|Home | Intro | About | Feedback | Prev | Next||
|page : 1 2 3 4 5|
| 24 Jun 2000
From: Robert Holloway
|Subject: Monkeys and Typewriters
Some creationists claim that Huxley told the Monkeys and typewriter story in 1860 during the debate with the Bishop. However, the typewriter was not invented until 1873 and came on the market in 1874. It is not likely that an audience in 1860 would have ever heard of a typewriter and certainly it was not in common use. The story is a hoax.
Thanks Robert. Foster uncritically attributed the typewriter story to Huxley(1860), but the point of the story remains true: there are computable limits to the power of chance + time. [gk]
| 13 Jun 2000
From: Ralf Schroeter
|Subject: Review on Lima-de-Faria
I myself did work on A. Lima-de-Faria´s theories which not only appeared quite reasonable to me but also exited me due to their coherence and logic. I just wanted to encourage you to have a look at de-Farias "Biological Periodicity: Its Molecular Mechanism and Evolutionary Implications" which is a logical follower to "Evolution without selection". The only thing I can tell you is that it took me months to get an idea of its vast and fascinating implications!
A table of contents of Biological Periodicity can be found at barnesandnoble.com [gk]
| 19 May 2000
From: "The Famous Brett Watson"
|Subject: Darwin on Trial
I found your list of book reviews on matters of Creation and Evolution (via Google), and it looks like an excellent resource. Congratulations on a job well done. I myself have read a number of the books, particularly (but not exclusively) the ones in the category "Creationism and Intelligent Design Theory". Having read your review of "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson (plus his response), I'd like to challenge you on a point or two of your criticism.
First of all, let me disclose my bias and my area of knowledge. I am a creationist, and a Christian. My primary field of knowledge is computer science, but I also have a keen interest in philosophy, particularly epistemology. I'm a nerd in general, and take an interest in matters of science in the broad sense, but it's unlikely that I'll ever have any particular expertise in any of the "sciences" (like geology, physics, chemistry, etc, unless you count computer science as a "science", which I don't).
The mail was too long to post here completely. Contact TFBW for the complete copy. [gk]
| 15 May 2000
From: Don Cruse
|Subject: Darwin's Logic
Dear Mr. Korthof,
I have only just become aware of your web site, and have much enjoyed my
first viewing, and your very balanced approach. I am a semi-retired business
man, and have developed in my spare time a different kind of Darwinian
critique, one that focuses on the theory's underlying logic.
| 7 May 2000
From: Cherif El Ayouty
|Subject: Your website
I have admired very much your excellent website with
the only in the world available clear presentation of
all books related to the theories of Darwin and
Genesis concerning the origin of life.
I have also enjoyed your wonderfull review of some of
I truly wish that a man having a totally neutral
position like you could review my book as I am
fighting against a very strong tide. All authors of
books, for or against Darwin, for or against Genesis
have a political, religious or scientific agenda and
they have to conform one way or the other to the rules
of their group or they stand to loose a great deal.
That does not apply to my case as I am a very lonely
pioneer, very humbly indeed, and any support is
Thank you very much for your attention.
Cherif El Ayouty
I received the book from the author. Remarkably Dr. Collin Patterson's help is not acknowledged in the Preface. There are no references and no index in the book. [GK]
| 16 April 2000
William A. Dembski Ph.D.
|Subject: Dr. Dembski's response to the review of Intelligent Design.
I did owe you the courtesy of responding to your emails. The main objection you raise, and one you raise repeatedly, is the supposed ability of Darwinian selection to produce what I attribute to design. It can't, and the arguments I give in my previously published work do, I think, argue for this effectively. Nonetheless, the argument can be made even more effective, and I'm currently writing a book showing that the Darwinian mechanism is not the magic design bullet it is made out to be. Send me your mailing address. I may wish to send you some chapter drafts.
Address: William A. Dembski The Michael Polanyi Center P.O. Box 97130 Baylor University Waco, TX 76798-7130 Phone: (254) 710-4175 (Waco) (972) 570-3751 (Dallas) Fax: (254) 710-3600 (Waco) (972) 258-5235 (Dallas) E-mail: William_Dembski@baylor.edu Web: www.baylor.edu/~William_Dembski (personal) www.baylor.edu/~polanyi (Michael Polanyi Center)
I wish to thank prof Enezio E. de Almeida Filho from Brazil for being an intermediary between me and Dr. Dembski.
Please note that Dr. Dembski refers to his previous and his next book, hardly to the current book I reviewed. Indeed I did defend, among others things, the ability of Darwinian selection to produce 'design', but Dembski ignored the rest of the review which is a critical analysis of his concept of information applied to biology. Furthermore Dembski ignored my False Positive case of Intelligent Design. [GK]
| 23 Mar 2000
From: William Seager
|Subject: histone H4
Bye for now,
The number .01 per billion (109) is from Maynard Smith(1998), page 148. What is the source of your 'correct' figure?
