Too much conjecture and no reference cites
595643
The book does work fairly well as a lyric book for Christmas carols, but it only includes the older songs in the public domain. I assume he wasn't able to publish the lyrics to more recent songs because of copyright restrictions.

As for the commentary - take what you read with not just a grain of salt, but a whole box of salt.

For me to take a history book seriously, I need to see where the author got his information. A bibliography at least, and preferably some footnotes. Not present in this book at all. Some other reviewers with specialized information have reported shoddy research or inaccuracies, and I believe them.

What makes it worse is that the author includes A TON of his own baseless conjectures on the writers' intentions and state of mind. I get that Zondervan is a faith-based publisher. But most Christmas carols have a legitimate and verifiable religious history anyway, which I would be happy to read about. There was no need for the author to undermine his own credibility by patently making stuff up.
3107580
As someone who has more than dabbled in many of the obscure subjects covered, I found this book a fascinating consolidation. But I have reservations. The main human subject, James Carter, is certainly an industrious and imaginative fellow, but I think the appellation, "Leonardo of outsiders" exaggerates the value of his work. Carter's "theory" of microcosmic matter, which proposes, by implication, to replace Schroedinger's wave equation with a predictively barren scheme of  "circlons," is unlikely to arouse much interest outside the art gallery.

The book's most valuable insight is the striking parallel drawn between the collective works of outsiders and what passes for serious physics by academic insiders. Wertheim characterizes the activities of the avant garde string and multiverse cosmology theorists as the more bizarre of the two--a correct assessment, in my view.

Finally, Physics on the Fringe--as with the latest edition of Carter's book, The Other Theory of Physics (OTP)--suffers from a serious omission. In earlier editions of Carter's work, he points out that his model of gravity can be tested with a simple experiment. Being familiar with the development of Carter's work, Wertheim mentions the experiment. But she does not describe it, either graphically or verbally. In the 2011 edition of OTP, Carter does not even mention the experiment. Why not?

Regardless of the predictive uselessness of Carter's Circlon theory, his gravity model makes a robust prediction by which it can be definitively put on the chopping block. The blade breaks or the theory dies. This is what science is supposed to be about: making predictions based on hypotheses and TESTING them. Both outsiders and the latest generation of insiders sadly neglect this fact. Wertheim could have done a better job of pointing this out.

I give the book a high grade because it is very well written and because it is exceptional for exposing a side to the study of physical reality that is otherwise obscenely overshadowed by the entertainment industry that has become of modern fundamental physics.
1118340
I was interested in this book's subject matter; however, I was horrified to see that the author actually cited Wikipedia as a scholarly source for numerous claims and factoids presented in the book, a dubious practice at best and one that serious researchers do not follow. I was expecting a disciplined, diligently researched work; instead, I found a lot of conjecture, numerous typos (unsurprising since this is self-published, which I didn't realize at the time of purchase), and I sadly gained no greater insights into Maryland's extensive history with witches and legends. Since first reading it I have been too pained to open it again. I am sincerely disappointed.
4228527
This is an interesting book, but it's not up to anything remotely close to academic standards.  Sources are rather haphazardly used and cited, and many of the ones cited are websites of unknown reliability.  There's a lot of interesting and scathing claims here, but very little to back it up.  It comes across as a very rough draft, bordering on just research notes and idea sketches.  It might be possible to turn this into a good book with massive editing and citation support, but as it stands, it doesn't mean much.
4538570
I picked up Bill Yenne's book at my local library, hoping for an interesting exploration of the life of Heinrich Himmler. I had beforehand looked up the author's credentials on the Internet and had been impressed by his collection of works on a variety of often disparate subjects ranging from Julius Caesar to Lewis and Clark to the story of the B-52, the Stratofortress. I was swayed to give this particular book a try since Mr. Yenne had apparently contributed to encyclopedias of both World Wars.  Having previously read "The Occult Roots of Nazism" by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, I was looking forward to a more legible, not-so-dry treatment of the subject.  "Hitler's Master of the Dark Arts" was certainly unacademic in its approach as I was to find out. I have nothing against non-historians writing on historical subjects. As a matter of fact, I much prefer their works because they often present details that would otherwise not be included in "academic" works done by university professors such as Mr. Goodrick-Clarke. Mr. Yenne's book, unfortunately, turned out to be a disappointment.  There were few, if any, facts or details that hadn't been mentioned before in other works on the topic of Himmler and his occult fascination. My greatest problem with Mr. Yenne's book was the seeming absence of any editing/proof-reading: there are so many grammar and spelling mistakes that it would take several pages to list them all.  Mr. Yenne also has a tendency, in this book at least, to latch on to certain words and expressions - often in the same paragraph and sentence even - to the point where this habit of his becomes distracting and, frankly, irritating. (Answer quickly: what was the "most feared address in Europe" in the 1930s to mid 1940's? Answer is at the end.). I would be more forgiving of this idiosyncrasy if it weren't for the total of lack of footnotes. The text contains expressions such as "some say..." and "others say...", for example, without any mention of where the information comes from.  Another reviewer here has complained about Mr. Yenne making a parallel between pre-WWII occult/mystic movements in Germany and Austria to the New Age of the 1960s and 1970s. I find this analogy quite inappropriate and well, silly.  A better comparison might have been the spiritualism/spiritism craze of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Mr. Yenne also seems to relish using German ranks, titles and organization names followed by their English translation in parentheses. Nothing wrong with that except that he does it All-the-Friggin'-Time. I guess it's a convenient way of bulking the text without adding anything new.

