |
| 128 |
straw man fallacy |
"Human thoughts...are not
comprised only of materials." The authors try to force the conclusion
that thoughts are supernatural through repetition. |
| 129 |
straw man fallacy |
"How much does love weigh?"
Surprisingly a feeling has weight as it changes the energy levels of
atoms in neurons.
Depending on intensity and using E=mc2 the feeling of love weighs a
minimum of 10^-26 gram. A simpler emotion like hate would be less. |
| 129 |
begging the question |
"Make a living being...we
cannot." . Presumable the authors mean a conscious being, which is less
limiting. Although it is impossible now the authors are going to be
mightily dismayed in the near future. There are a few dozen projects
trying to do what the authors say is impossible. |
| 129 |
begging the question |
"Everyone...who ever had any
kind of spiritual experience has been completely mistaken." So what.
This is certainly possible, given that in the USA 40% of people have
mental problems. |
| 129 |
straw man fallacy |
"If materialism is true then
reason itself is impossible." There are several types of error in this
paragraph. Nobody ever stated that thought is a chemical reaction only. |
| 130 |
contradiction |
"A defence of reason by reason
is circular, therefore worthless." The same goes for faith. Reason has
been observed to work however so we should stick to it. |
| 130 |
error |
"An effect cannot be greater
than its cause." Obviously wrong. If true all systems would be
self-dampening and eventually nothing would happen. |
| 130 |
error |
"reasonable...presupposes there
is order, logic, design and truth." No. Logic is enough. |
| 130 |
begging the question |
"Darwinism borrows from the
theistic world view." One must admire the barefaced cheek of the
authors. If truth, logic, design and order were invented by religion,
they should have patented it. |
| 130 |
begging the question |
"Intellect, free will...truth
can exist only if God exists." This is called dogma. Not related to
common sense. 1+1=2. Remove God from equation. It's still 2. |
| 133 |
insult |
"Darwinists have the wrong box
top." A box top is called a prejudice in English. Scientists don't work
that way. The puzzle is called the theory of everything and it is
unknown whether there even is a solution. Theists think they have a box top
but actually they have a hammer. |
| 134 |
straw man fallacy |
"Mixing chemicals of life in a
test tube would produce life." No scientists ever said that. It is like
declaring that throwing Bibles in a concrete mixer would produce the
authors. |
| 135 |
ignorance |
"There are no known laws that
create specified complexity." Or simplicity for that matter. Laws don't create.
More to the point there are now known laws that forbid specified complexity. |
| 135 |
ignorance |
"Einstein said God doesn't play
dice with the universe." Bohr proved Einstein wrong. Hawkings has joked
"God plays dice with the universe and the throws the dice where you
can't see them." |
| 135 |
begging the question |
"Two sorts of causes,
intelligent and natural." The authors have failed to prove that
intelligence is not natural and that bare intelligence is a cause. The
have also failed to specify what intelligence is. |
| 135 |
error |
"Spontaneous generation of
life...required to get the theory started." Not true. Evolution studies
life, not the origin of life. That branch of science is called
abiogenesis. |
| page |
NEW LIFE FORMS: FROM TO GOO TO
YOU VIA THE ZOO |
|
|---|---|---|
| 138 |
ignorance |
"The information content of the
brain...100 trillion bits." To put this in perspective, it is 12
Terabyte, a large hard disk in 2006. The
processing power is more formidable: it can
only be guessed at some 10^16 operations/second. The best
supercomputers are expected to reach this power in 2017. |
| 141 |
ignorance |
"The surviving bacteria always
stay bacteria." In their monumental ignorance the authors believe
that the estimated 100 million species of bacteria are one species. |
| 141 |
ignorance |
"...macroevolution which has never been observed." The appalling ignorance of the authors becomes manifest. Macroevolution is called speciation in biology. A handful of speciation events have been observed as can be expected. The latest is by A P Moczek at Indiana in a study of horned beetles.. |
| 142 |
error |
"Genetic limits." Creationist
fanatics hint that there is a mutation counter in DNA. This would
entail fantastically complex biochemical machinery. |
| 144 |
begging the question |
"Cyclical change...of Darwin's
finches." Without DNA analysis it is impossible to say if Darwin's
finches reverted to the original genotype when climate changed in the
short term. Even if they did it would prove nothing. There was a large
genotype change 3000 years ago when the climate changed in the long
term. |
| 144- 148 |
error |
"Irreducible complexity."
