Prof Nathan Aviezer / Professor Mark Perakh begins his second article (hereafter, Perakh 2) by claiming that 13 years ago, his friend sent me a copy of his first article (hereafter, Perakh 1) and asked me to reply, but I “chose to ignore the request.” I have no such recollection, but one cannot be certain of exactly what happened 13 years ago. The replies of Perakh 2 to the criticisms that I raised against Perakh 1 are feeble. For example, the well-known chicken-and-egg paradox regarding the origin of life is dismissed in Perakh 1, Sec. 9, by means of an analogy to runners in a stadium. To my demonstration (“Reply to Mark Perakh”) that the analogy is completely false, Perakh 2 replies (p. 4) that his analogy was “just an illustration.” A false analogy illustrates nothing but lack of understanding.

Prof Nathan Aviezer / I recently became aware of an essay by Mark Perakh, devoted solely to the theme that my book, In the Beginning, is total nonsense. Perakh’s essay, bearing the sarcastic title “The End of the Beginning,” is riddled with errors. Indeed, every page of his essay contains blatant errors, false claims, and illogical conclusions, as will now be shown. Before beginning my detailed critique of Perakh’s essay, there is a very important point to be made. In my books, I never bring any scientific facts or scientific arguments or scientific conclusions of my own. I always quote the leading scientific authorities. Therefore, when Perakh claims that my scientific discussion is all wrong, he is really asserting that the world-famous scientists whom I quote do not know what they are talking about. The reader should have no difficulty in choosing between accepting Perakh’s claims or accepting the scientific statements of Nobel Prize winners and scientists at the world’s most distinguished universities.