Darwinian Delusion

I come from a religious family but have a first class degree in Biology and a PhD in molecular biology. I have weighed the evidence over many years and am insulted that authors such as Mr Miller would claim I have been brainwashed by the secular humanist lobby. I have reluctantly come to my own conclusions.

Returning to the book, none of the evidence against an old earth stacks up. Truly all the evidence points to an ancient earth. As an example, the author criticises radio label dating methods, claiming that nobody knows that decay rates remain constant. The physics of decay is well worked out and mechanisms by which rates vary (not by much) are well known. It is down to those that disagree to demonstrate that rates vary substantially enough to gainsay the ages predicted by these methods. Similarly, there is no convincing argument about the age of the universe and the light reaching us from distant stars. Did God create the light 6000 years ago to be "almost here" but giving the impression of originating many millions of light years away?

Looking at the fossil record and the geological column, it was these observations that turned Victorian clergymen into reluctant believers in evolution. The order of the strata and the characteristic order of the fossils are compelling. The flood geology predicts all layers to be laid down in very short order. Surely then some aquatic animals would be seen out of sequence- a very clear and testable prediction that the young earth creationist model completely fails. Current observations of geological processes indicate the timescales that would be needed for sediment formation, mountains to rise, erosion of valleys and other features by wind, water and so on. These timescales far exceed the 6000 year age of the earth. In addition, the analysis of DNA sequences across species provides absolutely compelling evidence that descent with modification is a fact. The relatedness of sequences goes way beyond convergent function.

Reviewing the absolute veracity of the whole bible, which Creation series do we accept: Genesis Ch1 or Ch2? Nowhere can I find it explicitly written that the Fall of Adam lead directly to animal death and carnivorism (were lions truly vegetarians in the former times?!). Is this truly the eye witness account from God?

I know it's very easy to poke fun at such assertions, but these ideas gain currency with each passing day, even in secular Europe. The Biblical literalists portray themselves as downtrodden minorities, being subjugated beneath the jack boot of Darwinian Secular Humanists. The truth is that a massive accumulation of internally consistent evidence across geology, physics, biology and chemistry compels every open minded thinker to reject young earth creationism and accept an old earth, an even older universe, ancient geological processes and, yes, some form of Darwinian evolution.

I give this book zero stars for its intellectual dishonesty- I assume it knowingly reproduces discredited arguments against cosmology, geology and biology.

If we lived in truly a truly democratic nation this book would be in every school library. But we don't, so our children continue to be taught that evolution is a scientific fact.

This book is a 'must read' to help make more people realise that Darwins 'Theory of Evolution' is not the scientific fact that the media and 'Powers that be' would have us believe.