Scientific progress has rendered the whole chapter false. The
intellectually honest fellow-theist Terry M. Gray
has written a paper invalidating the examples given and imploring
religious fanatics not to use this argument. He
warns them they would have to retract everything. But
there is no stopping the authors. They, together with their champion
Behe, are left with egg on their faces. |
| 148 |
error |
"feathers are irreducibly complex." They are not, otherwise there would be only one type of feather. Feathers differ between birds and any one bird has different types of feathers. |
| 148 |
error |
"nonviability of transitional
forms." This has been proven wrong in numerous scientific texts.
According to the authors an ostrich and a lungfish are nonviable.
Feathers have more functions than just flying. The authors also
don't seem to know that birds evolved from dynosaurs, not reptiles. |
| 149 |
scary |
"Common ancestry or common
Creator?" If a malicious Creator would create the appearance of common
ancestry but would expect people to disbelieve the evidence there are some nasty
surprises waiting for theists in Heaven . |
| 150 |
error |
"DNA similarity between humans
and...apes 90 percent...between humans and mice is also about 90
percent." This is meaningless as the authors admit on the same page.
The significant factor is not how
many genes differ but which
ones. |
| 151 |
error |
"Basic types are in molecular
isolation from one another" This proves that basic types have
evolved after speciation. In fact this is an argument for evolution, not
against in spite of the feigned astonishment of Michael Denton. . |
| 152 |
error |
"the fossil record has turned
out to be a complete embarrassment to Darwinists." The fossil record is
now an embarrassment of riches. The authors should get rid of their 19th
century schoolbooks. |
| 153 |
half truth |
"All groups of animals appear
500-600 million years ago." Not all but most. This is called the
Cambrian explosion. The reason is not divine intervention but the
development of hard exoskeletons, driving evolution and enabling
fossilization. Earlier soft-tissue animals did not readily make fossils. |
| 153 |
error |
"99% of the biology of any organism resides in the soft anatomy which is inaccessible in a fossil." Right, that means there is 1% difference between a giraffe and a mouse fossil. I didn't know that. Moreover in spite of the author's proclamations fossils are sometimes found that show details of soft anatomy. |
| 154 |
half truth |
"Many missing links have been
exposed as frauds or mistakes." True, and always by scientists. That's
how science works. The missing link picture is now complete. |
| 155 |
error |
"The fossil record has nothing
to tell us about...rhodopsin." Yes but biochemistry does. The feeble arguments
of Behe are convincingly demolished by fellow-theist Gray. |
| 156 |
begging the question |
"Intelligent
Design." Ken Miller remarked publicly about intelligent design
being a total,
dismal failure scientifically. The ludicrous ID theory was laughed out
of court in Dover of all places. One of the many fatal flaws of ID is
the assumption that evolution must have a Purpose. |
| 157 |
begging the question |
"1000
encyclopedias." DNA is not a message. It would be rather inefficient to
use 1000 encyclopedias to send the message "hello I'm here". |
| 158 |
half truth |
"ID scientists are open to both natural and intelligent causes." This is a straight lie. ID scientists are committed to fraud as became evident in the Dover hearings. |
| 158 |
half truth |
"Give
up." The reason religious fanatics want scientist to give up is fear.
They are afraid that the search for a self-replicating molecule will be
successful. |
| 159 |
error |
"Opponents of Galileo." The
opponents were and still are theists. |
| 160 |
error |
"He
could have a bias and still be right." No, he can't. Martin Luther:
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of
the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a
useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would
accept them." |
| 160 |
error |
"Design
isn't perfect." The authors skilfully dance around the issue that
according to the Bible man is created in God's likeness. Animals don't
have to be perfect, but man does. |
| 162 |
straw man fallacy |
"There
must be something else at stake here." There is. The kind-hearted
Richard Dawkins is constantly pestered by creationists trying to quote
him out of context. |
| 162 |
begging the question |
"Allowing
...God...relinquish their claim of absolute authority." The authors
have to produce the name of a single scientist who holds this view. |
| 162 |
begging the question |
"Miracles may happen." As there
is not one single case of a verified miracle this is the correct
attitude. |
| 163 |
insult |
"In Darwinism there is no moral accountability." Thank you very much. The picture of Darwinists as sexually depraved monsters seems somewhat extravagant. Wait a moment - no, that was priests and children. |
| 167 |
half truth |
"After our children see all the
evidence." Great: the authors suggest teaching the general theory of
relativity to children. Do the authors also recommend letting the
children choose between different theories of gravitation? |
| page |
MOTHER TERESA VS. HITLER |
|
|---|---|---|
| 170 |
begging the question |
"The
fact that a moral standard has been prescribed on the minds of all
human being points to a Moral Law Prescriber." Obviously false.