The above criticisms do not mean that this book is not worth reading. It just means that the reader should be prepared to be slightly annoyed almost the whole time he/she reads the book, especially for a person who has not read anything on the subject of Himmler and Nazi occultism.

Answer: No. 8, Prinz-Albrechtstrasse.
2184904
Let's me say first that I'm 100% pro-evolution, and that abiogenesis is what attracted me to this book. I was seeking an explanation that is either fundamental by itself and based upon some empirical data, or another based on advances of known origin-of-life theories like the "RNA-world".
Unfortunately, the book delivers neither.
As another reviewer pointed out already, De Duve divulges the reader into the basics of cell biology; a nice introduction of life chemistry, proteins, RNA, DNA, enzymes and such.
De Duve then spends few chapters on paving the way from a pre biotic world to one that is dominated by protocells. He believes that proteins are a by-product of RNA and therefore RNA must have preceded proteins. Judging by the complexity of RNA, he postulates that peptide bonds _somehow_ formed among amino acids with the help of what he calls "multimers" (amino acids among other things), and those short peptides could have played the role of a primitive catalyst.
What De Duve fails to provide through out his book is data + examples. To convince any reader with the possibility of such event, common wisdom dictates a minimum amount of experimental data to support the "building" blocks of his hypothesis.
In 1997, Ghadri group synthesized a peptide ligase. That is, a self-replicating 32 amino-acid long peptide. It is the constant lack of evidence that makes Du Duve arguments weak.
Then he says that ATP and other NTPs _somehow_ arose, and the discussion for their "existence" is beyond the scope of the book. Then our catalyst peptide forms an RNA-like structure from ATP and others. Then he says that many bases were initially bound, not just A, U, G, and C. But once we had a "rare" RNA with A, U, G, C, it is _somehow_ more stable and more reproducible. De Duve does not really discuss why he believes this is the case, other than it must be because this is what we have now.
In one occasion, De Duve says "Admittedly, this is all hypothetical. But the hypothesis rests on undeniable foundations and has the advantage of suggesting experimental approaches". He made it clear on several occasions than many areas of pre biotic chemistry lack experimentation despite their significance in origin-of-life research. After suggesting an experiment, he concludes "This is what I would do if I were 20 years younger".
De Duve then goes on to explain how the RNA led eventually to proteins (RNA attaches itself to some amino acids, and using the RNA itself as a catalyst, we form protein). And that once we had proteins, life needed cells at that stage to compete and protocells were created. The RNA made proteins, and RNA that made better proteins for the cell survived and got duplicated. The cell at this has some rudimentary membrane, and can replicate itself via division.
What he skipped is how such membrane forms, why it forms, and how the division process in this protocell exactly takes place.
I really wished that De Duve paid more attention to such critical details. Different people might read the book for different reasons, I read it for the goal of gaining an understanding on abiogenesis. Being a strong believer in abiogenesis myself, I was quite enthusiastic when I began reading the book. However, skepticism over Duve's take on abiogensis kept growing as I read more chapters.
Unfortunately, I lost faith in his approach to this critical issue.
767635
As a scientist, I am always interested in an updated biography that is based on new information. However, Wilson seems to have done half-assed research and missed a large number of facts. Opinions were then formed based on - not sure what but certainly not facts.  I was hoping for a worthwhile read. This was not it.
2906321
Before the Dawn presents some of the newer data regarding the evolution of the genus homo, the diasporas of some of its species, and the cultural development of its only current representative. Most of the genetic studies were familiar to me from other readings, especially those regarding the close genetic links between members of the Cohen family, the information regarding genetic diseases, and the "daughters of Eve" distribution.  Though this was interesting, I felt that the author made too much of it.  There were too many "must have," "might have been," "possibly," etc. conclusions drawn from the spotty results of what is still a very nascent science.  This is probably an attempt to bring more vividness to what might otherwise be rather dry science.  For those who've not read anything about the genetic findings of the past decade the book will definitely bring things to life.

