Thanks to mynym, I have added a new book to my amazon wishlist – The Hidden History of the Human Race (The Condensed Edition of Forbidden Archaeology). At last, perhaps I have found a catalog of fossils that contradict evolution, and how they have been sidelined or supressed by scientists because they don’t match the evolutionary framework.
I have tremendously enjoyed Lubenow’s Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, a devestating critique of evolutionary views of the fossils. It is a very readable, well-referenced introduction to this idea, but Lubenow focuses on the more well-known fossils (there are evolutionist critiques of his book also). I am therfore rubbing my hands with evil glee with the thought of reading this new book, which may make evolutionary views seem even more out of line with the evidence than they do already.
Interestingly, I think the author is a Hindu – I’ve heard of other religionists besides xians opposing evolution, so it will be interesting to see if this guy has any Hindu interpretations – though one reviewer said that this book doesn’t make any religious claims or stances. Hmmm.
One reviewer said this:
The authors should be congratulated, because they spent eight years producing the only definitive, precise, exhaustive and complete record of pratically all the fossil finds of man, regardless of wheter they fit the established scientific theories or not. … The authors` UNIQUE perspective provides postmodern scholars with an invaluable parallax view of historical scientific praxis, debate, and development.
————————————
This volume combines a vast amount of both accepted and controversial evidence from the archeological record with sociological, philosophical, and historical critiques of the scientific method to challenge existing views and expose the suppression of information concerning history and human origins.
So you've gone whole-hog into crank science.
Well, it's not as if you really thought astrology shouldn't be considered equal to ID, as Behe testified, is it?
Perhaps you could enlighten me to why this book is "crank science"
It's crank science because it's — well, good heavens — it's phonier than Whatshisname's "Million Little Pieces."
Don't take my word for it. Pick a chapter, see if you can find any corroboration for the stuff in real science publications. It's incredibly, bizarrely outside of reality.
You're aware that it promotes the Vedic scriptural view of history and prehistory, right?
Here: Amazon.com notes several books have cited this one; you may find these books of great interest, to you, also: Searching For Vedic India by Swami Devamrita; Our Solarian Legacy: Multidimensional Humans in a Self-Learning Universe by Paul Von Ward; and Paradigm Wars: Worldviews for a New Age by Mark Woodhouse.
Not all who disagree with Darwin are supportive of creationist claims.
Actually, I am glad to finally find other religious groups that oppose evolution. Reading them will help me see many things, including:
– common mistakes that religious people make, based on their religious suppositions
– where other groups find the philosophical and religious assumptions of evolution (which are often deined by evolutionists) objectionable
There may be bad science in here. But because scientists are so invested in their evolutionary world view, they can not be trusted to provide good complete information, nor complete or honest criticisms of their world view. So I'll have to go outside of the mainstream, and pick through the bad info, looking for the valid.
Well, it's not as if you really thought astrology shouldn't be considered equal to ID, as Behe testified, is it?
Apparently there is no talking point that you will not dutifully make nonsense of as you try to repeat it.
Don't take my word for it.
Okay.
Pick a chapter, see if you can find any corroboration for the stuff in real science publications.
I could do that but apparently you are just murmuring talking points.
It's also worth noting that some of the editors of "real science publications" are as partisan as you are and have remarkably little concern for the truth, so why should anyone interested in seeking the truth necessarily look to journals that they control? That's like arguing that you will read of all the evidence in a journal that PZ Myers edits.
It's incredibly, bizarrely outside of reality.
The only thing that is bizarrely outside of reality is the hypothetical goo typical to Darwinism as well as the talking point type claims typical to the Darwinian mind. E.g., "I once read this criticism about IDists, although I've never actually read their books." or "No peer review, no peers reviewed by me!" One of the main reasons that Darwinists have failed to convince people about how overwhelmed they are is that the Darwinist is so often more interested in scientific prestige or philosophic games trying to define "science" than in engaging in science.
So I'll have to go outside of the mainstream, and pick through the bad info, looking for the valid.
You have to these days, sift it for yourself. Darwinists tend to believe everything they read in peer reviewed journals that have been sifted by someone else, which is probably why they're gullible enough to believe in vast mythological narratives of Naturalism.