Instinct and learned behavior would have exactly the same effect. |
| 171 |
begging the question |
"Every law has a law giver."
Cannot be assumed, the authors must prove this. According to their own
logic, the authors would have to know all laws and investigate every
last one to be able to claim this. |
| 178 |
contradiction |
"C.S.Lewis: your ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true." Lewis contradicts himself here. In the same book a few page previously he states that between moralities "the differences are not really very great; not nearly so great as most people imagine and you can recognize the same lay running through them all." |
| 186 |
straw man fallacy |
"Moral Law...most Darwinists
avoid the subject completely." Untrue and unfair. Here is what they
say: morals are part involuntary instinct and part learned behavior.
Humans are not machines programmed by a Superbeing. |
| 187 |
straw man fallacy |
"Darwinism attests that only
materials exist." The authors repeatedly insinuate that materialism is
the opposite of supernaturalism. It is not. The opposite of
supernaturalism is naturalism. |
| 187 |
ignorance |
"stronger instinct...not get
involved." The authors treat a human as a machine. The decision to get
involved is made on the basis of instinct but also thought. Probability
of success, background, experience, fitness, age, legal issues, support
and many other factors are evaluated. That is what a brain does. |
| 188 |
error |
"Darwinism...has no end."
Darwinism is a theory. It is not supposed to have and end. Compared to
this Christianity has as its end the destruction of the universe,
punishment of common sense, reward of the stupid and terminal arrest of
motivation. |
| 188 |
error |
"Self
destructive behavior." The reason is posturing, with the purpose of
impressing the opposite sex. Animals do it. Authors do it. Animals risk
their own lives to help their own kind, especially females with young. |
| 189 |
begging the question |
"criminals and dictators have
lengthened their own survival..." Not on this planet. The authors must give at
least one name. |
| 189 |
error |
"Hitler:
...no right to exist." The authors should mention here that Hitler
used the Bible to justify persecution of the Jews. Specifically the
fact that Jesus assaulted Jews with a whip. |
| 190 |
error |
"Kill
newborn infants." The idea does not originate from Darwinism.
Infanticide in case of birth defect was practised by the Romans and
probably by many other civilizations. It may be a coincidence that when
the practice was stopped the Roman Empire collapsed. Infanticide is
still practised in India and China. |
| 190 |
error |
"Darwinists
can give no moral reasons." The authors gradually try to slip in the
notion that morals are supernatural. However it is possible to have
morals for intellectual reasons or even for no particular reason. |
| 193 |
begging the question |
"God doesn't make rules up on a
whim." A Superbeing can do whatever It likes. The authors must reveal
the source of their revelation and beware the wrath of the insulted
Superbeing. |
| 193 |
error |
"Atheism cannot justify." Poor
Darwinists: after being attacked for several chapters they suddenly
turn into atheists. |
| page |
MIRACLES: SIGNS OF GOD OR GULLIBILITY? | |
|---|---|---|
| 199 |
error |
"God is infinite." The authors clumsily try to prove this with the assertion that if you subtract something from infinity you get something less than infinity. This is not true. Infinity - x = infinity. |
| 200 |
begging the question |
"He cannot ravish." Lewis tempts
fate by prescribing how a Superbeing must think. By definition
the thought processes of a Superbeing are inscrutable. |
| 203 |
error |
"...a God who created the entire
universe..." The authors have failed to prove this in previous
chapters. Now they are using this statement as the only proof that
miracles occur. |
| 211 |
contradictory |
"Intelligent design." Cannot be
classified as a miracle according to the author's logic because it
does not break any natural law by definition. |
| page |
DO WE HAVE EARLY TESTIMONY ABOUT JESUS? | |
|---|---|---|
| 221 |
error |
"Flavius Josephus." The single
paragraph about Jesus confirming the
whole New Testament sounds too good to be true. It is. We now know that
this paragraph was interpolated 3 centuries after Josephus wrote his
book, probably by the infamous forger bishop Eusebius. The
authors must know that. |
| 222 |
error |
"...the brother of Jesus, who
was called Christ." At present count the existence of 19 Jesus Christs
is known in the New Testament period, all of them involved in seditious
activities and correspondingly short-lived. There is no way to prove
that this episode concerns the right one or that there is a right one. |
| 222 |
error |
"There are 10 non-Christian
sources that mention Jesus." Actually there are none. The Josephus
source is a forgery. Celsus mentions the bastard son of a prostitute
and a soldier, hardly edifying. Tacitus is probably a forgery since the
term "Christian" did not exist in his time. The
entry in the Talmud is a forgery intended to discredit
Christians - as the authors
themselves admit in later chapters. The letter from Pilate to
Tiberius is forged. All the other sources mention Jewish sects, not
Jesus or Christians.. |
| 225 |
half truth |
"Rylands fragment...Earliest
undisputed manuscript...117-138." This is misleading. The earliest complete manuscripts are from the
4th century, 200 years later. The uncertainty in the dating of the
fragment is greater than the authors acknowledge, the range is 125-195
AD. By the way, this is a scrap 9 cm long, not a Bible. |
| 226 |
half truth |
"Number of surviving copies."