One of the most interesting discussions was that on the earliest human language.  The combination of both the linguistics theories regarding the parent language and the genetic information regarding human migration was very interesting and suggested that the combination of the two approaches might actually yield some results.

Here again are the twin discussions of the enlarging brain size with its attendant need for increased protein intake and the mystery of the hairless ape.  The explanations for both as given in the book--mostly nothing new--seem cogent enough, but I can't help wonder why no one has noticed that hair/fur is mostly protein and that diverting the nutritional intake from fur to brain is the most logical explanation for the occurrence of both phenomena.
1422912
Daniels sets out to disprove the theory of evolution and verify the accuracy of the Bible. The result is a rather folksy essay.

He covers the improbabilities of evolution, beginning with interdependency. He notes the unlikeliness of male and female of a species evolving at the same time, let alone that happening 1.8 million times. He writes about the issues of animals and their necessary habitat and food sources evolving all at the exact same time. He defends the geological column as a result of the flood. He critiques carbon 14 dating. He compares creation and evolution, notes the evidence for a Designer, and likens evolution to idolatry. He then defends the Bible and presents a gospel message.

Daniels has provided no documentation in his work, that is, no footnotes. He makes lots of unsubstantiated claims. For example, ...the human genome has remain fixed, unchanged... All other plant and animal genomes have remained unchanged... (55) He offers no documented proof for such a claim.

He makes sweeping statements: We cannot trust any of the claims made by scientists regarding the age of the earth or the origins of life. All of their claims are based solely on speculation and theory. There is no scientific proof for any of it. (23) Quite a statement to make when he himself offers no scientific proof for his claims.

The subtitle of the book is not accurate. What Daniels presents is not new. If you have done any reading at all in the creation evolution debate, you will have read about the information Daniels presents. The information here would be new only to someone who has not read anything by Morris or Ham or any other of the scores of authors writing on the subject. And I did not find the arguments compelling. That was mostly because they were unsubstantiated claims. While I may agree with some of them, they were not presented in a compelling way.

Potential readers should be aware that Daniels recommends the Bible commentaries of Ellen G. White, one of the founders of the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

I find it odd that the cover image of the book, a painting by Michelangelo, has been altered. Was it really necessary to spare readers the anatomical accuracy of the original painting?

I would not recommend this book. There are many books, long and short, that are much better on the issue of creation and evolution.

I received a complimentary digital copy of this book through Book Crash for the purpose of an independent and honest review.
3800532
The Biblical part is handled quite nicely, with good references and good material on language, context, and translation.  The problem--and it's a very serious one--is that the analysis is based on unscientific and sometimes flatly inaccurate sexuality information.  For example, the statistics cited regarding homosexuality, its etiology, and its relationship to sex crimes, sexually transmitted infections, and general health run the gamut from reasonable to out-of-date, to out-of-context, to flatly inaccurate.  There is EXCELLENT research linking orientation to genetic and prenatal factors, where the author flatly denies such, and forensic research clearly shows that a quite significant number of male-male sex crimes are committed by married, heterosexual men.  Unfortunately, the average reader might not know those things, and this book would leave them embarassingly misinformed.  You can't call something "Real" and then go short on research for half of it.  Finally, the author offers far too many of his own opinions about what intuitively makes sense to him.  I'm glad he knows himself so well, but the implication is that others do, or ought to agree.  Few things in life offer as much diversity of opinion as sexuality, so that kind of argument seems out of place in a work like this.  I hope the author revises his book for another edition, because a better researched, less biased book like this would be a valuable work.
3342874
This book was an interesting read.  However, I have several issues with it.  First, it is full of loosely tied hearsay with absolutely no scholarly backing in terms of citations.  ZERO legitimate sources for the books outrageous claims are provided.  The writer also tends to incoherently jump from one conspiracy to another and in doing so contradicts himself over and over.  Basically, a collection of unfounded conspiracy theories that I can almost guarantee are all sourced from the internet and posed as a scholarly work.
3510126
After reading this, I have to say that just about everything in this book has been reprinted in other, more recent titles. Also, I have to say that several of the discussions raised in this book as well as others have been either disproved by further research or tossed out as unsubstantiated hearsay or anecdotal.
For example, any recent reader who investigates the "fossilized" footprints of humans alongside dinosaurs at Palauxy will learn that the site, as well as the entire investigation has been destroyed by uneducated "researchers" through destruction of the original site, fraud and deception. The multiple listings of "giants" throughout the book, often alongside the suggestion that they were the "Nephilim" of biblical lore is based entirely upon conjecture and second-hand evidence! Hey gang, anyone with a basic biology education could probably figure out that a 20 ft tall human would not only be paralyzed from the joint fractures received when his skeletal structure failed due to several TONS of meat attached to it, but that since the average height of your typical 2nd dynasty Egyptian was only 5'6" then a man that was about 7ft would be considered to be a giant! I'm surprised that no-one has said publicly that they dinosaurs died out because the giants Ate them!
Here's the rub...there are a number of more up-to-date and better organized books out there than this one. Try "Technology of the Gods" by David Hatcher Childress. Although some of that info is just as "misinformed" as in Steiger's.
689263
The author reaches a number of unsubstantiated conclusions, with very, very few references. The book does not reach very detailed solutions and offers a number of sweeping generalizations about various races and why they behave a certain way. Some of the material was indeed interesting, but much of it simply sounds academic (i.e. 'bio-chemical altering'), but is never explained or backed by references.
4046768
Chip Walters offers speculation about human origins.  He has no credentials in this field that I can find.  I looked for reviews by researchers in the field, and could only find the blurb by Donald Johanson, who calls it "an intriguing scenario", but that comment offers no insight into whether it has any validity.  If it is of real worth, I would expect to be able to find more comments by real authorities in the field.  Much of Walter's book consists of looking at traits such as morality, etc. and research that has been done in that field.  Many, many books look at that topic; again, quite a few written by respected researchers.

