The Majority is Always Wrong.

Category: Handing Out Darwin Awards to the Darwinists


Interesting book of 384 pages. First published in 2000.

Fifty creationist scientists were asked to explain why they were creationists and not darwinists. These fifty then responded with a brief essay or letter, providing a rationale for their worldview. Most of the essay responsives are quite cogent and circumstantiated; some, however, are laconic enough to make the reader wonder whether these scientists got the message that their response was actually going to be published, suffering not so much from lack of scholarship as simply from an obvious lack of time and effort. Again, fortunately this is not the case with most. Don DeYoung’s response letter was probably the skimpiest of the minority of skimpy ones. I cannot say this surprised me as, on a personal note, I once tried to contact Mr. DeYoung and never got a response back from him, nor from a representative of his. That man wrote a great and scholarly book that I had read and which obviously entailed much time and effort for him to produce, but personal interaction with his readers apparently does not elicit much time and effort from him.

On another sort of personal tangent here, I was a little piqued to see that the only jesuitically educated scientist in the book, Jack Cuozzo, was listed as—you guessed it!—scientist #33. There is that number again. Yes, THAT number. Was this a mere coincidence, or do we have another little secret-societal, high-degree, wink-and-nod thing going on? I do not know, but I might be inclined to bet on it, assuming we could ever really find out.

A surprising number of these creationist scientists hail from Australia. I found that somewhat interesting.

Another point of interest: Some scientists tended toward the analytical in their explanations. These tended to throw many numbers around, of course. Some other scientists tended more toward the philosophical, frankly. Yet, it was indeed intriguing to read how forceful was either approach in exposing the vacuity of darwinism.

This is highly recommendable reading, and I would predict that it would be just about guaranteed to elicit some sort of emotional, gut reaction from passersby who would be of the “purely scientifically minded” darwinist, a.k.a. evolutionist camp.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ


There are flaws that need to be mentioned here. Let’s mention them and get them out of the way because the rest of this book, the vast majority of it, is fantastic.
The flaws:
1) The author spends a few pages recounting a glorious biographical history of the scientific exploits of 19th-century Frenchman Louis Pasteur that is probably false. Read the book THE DREAM AND THE LIE OF LOUIS PASTEUR by R.B. Pearson for the real deal on that. Additionally, a photograph of Pasteur standing alongside his daughter is provided, and the author even praises the photo itself, declaring how it shows what a great family man Pasteur was. Trouble is, Pasteur is evincing an obvious freemasonic pose in the photo, and the author fails to note this. The author claims Christ as his Saviour; freemasonry is luciferian.
2) Two of the many other photographs of noteworthy 19th-century intellectuals reveal the subject of the photo evincing a freemasonic pose. Given that the author culminates his message by connecting the philosophical dots between Darwinism and the New World Order, passing acknowledgement of the part that high-degree freemasonry plays in the NWO should have been made, but it was not.
3) The author writes for a couple pages about the Apollo Moon “Landings.” Yeah, right.
4) Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are not differentiated from the true Christianity of the Scriptures.

Now the good stuff, and it really is excellent:
This is not the typical Creationist book; it is more interesting than most. Ian Taylor is truly insightful in making the big-picture connection between the Darwinian philosophy and the secular-humanism of the past and present architects of the New World Order.
Taylor focuses unwaveringly on PEOPLE: Historical luminaries, philosophers, inventors, theologians, scientists, etc., beginning with Plato and finishing up with Julian Huxley. In between, he documents noteworthy thinkers who had anything to do with or against the development of the Darwinian worldview. Many photographs of the personages are provided.
Taylor does a brilliant and thorough job (over 400 pages) of explaining, step by step, from very early on in history, what we now call “evolution” had always been percolating in unregenerate minds, and how, as the 19th century brought about Darwin and his racist, rebellious work, there really was, and had been for some time, a very real conspiracy of wealthy, antichrist intellectuals who helped promote, propagandize, and browbeat people with the new Darwinian dogma.
And Taylor adroitly documents how extraordinarily zealous were the historical apostles of Darwinism: Time and again, men like Haeckel and de Chardin and other Darwinian stalwarts bore false witness, cherry-picked their facts, engaged in unbridled, self-delusional bias, perpetrated hoaxes, conspired together in secret, resorted to intrigue—you know, all those hallmarks of modern, respectable scientific pursuit.
A brilliant book, very interesting to read. Taylor also finds the time and space to show, with a modicum of surprisingly detailed scientific rigor, why all the methods that Darwinists use to make their claim that the Earth is billions of years old are very, very suspect indeed.
Mostly, however, Taylor focuses on the history and the people involved. He also makes a quite compelling argument that the errant conjectures of Charles Lyell are of much more historical significance than the errant conjectures of Charles Darwin.
Also highlighted (lowlighted?) are the historical hireling shepherds who compromised with the Darwinian philistines or sold out the Bible entirely, and did so on the basis of a given set of “discovered facts” about “evolution” which nowadays, embarrassingly, even modern neo-Darwinists have acknowledged to be erroneous. Doh!!

