From : David Rice Subj : Jehovah Witness' Little Blue Lie The following is extracted from

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From : David Rice Subj : Jehovah Witness' Little Blue Lie 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴 The following is extracted from a general commentary on the Watchtower Society book _Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution Or By Creation?_ ---------------------Cut Here---------------------------- Paragraph 33 of the _Life_ book discusses the creature called _Homo erectus._ The paragraph is distinguished more by what it does not say than by what it does. For example: Its brain size and shape do fall into the lower range of modern man's. While true, this statement leaves out a number of signifi- cant points. The cranial capacity of _H. erectus_ skulls averaged about three quarters that of modern man. The shape of the skull was very different. The skull was so different that no one would mistake its skull for that of a modern human. The skull bones were much thicker, it had huge brow ridges, the face was much more massive, and the dome of the skull was much smaller. One has only to examine a series of photos of skulls to see this. See for example, _National Geographic,_ [1] for a comparison of _Australopithecine_ and _Homo_ skulls. It does not take an expert to see a struc- tural sequence from _H. habilis_ to _H. erectus_ to archaic _H. sapiens_ and Neanderthal to the modern form of skull. See also _Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduction,_ [2] pages 47, 53, 56, 71, 75-77, and compare the gross differ- ences in skull shape among the above fossils. See also the drawings of skulls in _The Myths of Human Evolution,_ [3] on pages 70, 84, 107, 110, 138, 147-149, and 153. Also see any _Encyclopedia Britannica_ version after 1980, under the sub- jects "Homo erectus" and "Evolution, Human." _Life_ does not mention the gross differences in skull shape between _H. erectus_ and modern man. Next, paragraph 33 refers to _Encyclopedia Britannica,_ which said that "the limb bones thus far discovered have been indis- tinguishable from those of _H[omo] sapiens._" As shown above, this assessment has been superceded by newer information. By comparison with _other species_, the skeleton is very much like modern man's. But it was much more massive and had far more substantial muscle attachment points. _Blueprints_ [4] commented that these were extremely powerful people, if indeed they were people. They made the brutish Neanderthalers seem positively effete by comparison. It is interesting to note that _Life_ used the 1976 _Encyclopedia Britannica_ for the above quotation, rather than the latest edition available before _Life's_ 1985 pub- lication date. The following parallel quotation from a sim- ilar article appearing in the 1984 edition shows why. Note that the 1981 through 1985 edition articles were identical. Under the subject "Homo Erectus" it said: [5] the limb bones thus far discovered have been similar to (although more robust than) those of _H. sapiens._ Note that the quotation _Life_ used said the limb bones were _indistinguishable from,_ rather than _similar to_ those of _H. sapiens._ I was not able to locate a 1976 _Britannica,_ * but a 1974 edition said the same thing as quoted in _Life._ The article was virtually identical to the 1984 article, except for the above quotation. Very little had changed between 1974 and 1984 concerning _H. erectus_ except the assessment of the limb bones, and _Life_ selected a quo- tation from the edition that happened to be the most advan- tageous to its argument. Is this not yet another example of selective use of quotations and of arguing as a literary critic to support a preexisting point of view? The 1992 _Britannica_ said much the same as the 1984 edi- tion. Under the subject "Homo erectus" it said: [6] Most of the anatomical differences between _H. erec- tus_ and _H. sapiens_ concern the skulls and teeth. The limb bones of _H. erectus_ that have been found so far have been similar to _H. sapiens,_ leading to the inference that _H. erectus_ was a creature of medium stature who walked upright. What did _Britannica_ mean when it said the limb bones were similar? The 1992 edition _Macropaedia,_ Vol. 18, expanded upon this under the subject "Evolution, Human" on pages 827-828: The form of these [femur] bones resembles that of mod- ern humans, and _H. erectus_ must have walked upright efficiently. On the other hand, the construction of the bones is robust, a condition also seen in other skeletal members. This robusticity suggests that the life-style of _Homo erectus_ was physically demand- ing.... The total pattern of the bodily structure of _H. erectus,_ as preserved in the bones, is rather different from that of _H. sapiens._ Parts of the postcranial skeleton are robust but otherwise gener- ally comparable to those of modern humans. The brain is relatively small, though not so small as that of _Australopithecus_ and _H. habilis._ In addition, in this hominid's thick skull bones and extraordinarily developed eyebrow ridges and occipital