OK, you say.  Then what should I read instead to learn about this fascinating subject?

I would suggest  Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth, by Chris Stringer instead.  Stringer is a Research Leader in Human Origins at the Natural History Museum, according to Wikipedia and several other sources, as well as being a Fellow of the Royal Society.  Much more reassuring credentials than Walter's.  Also Stringer's book has good reviews from respected researchers in the field and top science magazines, such as this review quote from the magazine Nature, "Combining the thrill of a novel with a remarkable depth of perspective, the book offers a panorama of recent developments in paleoanthropology . . . refreshingly politically incorrect.", by Jean-Jacques Hublin.
4867557
Having greatly enjoyed his previous works, I looked forward to this. Unfortunately,this book is replete with such questionable tidbits as why does uncooked spaghetti snap generally into 3 pieces. We also learn about the "birthday phenomena", ie among 23 random individuals there will likely be 2 that share a birthday. Alas,this and some of the other topics have already been covered extensively elsewhere. There were a few interesting sections I would have liked to see in more depth. As noted elsewhere, the target audience for this work is somewhat of a mystery as the math was rather dense. Try Mr Barrow's earlier works,much more informative!
4204294
I am fascinated by this topic and yet was quite disappointed in the quality of the book. There are very few references given in his myriad of 'factual' statements. I was hoping it could be a reference for a research project I am doing, but there is very little to go on to substantiate his claims. I do believe he is earnest and I would like to use his information but without references it is just a curiosity.
3683025
We're not told anything about the author of this self-published book, but he does not appear to be a scholar. No secondary sources are mentioned at all, and the book is based entirely on his reading of Josephus and the gospels (both canonical and noncanonical). The book could have used a sterner editor, as the first two hundred pages are a rambling and often sleep-inducing discussion of peripheral subjects: What were the prospects for carpenters in the ancient Near East? Did Jesus's status as the son of God give him foreign language skills?

At last, we arrive at the "dark knowledge" of the title, which is that Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin not for blasphemy but for homosexual acts (with John the evangelist, witnessed by Judas). In spite of the author's claim to have proved this with mathematical certainty, I suspect that few will find it convincing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But the author does provide interesting speculation and commentary on how this would explain various things in the gospels. I've always been puzzled, for example, on exactly what was the nature of Judas Iscariot's "betrayal" of Jesus: after all, since everybody knew who Jesus was, an identification was hardly needed! The author's comments are worth reading, on subjects such as Mary Magdalene, Lazarus, the woman taken in adultery, the beloved disciple, and others.

Ironically, the author is totally unaware of the existence of the Secret Gospel of Mark, a document which (if authentic) quite conclusively proves his thesis. Regrettably, most scholars now regard Secret Mark as a modern forgery (see the wikipedia article on it), but it would have been interesting to see Low's interpretation of it. In recent decades, there have been numerous attempt to portray Jesus as a fully sexual person. In the 1980's, for example, Michael Baigent and his colleagues made a case for his being heterosexual and married to Mary Magdalene. And more recently there have been several books depicting Jesus as homosexual in some sense (see the references in the previous review here). One of the delights of Christianity is that the complex and often contradictory picture of Jesus that we get from the ancient sources allows everyone to find their own understanding of who he really was, and this book is worth reading for the author's original and thought-provoking slant on it.