Self-Published Genius #70: The Fatal Flaw

We have a great addition to our series about Self-Published Geniuses, where we bring you news of authors with a vanity press book in which the author claims to have made paradigm-shattering discoveries, and announces his work by hiring a press release service.

We learned about this from one of our clandestine operatives who is so well-placed and valuable that he doesn’t even have a code name. The press release is titled New book exposes fatal flaw in evolution theory. It was issued by The Adams Group, “a public relations firm specializing in publicity and marketing campaigns for Christian artists, authors, speakers, faith-based films, pastors, CEOs, non-profits, tours, events, churches, and any product that appeals to the Christian/faith-based marketplace.”

Here are some excerpts from the press release, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

According to a recent Gallup poll, only 38% of Americans believe that God created man in his present form, the lowest percentage in 35 years. The same percentage believe man evolved, but that God guided the process. By these statistics, it would seem Darwinism is now accepted as unchallengeable truth, but law professor and author F. LaGard Smith’s latest book may spark a new debate about the scientific validity of evolution.

Ooooooooooooh! The author is a law professor! The press release says:

In “Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem: Exposing Evolution’s Fatal Flaw — The Origin of Sex”, Smith points four years of extensive research to one final conclusion: Microbe-to-man evolution is simply bad science.

Egad — it’s bad science! Then the press release quotes the brilliant author:

“When I completed the manuscript, I submitted it to a number of scientific specialists for close scrutiny and fact-checking,” says Smith. “Their feedback confirms that evolution’s sex problem is both real and fatal to Darwin’s Grand Theory. No matter how many studies we undertake, we’re not going to figure out how sex ever evolved, because — by the very nature of male/female sexual reproduction, coupled with the very nature of evolution itself — it couldn’t have.

Hey — we’ve seen that argument before. Where was it? Oh yes — see Jack Chick: Sex Is Evolution’s Nightmare. Wowie — with all this publicity, Darwinism is doomed!

They give us yet another quote from the author:

“As a believer, I’m naturally concerned about the moral and spiritual implications of any explanation for the existence of life that does not need God or heed God. The theory of microbe-to-man evolution is inherently godless, providing no foundation for either morality, social justice, or an afterlife for the soul. But it was not those concerns that ultimately prompted the writing of this particular book. Rather, it was what I sensed to be a fundamental problem with evolution science that led me into deeply researching its fatal flaw — namely, evolution’s inability to explain the origin of sex.”

The press release gives some biographical information about the author, and that’s pretty much it. So we searched for the book at Amazon — and we found it! Here it is: Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem: Exposing Evolution’s Fatal Flaw — The Origin of Sex.

They say it’s published by WestBowPress. We Googled for them. Yup — their website says they’re a religious vanity publisher. Okay! We’ve got a vanity press book and we’ve got the author’s press release. It qualifies for our collection.

Amazon’s review, presumably by the author, tells us:

Darwin never seriously confronted the crucial, insurmountable gap in his grand theory between asexual replication and sexual reproduction. Nor could Darwins [sic] famed natural selection have provided simultaneous on-time delivery of the first male/female pair of millions of sexually unique species required for evolutions [sic] bedrock premise of common descenta [sic] fundamental flaw fatal to the romanticized microbe-to-man Evolution Story.

Yup — that’s the same fatal flaw that was discussed at the Jack Chick website.

Amazon says the book is 364 pages long, and it costs only #23.71 in paperback. Wowie! There are no customer review yet. If you buy the thing, you might be the first reviewer.

Okay, dear reader. All we can do is tell you about the great information that awaits you out there. The next move is up to you. What are you waiting for? Buy the book now!

See also: Self-Published Genius #85: Jack Chick Fan

Copyright © 2018. 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 #70: The Fatal Flaw

  1. Michael Fugate

    A lawyer who taught at Liberty U, a creationist physicist (Macosko), a creationist biochemist (Barnard), and some guy who wrote a book claiming that even though descent with modification is true, natural selection can’t explain sex. This somehow throws out natural selection and then evolution altogether? Hah!

    On Sexual Reproduction as a New Critique of the Theory of Natural Selection
    By Joris van Rossum
    One can find the whole thing on Google Books… It seems to be an attack on Dawkins’ “Selfish Gene” and dismisses any possibility of contingency.

  2. Michael Fugate

    Macosko’s PhD is in chemistry not physics – correction.