First published in the early 1980s. Despite the flaws I give it my highest grade.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ


Another creationist book. Yes, it delves into many of the standard, necessary arguments in the “Creation vs. Evolution” debate. Yes, it devastates Darwinism succinctly, easily, convincingly. Yes, anyone who has read very many of the book reviews by this book reviewer knows by now that there are sundry reviews I have done on Creationist books, and no, I have done none so far on books by Darwinists (“evolutionists”). Look, the reason for this is simple, and it is reasonable: I grew up being taught Darwinism in the elementary and secondary schools that I attended; whenever I watched any kind of documentaries about animals or insects or dinosaurs or anything biology-related on TV while growing up (which I habitually did), I was only ever taught Darwinism on those; when attending college(s), I was taught only Darwinism in biology and other classes; during and for many years after college, whenever I watched any kind of “science”-related documentary on cable TV–on, say, The Discovery Channel or whatnot–the only worldview ever taught as “science” to me on those was Darwinism; in addition, if I should have desired to attend a motion picture such as JURASSIC PARK (which I did) or other such spinoffs, those also only sought to indoctrinate me with the precepts and suppositions of Darwinism. Therefore, just by being and living in this culture, in this Darwinized civilization we find ourselves in, I and we are constantly indoctrinated in all manner of Darwinian assumptions. I get all that. We get all that. We get it daily. I know all about that. What I do NOT know about, unless I read books like these, like these Creationist works, is the OTHER side. And as it turns out, that OTHER side, the OTHER argument, the view that is never heard on mainstream media at all unless solely to be ridiculed–well, it turns out, that other side completely demolishes the mainstream interpretation of events. (Gee, where have I encountered that principle before? The better question: Where have I NOT encountered that principle before?!)
So, about this particular book: The author is a well-lettered scientist and former “evolution” teacher himself, and is now a (“Gulp,” go the Darwinists) Creationist. He writes in a succinct, efficient style, he is very acquainted with a variety of scientific and especially biological principals, with cellular processes, Mendelian genetic formulas, etc., etc. His writing style is scientifically exacting, true; but it seems that he also streamlines topics for the curious layperson to read with facility. Indeed, the tendency of the occasional, accompanying, black-and-white line diagrams tends a bit toward the cartoony here, and it seems the author is also using these as some sort of fitting foil for the purpose of softening the scientific nature of his elucidations.
He also does that other thing that creationist book writers do that so vexes “evolutionary scientists”: He supplies a fair amount of quotations from the leading “evolutionary scientists” themselves which severely demonstrate the doubtfulness of their own belief system.
Parker is also to be commended for having understanding of the importance of clear language in any ideological debate: Although he does accept the usage of the slippery, ambiguous word “evolution,” he nevertheless is linguistically savvy enough not to accept any “isms” after the word “Creation.” The author always writes “Creation,” never “Creationism.” One example from page 38 is illustrative: Here he briefly compares “Creation” to the mutually opposing philosophies “Vitalism” and “Mechanism,” and note that he sticks the “isms” on the two philosophies, but not on the word “Creation.” Too many Creationist proponents have accepted the usage of the word “Creationism” to describe their worldview, not aware of the slight that has been leveled against them already, mistakenly underestimating the importance of concise language and the little derogatory jabs that can be contained in even a few tacked-on pre-or-suffix letters, such as we find in the word “CreationISM.” Stick the other side with the “ISM”; do not accept the “ISM” for one’s own side. Like any other debate in society, it is as much about language as anything else. Never forget that. Further proof of the author’s appreciation of the importance of concise language can be seen when he uses the inventive words “docudramas” and “infotainment” to describe the kind of Discovery Channel and Science Channel documentaries that I used to watch, the kind that spew the same, corporate-line propaganda about “evolutionary science.”
On pages 208-209, there is a very succinct, very reasonable conjecture regarding some of the effects of the Ice Age I have not encountered elsewhere. That was interesting and appreciable.
Even better, for several pages there is some really insightful information given regarding the formation of the Grand Canyon from a Genesis Flood perspective. It is especially interesting given that the author himself writes that he used to take students out and show them the Grand Canyon and tell them it was millions of years old, and now, after having discarded his Darwinian belief system, when he visits the Grand Canyon, he sees how the Genesis Flood account so much more convincingly explains its geological formation, and he is embarrassed and amazed that he could have ever looked upon the same rocks with such uncomprehending eyes.
If I had to isolate one single recurring idea or theme of this author/scientist that marks his argumentation as different from any of the other Creationist works I have read thus far, it would be this: He readily writes about the concept and reality of genetic mutations and the ability of genetic mutations to cause “changes” over time in a fixed population of a specific kind of organism, though, as a Creationist, he staunchly (and empirically) asserts that these changes do not ever cause a NEW KIND of organism to form, and that nearly all of these mutations are BAD, and that they ACCUMULATE in the DNA of the organisms. Still, it is interesting to read the words of a Creationist who embraces the “mutations cause changes” line, even the very words that “evolutionists” use to describe the concept, so readily and consistently and enthusiastically. Not that other Creationists avoid or disagree with the notion; just that most Creationists do not emphasize it. But Parker, he emphasizes it. Indeed, it is his fundamental point, his foundational point where he grounds his message in order to explain the reality, the truth, of the entire Garden of Eden account, and mankind’s subsequent Fall from Grace into this trouble-torn, strife-ridden, plague-encompassed temporal existence wherein we now find ourselves. For Parker, The Fall can be explained thusly: We fell from a state of perfection, we had the maintenance of that perfection stripped from us, and we are all by now mutation-accumulated.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ


