Self-Published Genius #133: Proof of Creationism!

Today we have a new addition to our series about Self-Published Geniuses. This is 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 today’s book from one of our clandestine operatives. This one is so well-placed and valuable that he doesn’t even have a code name.

The title of today’s press release — they all have huge titles — is Author Gerald L. Goodwin’s New Book ‘The Twilight of Creation’ is a Faith-Based Read That Tackles the Debate of the Start of Life via Evolution Versus Creationism, and it was issued by Newswire. Here are some excerpts from the press release, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Recent release ‘The Twilight of Creation’ from Covenant Books [Ding Ding!] author Gerald L. Goodwin provides a thought-provoking exploration of the debate revolving around the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism.

We’ve encountered that publisher before. Their website, Covenant Books, says:

Our business model is quite simple – if your manuscript is accepted for publication, we can publish it and bring it to the world-wide market for a relatively inexpensive initial investment [Hee hee!] because we receive a small portion of the royalties you earn.

Okay, they’re a vanity publisher, so the book belongs in our collection! Moving along, the press release says:

Exploring the proof needed to prove creationism, Goodwin provides examples of evidence that lead to the realization that creationism might not be a far-fetched theory after all.

Gasp! This is exciting! After that, the press release tells us:

Gerald L. Goodwin, a graduate of Lamar University with a BBA in accounting [Ooooooooooooh! An accounting major!] and a successful career in sales, has completed his new book, “The Twilight of Creation”: an eye-opening look at the arguments surrounding the theory of creationism, and evidence that it may in fact be correct and supported by history.

Wowie — Creationism may be correct and supported by history! The press release continues, with a quote from the author:

“It is a marvel to this layman how and why most scientists, biologists, and others accept the theory (of evolution) without real challenges or proof,” writes Goodwin. “Science continues to try to prove the theory of evolution year after year, decade after decade to make it more palatable.”

Yeah — but scientists never prove anything! The quote from the author goes on:

Now, why do you suppose, as Christians, we must be able to prove how a God started it all and keeps it going? [Good point!] Again, it is like a sporting event that has one team play without rules and the other compete with the referee challenging every play. So to win this one, we creationists must fight with one hand tied behind our backs. After our preliminary ideas listed, I must now study the creation side, the God side, and offer proof of these ideas.”

It’s not fair! Why should only creationists have to prove stuff? Here’s another quote from the author:

“To begin with, I must define ‘creationism by God.’ Wow, I quickly realized that I must study, identify, and prove that my idea is more valid than that of Mr. Darwin. I must be able to review and refute what all these folks, much more learned than myself, use as proof of creation’s beginning. I found this would require more knowledge than I possessed at that time, but in the following pages, I will present my opinion on this great debate.”

Creationism is a lot of work, but the author did it and it’s all in his book! Here’s more from the author:

“This review of Darwin’s theory and God’s record will be presented from the standpoint of a Christian layman. The text will attempt to outline the pros and cons of each argument, letting you, the reader, to be the final judge. As you may have surmised by now, my aim is to prevail on God’s side. You will be the final judge.”

This book sounds like it’s absolutely wonderful! But that’s enough from the press release. We looked for the book at Amazon, and we found it!

Wowie — it has 99 pages and costs only $13.44 in paperback. What a deal! And yes, Amazon has a “Look inside” feature. Hey — there aren’t any ratings yet. You can be the first!

Okay, dear reader, we’ve given you all the information we can find, and it looks great. Go ahead and buy the thing — and tell ’em the Curmudgeon sent ya!

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

22 responses to “Self-Published Genius #133: Proof of Creationism!

  1. When I click on Look Inside, nothing happens

  2. What were you expecting?

  3. “Man, full of emptiness” –Friedrich Nietzsche

  4. When you click on Look Inside, it looks back at you.

  5. Ignore evolution, review creationist arguments, nothing new here that you can’t get at church every week, and it’s cheaper (if you don’t succumb to the inevitable extortion-guilt spiel.)

  6. There are 132 other books out there like this. What can one say?

  7. chris schilling

    Paul B is missing out on some great stuff. From Goodwin’s opening chapter:

    “Iguess [sic] I was born with a deep-rooted curiosity.”

