Self-Published Genius #17: Evolution’s Inadequacy

Thanks to a tip from clandestine operative “Stonehenge,” we bring you important news of an author with a vanity press book. As with others who have made paradigm-shattering discoveries, today’s proud author has announced his work by hiring a press release service.

This one is issued by an outfit we’ve encountered before. It’s called PRWeb, which “gets your news straight to the search engines that everyone uses, like Google, Yahoo and Bing.” Their Pricing page reveals that their “Basic Package” costs $89. We assume that’s what we’re dealing with now.

The author is getting his money’s worth, because in addition to the actual news release, we found this item copied at two websites so far: MELODIKA.net — some kind of site that reviews and promotes music, and also Equities.com — which calls itself “a leading financial media website.” The word is getting out to all the right audiences.

The press release is titled Evolution Impossible Without Creation, Asserts Author Michael Ebifegha. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

Yes, and he also once said: “Waiter, where is the men’s room?” — which is something your Curmudgeon has also said, so like Michael Ebifegha, your Curmudgeon can claim an intellectual kinship with Einstein. The news release continues:

The debate between evolutionism and creationism is a lively and contentious one, and in his new book Creation or Evolution? Origin of Species in Light of Science’s Limitations and Historical Records (published by iUniverse) author Michael Ebifegha argues that it may be past time to put the argument aside.

Before proceeding further, we should pause to learn something about the author and his publisher. The news release tells us:

iUniverse, an Author Solutions, Inc. self-publishing imprint, is the leading book marketing, editorial services, and supported self-publishing provider.

As we suspected, it’s a vanity publisher. And now for the author — we are told:

Michael Ebifegha earned a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Toronto and is currently a science and mathematics instructor at the Toronto District School Board. He is the author of The Death of Evolution and The Darwinian Delusion. He lives with his family in Toronto, Canada.

Whoa — hold on a minute! We’ve encountered this guy before. See Self-Published Genius #13: Vanity Reviewed! In that one his previous vanity published book was reviewed by a vanity-reviewer — one who reviews vanity books for a fee. We also had this additional information about the author:

Dr. Michael Ebifegha is a scholar with international experience. He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in physics and a M.Sc. in applied geophysics from Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria, where he worked as a lecturer in the Department of Physics for five years.

This is an author with global stature! Let’s read on in the press release:

Ebifegha examines the constraints of science as an explanatory framework for the origin of species and compares the contemporary world to a hypothetical world under the influence of evolutionary processes and agency. Additionally, he considers the irrelevance of the Earth’s age to the creationist/evolutionist controversy. He stresses that knowledge of the intersection between the origin of life and the origin of species is required to establish the latter.

The age of the Earth is irrelevant? Does he mean that if the world were truly only a few thousand years old, that would have no consequences for the theory of evolution? Fascinating! We continue:

Ebifegha augments [sic] the natural selection discussion in light of Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini’s work, and addresses science’s limitations in deploying similarity/dissimilarity arguments in the debate between creationism and evolutionism.

This is an author who thinks deeply! Here’s more:

Finally, he focuses on the lack of historical evidence to justify an evolutionary worldview.

Okay. Here’s the last paragraph:

Creation or Evolution? discusses how the M-theory and Charles Darwin’s paradigm of evolution by natural selection are outside the limits of science. Ebifegha shows that readers must look beyond the inadequacy of such theories and address the validity of science as the sole avenue of inquiry.

We found a listing for the book at Amazon: Creation or Evolution? It only costs $16.42. The Amazon site has only one review so far, and it looks like it’s by one of our frequent commenters — Charley Horse. But don’t let that review discourage you. Reading this book promises to be a profound and life-altering experience. Hurry up and order a copy!

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

16 responses to “Self-Published Genius #17: Evolution’s Inadequacy

  1. Dear Mr. Sensuous;

    I am holder of many prestigious academic qualifications and am chief finance Officer for First Bank of Lagos with especial custodianship of expatriate bank accounts for Petroleum operatives and Global Renowned scientists. I am regret to inform you that atheistical theory of your distant relation Karl Darwin has died in total creationist train-wreck, leaving unclaimed sum of ONE HUNDRED BILLION USA DOLLARS in suspended frozen escrow account for you standing as beneficiary which deceased relative Darwin garnered through international child prostitution ring. I in capacity of chief finance Officer can unfreeze funds for our mutual benefit with 50/50 split.

    Please supply by immediate reply your bank account number, bank sort code, country code, PIN number and token sum of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS US to expedite transfer, and for copy of earth-shaking volume Why Darwin is Idiot

    I am thanking you my brother in Christ Mr. Mudgeon

  2. Ceteris Paribus

    @Megalonyx: Nice reply comment, I think. Sorry, but my comprehension neurons suffered a partial shutdown up in the original post right, about the paragraph that contains the phrase “…science’s limitations in deploying similarity/dissimilarity arguments…”.

    Would someone kindly direct me back to the Deepity Ward?