This could very well be the single most useful tool for the new initiate in the Creation vs. Evolutionism Debate. I was surprised to find that this was actually a relatively compact paperback, for it is indeed jam-packed with scientific and historical facts and authoritative quotes, categorically organized for quick and easy reference. The many quotes cited herein are the usual kind one finds in these books: A large minority of astute quotes from leading Creationists, and a larger majority of embarrassingly revealing quotes from leading Darwinists. But the categorical organization of the quotes–and facts–makes this book a very valuable resource indeed.

I was introduced to this book through a Kent Hovind DVD; Hovind had lauded it a time or two; I can now attest that Hovind was right to have done so. This book is highly commendable.

True, there are a few minor flaws; namely, two or three possible evidences, among the litany of evidences given in favor of Creation, are presented as factual instead of as possible or even probable. For example, the well known “rotting plesiosaur carcass” that a Japanese fishing trawler dredged up a few decades back and famously photographed before it was thrown back into the ocean. This book presents as fact the “discovery” of a “plesiosaur” in modern times. Of course, Darwinists insist that the carcass was a decomposing basking shark; and, of course again, Darwinists present their account as factual also. But the FACT of the matter is that nobody can know for sure what it was: All we can know for certain is that some Japanese fishermen caught and photographed the extremely odd-looking thing, then disposed of it, and then the Japanese government later officially commemorated the event with a postage stamp indicating that it had been a plesiosaur. That is all we can know of this incident for a FACT. So at times, this author, and other creationists, do occasionally present theories and possibilities as fact. What should be needless to write is that the Darwinists do this even more, but there, I went ahead and wrote it out anyway for those not paying attention to the materialist cultural indoctrination posing as “science” that is all around us today.

