
Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin, & Oddities
Review created: 08/07/08(updated 10/27/08)

The book is about a trial not unlike the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, only THIS happened in 2005. The author is the opinionated great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin and a LOT dumber.
He ridicules the Bible through his use of inaccurate translations and general ignorance of the topic, but does a wonderful job of displaying how idiotic people behave in court, in school board meetings, and as neighbors.
Being from England, he thinks he has a right (and a proper perspective) to ridicule Americans. I thought you could do that in America only IF you were an American Comrade Citizen yourself (this is, belong to the proper Party).
40 Days is painfully true, painfully near-accurate, and painfully satirical. Yet somehow it is falsely honest and honestly false at the same time. One-third of the way through reading it, I placed it in the pile to sell, but two days later I started reading it again. It was sort of like needing to keep scratching open a scab because it feels good to hurt -- but you're unwilling to let the hurt heal.
From the book:
Page 108: "'Evolution, as a scientific idea, is something that's relatively recent. Evolution, as a fact, goes back 13.7 billion years'" -- John Haught, Catholic theologian, retired chairman, Theology Dept., Georgetown University.
A paraphrase from the book:
Pope Leo the 13th said in 1893 that Catholics should never look for scientific information in biblical text. So according to him, Catholics don't have to believe that Christ's virgin birth is true.
Gleaned from this book and others like it:
Religion is not science. Theology is not science. The Bible is not science. God is not science. The Devil is not science. Science is what is provable. Religion is what is not provable. You cannot define science using religious arguments, and you cannot define religion using scientific arguments. They are apples vs oranges.
Just as science cannot prove God exists or doesn't exist, neither can a court of law. The reason: Science requires proof. A courtroom requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Review ID: 10000000008251305

Thank you for voting. If your vote meets our
guidelines, it will be posted within 24 hours.
You cannot vote on the helpfulness of a review you wrote.
Your request cannot be processed at this time. Please try again later.