This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← The Greatest Hoax on Earth - a new flea

The Greatest Hoax on Earth - a new flea - Comments

RedBarchetta's Avatar Comment 1 by RedBarchetta

"It is written by arguably the finest mind in creation/evolution and Bible-science apologetics today..."
Enough said right there really.

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:53:00 UTC | #458366

johnhummel's Avatar Comment 2 by johnhummel

" I am unable to find any example of Dawkins aiding the public understanding of such real science as physics or chemistry, or even of the history or philosophy of science."

And right there, I know I can dismiss the gentleman as being intellectually dishonest.

"Real science"? Really. So biology is no longer a real science. Anthropology not a real science. I'm sure the gentleman would dismiss geology with its large time scales and evidence that the Earth is far, far older than what bronze age desert dwellers believed as not "real science" either.

If only those ancient Israelites had gotten their information right the first time, we wouldn't be plagued some 3000 years later by Mr. Sarfati putting his fingers in his ears going "na-na-na-na Not real science! I can't hear your evidence! Nanananana!"

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:56:00 UTC | #458367

keddaw's Avatar Comment 3 by keddaw

Be honest guys, he's caught us out, biology isn't a real science, not like Bible-science.

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:02:00 UTC | #458369

RedBarchetta's Avatar Comment 4 by RedBarchetta

Yeah - that geology for instance with all those rocks and stuff. How can that be real?

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:05:00 UTC | #458372

Muetze's Avatar Comment 5 by Muetze

His "trademark clear, crisp style"? That's a laugh. The very first sentence of the book calls Richard a "staunch admirer". How can you be a staunch admirer?

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:07:00 UTC | #458374

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 6 by SaganTheCat

the book looks kinda thin compared to Greatest Show on Earth. this claim of refuting chapter-by-chapter seems unlikely.

then again I guess writing for each chapter "WRONG because goddidit!" you could probably get away with it with room for some self-congratulatory, ad-hominem wank

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:13:00 UTC | #458376

Pete.K's Avatar Comment 7 by Pete.K

I bet the Texas Board of School Governors will be placing their bulk order soon.

I propose getting hold of a copy and reproducing it with a "Special Forward" for free distribution at university Campuses.

Of course, the saddest part of all is that many simpletons will be lapping this up and using it to fuel their ridiculous claims.

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:20:00 UTC | #458380

Alovrin's Avatar Comment 8 by Alovrin

HAHA Stupid and Stupider.

To the Christian we say—if your creationist fare has been by people with questionable qualifications and a flair for self-promotion using dubious arguments, you will find this book in another league altogether.

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:21:00 UTC | #458382

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 9 by Tyler Durden

The front cover of the book makes no sense: science "topples" evolution?

You shouldn't judge a book by its cover? Really?

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:22:00 UTC | #458383

jel's Avatar Comment 10 by jel

creationism is the intellectually superior position?

nuff said!

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:41:00 UTC | #458388

InYourFaceNewYorker's Avatar Comment 11 by InYourFaceNewYorker

There are probably just a bunch of blank pages in there except for the first page that says, "God did it. Now wasn't that much easier than doing science?"

Julie

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:41:00 UTC | #458389

vega's Avatar Comment 12 by vega

Judging by the cover, this guy has been taking Edward Current way to seriously.

Checkmate atheists!

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:47:00 UTC | #458392

shaunfletcher's Avatar Comment 13 by shaunfletcher

"Hence the ‘hoax’ in the Sarfati book’s title; CMI of course does not claim that people teach and promote evolution while disbelieving it."

lol. please please please dont sue us!

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:04:00 UTC | #458397

GodlessHeathen's Avatar Comment 16 by GodlessHeathen

*headdesk*

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:07:00 UTC | #458400

weavehole's Avatar Comment 15 by weavehole

Sarfati...sarfati..?

Wasn't he the guy who called the Swedes sodomofascists?

Nice guy!

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:07:00 UTC | #458399

Ron Millam's Avatar Comment 14 by Ron Millam

6. Comment #478999 by Muetze on April 12, 2010 at 12:07 pm
His "trademark clear, crisp style"? That's a laugh. The very first sentence of the book calls Richard a "staunch admirer". How can you be a staunch admirer?


I for one have admired staunches for a very long time.

======================================================================

My prediction is that this new book will end up like all the others dealing with creationism -- extremely popular among the theists, and a target of ridicule among those with IQs above room temperature.

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:07:00 UTC | #458398

david k's Avatar Comment 17 by david k

I'm still waiting for someone other than a Theist attempt to tear Evolution apart. It should be obvious to everyone who may lend an ear to these guys arguments, that it's statistically impossible for them all to be Theists, BUT THEY ARE.

A rational conclusion should be that the reason they're unable to accept evolution is not because of facts, but exactly BECAUSE of their blind allegiance to theology.