Another flaw with this book is that the one or two most nettlesome areas for Creationists to explain are not even addressed at all. For example, the peculiar predominance and isolation of marsupials in Australia. But exponents of any agenda whatsoever tend to do the same: Go with their “strong stuff” and leave out their “weak stuff.” And I am now convinced that for every apparently weak link in the argumentative chain in favor of Creation, there are literally dozens of such apparently weak links in the “Evolution” story.

Bottom line: This book is so perceptive, so well organized, and so well documented overall that I can easily forgive its minor flaws, and if I had to debate a Darwinist and could only arm myself with one book, I would probably go with this one. It is that comprehensive; it is that easy to find scientific and historical authoritative citations in this book.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ

THE GENESIS FLOOD by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris

Henry Morris was the scientist, John Whitcomb was the theologian. With this book they together created what Neo-Darwinian philosopher Stephen Jay Gould called “the founding document of the creationist movement.” It was published in 1961. I had long been aware of this book, I’d been wanting to read it someday, eventually; I finally did. Despite its being more than a half-century old, surprisingly little of it is in any kind of need of updating, as the issues, arguments, facts, and scientific principles are pretty much just like they were in 1961.

Morris’s particular field of scientific study, for which he certainly had all the right scientific credentials, was hydrogeology; which, as convenience–or dare I say the Lord–would have it, is exactly the kind of scientific background a man might need in order to be able to expound upon the possibles and probables of the Noahic Flood. And expound Morris does, and it is overabundantly clear that Morris knew a very great deal about what he was writing; truly, there is a great deal here about the actions and effects of lots of water upon lots of dirt.

But Morris doesn’t limit himself to just his particular specialized field of scientific study; this is so very unlike Darwinian philosopher-scientists, who have such a penchant for hiding behind their own particular field of study, so often feigning near total ignorance of other scientific fields, especially in the middle of a debate. Morris, as is now common among many leading Creation apologists, evinces a markedly more well rounded scientific education; he could and did herein write much about multiple fields of study, convincingly and scientifically. Creationists are of course held to a higher standard by the world and its exclusionary academic Darwinian priests, the fortunate result of this double-standard is the oft-repeated spectacle of leading Creationist apologists nearly always performing much better than the leading Darwinian apologists in debates, Morris being an early 1960s example of this phenomenon.

This book was a landmark achievement over a half century ago. The scientific and other information contained herein would seem to this reader to remain acutely relevant in our day. Typically, and expectedly, neo-Darwinians simply dismiss this sort of scientific treatise; on occasion they may deign to airily “refute” parts of it, but they can probably only do so by committing one or other of the assumptive fallacies which Morris and Whitcomb have already likewise exposed as being unscientific. For example, the aforementioned High Priest of Darwinism, Steven Jay Gould, ridiculed Morris’s Genesis Deluge account of today’s “fossil record” thusly:

“Surely, somewhere, at least one courageous trilobite would have paddled on valiantly (as its colleagues succumbed) and won a place in the upper strata. Surely, on some primordial beach, a man would have suffered a heart attack and been washed into the lower strata before intelligence had a chance to plot a temporary escape….No trilobite lies in the upper strata because they all perished 225 million years ago. No man keep lithified company with a dinosaur, because we were still 60 million years in the future when the last dinosaur perished.”

With this quote, Gould, like most Darwinists tend to do, has taken the complicated scientific principles which Morris lays out, then he mixes in some unscientific assumptions which Morris already exposed as such in other parts of the book (like the circular reasoning of how Darwinists date the rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks, and the impossible problem–from the Darwinian account–of the gigantic geological overthrusts, etc.), and Gould then dumbs down the argument to where the average non-investigating plebe will be browbeaten into submission by Gould’s puerile rhetoric. So guys like Gould can go on appealing–as well as teaching–to the majority that long ago and far away in a distant land we and all other life forms came from a rock, and then he never even told us where in the Hell the rock ever came from in the first place, much less how the rock became alive; but that balderdash is considered “science” to unregenerate men like Gould, while he gets to have a mainstream-majority podium with which to mock a thoroughly scientific endeavor like this work of Morris’s.

