What do geneticist James Allan, geophysicist John Baumgardner, and electrical engineer Stephen Taylor have in common? They're all respected scientists with Ph.D.s who believe in a literal 6-day creation. Drawing on current scientific research and solid scriptural evidence, 50 professional scientists witness to the truth of the Genesis account. Enlightening!
384 pagesPublishers Description
Harvard professor Stephen J. Gould, on CNN's Crossfire in November of 1999, said no legitimate scientist in the world believes the Genesis account of creation. So the question was posed, Would any educated, self-respecting scientist with a PhD advocate a literal interpretation of the six days of creation? Its hard enough to find a theologian who adheres to such a credo. Most Christians will say that they believe the Bible yet balk at its first chapters, claiming that science proves the creation account cannot be considered as fact. Do these people realize that science can neither prove nor disprove evolution any more than it can creation? Certainly there are no human eyewitness accounts of either.
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 8.5" Width: 5.5" Height: 0.9"
Weight: 0.85 lbs.
Release Date Apr 13, 2001
Publisher New Leaf Press/Master Books
Availability 1 units.
Availability accurate as of Dec 11, 2017 04:36.
Usually ships within one to two business days from New Kensington, PA.
Orders shipping to an address other than a confirmed Credit Card / Paypal Billing address may incur and additional processing delay.
Reviews - What do our customers think?
|Good book. Aug 22, 2007|
|This is a good book.|
It is not technical at all, which is a good factor.
This book provides collection of short essays why various scientists decided to hold to a young earth creationism.
There are some good points to learn.
I personally enjoyed reading it.
|50 Scientists admitting their presuppositions! Jun 22, 2007|
|I too love this book. All of the scientists who contributed to this work are well credentialed. Their explanations, for why they believe the biblical account of Creation in Genesis 1, are compelling. They don't throw their brains out the window in order to believe the Bible. So how can they reconcile the Bible with Science?|
This is the point that some of the reviewers who have posted here don't get: all scientists have presuppositions. They start out with certain beliefs that guide their conclusions. Postmodernism has taught us that there is no such thing as pure objectivity. As the philosopher of science, Paul Feyerabend, has written, "...there is hardly any difference between the members of a primitive tribe who defend their laws because they are the laws of the gods... and a rationalist who appeals to objective standards, except that the former know what they are doing while the latter does not" (Science in a Free Society [London: Verso, 1983], p. 82).
These scientists admit their presuppositions--a rare thing for scientists to do! Most simply pretend to be "objective" and rule out any possibility of supernatural causes because of their philosophical beliefs (e.g., atheism, naturalism). I applaude the contributors to this book. Their intellectual honesty no-doubt makes them better scientists. And I challenge the undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate students of science who read this review to also read this book and then ask themselves this question: Do I have the guts to admit to myself that the philosophical presuppositions that I have greatly influence my perspective? And how do I know that my philosophical presuppositions are correct and those of these 50 scientists in this book are not?
I highly recommend this book for thinking people. But, as you can see from some of these reviews, prejudiced people won't like it.
|A real gem Jun 3, 2007|
|I love this book, really love it. This is one of the gemstones of my private little library and highly recommended.|
Don't take me wrong here. I'm not, repeat not, repeat not, a "young earth creationist", or any other kind of creationist. Precisely for that reason, I adore this book. This collection of testimonies from 50 Christian-fundamentalist scientists PROVE that creationism is bogus, and that people adopt it for religious and psychological reasons, NOT for scientific ones.
Unsurprisingly, the book is published by Answers in Genesis, one of the more extreme creationist groups, substantially worse than even the notorious "Institute for Creation Research".
I will now take the libery and quote extensively from this book, hopefully without breaking any copyright rules. All these quotes are for review puposes only!
>>>>>ANDREW SNELLING (p. 280): I believe in the creation of life by God in six literal days, and in God's destruction of life and the earth by a year-long cataclysmic global flood, for two reasons - first, and foremost, because the Bible clearly records these events as real, literal history, and second, because the scientific evidence, correctly understood, is totally consistent with this biblical account. As a geologist I continue to find scientific investigation of God's world very satisfying and exhilarating, because I always discover that ultimately the evidence in God's world agrees with what I read in God's Word.>>>>
Comment: Andrew Snelling believes in creationism first and foremost because the Bible tells him so. He then distorts the scientific evidence to "prove" his point. This is science?