torus, some investigators say they see unique, specialized fea- tures, not characteristic either of its presumed ancestors or of apes and not pointing to _H. sapiens_ as the direction of subsequent evolution.... __________________________ * _Encyclopedia Britannica,_ 1974, Macropaedia, Vol. 8, p. 1032. _Britannica_ then discussed various theories of descent from early hominids through _H. erectus_ to modern man, showing there is much evidence that is difficult to interpret, and there are several possibilities for reasonable explanations, including one that _H. erectus_ was an evolutionary side branch that did not lead to modern man. It comments that much work needs to be done to sort out all the evidence. Finally it says: In the meantime, another hypothesis that meets most of the available evidence is that _H. erectus_ was in the process of evolving from pre-_Homo erectus_--probably _Australopithecus_ and _Homo habilis_--to post-_Homo erectus;_ that is, to _Homo sapiens._ In most details, the bodily structure of _H. erectus_ fulfills what might have been predicted for an intermediate between _Australopithecus_ and _H. sapiens._ _The Myths of Human Evolution_ gave an alternative view: [7] In sum, during the period that lasted from about 1.6 million to 0.4 or 0.5 million B.P., nonrobust hominids [referring to _A. robustus_] seem to be represented by a single species which is both geographically and locally variable, but which has an instantly recogniz- able gestalt. The major cranial characteristics of this species, _Homo erectus,_ have already been enu- merated, and postcranially it is clear that _Homo erectus_ was robust but an erect biped in the manner of ourselves. What many have found remarkable is that over this long span of time, well over a million years and perhaps as long as 1.2 million, _Homo erectus_ shows virtually no change; local and geographical variations are at least as striking as differences between older and younger members of the lineage. Some scholars have suggested that brain size does show an increase over time, pointing to the fact that ER-3733 had a brain of under 900 cc., while the largest of the late Choukoutien population had a brain volume of over 1,200 cc. One should point out, how- ever, that after the East Turkana specimens the oldest firmly dated _Homo erectus_ is the Olduvai skullcap, dated at about 1.2 million years and which has a capacity of almost 1,100 cc., larger than all but two of the Choukoutien specimens, which are the best part of a million years younger. Indeed, a recent attempt to quantify variation in _Homo erectus_ over time has failed to show significant trends that would convinc- ingly suggest that the species was undergoing any gradual transformation. Paragraph 33 next says of _H. erectus:_ However, it is unclear whether it was human or not. This is only in the judgement of _Life's_ author. He leaves it vague simply because the Watchtower Society does not want to commit itself on evidence that so clearly could cause difficulties for the Biblical viewpoint. The Society proba- bly feels the chances of getting burned are too great. Paleontologists judge that it was not a modern human, but was a member of the human family. This is fairly well con- firmed by the presence of cultural artifacts, such as tools and the remains of hearths found in association with _H. * erectus._ The point is whether _H. erectus_ was a member of the human family, since it is obvious that it was not a modern human. That it was not quite fully human is sug- gested by the fact that no remains have been found in an obvious burial, in contrast with the later Neanderthals. As the expression says, a picture is worth a thousand words. _National Geographic_ contains a picture of a skele- ton discovered in 1984, of a _Homo erectus_ boy about twelve years old at the time of death 1.6 million years ago. [1] It is the most complete _H. erectus_ skeleton ever unearthed. The skeleton is virtually human, but the skull is something else again. The accompanying article comments: This spectacular find dramatically confirms the antiq- uity of the human form. In its parts and proportion only the skull of the Lake Turkana boy would look odd to someone untrained in anatomy. The rest of his skeleton, essentially human, differs only subtly from that of a modern boy. And too, because it is a youth's skeleton and so com- plete, it offers us a unique glimpse of growth and development in early humans. At five feet four inches tall, the boy from Turkana was surprisingly large com- pared with modern boys his age; he could well have grown to six feet. Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today. __________________________ * Some people have attributed the cultural artifacts to modern men that lived alongside _H. erectus_ and hunted it, but whose fossil remains have never been found. See, for example, _Ape-Men--Fact or Falla- cy?