This spring quarter, I am taking a chemistry class and so as it is drawing to an end I thought I would read this particular book, knowing that the author, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, is a highly accomplished chemist as well as a creationist. The book is, however, not really about chemistry, but about refuting the claims of a book produced by the National Academy of Sciences titled Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science.
Personal feelings about the book: Generally, I enjoyed it. It is easy to read and understand (possibly readable in a couple hours) and would be good for someone without a very great understanding of science (although such an understanding would help, I think). The book keeps things logical and attempts to explain whenever possible the science in everyday terminology; although, often the scientific jargon is necessary, but this is rarely a hindrance to the reader.
Scientific validity: Sarfati did an excellent job with his research, obtaining resources from both the evolution camp and the creation camp to validate his argument. He has footnotes on the majority of the pages referring to journals, articles, books, and so forth. He is fair enough to admit when the evolutionists are correct in their science, but shows constantly how it does not contradict the creation model. In many ways, this book is not conclusive about the science, but one must remember that he is only rebutting Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science and is not dealing with a single scientific topic. For instance, Sarfati writes briefly about radiometric dating (pages 107-110), but does not provide the complete scientific data that has been obtained on it. Rather, and to his credit, he directs the reader in an addendum to John Woodmorappe’s book The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. Mainly, Sarfati is attempting to prove that “Facts do not speak for themselves, but must be interpreted according to a framework” (p.135). On this, he does an admirable job.
Content: Sarfati uses nine chapters covering the following topics to prove that conclusions on scientific data are reliant on interpretation (The topics are put in my own words, not Sarfati’s):
- Bias as something both creationists and evolutionists have.
- Natural selection.
- The “missing links” in the fossil record.
- The “missing links” and falsely claimed links from dinosaur-to-bird evolution.
- The “missing links” and falsely claimed links from mammal-to-whale evolution.
- The “missing links” and falsely claimed links from ape-to-man evolution.
- Astronomy and the theory of relativity.
- Dating methods.
- The legitimacy of intelligent design.
As this book is refuting Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, it refers to the work quite often and deviates from its content only on occasion (as on page 76). One aspect of this book that is refreshing is that it deals with particular claims one by one and not so much with vague generalities. Often in debates over creation vs. evolution, general claims are made in attempts to prove/disprove the other sides arguments while throwing the factual scientific data out the window. In this book, some of these generalities are addressed, but always in correlation with quoted claims about the data (and rarely are generalities given).
Throughout the section dealing with the “missing links,” Sarfati provides many pictures (both artistic renderings and photographs) of the “link” being addressed or the fossil being discussed. This is helpful, not only as a picture for the unscientifically minded people, but also to show what is being presented in school classrooms and in textbooks as fact. Ken Ham, in the forward of the book, points out that many of the text books and information that teachers and professors have is wrong or outdated (p.9-10). Sarfati mentions that Haeckel’s drawings of different embryos are still used in the classroom even though they have been proven false. Sarfati shows that most science teachers and the public in general is highly misinformed about the scientific data.
A few theological matters: A few things concerning the beliefs of some Christians attempting to make evolution and the Bible compatible (theistic evolution) must be said. Sarfati states that “A God who ‘created’ by evolution is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from no God at all” (p.22). He explains that for evolution to happen within the first six days of the creation week (or as some would say, millions of years) it means that death, disease, and sin would have to be present in the world before the fall, contradicting the message and basic assumption of the entire Bible.
On a related note, Sarfati makes the claim that the first six days of the creation week were literal days (p.22). Some Christians (and some I highly respect) seem to think that there is no evidence for that and say that it could have been a period of time. I see no reason for such a belief as it does not contradict reality unless one were to hold to an evolutionary viewpoint. Again, some of these Christians also deny evolution, which causes me to wonder why a literal six day interpretation is rejected. This is something that I have not figured out.
Conclusion: In general, I recommend this book for everyone (and especially for self-identified unscientific people). It is particularly good for Christians and those who will be dealing with the subject of evolution in school classrooms. It may, however, not be very fulfilling to those who are looking for a more in depth consideration of certain issues, but I still recommend reading it at least once.
Teachers and professors who are willing to look critically at the facts and not write the book off just because it is creation based, should definitely read it. However, I do not think it is a particularly good evangelistic book to give someone unless they really seem open to the creation ideas and the gospel.
My favorite part (Spoiler warning):
“Many news agencies have reported (June 1998 ) on two fossils found in Northern China that are claimed to be feathered theropods (meat-eating dinosaurs). The fossils, Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui, are claimed to be ‘the immediate ancestors of the first birds.’
“The two latest discoveries are ‘dated’ at 120 to 136 million years while Archaeopteryx, a true bird, is ‘dated’ at 140 to 150 million years, making these ‘bird ancestors’ far younger than their descendants!” (p.61).
Book Information: Sarfati, Jonathan Ph.D. Refuting Evolution: A Response to the National Academy of Sciences’ “Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science.“ Master Books, Inc., (Arkansas: Green Forest, 1999).