>>>>>STEPHEN TAYLOR (p. 284) I became a Christian at the age of 16 by seeking forgiveness for my sins and committing my life to the Lord Jesus Christ in a simple prayer. Although aware of the apparent contradiction between science and the Bible, the fact that Jesus believed in the Genesis account as historically true was enough to convince me as a young Christian that I should also! The disciple is not above His Lord. Many years later, I am more than ever convinced not only of the truth of the Christian gospel , but also of the harmony between the biblical revelation and true science. It is extremely important to realise that, contrary to what we are often told, there is no proven fact of science that can be shown to contradict the biblical account. When scientific theories appear to contradict, it is important to examine the evidence for and interpretation behind such ideas.>>>>>
Comment: Same basic story. At the age of 16, this man decided for some kind of psychological reasons to embrace a narrow, fundamentalist form of Trinitarian evangelical Christianity. Later, he distorted science to fit his preconcieved subjective dogma!
>>>>> ELAINE KENNEDY (s. 294-295) Those of us who believe in a short chronology and a six-day creation do not have an adequate explanation for radiometric dates; however, we do know that much research needs to be done and we know multiple interpretations of the distributions concerning the processes involved are possible. Despite this possibility, dates are often used to refute biblical chronologies as though no questions or arguments oppose these conclusions. When interpreting scientific data, I use the same techniques and approaches as my colleagues, but my assumptions come from my biblical paradigm. I often recognise conflicts; indeed, the geologic literature reminds my daily that conflict exists, and many aspects of the geologic record are difficult to explain to the satisfaction of my colleagues or myself. This does not mean that they are correct and I am wrong, but rather that much research needs to be done. This attitude seems an impossible bias to some, but I find my faith leaves me open to alternatives, while I continually question the interpretations in my work because of my science. (...) Although I have been a Christian since I was seven years of age, it was not until I was in the midst of my geologic education that I decided to include my geologic assumptions within a biblical world view. In effect, I realised that I consider God's revelation more valid than human reason, because I experience His recreative power in my life daily.>>>>>
Comment: Elaine Kennedy admits that scientific evidence disproves the Bible, but she has decided to remain a creationist anyway, for purely psychological reasons, "because I experience His recreative power in my life daily". How sad. She could have become a good geologist.
>>>>GEOFF DOWNES (s. 310-311) I chose to accept the Bible as the basis for all my thinking, and understand Genesis in the plain sense in which it was written. I could not explain all the things that I observed in nature within that framework, and I still cannot. But I knew that, if these lecturers could be inconsistent in the sense that they were not able to make the evolutionary framework fit the evidence at every point, then I could also hold in "tension" those areas of science that I could not explain within a creationist framework. My understanding of the creationist perspective became steadily stronger in its ability to accommodate and explain the real scientific evidence.>>>>
Comment: Same basic story as Elaine Kennedy.
And finally, the ultimate gem of them all, a real shocker, already a classic, and suitable placed at the very last of the book.
>>>>KURT P. WISE (s. 332) Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.>>>>>
And there you do indeed stand.
As for the Earth (and science), "and yet she moves".
|They really need some new arguments Apr 21, 2007|
|I was guided to this book by a friend as their source for the Evolution/Creation discussion we where having. At one point they threw up their hands and said "Read the book". So I did.|
Bad arguments, misleading definitions, huge leaps in logic that a first year would question, misrepresenting evidence, and assuming the bible is a inerrant source are all the fallacies in this book. I was also hoping to run into something that isn't on a PRATT list now or an argument I haven't heard yet, but no luck.
Granted, there are a few nuggets in the book of questions that science haven't answered yet, but because science doesn't know doesn't mean that god did it. It just means they don't know yet.
And that I think it the biggest problem with the book. It acts like science is complete and knows all it is going to know, and that the bible has all the answers. In truth, science will never know everything but has the best discription of how the universe works now and is willing to correct itself if proven wrong, and the bible was written by people who wrote based on their limited understanding of the universe who didn't know what we know now, and these 50 scientists don't want it to be wrong.
|Thought Provoking Jan 16, 2007|
|This is a great read for believers and unbelievers alike. It provides scientific support that enhances the faith of those who already believe in creation and challenges those who don't to consider whether thier belief makes sense.|
Write your own review about In Six Days
Add This Product Widget To Your Website
Looking to add this information to your own website? Then use our Product Widget to allow you to display product information in a frame that is 120 pixels wide by 240 pixels high.
Copy and paste the following HTML into your website and enjoy!
Top 20 Items