Revolution against evolution von sharp douglas (3 Ergebnisse)
- Softcover
Anbieter: Better World Books, Mishawaka, IN, USABetter World Books
Verkäufer/-in kontaktierenVerkäufer/-in mit 5 SternenZustand: Gebraucht - Befriedigend
EUR 9,96
Versand nach gratisVersand innerhalb von USAAnzahl: 1 verfügbar
Zustand: Good. Revised. Former library copy. Pages intact with minimal writing/highlighting. The binding may be loose and creased. Dust jackets/supplements are not included. Includes library markings. Stock photo provided. Product includes identifying sticker. Better World Books: Buy Books. Do Good.
- Softcover
Anbieter: Ria Christie Collections, Uxbridge, Vereinigtes KönigreichRia Christie Collections
Verkäufer/-in kontaktierenVerkäufer/-in mit 5 SternenZustand: Neu
EUR 19,21
EUR 14,03 VersandVersand von Vereinigtes Königreich nach USAAnzahl: Mehr als 20 verfügbar
Zustand: New. In.
- Softcover
Anbieter: Buchpark, Trebbin, DeutschlandBuchpark
Verkäufer/-in kontaktierenVerkäufer/-in mit 5 SternenZustand: Gebraucht
EUR 12,12
EUR 105,00 VersandVersand von Deutschland nach USAAnzahl: 2 verfügbar
Zustand: Hervorragend. Zustand: Hervorragend | Sprache: Englisch | Produktart: Bücher | This, the fifth edition of a classic book, covers the modern revolution against Darwinian evolution. It was written by a long-time veteran of the movement pushing back against evolution. Sharp had the foresight to pioneer a website in 1995, […LINK ENTFERNT] appropriately called Revolution against Evolution when the use of this format was just in its infancy. Sharp's book covers, not only the problems with evolution, but also some of the problems with some of the creation alternatives. Creationism is a movement involving many diverse people, not all who agree with the details. Consequently, different schools of thought called models exist in the movement. For example, he covers the various Flood models that attempt to explain the global Flood of Noah's day. Although disagreement exists on the creation models, large agreement exists on the major scientific problems with evolution. Sharp does a good job summarizing this area. He shows that evolution [Neo-Darwinism] is based on only two pillars, genetic variety produced by mutations that are selected by the process called survival of the fittest. The problem with this foundation is the vast majority of mutations are near neutral, harmful or deleterious. It is a very rare mutation that is clearly beneficial. Furthermore, no selector exists selecting the best organisms as the natural selection theory implies. Survival depends on time, chance and fortuitous events, in short, luck. Before any selection can occur, functional genetic variety must first exist, a problem that existed in Darwin's day and still exists today. Sharp also deals with theistic evolution, showing that this worldview is a compromise based on the factious belief that evolution has been scientifically confirmed, and is a viable alternative to creationism. Only when Darwinism has been empirically verified do we need to be concerned with explaining how it could be explained in harmony with the Scriptures. Sharp shows theistic evolution cannot be supported by the scriptures, nor by science. The two worldviews are in irreconcilable conflict. In short, if the facts and science are carefully considered, Darwinism cannot be defended. The only reason it is still around is because it is the worldview of the atheists and secularists, and aggressively defended by the courts. Without the legal defense by the courts it would not continue to thrive. If Darwinism could survive on its own, it would not need the legal defense of organizations, such as the National Center for Science Education, which claims it is the "only national organization that specializes in defending the teaching of evolution against creationist attacks. Let it defend itself in the court of public opinion instead of relying on lawyers and specious claims that one side of the debate is religions and the other side is science. Both sides of the debate have science elements, and both sides have worldview implications. Something is grievously wrong when both sides of a scientific question is prevented by law from being debated in taxpayer-supported public schools.
