Top critical review
1.0 out of 5 starsPure drivel
Reviewed in the United States on July 23, 2019
It’s too bad Steve Martin wrote his book (“Pure Drivel”) first. Had he not, his title would have been a perfect fit for this unfortunate screed. Our gallant “horsemen” are quick to declare their abject humility then—almost as quickly—go on to showcase their customary hubris, because after all, they’re right—aren’t they? Nothing new here. Old arguments that fit poorly with new evidence. In fact, they fit poorly with just about ALL the evidence. Harris, to his credit has figured out Islam. Hitchens was an entertaining writer but not an original thinker. Dennett does a nice job of explaining the function of marine zincs to protect rudder shafts and bronze propellers, but not much else. And Dawkins really should know better by now. Consider that on p.8, to demonstrate his intellectual humility, he writes “How did life begin? I don’t know, nobody knows, we wish we did...”. Fair enough—and true. But on p.21 he returns to the question “how complex life came to exist and diversify” then assures us that “those questions have now been definitively answered by Darwin and his successors.” Really? And definitively no less? Didn’t you just say on p.8....? Slick.
Like a spent comedian Dawkins trots out some of his tired favorites from his book “The God Delusion”. E.g., if God created everything, who created God? News flash: Even high school kids are knocking that one out of the park. Short answer: God is eternal. For some reason, atheists have a hard time grasping that concept. (But recall that from the time of Socrates to Einstein/Hubble they had no difficulty believing in an eternal and static universe.) And another Dawkins’ favorite: the universe is highly improbable, a universe Creator is even more improbable. One might be forgiven for thinking that since the universe is indeed highly improbable, a universe Creator is essential. An IPhone is highly improbable—so is a plasma TV. I wonder if Dawkins has a theory about them?
Another overarching theme of our noble horsemen in their courageous (their word, not mine) search for the truth, is the absolute and inviolable requirement that all scientific knowledge (as opposed to that mushy stuff theists believe) must be based solidly—and exclusively—on facts. Nothing else will do. One wonders if any one of them has ever detected the scandalous reliance of Darwinian Evolution on (dare I say it?) assumption? As in see p.8 on how life got started. Or how birds evolved from reptiles. Or how DNA managed to get it right—right from the start. The list is long. But lest you doubt me, here is a challenge. Read the book and see if you can find any scientific facts in it. Good hunting!
My assessment of this book is that it has precious little to do with science and a lot to do with atheist propaganda. This is fact-free arguing at its best. Read this book if you want some insight on the limitations of the atheist mentality. It does have one virtue—it is brief.