    Meguess things go downhill from there.

  8. @Chris, how did you get that?(Surtely you didn’t buy it?

  9. @Paul B – You’re missing a lot! I get three chapters with Look Inside. Almost every sentence is hilarious. Here is a random sample from Chapter 2:
    “Evolution uses existing matter, combines it over unlimited time to create energy, and develops new creations. In addition to this, I might add, evolution is not science but is defined as a theory”.

  10. @Hans345, I got there (using Chrome, not Firefox; could that be it?) and well worth the effort

  11. But he has read something, including the myth that Marx wanted to dedicate Dad Kapital to Darwin. Actually, it wasn’t Marx but Edward Aveling, a different book, and the story, here, is well worth reading: http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/marx-capital/

  12. ‘“It is a marvel to this layman how and why most scientists, biologists, and others accept the theory (of evolution) without real challenges or proof,” writes Goodwin.
    Bet ol` Goody could straighten you out on brain surgery and quantum physics as well.

  13. @Ross Cameron
    And about how the Bible tells us about biology, astronomy, archeology, philology …

  14. A remarkable achievement. I read the first ten or so pages from the “Look Inside” feature, and was astonished at this author’s grasp of evolutionary theory – astonished, that is, at its complete absence, nay, its total reversal.

    I shouldn’t be shocked, of course. At my time of life, I have seen enough self-delusion to be aware that probably a majority of people, including me, are subject to it. Still, I have to say that this is an extreme example.

    This person knows absolutely nothing of the theory of evolution. Everything he writes about it is palpably, ludicrously, childishly wrong. He cannot possibly have accessed any account of it, however elementary, and actually absorbed anything. His ignorance, moreover, is complete, bereft of any inkling of itself. This is Dunning-Kruger of truly monstrous growth.

    But his writing is even worse! My powers of description are inadequate to convey the quality of the prose.

    Some samples: “Is it any wonder the chaos we find ourselves in at this moment in time is a surprise?”; “A close look at the fruits spotlighted in our youth shows a diminishing interest in government as we know it. They have been filled with the strong taste of liberalism”; “In this pursuit there were many descriptions outlined from the views of the paleontologist and geologist in science terms”.

    Mixed metaphor, confused subject, inverted meaning, turgidity, obscurity, prolixity, false specification, bathos, tautology – it’s all here.

    Could this be a poe? Someone prepared to spend good money on an imposture, to make creationists look idiotic? It’s possible, I suppose. But there is the maxim, “Never attribute to design what can be explained by simple incompetence”.

    Yes, but simple incompetence isn’t enough to explain this. This would take compound incompetence at least.

  15. I think we are being much too harsh to brave Mr Goodwin, who had to learn all this, as he tells us, “off the fly”

  16. “Never attribute to design what can be explained by simple incompetence”.

    Intelligent Design should take heed, but it will fall on deaf ears, for the nonreligious movement of Intelligent Design would never dare think the designer was less than omni-competent lest they blaspheme the not religious Designer (PBUH).

  17. On second thought, they are probably still on safe ground if they take care not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit Designer. You can still safely blaspheme 2/3 of the Designer as long as you do your penance and throw the appropriate Hail Marys afterword.

  18. Out of appalled curiosity, why is the book called “The Twilight of Creation” when the author so obviously thinks that evolution is all wrong? Does he know what “twilight” means?

  19. The Twilight of the Gods
    Gotterdammerung

  20. Creation? So what? Everyone with a brain knows that the universe was created when a 5th dimensional physicist made a white hole while experimenting with their collider. When they looked into the white hole they saw the Earth being produced by natural forces at a very fast rate. I am sure this is true cuz Isaac Asimov would not lie!!

  21. How come creationists can have a sensus divinitatis but evolutionists can’t have a sensus evolutionatis. Look at all the evolutionists everywhere. Obviously the sheer numbers of them would imply that the sensus evolutionatis is a very real phenomenon.

  22. Wikipedia tells me some a-hole named John Calvin first used the term sensus divinitatis and that he said people who deny God are a bunch of dummies. So if we can find another a-hole named John Calvin and get him to use the term sensus evolutionatis then creationists wouldn’t know what to think and they would all go around being confused all day.