_, by Malcolm Bowden, 1981, sections on Java man and Peking Man; _The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolu- tion,_ by William Fix, 1984, pp. 117-122; and _Evolu- tion: The Challenge of the Fossil Record,_ by Duane T. Gish, 1985, pp. 180-204. These books must, of course, be taken with a large grain of salt because they, too, leave out whatever evidence does not sup- port their ideas. A later report on this find said: [8] In 1985 Richard Leakey and his colleagues reported the recovery of the remains of a remarkably complete skeleton of an approximately 12-year-old _Homo erec- tus_ youth, which revealed some surprising anatomy. For instance, in the cervical and thoracic vertebrae, the hole through which the spinal cord runs is signif- icantly smaller than in modern humans--presumably indicating a smaller demand for nerve signal traffic. In addition, the spines on all the vertebrae are longer and do not point as far back as in modern humans, the significance of which is puzzling. The thigh bone is unusual, in that the femoral neck is relatively long while the femoral head--which is part of the ball-and-socket joint with the pelvis--is large. This combination is something of a mix between modern human and australopithecine anatomy: modern humans have a short femoral neck attached to a large head, while in australopithecines the neck is long and the head is small. The pelvis itself indicates that the birth canal was smaller than in modern humans, which implies that infants born to _Homo erectus_ mothers would have needed to continue fetal growth rates after birth. This so-called secondary altricial condition means that a more extended period of child care was inevitable, which might well have had important social consequences. The _Homo erectus_ youth, which came from 1.6 million- year-old deposits on the west side of Lake Turkana in Kenya, is `the first [early fossil hominid] in which brain and body size can be measured accurately on the same individual', note Leakey and his colleagues. After paragraph 33 says it is unclear whether _Homo erectus_ was human or not, we finally read: If so, then it was merely a branch of the human family and died off. This statement is so absurdly obvious as to be disingenuous, since _Homo erectus_ is clearly not alive today. It is rem- iniscent of a statement made in 1799 by one Charles White, a British physician. He tried to show the gradation of life forms inherent in the "Great Chain of Being" concept popular at the time. In describing this idea Roger Lewin quoted him and said: [9] "Ascending the line of gradation, we come at last to the white European; who being most removed from the brute creation, may, on that account, be considered as the most beautiful of the human race," opined Charles White.... White concluded a panegyric on the suppos- edly superior qualities of the European form with the following: "Where, except on the bosom of the Euro- pean woman, [can one find] two such plump and snow white hemispheres, tipt with vermillian?" Quite so. It is obvious that the _Life_ book does not want to bur- den its readers with the unnecessary details of specific information. References 1. "The Search for Our Ancestors," _National Geographic Mag- azine_, pp. 568-573, Washington, D.C., November, 1985. 2. Roger Lewin, _Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduc- tion_, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1984. 3. Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersal, _The Myths of Human Evo- lution_, Columbia University Press, New York, 1982. 4. Maitland A. Edey and Donald C. Johanson, _Blueprints_, p. 329, Penguin Books, New York, 1989. 5. _Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropaedia_, Vol. 8, p. 1032, 1984. 6. _Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropaedia_, Vol. 6, p. 27, 1992. 7. Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall, _op cit_, pp. 144-145. 8. Roger Lewin, _Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduc- tion, Second Edition_, pp. 99-100, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston, 1989. 9. Roger Lewin, _Bones of Contention_, pp. 303-304, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1987. Robert P.J. Day 277-3175 "Have you read the little blue book 'Life - how did it get here, by evolution or creation ?'" ------------------------------------------------------------------- Last year, a couple of Witnesses came to my door, waving that particular book around. I invited them into the living room, where they had no choice but to stand next to my bookshelf filled with all of my books on religious criticism and evolutionary biology. They were just a touch uncomfortable but, sensing an open mind, pulled up a couple of chairs and we were off to the races. The elder of the two (with a young, thoroughly brainwashed acolyte in tow), proceeded to quote at me from their little blue book. At one point, he brought up Francis Hitching, quoting him, "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble." I stopped him there, and tried to explain the difference between an acceptance of evolution, and an adherence to Darwinism. To no avail. I did not have my Hitching ("The Neck of the Giraffe") handy, but I told the elder to please call back in a few weeks and I would be happy to dissect his little tome. Shortly