David Mills (1) (1959–)

This is a well-written, concise, interesting overview of the argument against Christian fundamentalism … particularly Creationism.

How did the universe come into being? We don’t know. But new discoveries in quantum theory, as well as research done by Stephen Hawking and his colleagues, have demonstrated that matter can and does arise quite spontaneously from the vacuum fluctuation energy of “empty” space.

Intelligent Design? Mills states that “ID’s greatest triumph … has been in convincing the general public that there is a controversy raging among scientists over Intelligent Design. There is no scientific controversy whatever.”

So how did life begin? Well, we know God isn’t necessary. There is no need for spontaneous creation of complex cells; the first cells contained no nucleus at all, consisting mainly of an exterior membrane. Biological membranes form easily and spontaneously from a mixture of water and simple lipids. From there, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and Mills carefully refutes argument after argument posed by creationists.

Life after death? Forget having science on your side, here. For example, if the law of the conservation of mass/energy necessitates consciousness after death (because mass/energy can be neither destroyed nor created) then the same law requires consciousness before conception.

There just isn’t any real debate among scientists in these matters. A study in 1998 revealed that, of the membership of the National Academy of Sciences, only 7 percent believed in a personal God, and even fewer in Creation Science or Intelligent Design. The point I took away from the book is this: Religious beliefs must remain beliefs; no more or less. The Bible’s creationist claims are not and cannot be supported by science.… (meer)

This book starts off well enough. Dorian Sagan's introduction is excellent. It doesn't take too much reading of the rest of the book, however, before a bad feeling starts to set in. I'm a committed atheist, and the author is right 99% of the time, but he is preaching, if I'm allowed to use that word, to the converted. His tone and attitude are so annoying that this book is useless for trying to convert an open-minded Christian reader. It reaches an absolute nadir when he devotes a chapter to defending pornography on the Internet! What does this have to do with the subject? It's like he just has to put every opinion he has ever held into the book. Give us a break!

What we need is a reasoned argument that starts from a few basic premises and builds to a conclusion. If you want to start to sow the seeds of doubt in a Christian, have them read Thomas Paine's the Age of Reason or some of Bart Ehrman's books.

Books like this will give atheism a bad name! :-)… (meer)