I have rarely seen such a lengthy review. Yes, Dr Sarfati works for CMI as a committed Creationist, but how is this different from Prof. Dawkins working in the increasingly atheistic Establishment's education system, being a militant atheist and rabid anti-Creationist to boot? They both have a particular worldview to uphold. Why not chide Dawkins for wanting religion to be eradicated, yet we are to believe that unreasonable people like him have a monopoly on reason.
"It is surely our interpretation of the Holy Bible that must change when there is a conflict with Science, because religious faith can never supplant rationalism and strong empirical evidence."
Again, the opposite view, is that there *must* be a materialistic explanation for everything. It is equal and opposite, even when the science says that a supernatural explanation best fits the evidence. As geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin wrote:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Can you see that what is being proposed as fact by him and the likes of Prof. Dawkins are not necessarily facts at all but the evidence is made to fit the worldview - or religion.
Despite evolutionist Michael Ruse's objections to the constant use of his famous quote, he wrote it as part of the introduction to a book (for which was wasn't paid), it is worth remembering:
"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish [Duane T. Gish the Creation Scientist] is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."
As for 'reason', it can only come from a Christian worldview because without a Creator, there is no reason why the universe should be orderly and that our brains should be capable of analyzing it correctly when, without a Creator who gave us the ability to think critically and logically, our brains would merely obey the laws of chemistry and there would be no such thing as free-thinking, as some evolutionists insist.
"I do not believe that God, even if he did exist, could have written or inspired the Holy Bible."
Strange that you should assert that an omnipotent being would be unable to achieve such a simple task when (according to you) mere men wrote the Bible.
I haven't read this book from Dr Sarfati, but I have read articles by him and heard several talks he has given on DVD and he can demolish evolutionists' arguments with style and good humour.
I suggest that your arguments against Creation are based more on what you have heard elsewhere than on this book. For example, the two Creation story thing is plain wrong. There are flood myths from all over the world - obviously - as people started to spread out from Babel a few generations after the Flood, so would have taken the story with them as oral traditions which have become muddled over the millennia like in Chinese whispers.
There are so many issues that show up the Theory of Evolution and atheism to be unenlightened remnants of 18th/19th century scientific errors in a time when knowledge and scientific instruments were basic that the enquiring mind and truly rational and *informed* thinker is now turning back to Creationism: archaeological finds and inscriptions in other cultures are confirming Old Testament kings, battles, etc., population genetics/genetic entropy show that our genes are deteriorating further with every new generation and quite rapidly - the opposite to what has to happen for evolution theory to be a reality and so much more.