    From his dissertation:
    This thesis is dedicated to the greater glory of God

    Most of all, I thank God for giving me an everlasting relationship with him through the death and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ.

    I pray that this thesis and my degree can be dedicated to the glory of God and His Kingdom.

  3. Microbe-to-man evolution is simply bad science.
    Microbe to man is the subject of development – reproduction and embryology.

    BTW, AMDG – Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam – “To the greater glory of God” – is the motto of the Jesuts, the Roman Cathoric Society of Jesus. Is there a Jesuit in an evangelist institution?

  4. Michael Fugate

    Neither MIT, Berkeley nor Wake Forest qualify…

  5. Dave Luckett

    Intriguing that he would use the motto of the Society of Jesus – Jesuits, for short – if he were Protestant. They were originally a missionary order that became the Vatican’s agents in Protestant countries, just as the Holy Office (better known as the Inquisition) became its agents at home, as it were. The whole message and motivation for the Jesuits became the defence and promulgation of Catholic doctrine, emphatically including Papal supremacy and authority – which is very anathema to Protestants, from all Protestant traditions, Lutheran, Calvinist or Episcopalian.

  6. @MichaelF: “It seems to be an attack on Dawkins’ “Selfish Gene” and dismisses any possibility of contingency.”
    When you refer to a Dutch source you must either learn to read Dutch or consult a Dutchman.

    From the conclusion: “The thesis accepts common descent of all life”.

    “Van Rossum doesn’t challenge evolution itself.”

    Like our dear SC I’ve seen the argument before. One example:

    And of course actual scientists have researched the topic before poseurs like Lagard Smith the Lawyer even realized it was a non-argument. The only remarkable thing is that this poseur need 364 pages to “explain” something late Jack Smith explained in a short cartoon ….

  7. Oops – that’s my punishment for just glancing stuff when I’m just awake. Our poseur is even less original – the latter link is from the site of our hero Ol’Hambo. That doesn’t mean I’m wrong though.

  8. It’s always a pity when interesting news pops up when the last FFZ already belongs to the past. I am sure Ol’Hambo and co will be upset when learning this disgusting consequence of filthy athiest etc. darwinism.

    According to Wikipedia Goodall was botanist and ecologist. If you ask me he’s completely right.

  9. Michael Fugate

    FrankB, I realize it seems to be a Dutch issue; no one else seems to have commented on the book – even though it is in English. I have no idea what van Rossum’s motivations were, but it is clear he didn’t get a PhD so he could do biology.

  10. bewilderbeast

    So the lawyer and the Ham both say sex didn’t evolve, God CREATED sex? Do they then say (admit?) that God didn’t want us to use his sexy invention? Didn’t ‘He’ just want it to hover around and not be used, to “test our mettle”? ‘Course this means the lawyer and the Ham would/should never have existed (if people had behaved themselves back in the Garden of Eden).
    I hope (for many reasons) that they are both celibate!?

  11. bewilderbeast, I had a similar reaction to the logic of sex by design. If designing a species which was created and so can not evolve, or can only evolve through direct supernatural intervention, why include sex at all? Seems a gratuitous waste of resources if there is no evolutionary benefit.

  12. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 both mention the creation of human sexes. But I am not aware of any mention of creation of animal and plant sexes. I don’t think that there is any mention of plant sexes anywhere in the Bible. There are multiple mating types (sort of like sexes) in fungi, but the Bible does not recognize fungi as living things, let alone their creation and reproduction.

    I am not a scientist, but I wonder whether the development of two sexes is a product of multiple mating types.

  13. Remember, TomS, that Morris the Younger suggests that plants aren’t alive.

    In Genesis, God seems to create sexual dimorphism as an afterthought. First the man and then, owww, poor guy’s so lonely, let’s make him a mate. So probably he didn’t have procreation in mind either, or he would have created a self-fertilising, egg-laying female first.

  14. Mark Germano

    The lion in the foreground of this picture seems a little confused about the whole endeavor.

  15. @Draken
    Yes, in the second creation story, but in the first:
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:27 KJV
    There is an ancient interpretation which says that “man” was created as a hermaphrodite.

    As to what is living, I think that one can make a case that the heavenly bodies are living in the Bible.

  16. Techreseller

    Why would you create something so fun and then say you can only use it sparingly. And you are also supposed to be fruitful and multiply. Which is it darn it?