expense” (p. 8). She then concludes,
“the only thing ID proponents have
in common besides, in many cases,
fat paychecks from the Discovery
Institute, is that they insist that their
version of reality must be taught in
public schools at taxpayer expense”
(p. 10). If she was conversant with
ID literature, she would know that
they not only do not “insist that their
version of reality must be taught in
public schools” but openly oppose
forcing teaching ID in government
schools. This falsifies Hafer;s claim
that what ID supporters
“… are really trying to do is teach
their particular religion in American
public schools at taxpayer expense.
They pretend that it’s science, but
by their own admission, their stated
goal is to destroy science. They
wish to insert their religion into
public schools, so that all children
are indoctrinated with their religion.
All paid for by American taxpayers”
(p. 10) [Apparently coercing tax
dollars to support atheistic evolution
She asserts that
“ID proponents want everyone in
the US, by way of public schools, to
be taught that the actual facts about
the material world don’t exist, or
shouldn’t. Instead, they simply want
to tell you what you have to believe,
regardless of any factual basis. In
other words, if they invent it, you
have to believe it” (p. 7).
She concluded that when ID
supporters attack evolution, it
“… is simply their way of getting
into the American school system.
They try to convince politicians
that what they are saying is science,
not religion, so that then they can
force their way into American public
education, and then expand from
there. They see this as a political
fight, and are using political means
to fight it” (p. 7).
These quotes illustrate the rabidly irresponsible name-calling that
dominates her book. I have read over
100 anti-ID and anticreation books,
and this book is, without question, the
worst and the most irresponsible. Most
of her sources are from anticreation
and anti-ID literature, where she
uncritically repeats numerous carefully
refuted claims. I read this book to
better understand the opposition to ID,
but when over 70% of it is irresponsible
invective (I am forced to stress that) to
refute a movement, you would think
the author would have carefully read
the material which that movement
produces and respond to it in an
informed way. This she has not done.
1. Werdelin, J. and Nilsonne, A., The evolution of
the scrotum and testicular descent in mammals,
J. Theoretical Biology 196( 1): 61–72, 7 January
2. Van Niekerk, E., Vas deferens—refuting ‘bad
design’ arguments, J. Creation 26( 3): 60–67,
3. Bergman, J. and Calkins, J., Why the inverted
Human Retina is a Superior Design, Creation
Research Society Quarterly 45( 3):213–224,
4. Hewitt, A. T. and Adler, R., The retinal pigment
epithelium and interphotoreceptor matrix:
structure and specialized functions; in: Ryan
(Ed.), The Retina 2nd edn, Mosby, St Louis, MO,
p. 58, 1994.
5. Franze, K. et al., Müller cells are living
optical fibers in the vertebrate retina, PNAS
104( 20):8287–8292, 2007.
6. Sarfati, J., Fibre optics in eye demolish atheistic
‘bad design’ argument, Creation 31( 1): 45–47,
7. Labin, A.M. et al., Müller cells separate
between wavelengths to improve day vision
with minimal effect upon night vision,
Nature Communications 5:4319, 8 July 2014 |
8. Warrener, A.G. et al., A wider pelvis does
not increase locomotor cost in humans, with
implications for the evolution of childbirth,
PLOS One, 11March 2015 | doi: 10.1371/journal.
9. Bergman, J., Is the human pharynx poorly
designed? J. Creation 22( 1): 41–43, 2008;
10. Truman, R. and Terborg, P., Why the shared
mutations in the Hominidae exon X GULO
pseudogene are not evidence for common
descent, J. Creation 21( 3): 118– 127, 2007.
11. Bergman, J. Are wisdom teeth (third molars)
vestiges of human evolution? J. Creation 12( 3):
12. Reece et al., Campbell Biology, 9th edn,
Benjamin Cummings, pp. 316–318, 2010.
13. Kunkel, T.A., DNA Replication Fidelity,
J. Biological Chemistry 279( 17):16895–16898 |
14. Although see Kulikovsky, A.S., Creationism,
Science and Peer Revie w, J. Creation 22( 1): 44–49,
15. Im, G. Y. et al., The appendix may protect you
against ;lostridium difficile recurrence, Clinical
Gastroenterology and Hepatology 9:1072–1077,
2011 | doi: 10.1016/ j.cgh.2011.06.006.
16. Bergman, J., Are goose bumps evolutionary
leftovers? Creation Matters 21( 5): 4–5, 2016.
Bergman, J. and Howe, G., “Vestigial Organs”
Are Fully Functional; A History and Evaluation
of the Vestigial Organ Origins Concept,
Creation Research Society, St Louis, MO, 1990.
17. Bergman, J., Evolution and Irreducible
Complexity, J. Interdisciplinary Studies 22( 2):
Figure 1. Wisdom teeth are often considered poor design or even vestigial. The problem, though,
is mainly due to overcrowding, as shown in this picture, and typically due to our soft Western diet.
In addition, genomic degeneration has also played a role in producing less than perfect teeth and
other structures as well.