Evolution and the Myth of Creationism 

Most recently I read the book, now somewhat dated, entitled, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism (1990) by Tim M. Berra.  Berra has a PH.D. in Zoology and taught at Ohio State University.  Though Berra added nothing to the claims of evolution. He did distinguish himself in my opinion in one major area.  Dr. Berra demonstrated an unremarkable ability to regurgitate the same teachings and story telling that have been used to underpin the theory of evolution for well over 150 years.

I had hoped to find some challenging arguments against creationsim as he understands it but was once again disappointed by the failure of a scientist to do research on topics he opposes.

2.  The Origin of Species Revisited by W.R. Bird.  A two volume work that uses the scientific community against itself.  By the time you get through the first two chapters you will be convinced that no notable scientist endorses evolution based on evidence, only philosophy.

3.  Raw Revelation: The bible they never tell you about.  Written by Mark Roncace is a poorly written, poorly edited and poorly argument ed, pathological attempt at self destruction – he wants to take the Bible with him.  Mark demonstrates a complete lack of study.  He knows nothing of common hermeneutic principles (how he can read a newspaper would be quite a frightening revelation).  He does not know the difference between history, poetry, sarcasm or hyperbole.  Mark is an atheist though he never asserts such and does not believe in God or his word.  Mark cooks the good book  with a healthy measure of vulgarity and preadolescent glee that is repugnant to anyone wanting to understand the message of the Bible.  He adds only one thing to the understanding of the bible; it is difficult to understand without grain of faith that God will explain, in time, the difficult passages as you growth in knowledge and understanding.  There are some ugly circumstances found in the Bible and Mark is willing to have us believe that God is the ugly one responsible for what we read.


Deniable Darwin.

The book is not worth the paper it is written on and Mark’s only defense is that he wants to discredit God and dash you aspirations for understanding him.

I just finished Berlinski’s book, Deniable Darwin. It was good to read but verbose. Sometimes Berlinski’s is overwhelming with the exuberance of his own tenacious verbosity. Still, he is a smart guy and is so well versed in the use of … words he is hard to put down.

He, like many, is not convinced of the confidence of modern scientific theory in any particular field of experience. Evolution is an unproven and unprovable presumption. Cosmology does not work with big bang principles. We barely know what light or gravity or electrons are and yet our science rationalizes its failure to progress beyond guesswork.

No one can explain where matter, the mind or the great diversity of living forms have come from. Berlinski sounds smug but he isn’t. He is annoyed by the consternation of the science community over being criticized on their paradigms and he says, “get used to it.” Darwin is not defendable and in fact, as Berlinski shows is easily deniable. Faith is the only thing holding the theory of Darwin together and so it seems fraudulent to consider it fact when it is more like religion than science.

I’m nobody but I agree.