For creationists ... what 'evolutionist' books have you read?

Question

Have you read any books by Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, or any of the other myriad scientists who have written books that explain evolution (Daniel Dennett, Lynn Margulis, Ernst Mayr, E.O. Wilson, Niles Elderidge, etc.)

(And I don't mean reading a couple of paragraphs, but an actual a start-to-finish read.)

If so, what was unconvincing about what you read? Did you find them poorly written? Badly researched? Bad use of sources? Bad science?

shadowwarrior: This is why I'm asking if you actually read books ... your information is awful. Darwin did NOT renounce evolution. Both sides recognize that (the Lady Hope story) as a totally bogus story, including Creationists (see AiG: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Lady+Hope&btnG=Google+Search

ilovejesus: Sorry, but DVD's from drdino.com do not qualify as books by 'evolutionists'.

jonmcn49: I am stunned with your comment about Elderidge and Gould ... especially Gould. He was slightly controversial, but his credentials are impeccable, and he was a *phenomenal* writer. (In fact he is even higher than Dawkins in my estimation ... but they are both brilliant ... and they both respected each other as scientists.)

mRNA: Have some decaf, my friend. I am trying to understand if Creationists who reject evolution, have actually read anything written by a scientist who explains the scientific concepts, and if so, what their scientific objections are. That makes it a science question.

Answer 1

I have read Darwins original works on the subject.
The way it is taught in schools today is not what was written by the
author.
The other authors you mention created works based on a theory that was never proven and which can nevr be proven. It is merely a theory written to explain the, for the most part, unexplainable.
As with almost everything else these days, the science is bad.
In your case, you are attempting to use unproved theories to
prove an unproven theory. The science is bad.

Answer 2

The e book of the classic creationist tells him ideal away that each little thing else he reads exterior the Bible that contradicts the Bible is a lie. hence, the creationist sees no reason in believing (or protecting onto any understanding from) the different e book with a distinctive opinion. hello, this is a good sized stereotype, in spite of the undeniable fact that it somewhat is genuine in extra circumstances than would be wholesome for this planet. Now the evolutionist has study Darwin. he's study philosophy and guy or woman books on the guidelines and ideas of technological awareness. He seems at his international with a suggestions that has no longer yet been instructed via his first actual e book that everyone different books featuring opposing viewpoints are lies. i'm going to enable you to stick to by with the rest...

Answer 3

I went to that web site, ilovejesus, and I can question your bias, though your ignorance is unquestioned.

PS secretsause, I would debate your choice of Elderidge and Gould having such distinguished place, but this question will attract morons, as flies to****. Perhaps you are young, but I have been fighting this fight a long time and I am tired of trying to shed light into dark recesses. Better luck to you.

PPS You would think that anyone with a handle, "mRNA ", would know better, but I have heard worse from some functional biologist. I may rescind my comments on Gould, but as I told you, you have attracted more than your share of moronic comments. Reminds me of Dawkins interview with Ted Haggard; just to give you a sense of what you are dealing with.

Answer 4

Darwin's alleged renunciation is unproven, so no one "knows," and anyone who says that they "know" is shovelling something:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/darwin.htm

see also: http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/darwin2.htm

`With Moody's encouragement, Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston _Watchman Examiner_. The story spread, and the claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the _Reformation Review_ and in the _Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland_ in February 1957. These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. "I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the _Christian_ for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever."' (Ellipsis is in the book)

Answer 5

those are terrible answers^^

really shows you the extent of a creationsists thought

have some fun and post this in the most religeous section you can find : )

Answer 6

this is a politics question dammit!!!!!!!!! learn the difference between science and belief/politics.

i have done research into both sides and probably know more about evolution or religion than anyone else answering and i have concluded that neither side has produced a solid body of evidence supporting their claim. they rely on dogma and axioms and in the end boil down to opinion and belief. Evolution was an idea created by priests and religion was founded by politicians.

Answer 7

I have about 50 debate DVDs creation vs evolution. Both sides are well educated and have the same time to speak.
I learned a lot on both sides of the issue as I watched all of them.

The creationists seemed to overwhelmingly win as they had stronger points and evidences that made evolution sound like a lousy theory supported by lies at best.

I got the DVDs at drdino.com

Answer 8

OK well i haven't read any evolutionist books but i do believe that some evolution has taken place such as our skin changing colors and what not littler things but i do know that Darwin renounced his theory of evolution before he died

Answer 9

The whole evolution story is a crap. Charles Darwin wrote his book to prove just that and now all evolutionists write one to do the same. One should be dumb enough to read those and dumber still to believe it

Answer 10

allot