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:08:00 UTC | #458401

David-in-Toronto's Avatar Comment 18 by David-in-Toronto

This flea was already featured in a March 27 posting here on RD.net

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:09:00 UTC | #458402

scottishgeologist's Avatar Comment 19 by scottishgeologist

david k said:

"I'm still waiting for someone other than a Theist attempt to tear Evolution apart"

Excellent point. These cretinists keep saying that "science PROVES evolution wrong"

Yet, there are AFAIK, NO atheist creationists. I dont know of any - creationism in any of its forms is predicated on theism, on what the bible says

If there WAS good evidence to challenge current evolutionary thinking, then there should be a sizeablenumber of scientists taking that position - there isnt, unless, and this is the key point, unless they are religious.

Its not the "science" that makes them go against evolution, its the religion

:-)
SG

PS: I notice from some googling on Sarfati that he used to be a chess champ - hence the cover!

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:34:00 UTC | #458409

Follow Peter Egan's Avatar Comment 20 by Follow Peter Egan

Sarfati is an unpleasant, theocratic bully without a shred of intellectual honesty.

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:58:00 UTC | #458424

HourglassMemory's Avatar Comment 21 by HourglassMemory

I'm stupified, as a 20 year old, with the fact that there are adults around me who write and then publish this kind of stuff.

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:01:00 UTC | #458427

severalspeciesof's Avatar Comment 22 by severalspeciesof

From the 'About the Author' part of the link:

As well as being very interested in formal logic and philosophy, Dr Sarfati is a keen chess player. He represented New Zealand in three Chess Olympiads and is a former New Zealand national chess champion. In 1988, F.I.D.E., the International Chess Federation, awarded him the title of F.I.D.E. Master (F.M.). He is well-known at major creation conferences for successfully playing, while blindfolded, up to 12 sighted challengers simultaneously.
Well, damned, if I had only known about this earlier...

Guess that proves that creationism is fact...

NOT!!!

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:12:00 UTC | #458433

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 23 by crookedshoes

I just read the introduction. There is not a single "new" sentence in it. Nothing original. He does do a pretty nice job with a straightforward bio of Richard and a kind of bookography. However, you have to read until the last paragraph for him to even get close to saying anything about his thesis. He basically says "Dawkins is wrong because I really, really want to be right"

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:28:00 UTC | #458443

DocWebster's Avatar Comment 24 by DocWebster

I'm beginning to realise that many of these books are not being written because of a dearth of counter-argument to The God Delusion, they are being written to cash in on a readership that is desperate to be able to point to somebody who appears educated and shares their beliefs so they'll feel less ignorant. I wonder what percentage of fleas actually hold the beliefs they spout to rebuke Richard. It seems to me that if the truth is what they were selling there would only need to be one book. Unfortunately for the faithful volume does not equal truth so it's still Richard Dawkins 1 - Faithheads 0

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:37:00 UTC | #458446

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 25 by Agrajag

16. Comment #479025 by weavehole on April 12, 2010 at 1:07 pm

Sarfati...sarfati..?

Slartibartfast. I told you it wasn't important.
;-)
Steve

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:41:00 UTC | #458449

Eyerish's Avatar Comment 26 by Eyerish

If it is printed on an absorbent paper I might buy it as an emergency source of dunny paper. It sounds like a cumulation of all the bible science that is fit to flush.

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:42:00 UTC | #458450

The Plc's Avatar Comment 27 by The Plc

"There are probably just a bunch of blank pages in there except for the first page that says, "God did it. Now wasn't that much easier than doing science?"

Julie
"
Creationism 101 right there! The exam only requires you to memorize three words!

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:58:00 UTC | #458461

Wadsworth's Avatar Comment 28 by Wadsworth

"Sarfati himself has criticised some of his opponents for their lack of appropriate credentials, noting of one researcher, that he was an anthropologist, and therefore "anything he says about radiometric dating should be taken with a large grain of salt."

Having just googled him,--and does he not deserve to be googled?--I noted the above sentence (Wikipedia). So apparently Safarti believes that an anthropologist should not use the tools of anthropology (and geology and paleontology as well, presumably),--like radiometric dating.
I think this is an example of creationist logic.

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:32:00 UTC | #458478

Wadsworth's Avatar Comment 29 by Wadsworth

"The front cover of the book makes no sense: science "topples" evolution?"

This is an old creationist tactic; I first came across it in the '60's. The creationists want to show that they are the scientists, and that evolution is only a wicked, atheist, materialist conspiracy, which they, as true scientists can overthrow.

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:43:00 UTC | #458483

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 30 by Steven Mading


The front cover of the book makes no sense: science "topples" evolution?

You shouldn't judge a book by its cover? Really?

If they knew even a cursory understanding of the rules of chess (they don't even have to be good at winning the game - just know the rules as well as your average grade-schooler) they could easily figure out that because of the rules of saying "check" and of it being illegal to place one's self in check, a king can't take another king in chess without being preceded by an illegal move the turn before.

So maybe what the cover is really trying to illustrate is how creationists have to cheat to win the argument.

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:55:00 UTC | #458495