According to the Histone Sequence Database there is >95% identity across all known histone-H4 sequences. It seems that variability is limited to single cell organisms.[GK]
| 10 Mar 2000
From: Razel Remen
You might want to add The Web of Life. A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems by Fritjof Capra to your "Was Darwin Wrong" web page. The book gives a lot of insight into why Darwin was wrong.
| 28 Feb 2000
James M Kaleta
|Subject: YEC book reviews
Love the site. I know that you can't cover every single book written on the subject but I note that your reviews tend to cover those written by what is sometimes referred to as the "Old-Earth-Creationist" crowd (Behe, Johnson, etc.) but don't really touch the Biblical literalist "Young-Earth-Creationist" bunch. Since the latter makes up the majority of the creationists who are politically active in the United States, why not cover one of their books? One that seems to pretty much summarize their thinking is Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati. I'd be interested in seeing your opinions on that one.
I will have a look at the book [GK].
| 21 Jan 2000
I don't know of a site, but Arthur Strahler mentions in his Science and
Earth History, p426, that the British Museum examined the specimens
and published a report:
| 17 Jan 2000
From: Phil Ord
|Subject: Ken Wilber's work.
It amazes me that there's no mention of Ken Wilber's work on your site. In my opinion Wilber's work provides a resolution to the whole debate in having respect for science, religion, and philosophy. See, for example,
It is mentioned now. [GK]
| 30 Nov 1999
From: Jill Neimark
|Subject: your site
I'm going to look at your site as I'm profiling Lynn Margulis for Discover Magazine.
Amazing, absolutely stunning, that you left her out. She's only one of the greatest thinkers who put together one of the most important pieces on evolution this century!
Better get a review of Five Kingdoms and Symbiosis in Cell Evolution on that page soon!
It takes time to write a good review! [GK]
| 2 Nov 1999
From: Tom McIver
|Subject: Evolution: for and against
Dear Gert Korthof:
I came across your web page today and read some of your very balanced reviews.
I notice you mention the anti-evolution bibliography1 I wrote in 1988.
If you don't have a copy I could send you a photocopy of the entire work (I only have one copy of the actual book).
The paperback edition is available through Amazon.com and other online sellers.
1. Anti-Evolution. A Reader's Guide to Writings before and after Darwin, by Tom McIver
The book has been reviewed now (17 Mar 2000) on this site [GK].
|11 Oct 1999
From: Brig Klyce
|Subject: review of Mathematics of Evolution
Dear Gert --
I have just only glanced at your review. The review looks great. It is thorough, and shows that you have not only read the book, but are very familiar [with] lot's of related material and are well qualified to review it. I will add a link to your review today or tomorrow.
My only quibble is with your comment, "A few sections are about his 'Life from space' (Panspermia) hypothesis." I don't know which sections you mean. Of course your readers who are familiar with Hoyle will be interested in his views on panspermia, but does he really discuss them in this book?
Thanks again for the review. It's the first one I know of, and it is a good one!
Brig Klyce * http://www.panspermia.org
| 06 Aug 1999
From: James Graham
|Subject: My book 'Cancer Selection'
Having just come across your site I write to ask if you would seriously be
interested in a review copy of Cancer Selection: the new theory of evolution.
I have read the book, but did not yet had the opportunity to write a review.
22 Mar 03: The book is favourably mentioned in the superb review article
Armand M. Leroi, Vassiliki Koufopanou & Austin Burt: Cancer Selection.
Nature Reviews Cancer 3, 226-231 (2003) March 2003 Vol 3 No 3.
17 Apr 03: There is a nice story about the rediscovery of Cancer Selection: Life's Lethal Quality Control by Geoff Watts.
27 May 04: Here's the link to James Graham's web site.
see also: recent mail [GK]
|5 Aug 1999
From: Scott Page
|Subject: ReMine's 'discussion' area....
I just recently discovered your excellent site - you are a more patient man than me.... However, I was intrigued by your comments on ReMine's 'discussion' area. Some time ago - over a year, if I am not mistaken - I and at least one other person that I know of experienced a similar thing. I had an extended email exchange with ReMine's 'publisher' (I have been lead to believe that the publisher is ReMine himself, as his publisher publishes no other books), and was treated the same way. I brought up several aspects of his claims (I have not read the book, though I was commenting on excerpts that had been posted on a discussion board by someone sympathetic to his cause) and was similarly 'ignored' - and angered - to see that the claim that no questions had been raised remained. I asked specifically why this was so, and for a long time received no reply. When I did finally get a reply, I was told that my questions were 'not valid' and that the 'publisher' would no longer respond to my messages.
keep up the good work!
|27 May 1999
|Subject: Irreducible complexity
Interesting review of Behe's Darwin's Black Box.
However, you don't take Behe to task regarding the concept of "irreducible complexity" itself, and how he has defined the concept. It has been amply demonstrated that a mousetrap is most certainly NOT irreducibly complex. Likewise, Behe's examples of biological systems as "irreducibly complex" fail if it can be shown that similar systems, or the same system in related organisms, works in a slightly different way, has slightly different structures or compounds, or has more or fewer steps. Has Behe addressed this issue??? A good example would be the eye, certainly a complex organ and a favorite topic of the creationists. Yet is it irreducibly complex? Of course not. A full range of eyes, all fully functional, all quite useful to their owners, can be found in organisms today, ranging from a simple light-sensitive eyespot to the complex camera-like human eye. The full continuum of eyes, from simple to complex, is out there and they all work. I find Behe's arguments quite less than compelling.
|guestbook (moderated)||home: wasdarwinwrong.com||http://wasdarwinwrong.com/korthof1.htm|
|Copyright © 1997/98/99 G.Korthof .||First published: Jul 3 1999||Last update: 1 aug 06|