Ha ha, excellent. The book is hot off the presses and already redundant. Many of the gaps it uses as "evidence" were filled between writing and printing. It offers no evidence to support it, as always it just tries to pick holes in Evolution.

This is all rehashed nonsense. Typical IDiotic literature that grasps to idea's that are continually shown to be false, yet keep being brought up. NO, evolution doesn't answer everything (yet), only 99% of all biology. But Cretanism answers nothing, has not helped medical advances in the slightest and has kept human understanding in the Bronze Age, where this kind of thing belongs.

It appeals to the ignorant, by feeding their igorance. Read a proper scientific book, one that shows REAL imperical evidence, with data that can be checked and verified, that is held up to pier review, then go back and read this. You'll see just how fallacious it is.

Honestly, I just shake my head in dismay that people believe this cr@p

I wish someone would come to one of his talks and stand up and challenge him with what you have said and I'd like to get his response on video. I seriously don't know what he would say but it would be interesting.

Also note that - Creationism is a new for what we used to call "Science" until the "Scientists" decided that all God Believing Scientists weren't Scientists anymore... ha, ha!!!

You're absolutely right. The first scientists were called "Natural Philosophers" and many would look for God's work in nature. However they soon discovered that you can't do true science by bringing biases into the lab with you and the more than science has discovered the less the need for God in nature, they have found.

Scientists don't have a problem with God Believing Scientists. Scientists have a problem with other scientists bringing God into the lab.

Francis Collins had done pretty well an evangelical Christian... who knows ID is a nonsense.

I'll set everyone on this site a challenge. Give me 5 things that you think evolution can't answer and I'll give you 5 that I think creationism can't answer, then we each have a week to find an explanation.

Oh and the reason that you won't get Biologists going to talks like his is the same reason you won't get Cosmologists going to talks on Astrology or Chemists going to talks on Alchemy. It gives credence to an arguement that doesn't exist.

Hit the link and let me know how Cretinism explains it in ANY way...

Interesting though a bit too "esoteric" -- I mean "toothless whales?"

That said, I was surprised that the article didn't have the standard: "I believe" Or "I suggest", "It's very likely" or those wishy-washy statements that most evolution book/articles have.

I finally watched the show. It's a bit dry. The STR podcast was much better. Listen to that instead. Q&A is good.