The world is upside down, same as it ever was, just a different set of academic high priests overlording and suppressing empirical and logical dissent.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ


Only a few slight flaws mar this otherwise sound and rather thorough refutation of the religion of Darwinism. Author Don Boys had a breviloquent career as a republican politician and then started making the rounds as a talk show guest back in the early 1990s. One of those flaws is that his writing tends to utilize ad-hominem rhetorical sarcasm a little too much (and then he indecorously points out near the end of his book that this is a common tactic of Darwinists). In addition to that, Boys buys into the whole “conservative vs. liberal” thing a little too much, and he also believes in the bogus Apollo “moon landings.” That’s too bad.

Nevertheless, most of this book is quite useful and effective, loaded with damning, embarrassing quotations from many of the world’s leading Darwinists themselves. There is also plenty of factual and scientific evidence provided in favor of Creation, and a roughly equal amount of same which goes a long way toward disproving Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. In short, Boys covers much of the same material as can be found in most any other Creationist book, and he is well organized and fairly exhaustive in doing so.

This book is recommendable. Boys efficiently accomplishes what he set out to do.

Addendum: Very soon after having read this book, this reader happened to come across a much more recent online essay by Dr. Boys in which he jingoistically calls for a massive escalation of the current crusade against “Muslim extremists.” So that tells me that Boys is still around today. Unfortunately, it also tells me that Boys has been completely duped by the bogus official 911 government story, and the whole Osama-Bin-Goldstein-boogeyman propaganda. Stuff like this is so common now, and so frightfully lamentable. Why are so many evangelical Christians–even those who see right through the scam of Darwinism–so utterly gullible when it comes to the Vatican-driven modern Crusades into the Holy Land? This is so vexing–what can you do with stuff like this? I mean, where do you even begin to educate ill-informed jingoists-for-Christ like this who have had their factual protestant history and eschatology stolen from them and replaced with jesuitical futurism (or jesuitical preterism)? It’s distressing almost to the point of being beyond belief. So the lesson is this: This guy Boys is to be trusted on the subject of Darwinism, but for everything else, no, stay away from the guy. He doesn’t know the true history of those who have been persecuted for Christ and why. I’m sure he would say and insist that he does; he does not.

Pretty good book he did here, though.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ


One of the few scientists in the world to have earned three-doctorates, A.E. Wilder-Smith had superlative white-coated credentials. The guy was a brainiac. He was one of the giants upon whose shoulders the modern “Intelligent Design Movement” is now standing. He wrote this in 1981. It is surprisingly thin in number of pages, but the pages are often dense with scientific principles and scientific language. And yet somehow this is quite readable for the layman like myself.

Early on, he only cursorily addresses the fallacy of “theistic evolution,” devoting the rest of the book to breaking apart and basically scientifically deconstructing and dismantling naturalistic evolution, i.e., modern neodarwinism. He exposes neodarwinism as–sure enough–a philosophy posing as a science. He relies much on the same arguments that the modern “ID Movement” pundits now use, but some of his arguments and scientific facts are unique to him even to this day, so far as this reader can tell. If I were to elaborate on his scientific reasoning, I would be at this book review for a very long time, and I am not about to do that. Go read it. I will say this: He has much to say in scientific detail about enzymes and enzymatic actions and interactions.

Oh, there are also a few tantalizing paragraphs about the human-along-with-dinosaur footprints in Glen Rose, Texas. Apparently, Dr. Wilder-Smith suspected that those were authentic. Given the dismal track record of evolutionary paleontologists’ veracity, they probably were/are.

I bought this book after I was in a sort of debate with a theistic (and theosophical) darwinist. I have long since seen the stupidity of purely naturalistic “evolution.” But this theosophist I encountered, his panspermaic views definitely put a different twist on darwinian philosophy. So that topic, theistic evolution, was fresh with me when I obtained this book. Not that creationists avoid the topic of theistic “evolution” in general–quite the contrary. However, Dr. Wilder-Smith does not address it much; one could still manage to believe in a form of theistic evolution after reading this book, should one prefer such a faith system. But one simply cannot retain a belief in a purely naturalistic, neodarwinian explanation of the Origin of Life, not unless one is insane, terribly ignorant, or flat-out hopelessly wicked and in wanton rebellion against his Creator. For everybody else, Wilder-Smith rationally and scientifically removes the naturalistic option from the discussion of possibilites for why we are here.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ



Originally published in 1946 and later revised, this is a concise, well referenced book, this is not an exhaustive tome but rather meant as an introduction to the subject. Henry Morris is also the author of the more well known (in Christian circles) “The Genesis Flood.” In this work, the subject matter is more varied and summative.

Morris recites and discusses the many verses from the Scriptures which are not only in accord with historically recent findings from various branches of modern science, but were also uncannily prescient of them. Verses of Scripture which make claims long ago alluding to and by now confirmed by modern astronomy, geophysics, hydrology, and biology are all discussed. There is, of course, the requisite chapter dedicated to refuting evolutionism, and another chapter confirming the Great Deluge, with Morris consistently appealing to known scientific facts to accomplish both. Another chapter finds Morris briefly delving into recorded history to confirm the Scriptures, and finally, Morris finishes up with a compendious chapter on prophecy and the stupdendous mathematical impossibilities that all the Scriptural prophecies, especially all of the Messianic ones, should be fulfilled.

Henry Morris was obviously a very scholarly man who knew his science, knew his Scripture, and was a competent, clear writer as well. It was rewarding and edifying to read this.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ

AFTER THE FLOOD by Bill Cooper

A phenomenal book. Quite extraordinary. Bill Cooper is an Englishman (and not the late American Bill Cooper of “Hour of the Time” shortwave fame) and a member of the Creation Science Movement, and he wrote this in 1995. Unless he has written another one, this is his masterpiece.

Cooper examined the genealogical records and literature of ancient European peoples. He evidently examined them quite exhaustively, though this book of his can be read in a couple of days. Cooper shows how these ancient European peoples all traced their lineage back to Japheth, son of Noah. It is a rather startling confirmation of the account given to us in the Book of Genesis, and provides more evidence for the Earth being a whole lot younger than the modernistic darwinian philosophy would have us believe.

Cooper also shows from the ancient records how Darwinism is not modern at all, but is actually a rehashing of a philosophy once taught by a few ancient Greek teachers.

Cooper also provides much evidence from these bygone records which does indeed seem to show that dinosaurs and humans lived together on the Earth at the same time. Admittedly, there are minor flaws in this section of the book, as Cooper has a tendency to jump to unwarranted conclusions a bit too much here, and one photograph that he provides is of too poor quality for the reader to visually verify what he is claiming. Notwithstanding, the totality of this material too is quite compelling.

Almost all, if not all, of the ancient source material from which Cooper is drawing comes from written records which have been dismissed by modernist scholars as being all or nearly all fictitious. If Cooper does one thing best throughout this work, it is this: He rationally and repeatedly demonstrates how these modernist scholars are evincing unreasonable bias when dismissing these ancient records.

The genealogical charts which Cooper provides are quite intriguing indeed.

The writing is very clear and so this is very readable. Cooper has obviously spent much time in researching these ancient records before setting down his pen to write. He surely seems to have discovered yet another way to confirm the Book of Genesis. He writes with an aplomb that is sure to antagonize any darwinian materialist.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ

THE FLOOD: In the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology by Alfred Rehwinkel

This book was published in 1951 but it is just as relevant today as it was then. Rehwinkel’s quite advanced education was in theology. However, the man was obviously very astute and knowledgable in expounding upon archaeology and geology. While this book on the Noahic Flood is not as broadly scholastic as Henry Morris’s somewhat more famous book, it is nevertheless very erudite in these two secular sciences, and I am told it remains a standard today in whatever vestiges may remain of conservative Bible Colleges.

In what is probably the most remarkable chapter of an overall remarkable book, Rehwinkel describes in good detail the multitudinous tribes of peoples all around the world who have, in their distant ancestral tradition, an account of a great global flood. What is intensely interesting is the fact that a great many of these peoples have never had any contact with one another. Atheists have long argued that the Flood account in Genesis 6 was merely copied from the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, but Rehwinkel shows that argument to be untenable.

Rehwinkel shows how untenable are many other atheistic/darwinian claims as well. This is highly recommendable to anyone seriously seeking to understand man’s ultimate origins, anyone who is willing to consider the possibility that the dogma of Darwinism might just be a case of the emperor having no clothes.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