The author claims to be the great great grandson of Charles Darwin.
His book is an account of the Intelligent Design case in
Pennsylvania. He says he originally thought intelligent design should
be banned from the classroom, but now favors creationism to be taught
in all it's forms. I skimmed through parts of the book and found it to
be a waste of my time. It was a hack job attack on the Intelligent
Design movement. I wonder what he means by allowing creationism to be
taught in all its forms? Does he mean that straw man arguments
should be taught by evolutionists in order to be knocked down?
His portrait of the Scopes goes about what we now know about the
trial. Contrary to being a contest of great causes, it was a publicity
stunt. Chapman fails to mention that William Jennings Bryan offered to
pay the fine levied on Scopes. Chapman fails to mention that Scopes
was offered his job back.
A far superior book discussing the Scopes trial and creation vs.
evolution is TORNADO IN A JUNKYARD by James Perloff. Mr. Perloff
provides references with endnotes. It also has an index. Mr. Chapman's
book by contrast has neither endnotes or index. Mr. Perloff references
the court transcripts and other sources. Perloff shows where the
play "Inherit the Wind" differs from the facts. By contrast it looks
as if Chapman bases his story about the Scopes trial on the play. I
guess Chapman feels no need to do real research. I wonder if Chapman
shares his great great grandfather's view that blacks are closer to
apes than whites? Does he call blacks savages? Does he still believe
in the bogus "science" of phrenology, i.e. reading bumps on peoples'
heads? Does he believe in eugenics? Does he admire the Nazi efforts at
eugenics?
Evolutionists love to portray themselves as defenders of truth. In
reality they are most accurately described by the passage in Romans as
suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. They seem to think they
can "prove" evolution by silencing or firing dissenters. Engaging in
personality attacks does not "prove" evolution. Chapman points out
that Jonathan Wells is a moonie. This is a fallacious argument. It is
known as argument ad hominem. In other words ignore the argument,
attack the person. Chapman fails to address the technical arguments of
Jonathan Wells book ICONS OF EVOLUTION. I wonder if Chapman favors
using Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings? Does Chapman favor using
fraudulent drawings because they "prove" evolution? Does he favor
silencing anyone who points the drawings are fake?
I must admit I only skimmed through this book. But it is interesting
what information one can glean by skimming if one knows where to look,
or what to look for. My guess is I wasted 40 minutes or so of my time
looking at this heap of garbage. Perhaps I could call my review "40
Days, 40 Nights and a waste of my 40 minutes."
Perhaps Chapman thinks one is foolish for believing that there is
design in nature. Perhaps he would like everyone to believe that
nature only has the appearance of design. I must say Chapman's book is
not a work of intelligent design. It is a hack job masquerading as
intelligent design or journalism.
# posted by GuyTak @ 10:39 PM