  3. Megalonyx says: “Please supply by immediate reply your bank account number, bank sort code, country code, PIN number and token sum of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS US to expedite transfer”

    Esteemed sir:

    Your proposal is of great interest, as I could certainly use a few billion at this time. In order to place the required funds in your hands as rapidly as possible, I hereby irrevocably assign to you an account for Ten Million ($US) which is already in your bank, which account was left to me by the recently-deceased widow of your heroic general, Octavius Lumumba. Unfortunately, that account has been frozen by unscrupulous officials, but with your position at the bank I am sure you can arrange for the funds to be released and transferred to you.

    When you have accomplished that, please send the balance to my account at the United Nations, the details of which are already known to your bank. After that, I look forward to receiving my Fifty Billion ($US).

    It is a pleasure, at last, to meet an honorable Nigerian gentleman such as yourself.

  4. Curmudgeon: “The age of the Earth is irrelevant? Does he mean that if the world were truly only a few thousand years old, that would have no consequences for the theory of evolution?”

    No. It means he discovered the “big tent” scam and he likes it.

    If anyone thinks that either (1) there’s credible evidence that the earth is considerably younger than 4.5 billion years or (2) the “masses” need to believe that, they would not, repeat not claim that the age of the earth, or life, or universe, is “irrelevant.”

  5. Well, I like his name, and I’m going to make use of it on Halloween. I plan on hiding in the bushes disguised as a zombie Aimee McPherson, and yell “EBIFEGHAAAAAA!!!” at unsuspecting passers-by. Maybe I won’t even wait ’til Halloween…

  6. Our Charles Horse has already drawn a troll on the Amazon review. Be sure to stop by and vote up/down appropriately.

  7. @Tomato Addict:
    Done and done.

  8. Gee, I’m Canadian and live an hour north of Toronto and took courses at UofT. He’s an embarrassment. He’s an instructor at the Toronto and District School Board? That’s a governing body, could he not give us the name of the kindergarden he teaches? Sad thing is many will believe it.

  9. This is a very timely book release indeed! The Nobel prizes are being awarded this week!
    Why don’t creationists ever get Nobel prizes?

    Newton and all the great scientists cited by creationists, were creationists.
    Somehow they didn’t manage those scientists don’t include any creationism concepts in their conclusions, or the natural laws they identified however).
    I love creationists. They’re so,,,,,,,,,,,,,honest.

  10. Foolish scientists, so much ado about a silly old discovery:

    http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2012/10/09/100-million-year-old-spider-attack-preserved-in-unique-fossil/

    Don’t they realize the age of the Earth and its dirty old fossils is irrelevant?

  11. Will: “Newton and all the great scientists cited by creationists, were creationists.”

    I don’t know which is worse, anti-evolution activists deliberately baiting-an-switching 2 definitions of “creationist,” or us helping them. Actually I do, and sadly it’s the latter. Newton was no more a “creationist” than Ken Miller. What little biology and natural history was available at the time he did not go out of his way to cherry pick, evade, and otherwise misrepresent. Nor did he pretend that scientists were in a conspiracy to replace God with his era’s equivalent of Hitler.

  12. Frank these are all true things you’ve said. Fortunately, I was mocking creationists who say the great scientific minds before Darwin were creationists.. I was being tongue in cheek, if you read the rest of my somewhat garbled post.

  13. @will:

    I figured you were mocking them, though non-regular readers might not. Every day I’m more convinced that we’d reach more people and clear up more misconceptions if we just avoided the word “creationists.” Too many people define “creationists” as honest believers of a literal Genesis, and say “what’s the harm, let them believe.” Whereas most of today’s anti-evolution activists appear to know that all mutually-contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis are nonsense, but encourage belief – and discourage critical analysis – using every pseudoscientific and rhetorical trick in the book. And they’re no more believers of a Creator/designer than half of “Darwinists.”

  14. Thanks Frank. Mine was a sloppy post and easily misunderstood.
    Your thoughts on the use of the term creationist are well taken also.
    I note that NCSE usually is careful to clarify their use of the term or avoids it althogether in favor of creationsim or intelligent design creationism.
    If anyone read my first sloppy post who was of the evolution attacker ilk, your subsequent comment clarified any misunderstanding that might have resulted form my post and prevented a quote miner(not that my thoughts are ever going to be quoted. I truly do think little of people who distort the truth the way evolution deniers do and have learned alot about how to confront them when they make their indefensible claims or endeavor to “Gish Gallop” their way towards respectability, which is scientifically speaking, impossible.
    So, your comments were spot on. Thank you my friend.
    I need to read my posts before I hit send.
    🙂

  15. @will:

    For what my opinion’s worth, yours is still clearer than most. Most people insist on using the words “creationism” and “creationist(s)” at every opportunity, and with little desire to even clarify from the context which kind (activist or rank-and-file; geocentric YEC or common descent-accepting OEC; etc.). Sometimes to include theistic evolutionists, which truly renders it useless at best. The casual reader perceives that their problem is with the beliefs of “creationists” regarding ultimate causes, not their deliberate misrepresentation of science. The perception is correct for some of the more militant atheist activists, of course, but not for mainstream science as a whole.