after they left, I tracked down Hitching, and perused carefully the first few pages. The little blue book gives a reference for the above quote as page 12 -- that's wrong, it's on page 4. What is more shocking is what follows immediately (and I mean IMMEDIATELY) after that quote in the text. And I quote from Hitching: "Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a FACT (emphasis added), if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two centuries from geology, paleontology, molecular biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this ..., the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms." In addition, in the edition I have, the opposite page has a chart of the geological ages, quite clearly going back hundreds of millions of years. It is difficult to believe that whoever wrote the little blue JW book could have actually read Hitching and not continued to read the very next paragraph or seen the geological chart. To present Hitching as rejecting evolution is either blindingly incompetent or hideously dishonest. Quite simply, "Life -- how did it get here?" seems no better or worse than the standard dishonest creationist dreck one would get from the ICR or the Creation Research Society Quarterly, possibly even a little worse. Hard to believe. From : David Rice Subj : Jehovah Witness' little blue lie 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴 ??> It is difficult to believe that whoever wrote the little ??> blue JW book could have actually read Hitching and not ??> continued to read the very next paragraph or seen the ??> geological chart. To present Hitching as rejecting evolution ??> is either blindingly incompetent or hideously dishonest. ??> Quite simply, "Life -- how did it get here?" seems no better ??> or worse than the standard dishonest creationist dreck one ??> would get from the ICR or the Creation Research Society ??> Quarterly, possibly even a little worse. Hard to believe. I've got another one. The original quotes are from Dr. Robert Jastrow's "God and the Astronomers:" (from page 14) "The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." (pages 115-116) "...A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what that explanation is. The scientist's persuit of the past ends at the moment of creation. "This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always believed the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created the heavens and earth. To which St. Augustine added: "Who can understand this mystery or explain it to others?" It is unexpected because science has had such an extraordinary success in tracing the chain of cause and effect backward in time. We have been able to connect the appearance of man on this planet to the crossing of the threshold of life, the manufacture of the chemical ingredients of life whithin stars that have long since expired, the formation of those stars out of the primal mists, and the expansion and cooling of the parent cloud out of the cosmic fireball. "Now we would like to persue that inquiry further back in time, but the barrier to further progress seems insurmountable. It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another measurement, or another theory; at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." From : David Rice Subj : Jehovah Witness' little blue lie 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴 The following text was described (by a minister I'm debating on a local BBS) as a single "paragraph", found on page 105. In my copy of Jastrow's "God and the Astronomers", the first section is found on page 14, the second on page 115, the third on 116. This is from "A Shattered Visage," by Dr. Ravi Zacharias: "The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same... "This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always believed the word of the Bible. But we scientists did not expect to find evidence for an abrupt beginning because we have had, until recently, such extraordinary success in tracing the chain of cause and effect backwards in time... "At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; He is about to scale the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." Not only is the surrounding context eliminated, but the quote itself has been re-written! Does anyone have a copy of "A Shattered Visage"? I'd love to mail a photocopy to Dr. Jastrow. From : David Rice To : Kelsey Bjarnason Subj : The best of the Wurst #1 of 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴 KB> I've been reading (gag, don't ask why) a book given to me KB> by a Jehova's Witless acquaintance. This book, entitled KB> "Life - How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or Creation?" KB> claims, on the inside cover, "It [this book] presents KB> a thoroughly researched examination of how life got here..." Goddess! This book has been so utterly refuted, I'm shocked that the Witnesses have the gall to still be distributing it! Shocked, but not all that surprised. . . they ARE Creationists after all, so not above telling a thousand lies a minute. The book should be called "Lies - How did they get Written Here? By Evolutionary Scientists or Creationists?" Here is one book review: ------------------------------------------------------------ _Life: How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?_ Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. Copyright 1985. Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A. Review by Corey Carroll First, some background: The Jehovah's Witnesses are basically old-earth creationists; that is, they interpret "day" in Genesis to mean a time period longer than 24 hours. Second, this book is the primary book the JW's use in their campaign to fight evolution. Third, the JW's don't get politically involved in things, so it is unlikely that they will pressure the teaching of "scientific creationism" in schools. This is the book that really changed my faith in the Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion who have the "Truth". Earlier, about 5 years ago, I and my family had studied this book in weekly bookstudies, held at believer's houses. Each study lasted an hour, and usually 10 or 12 paragraphs were covered in each study. This was the book that made me a firm creationist. Until I started reading The book is divided into two main parts. The first part details the standard 'problems with evolution' arguments, in an attempt to prove creationism (Something which is logically invalid). The last part of the book reveals the true motives behind the book. Look at what the last chapter, What Choice Will You Make?, on page 248, paragraph 5 has to say: "Do not be surprised that the theory of evolution has become so widespread in modern times despite the evidence against it. The real message of this belief is that there is no God, that he is unnecessary. From where would such a monumental lie originate? Jesus identified the source when he said: 'The Devil... is a liar and the father of the lie.'-John 8:44." Thus, the motives of the book are to show that basically, evolution is a Satanic theory. My own father has used this tactic on me, telling me that I have been "tricked" by Satan and his demons, and the demonic influence of college,, and all other sources of evolutionary knowledge. He has even quoted scriptures to me such as Colossians 2:8, Matthew 11:25, 1 Corinthians 1:19, Isaiah 29:14, and 1 Corinthians 3:19. At first glance, you can see that the book is lacking in informational content. It is written on an 8th grade level. Over half of the book is devoted to pretty color pictures, as opposed to words. Little quotes are cited on the margins of the pages, such as : "The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones" (p.85), and "Why did 'inferior' apes and monkeys survive, but not a single 'superior' 'ape-man'?" (p.84) The pictures of life on earth are depicted as noble, wonderful, God-like. Look at the pictures of humans. A particularly humorous picture is the one on page 33, showing the animals that were created on day 6, supposedly exactly the same as the 'kinds' today (they have a modern-day elephant, giraffe, bear, dog, tiger, rabbit, and a cow). Another humorous picture is on p.34, with a depiction of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Note the makeup on Eve. I guess God created her with lipstick and eyeliner, eh? The 'meat' of the book is laregly contained in the following chapters: 2 Disagreements About Evolution - Why? 4 Could Life Originate by Chance? 5 Letting the Fossil Record Speak 6 Huge Gulfs - Can Evolution Bridge Them? 7 "Ape-Men" - What Were They? 8 Mutations - A Basis for Evolution? Chapter 1, "Life - How Did it Start?" is just introductory and contains little useful information. After acknowledging that creationism isn't really a science, however, it tries to prove that evolution is not a science either, because no one can "really tell" what happened in the past. Nothing original here. Chapter 2 is particularly notorious in its misleading use of quotes. By selective quoting, the chapter makes it appear as if evolution is a science on the verge of collapse. This sets up the rest of the arguments in the book to disprove evolution. Most of the quotes only are dealing with questions on HOW evolution happened, and the tempo and mode of evolution, NOT the fact of evolution happening. Chapter 3, What Does Geneis Say?, is especially funny. Apparently it is their "Scientific Theory of Creationism". Notable in this theory is that they do not claim that all life was created in six literal 24-hour days. Rather, they claim that each Genesis "day" could have encompassed millenia. However, I have heard some Witnesses say that the dinosaurs were killed off in the flood, and Jehovah started getting the earth ready for life a mere 48,000 years ago (implying that all life has been created within 48,000 years), due to their interpretation of a Biblical "day" as 7,000 years. However, they believe that man is only 6,000 years old. Chapter 4, Could Life Originate By Chance? contains the usual probability arguments against abiogenesis. After making it look like evolution depends upon a theory of biogenesis to make it complete (which it does not), it quotes