The authors sadly neglect to divulge the quality of the surviving
copies and the probability of forgery. Christian scribes had an
incentive to forge, classical scribes not. Also non-Christian
personalities leave other proof of their existence like coins and
sculptures. |
| 227 |
error |
"50 AD...the scholar who first
identified these fragments...New Testament...Jose O'Callahan..." Four
partial words on a scrap of paper! Carsten Peter Thiede easily
demolished that farfetched speculation. |
| 227 |
error |
"New Testament gap...25 years. "
No, actually it is more than 200 years. This is artful deceit. The
important factor is the time lapse between the event and its recording.
For classical text this time lapse is usually 0: instantaneous. For the
gospels the time lapse is an inexplicable 40-70 years. For comparison,
legends about Beethoven arose during
his lifetime. |
| 229 |
error |
"There is no way one scribe or
priest could change the Word Of God." So they say. During the bitter
fights between Christian sects in the 5th century bishop Faustus
lamented: ""Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the
speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not
with his faith..." |
| 229 |
error |
"200,000 errors in the New
Testament." The authors neglect to mention that hundreds of New
Testament books including a round dozen gospels are rejected because of
non-conformity or errors. This is called preselection bias. They
should be included in the error count, bringing it closer to 2,000,000.
Some serious errors are not acknowledged; they
would increase the real error rate still more. |
| 234 |
half truth |
"The New Testament writers had
no reason to make up a new religion." False: this was the main
preoccupation of the Jews, as the authors mention later.
History of the Jews is replete with idolatry, false prophets,
superstition. The Jews felt betrayed by Yahweh after the Romans
destroyed Palestine and were looking for a new Hero. |
| 238 |
error |
"Of course!" Of course not! The
gospels refer to predictions of the future. If the gospel authors
knew that the events had transpired they would have no qualms inserting
them as prophecies. |
| 241 |
error |
"Paul quotes from Luke 10:7."
