Moral Absolutes ping - Absolutely the last ping of the day. I probably wouldn't be able to understand the book in question, I find it hard to read very scientific tomes without getting narcolepsy.
But I am always glad such books are there! Maybe I will give it a try anyway. This article confirms something that is very significant - liberals/atheists/secularists [including the subset here of "Darwinists"] always hate to debate fact. They are reduced to name calling, sloganeering, ridicule, straw man arguments, and attempting to define terms and stand on agreed upon foundation which only they believe in. IOW, if a person disagrees with their premise in the beginning (say evolution), then the disagreer is condemned at the outset as a Neanderthal (no pun intended!), knuckledragger, etc.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
(Another interesting book about the lack of real evidence for evolution, and how the Darwinists lie and cheat, is "Forbidden Archeology - the Hidden History of the Human Race" by Michael Cremo.)
Ah yes, Forbidden Archaeology. Published by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Uses creationist-quality quote mining techniques to argue the opposite of Christian creationism: That anatomically modern humans have existed for hundreds of millions of years!
I find it ironic that you're impressed by that book.
It's good that you believe in moral absolutes, though. So do I. But you're dead wrong if you think that evolution somehow negates the concept of an objective morality. (Well, if you merely believe in an absolute morality, I guess it wouldn't necessarily be objective. It could be the arbitrary whim of an Absolute Authority Figure of some kind. In that case we'd have to obey it to avoid the AAF's wrath, but it wouldn't exactly command our passionate support, would it?)
Andrée Rosenfeld again: "What is curious is that an essentially religious organisation feels the need to justify themselves by recourse to science - but their discourse is scientistic, not scientific." In this, they are no different from any other creationists. Try to think ourselves into the mindset of a religious fundamentalist: "I believe in my sacred texts. I am aware that science does not support their veracity. My belief is not wrong - that is axiomatic - therefore science must be. I must look into this science business, to find out where it went wrong."The fundamentalist convinces him/her/itself as supposed holes in the scientific fabric turn up, and wow! this can be used to convince others too! It's a kind of top-down learning experience; what is missing is what students get as they learn their science bottom-up: context. That, really, is why it is so difficult to actually open a dialogue with the creationist: why it is that scientists debating with creationists are effective mainly when they are pointing out their opponents' ignorance, stupidity or outright lies. Their opponent - let alone the audience - simply has no conception of context.
A book like this, simply because it is superficially scholarly and not outright trash like all the Christian creationist works I have read, might indeed make a useful deconstructionist exercise for an archaeology or palaeoanthropology class. So it's not without value. You could do worse, to, than place it in front of a Gishite with the admonition "Look here: these guys show that human physical and cultural evolution doesn't work. Therefore it follows that the Hindu scriptures are true, doesn't it?".