Funny review of "The Greatest Show on Earth"

[laconicsax]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/sep/15/john-crace-digested-read

Many people have a moral abhorrence to the idea of eugenics. Yet nature has no moral code in its selection process and what those creationist halfwits don't understand is that it is the very process of evolution that has ensured their numbers have increased. As religious people tend to breed with one another, so the gullibility gene has grown stronger and at a certain point a new species, Imbecilis creationis, emerged from Imbecilis deis.

...

If creationists bothered to think about the flatworm for a nanosecond, they would realise their argument that the Precambrian gap in the fossil record weakens the evidence for evolution was crap. They also talk about the missing link in the human chain. Are they mad? Well, yes. But why don't they just take a look at Sarah Palin?

It is almost too ridiculous to mention it, but I have to because I'm obsessed. Think what the geographical distribution of creationists would look like if they'd all dispersed from Noah's ark: the greatest concentration would be around Mount Ararat. So how come they've all wound up in Utah?

We have our history written all over us. Literally. Brainy mammals contrive to increase the area of their grey matter within the confines of the skull – hence the wrinkles in the human brain. Not surprisingly, atheists' brains are wrinklier than theists' brains, while creationists' resemble those of a goat.

More at link

[moggie]

1. Do you think John Crace actually read the book?

Since he appears to dislike Dawkins so much ("there is no God but me", "dominant megalomania gene", "my great admirer JS [sic] Haldane", "obsessed"), I suspect he just skimmed it.

[laconicsax]

2. Probably. He does reviews like that, calling them 'digested reads.'

It mostly serves his own ego--it's a whole "I'm way better than <author>" thing. His other 'reviews' are equally dismissive of the author.