|
Searching for Ropens |
|
The first few comments from readers, in the summer of 2006, I found interesting. Each Amazon review was either a glowing endorsement or a goring indict-ment. Without middle ground, each reader evaluated my book with either the maximum or minimum number of stars, but, to me, this was not surprising. The book contains an indictment of the idea that Naturalism philosophy is “science.” It is not. It appears that the bluntness of my approach has offended some people who have taken the General Theory of Evolution as part of their personal philosophy.
Searching for Ropens is more than just a book about a cryptid, although the cryptozoological expeditions for apparent living pterosaurs play a major part. The religious or spiritual message is that God should be given credit for earth life. Naturalism, or the idea that God has never created anything miraculously, has been adopted as the foundational axiom of standard models of modern science. It is, however, an axiom, not itself proven. |
|
Why did one critic say, “The author starts off with . . . agenda about how idiotic Darwinism is.”? Nothing in the book even hints that believers in Darwinism are incapable of intelligent thought. But the word “idiotic” does hint at the concept of one person criticizing another’s intelligence. Perhaps this critic has taken Naturalism philosophy to heart, reacting in anger to the scientific approaches against the General Theory of Evolution. Regardless, I never intended that any part of my book would mock any person’s intelligence (or philosophy).
Another critic has said, “This book is more about religion and believing, and not a serious research about Ropens.” If the point was not sufficiently made in my book, I’ll make it here: The existence of living dinosaurs and pterosaurs refutes the standard-model assertion or implication that dinosaur and pterosaur fossils are evidence supporting the General Theory of Evolution. The book is about religion and believing—and also about science and ropens. |
|
A reply to critics of the first edition of the book |
|
If you have read the book and wish to make comments or suggestions, email to: |
|
Expanded Second Edition:
Searching for Ropens, at 263 pages, has 17 chapters, 140 images, a 50-page appendix, and a 21-page index.
Although it has no daylight photograph of any ropen (only distant images of two glowing indavas), the book has a composite sketch from eyewitness testimonies. |
|
www.searchingforropens.com/reply-01 |
|
Read the second edition of Searching for Ropens |
|
comment |
|
searchingforropens.com |
|
From readers of the first edition:
“I read the book cover to cover in the first 48 hours after I received it (it was hard to put down). The author does a great job of laying out the known facts about the Ropen.
“I was equally fascinated with his personal account of summoning up the courage to go on the trip in the first place. The book was as much . . . about finding the courage within you to do something extraordinary as it was about a possible cryptozoological event.”
Alex Aguila, Florida
“I sat up till nearly 4 a.m. reading your book. . . . personally I think you have done a brilliant job of it. Its full of humor and spirituality. Every page was interesting! Your honesty in the book really shone through and it was just such good reading. Loved it!”
Penny, Australia
|
|
From the Author |
|
Read an introduction to bioluminescence. This is one revolutionary characteristic of the creature known in Papua New Guinea as ropen, duwas, seklo-bali, and wawanar. |
|
Living Pterodactyls and Umboi Island
The second edition gives you new exciting developments such as the late 2006 expedition in which two indavas were videotaped one night as they were about to take off into the air. Other new sighting reports are covered, as well as new insights into living pterosaurs. |
|
A common criticism of the living-pterosaur investigations is that the natives are super-stitious. One problem with that approach is that the native eyewitnesses rarely mention any superstitious details (such as legends) when they relate what they have seen. Another problem with that approach is that is fails to take into account testimonies of Westerners. What about the Australian psychologist who saw a “prehistoric” creature flying over Bougainville Island?
What about the web page of Glen Kuban, his suggestion that at least some of the sightings are actually just Flying Fox fruit bats? Groundless! |