Title: The usual silliness.
Product review: A rehashing of the usual attempts to poke holes in "Darwinism".This book was given to me by a well meaning friend, but I find I spend more time annotating the margins about the deceptions and mistakes than in actually reading the book. For example, the chapter on radiometric dating harps on the innacuracies of carbon-14 dating (actually around 15%)and trots out an assortment of mistaken K-Ar dates, without acknowledging the millions of dates that DO accord with other evidence. Interestingly his references are nearly all from the 50's and 60's, and he is apparently unaware of dating with mass spec. The remainder is similarly vacuous and/or deceptive.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