Hoyle's _Evolution From Space_ and even an _Impact_ pamphlet for its probabilities. The arguments in this book are based on the assumption that for life to have started would require a modern-day cell with DNA, proteins, enzymes, etc. No thought is given to the evolution of the cell from simpler elements. Chapter 5, Letting the Fossil Record Speak, asserts that evolution predicts: 1) Very simple life forms gradually appearing 2) Simple forms gradually changing into complex ones 3) Many transitional "links" between different kinds 4) Beginnings of new body features, such as limbs, bones, and organs. After oversimplifying matters, and neglecting the facts regarding the likelihood of fossilization, they set out to make it look like no transitional forms exist. Notoriously, they attack the evolution of the horse, on bad assumptions that horse evolution is gradual and continuous, is progressive, and leads from the changing and replacement of one "kind" of animal to another (Eohippus to Equus). Chapter 6, Huge Gulfs- Can Evolution Bridge Them? expounds upon the differences in vertebrates, namely, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. It is an example of the "we don't understand how a [wing, beak, eggshell] could have developed, therefore it didn't happen" argument. In particular, they claim that Archaeopteryx is not a transition from reptile to bird, because it has feathers, and not scales. They fail to note the reptile-like skeletal features of Archaeopteryx, of course, because it is contrary evidence that they do not want to deal with. Chapter 7, "Ape-Men" - What Were They? sets about to prove that none of the early hominids were transitional or ancestral to Homo sapiens. It harps on Piltdown man, and the speculative nature of different artist's representations of ancient skulls in real life, while ignoring the trends in enlargement of brain case, changes in teeth, and the changes in the shape of the face. Notable, too, is the drawing on page 94 of the Australopithecus skull, chimpanzee skull, and the human skull. IMHO, the chimpanzee skull is not drawn accurately; where are the large pointed teeth? Also, it tries to discredit radiocarbon dating that gives ages greater than 6,000 years to man, using the views of Robert Gentry, a six-day creationist (although making it look like it is from a reputable "scientific journal"- see p. 96). It also tries to explain away earlier hominids as degenerate races of Homo sapiens. Chapter 8, Mutations- A Basis for Evolution? uses one of the worst arguments in the whole book. First of all, they make it look like all mutations are deleterious. In reality, there is a spectrum of mutations, ranging from deleterious to neutral to beneficial. In addition, a mutation that is deleterious in one environment could be advantageous in another environment. Next, they use this argument, which is based on a false assumption: "In his book, _The Wellsprings of Life_, science writer Isaac Asimov admitted: 'Most mutations are for the worse.' However, he then asserted: 'In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward.' But do they? Would any process that resulted in harm more than 999 times out of 1000 be considered beneficial? If you wanted a house built, would you hire a builder who, for every correct piece of work, turned out thousands that were defective? If a driver of an automobile made thousands of bad decisions for every good one when driving, would you want to ride with him? If a surgeon made thousands of wrong moves for every right one when operating, would you want him to operate on you?" (p.101-102, par. 9) This argument does not apply, because we are dealing with populations, not individuals. As computer programs show, natural selection works. No evolutionist is saying that any one organism suddenly gets 1000 good mutations and evolves "upward". Rather, species develop relatively few mutations, and over time, the ones that are advantageous to survival propagate through the gene pool. The neutral ones become distributed by chance, and the deleterious ones are selected against. The rest of the book is devoted to proving the existence of God by using the argument from design. The next chapters talk about the wonderful universe, the conditions on earth that make life possible, the design of living things (ignoring, of course , the horribly BAD design in many living things), animal adaptations, instinct, and finally, the "Human Miracle". Then the book goes into chapters such as "Why Do Many Accept Evolution?", and "Can You Trust the Bible?" After establishing the "reasons" people believe in evolution, and the inerrancy of the Bible, they set out their basic JW doctrines (resurrection, eternal life on earth, etc etc) and try to convince the reader to become a convert. All in all, I give the book a horribly bad rating. Useful information in the book is probably on the order of 5%. I have read much better creationist books, such as _Darwin on Trial_. --- DB B2012/001027 * Origin: Rights On! - Religion Free Always! - Titusville_FL_USA (1:374/14)


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank