The Counter-Creationism Handbook comes to the masses!

| 20 Comments

Here's some happy news for all you warriors against creationism: Mark Isaak's Counter-Creationism Handbook(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), that wonderfully indispensable and entirely portable version of the Index to Creationist Claims, can now be purchased in paperback for less than $15. It was previously only available in a rather pricey but but extremely well bound edition. Next time you attend a talk by Ken Ham or Duane Gish or any of the common-as-dirt wandering creationists (or Kent Hovind, once they let him out of jail*), you'll want a copy of this with you—teach them to fear the power of well-referenced and clear answers to their crazy objections.


*Say, do you think we ought to take up a collection and buy a copy for the prison library?

20 Comments

We should definitely send one to the prison library with whole bunch of good reading.

Where do we send our $$$? ;-)

Is it going to be avaiable in the UK by any chance ? I’ve checked Amazon.co.uk. Unfortunately it’s not there.

I think I’ll take up a collection at my church, buy some copies, and donate them to Dover High School.

No, mark, see, in order to get into the full spirit of it, you have to: - Make a meandering statement about how people can give if they want, but it’s no big deal if they don’t, because after all, it isn’t an official collection. - Give the money to your father, who will then write a check for the order, making him simultaneously the source and not the source of the books (depending on which is more convenient at the time) - And most importantly, deny all knowledge of the process.

After all, if they can do it and try to get away with it, why shouldn’t we?

It does appear on Amazon UK for me - try searching for “Mark Isaak” and it’ll come up.

It’s a shame that this really is nothing more than a paper version of the TalkOrigins archive. As useful as that is, I would have liked to see some of the referenced papers discussed in more detail. Just printing the URL isn’t much help; if I were sat in front of a computer with an internet connection I wouldn’t need the book in the first place.

It does appear on Amazon UK for me - try searching for “Mark Isaak” and it’ll come up.

Thanks Matthew. I’ll try that. It really is an excellent piece of work.

A book version of TalkOrigins? Egads, the online version is dreadful enough.

Some interesting responses from those wacky Creationists:

http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Cr[…]onist_Claims

What’s interesting about them? It’s the same old denial of reality. It’s hard to take someone seriously when they say things like this:

Nobody saw the hypothetical creature reproduce so many times that it became a fish

The “Index to Creationist Claims” page on Talk Origins seems to be updated frequently. Why hasn’t the “Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics” page been updated since 2003? Is it perhaps because the scientific evidence hasn’t been very favorable for the “shared errors” argument? I take a stab at the issue in the following essay. Since my position is pro-ID, I suspect the essay will go over like a lead balloon in this forum, but here goes:

http://www.geocities.com/wade_schau[…]ing_Tide.pdf

For the interest of PT’s audience, a piece from today’s Guardian: Richard Buggs: Intelligent design is a science, not a faith.

The only new twist that distinguishes it about standard creationist letters is that, Mr Buggs readily refers to his publications to claim some authority in talking about Darwin and evolution.

I just bumped into this:

Debate on Evolution and Intelligent Design - Lewis Wolpert vs Steve Fuller at Royal Hollaway University of London on 21st Feb

Wade Schauer:

There’s nothing in your article that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory, and there is no evidence that there was an intelligent designer designing all these organisms.

Lewis Wolpert vs Steve Fuller

Heh, for a second there I thought Fuller was gonna debate David Wolpert, of “No Free Lunch” and “Jello” fame.

But this is gonna be very cool nonetheless.

Aagcobb Wrote:

There’s nothing in your article that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory, and there is no evidence that there was an intelligent designer designing all these organisms

The evidence presented in the anti-“Junk DNA” portion of my essay does severely weaken some of the main “evidences for evolution”. For example, in the “Index to Creationist Claims” we find the following:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI141.html There are similarities that cannot rationally be attributed to design. For example, an endogenous retroviral element (ERV) is a retrovirus (a parasite) that has become part of the genome.

There is now abundant evidence that many ERVs are not “parasites” - they serve functional roles in humans and the same roles in chimps. Therefor, common descent is not the only explanation for shared ERVs between species, common design is equally valid. http://www.geocities.com/wade_schau[…]ing_Tide.pdf

Wade, you have to start making specific predictions of what is to be discovered, and be more accurate than those predictions made re evolution, if you wish to be taken seriously. After-the-fact handwaving doesn’t count, no matter how persuasive it might sound to those who already agree with you.

MarkP Wrote:

Wade, you have to start making specific predictions of what is to be discovered, and be more accurate than those predictions made re evolution, if you wish to be taken seriously.

Back in 1999 when Richard Dawkins estimated that only 2% of the human genome was used, many ID proponents instead “predicted” that much of what was once considered junk would be found to be functional based upon the design argument. http://www.researchintelligentdesig[…]iki/Junk_DNA

Wade Schauer Wrote:

Back in 1999 when Richard Dawkins estimated that only 2% of the human genome was used…

Wade, I’m not buying it. Cite your source, and give us direct quotes, with appropriate context. What did Richard Dawkins really say?

Steve Greene Wrote:

Wade, I’m not buying it. Cite your source, and give us direct quotes, with appropriate context. What did Richard Dawkins really say?

OK - here you go:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm The Information Challenge by Richard Dawkins … And there’s lots more DNA that doesn’t even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It consists of multiple copies of junk, “tandem repeats”, and other nonsense which may be useful for forensic detectives but which doesn’t seem to be used in the body itself. Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA … Can we measure the information capacity of that portion of the genome which is actually used? We can at least estimate it. In the case of the human genome it is about 2% - considerably less than the proportion of my hard disc that I have ever used since I bought it.

And you will see from the information I list in my essay that he was wrong about tandem repeats and about the amount of the human genome that is used. http://www.geocities.com/wade_schau[…]ing_Tide.pdf

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on January 4, 2007 4:55 PM.

Tangled Bank #70 was the previous entry in this blog.

Get your beachfront property now… is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter