One netfriend suggested:

Read Ian Plimer's "Telling Lies For God". Those who are interested can go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/181.asp for an article titled "Addressing a deeply dishonest campaign" on Ian Plimer's attack on Scientific Creationism.

Chris responded:

I agree that Plimer's book is not very good, and that he went overboard in his enthusiasm to trash creationists, with insufficient care for accuracy. I do not recommend this book; it makes many valid points, but many that are not reasonable or accurate. A reader should not have to worry about figuring which is which, and would be better to seek other more reliable sources of information.

(As a rough guide; on the science Plimer seems to be generally good; and on the other personal aspects or insinuations he is unreliable.)

Plimer's book includes, for example, a wholly unreasonable and fanciful attack on Jim Lippard; Jim is an active skeptic who has done a great deal in exposing errors in creationism; but he is not loved by Ian Plimer because Jim *also* has a concern with poor scholarship and inaccuracy by skeptics.

Read Jim's comments on the book, and see a point by point response to Plimer's inaccurate comments with regard to Lippard. <http://www.discord.org/~lippard/plimer-book.html>

There are a number of other articles by skeptics who are similarly disparaging of Plimer's book. See this blistering review by Jeffrey Shallit <http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/plimer.html>

Another responded:

From New Scientist, 15 March 2003:- "Researchers have found that large differences in DNA, not small ones, separate apes, monkeys and humans. It has been thought that differences were mainly in individual DNA letters, but a detailed comparison of human chromosome 21 with corresponding ape and monkey genetic material shows the differences affect 'great chunks of DNA.' This finding that whole chunks, rather than single letters, separate humans from chimps echoes a study last year (<http://www.answersingenesis.org/chimpDNA.) which reported human and chimp DNA differed by up to 5%, not the 1.5% assumed previously. Quoted from Creation September-November 2003 And what amazing difference there are in that 5%. Can you imaging a shimpanzee organising an orchestral concert, etc., etc., .....

Chris responded:

Your link does not work. Here is a better references to the AiG article. "Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more." By David A. DeWitt on-line at <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1125dna.asp>

The AiG article is mainly commentary on this paper: "Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels" By Roy J. Britten on PNAS, October 4, 2002, 10.1073/pnas.172510699 <http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/21/13633.pdf>

I recommend folks interested be sure to read the original paper and research, and not just the AiG commentary.

Cheers -- Chris