Not quite; the quotes are not identical (reward - hire) and one quote
would not make a trend in any case. More likely is that both quotes refer to a lost
Old Testament book. Paul quoted exclusively from the Old Testament. In spite of the efforts of the
authors it is clear that Paul's letters were written 25 years before
the first gospel and that he knew nothing about the gospels or the life
of Jesus Christ. |
| 242 |
error |
"Where did Paul get what he
received?" From the council of Jerusalem, about 51 AD. The religions of
Paul and the apostles - the Paulites and the baptists - merged at
this council. |
| page |
DO WE HAVE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY ABOUT JESUS? | |
|---|---|---|
| 251 |
error |
"Claim to be eyewitnesses." Paul
is the only possible eyewitness of Jesus who wrote Biblical texts. The
authors must be dismayed by the fact that Paul, a law enforcer in
Jerusalem, does not once mention seeing Jesus or being aware of gospel
events, His trial, execution, darkness and earthquake. |
| 259 |
contradiction |
"Is there any doubt that Luke was an eyewitness?" Indeed there is. The authors claim that Luke can only be accurate if is he is an eyewitness. How can they know he was accurate without being eyewitnesses themselves? In any case nothing is known about the identity or even the existence of any of the apostles or gospel writers, which makes them bad eyewitnesses. |
| 262 |
error |
"Hematohidrosis." Sweating
blood. This condition has never been observed by medical science. |
| 262 |
error |
"Since Luke is telling the truth
then so are Mark and Matthew." Does not prove anything. Mark wrote the
first gospel. Matthew, Luke and John copied it with progressive
embellishments and antisemetism. Skeptics don't feel particularly
devastated by this. |
| 263 |
ignorance |
"The wine miracle was an
unlikely invention." No, wine or vinegar was used to sterilize water. |
| 267 |
error |
"Pilate had to walk a fine
line." Not at all. Pilate was later recalled to Rome because of extreme
brutality. What's more, Pilate held office in Caesarea, 110 km from
Jerusalem. It was impossible to take Jesus to Pilate. Obviously the New
Testament writers didn't know that. This is a serious error. |
| 267 |
error | "crucifixion of Jesus...non
Christians sources." None, only forgeries. |
| 267 |
error |
"John would not have known of
this medical condition." Of course he would. With thousands of rebels
routinely crucified these gory details would be the equivalent of the
details of today's soap operas. |
| 271 |
error |
"Non-Christian writers
collectively reveal a storyline." No, they don't. Not a single one. |
| 271 |
error |
"Why would they have done so for a fictional story." The authors must explain why Muslims do so for a fictional story. In any case, there is only one independently verified martyr, James. The Romans were not even aware of the new sect in the first century. Some martyrs were casualties from the bitter fighting between Christian sects, some were appropriated Jewish rebels and some were pure invention. |
| 271 |
error |
"Historical novelists don't use
the names of real people." Of course they do, otherwise they would just
be novelists. |
| 272 |
error |
"Grand conspiracy by 9 authors."
The authors claim that this is impossible but a grand conspiracy by one
million scientists concerning evolution is possible. |
| 272 |
error |
"Their accounts describe the same
basic events but include divergent details." The authors assume that
the Biblical copiers were stupid. They were not. Writing in Biblical times
was expensive, you didn't get pen and paper but you slaughtered a
donkey for parchment and a goose for a quill. The authors must have
been upper class. |
| page |
THE TOP TEN REASONS | |
|---|---|---|
| 275 |
error |
"Principle of embarrassment." The
gospel writers don't write about themselves. The embarrassment is
always used to make an idiological point at the expense of some hapless
apostle. |
| 276 |
half truth |
"Embarrassing details about their
leader, Jesus." The authors conveniently leave out the real embarrassing
details. e.g. Jesus telling his mother "woman, what shall I do with
you" or losing his Divine Temper and attacking Jews in the temple or
ignoring his family etc. |
| 280 |
error |
"Why do we cite this as evidence
of their trustworthiness?" Incredibly, the authors maintain that quotes
from Jesus are true because it would have been easy to produce false
quotes. This kind of logic needs long study in theology. |
| 282 |
error |
"Women...the first to learn of
the resurrection." Really? The women has a plausible reason for
being there, the men not. The inferior women do not learn about the
resurrection. The resurrection is only confirmed when one brave man
turns up. |
| 283 |
contradiction |
"Jewish...explanation for the
empty tomb." On page 222 the authors use this explanation as a fact
supporting the existence of Jesus, here they refute it. |
| 284 |
error |
"... could not have gotten away
with outright lies." They could when the people were safely dead or far
away. |
| 284 |
error |
"divergent details." The authors
explain away some minor problems in the gospels. They carefully skirt
around issues were the gospels are contradictory. Example: The original
gospel according to Mark did not have a resurrection. A problem is also
the great number of
divergent details. |
| 285 |
error |
"Too uniform or too divergent?"
Both. This is a result of the copy process, which was verbal. The main
storyline would remain the same but details could be missed. |
| 286 |
half truth |
"Challenge their readers...to
check out" Almost. This should read "challenges some fanatics at some location a long time ago." |
| 288 |
half truth |
"Mark 16:8: ...because they were
afraid." Here ends the earliest version of the gospel according to
Mark.
No resurrection. Very stark indeed. Verses were
added in later versions to avoid contradiction. |
| 289 |
error |
"...there was a violent
earthquake..." No earthquake or darkness is recorded during this period. |
| 290 |
error |
"...abandoned long-held sacred
beliefs..." The Jews had a good reason. Their beliefs hadn't worked and
they had lost their country. There is little verifiable proof of
persecution or martyrdom. |
| 294 |
error |
"Martyrs were eyewitnesses."
There is no record of alleged eyewitnesses becoming martyrs. |
| 295 |
half truth |
"If you became a Christian in
the Roman Empire before 311 you might be killed for it." In reality
there was some persecution between 250-311. A Christian could easily
avoid being killed by honoring the emperor. |
| page |
type | DID JESUS REALLY RISE FROM THE DEAD? |
|---|---|---|
| 299 |
error |
"Habermas: ...all scholars
agree." That is a lie. Fact 3,7,9,10,12 are historical;
8 and 11 are half-truths. The rest is wishful thinking. On page 284 the
authors pontificate that writers can't get away with spreading lies
about living people and here Gary does it. |
| 300 |
error |
"New Testament books were
written within two generation." Not true. The New Testament was
finalized at the council of Trent in 1563, sixty generation later.. |
| 304 |
error |
"Swoon or apparent death
theory." The probability of survival under conditions stipulated in the
Bible has been calculated at 33% if the victim receives medical care.
Some scholars claim that Jesus was given a narcotic on a sponge in
order to bring on a coma. The authors don't address these uncomfortable
possibilities. |
| 306 |
ignorance |
"Paul was then blinded for three
days." Evidently this was the stroke that brought on his epilepsy |
| 306 |
error |
"I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom
you are persecuting, he replied." Impossible. Nazareth was founded in
the 4th century. There are no records of Nazareth existing before then.
A big embarrassment for apologists. |
| 310 |
half truth |
"far-left group of scholars."
This is actually a group of Biblical scholars with advanced degrees.
They are
more qualified to have opinions on Biblical themes than the authors. |
| 311 |
half truth |
"Supposed resurrection of
mythical characters." Apart from the author's red herrings there is
Prometheus who sacrificed himself for humanity and the legend of the
Phoenix. The point is: there was a tolerance at that time for
resurrection stories. |
| 314 |
error |
"Three or four 1st century
sources that support your theory." This is the typical religious
fanatic question. Obviously it is impossible to prove something did not
happen. Nothing that doesn't happen is ever recorded. |
| 316 |
contradiction |
"Skeptical scholar." Crossan is
not skeptical, the authors themselves identify him as religious. The
authors also explain in page 215 that miracles can happen but they
don't. |
| 317 |
error |
"Supernatural rather than
natural." Not supernatural at all. In fact if an event was predicted it
would give more incentives to religious fanatics to make it happen. |
| 320 |
straw man fallacy |
"Exceptional evidence." The
authors get it intentionally wrong. exceptional evidence means
verifiable or very good, nothing else. |
| 321 |
error |
"How do we know this about
Alexander?" There are indeed few first-hand records. The records, in
particular the library of Alexandria, were destroyed by Christian
fanatics. Alexander's existence is verified by Phillip V (his father),
Aristotle, the Bible, and some cities named after him. Alexander did
not perform miracles, therefore extraordinary evidence is not necessary
in any case. |
| 322 |
error |
"Why would he?" Because
withholding evidence is lying, Superbeing or not. |
| page |
type | WHO IS JESUS: GOD? OR JUST A GREAT MORAL TEACHER? |
|---|---|---|
| 348 |
begging the question |
"1. He fulfilled many Messianic
prophecies." This is not proof. If can also mean that the evidence was
manufactured to fit the prophecies. |
| 348 |
error |
"2. Sinless life." Almost. He
was rude to his mother, aggressive on occasion, made conflicting
statements (lies). And of course being human He inherited sin from his
mother like everybody. |
| page |
type | WHAT DID JESUS TEACH ABOUT THE BIBLE? |
|---|---|---|
| 363 |
error |
"Moses had kicked his royal rear
end." There is no reference to Hebrews in Egypt at any time. As the old
Egyptians were compulsive chroniclers this is sufficient proof that
there were never Jews in Egypt. |
| 366 |
ignorance |
"No record of apostolic
miracles...after 62 AD." There is another probability. Magic always
fails when observed. By 62 AD Christians would be under observation. |
| 370 |
error |
"Inerrant word of God." The
biggest problem is not the errors in the Bible that the authors can
explain but the contradictions. There are hundreds of contradictions in
the Bible. |