Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

According to a poll of the magazine "Nature" 40% of Americas scientists believe in a personal God. Science and faith must be divided, or not? Many scientists have another opinion. This book is a collection of the statements of 50 scientists of renown from all fields concerning the theme creation contra evolution.
The good thing is, that there are no boring repetitions, instead everybody has something interesting to say about his own special field of research. Often it was the scientific research that made the scientists to reconsider their ideology and - regarding the force of the facts - to come to a believe in an intelligent creator of life.
Genesis is not proved and perhaps not imaginable (how could it!), but by sober consideration of the facts the appearance of life in the sense of Darwinism seems to be much more unlikely. The evolutionists have a disadvantage. They would like to prove something, which cannot or can only hardly be proved. Besides they investigate permanently data, for which never can be prognosticated a meaningful result. Meanwhile the creationists can lean back and wait until the scientists have proved again to contradict themselves.
But at first one should read carefully through the statements of these creationists to realize with astonishment who diligent they worked their thesis out and how logic their conclusions are. There are clear assumptions for example from the Geophysician John Baumgardner who is writing about the theory of an accidental molecular interaction for the engendering of life. He says that simple arithmetic calculations show that this theory is not realistic! And then he starts to calculate it as a proof.
About the calculation of time he says that most people, including most scientists, are not aware that there is a flagrant systematic conflict between the radiometric methods of age calculation and the non-radiometric ones. Then he is explaining why there must be doubts about the used methods.
The zoology professor Walter Veith is writing that "natural selection itself is no scientific principle, because it is based on a circular argument. Then he is explaining why. And likewise it goes on throughout the whole book.
The book is full of statements, many of which are well proved and undergirded. For others you have to look up in the literature yourself. For example when the Astro-physician Edmond Holroyd is asserting: "How many super-novas have been found in our galaxy? Only as much as can have happened to be in the last 7000 years, not in millions of years."
Should one raise the bar higher than one is used from evolutionists? They do constantly assert unproved things and hardly talk about thesis or hypothesis. It was like that and finish!
The biology professor Timothy Standish even ventures to reckon up for Stephen Hawking that his example calculation of a million apes, who in millions of years finally arrive at the sonette of Shakespeare is mathematical nonsense (besides an example which is also phenomenological nonsense, because apes do know as much as accident what has been written).
The book is a depository for evolutionists who are not aware of the quality of credibility of the theory they hang on. But also for those who are no fellowers of evolution theory. They all find a gallimaufry of arguments from all fields of research.
There are also pure ideological statements, to be deemed well or not. Larry Vardimann, Professor for meteorology says: "I reject the evolution theory, because it is based on several wrong premises which contradict the observations. Evolution includes chaos and meaningless. Creation on the contrary organisation and value."
Yes, this is what we all want to have, organisation and value and the contrary of meaninglessness! No wonder cause we are children of creation and not of accident?
The book is comfortable to read, since it offers no pamphlet or polemics for sale. It is constantly factual. This can be expected from scientists, who care for facts. Mostly pseudo-scientists and demagogues deviate from this for the sake of high sales figures. With "God-is-dead" pamphlets it is more easy to make money than with sober consideration of facts. For somebody like Dawkins these scientists must be fools, but I do not believe, that this is what you believe after reading the book.

Biased from the beginning, this is a terrible book. If you want the gist of its arguments read Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" instead. Most arguments here are borrowed from it. Basic themes of their arguments are that evolution is not possible and people must believe in the literal 6 days of creation because: A) Irreducible Complexity (Behe's Argument) suggest cells are so complex they must have had a designer, B) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - that systems will return to a state of entropy allegedly precludes evolution (the theory is badly misused and incessantly and mindlessly repeated), C) Statistically, evolution to them as a "chance" occurrence seems statistically improbable, D) they doubt the authenticity of radiometric (carbon, argon, etc) dating -but provide no alternate proof themselves, E) they all fall back on the same Christo-Centric idea, i.e. why must I believe? Because their literalist conception of the Bible tells them so!
Apparently Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism - none of these are worth consideration, nor is liberal Christianity ("theistic evolution"). In short, their faith lens drives their science to look for "facts" supporting a pre-conceived idea. That isn't science. In fact, most of it is bluster - dogmatic assertions that they think they are correct, based upon scripture and half-baked criticism or analysis of science. None of the authors anywhere provides any proof that his/her religious tradition is infallible or correct; this is just assumed! So they follow an exclusive and narrow-minded agenda in which science is driven by "faith." They have only one conception of what faith can be: literalist. In their minds you cannot be liberal or accepting of evolution and still have faith. This will only take us back to the days before Galileo! Conveniently, none of them even mention Galileo, or reflect that their mindset prepares one to repeat that 17th century inquisition! At best the book points out that there are some complex things we might not understand about nature - but who doesn't know that? At the worst - I saw authors in this book outright lie, mislead, and otherwise confuse the reader with false science. Do yourself a favor - avoid this book. If you must, read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", or better yet John Haught's "Science and Religion." Haught gives a much more balanced and level-headed approach to religion than any of the authors in this book can hope to achieve.

I found "In 6 Days.. to be an outstanding collection of essays by noteworty scientists from a variety of disciplines. Perspectives from Mechanical engineers, Biochemists, Mathematicians, Zoologists, Meteorologists, Medical Researchers, etc. are represented. Serveral of the scientists are well known for their excellent work in promoting Creation Science (like Dr. John Morris, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, and Dr. Werner Gitt). And, this assortment of scientists quickly dispels the common myth that "good scientists" do not believe in a literal understanding of the book of Genesis and how we all got here. Though the essays do become technical at times (which is to be expected...and appreciated) they are always explained and not above the understanding of the layman. For example, Dr. Ed Holroyd, PhD in Atmospheric science, explains his fascination with the stars and their proof for, not only the supernatural creation of them, but very recently. He relates:
"...there is an interesting phenomenon among the stars that gives a time scale in agreement with that in the Bible. By watching other galaxies of similar composition to our own, we know aboiut how often there are supervovae explosions in our Milky Way because of the nebula remnants of the explosions. We can calculate that we should be able to detect those nebulae for millions of years before they diffuse and blend into the background. Our radio telescopes can see through the dust with ease and detect many more supernova remnant than we can see at optical wavelengths. How many supernova remnants are out htere in our own galaxy? There are only enough for about 7000, not millions of years of explosions."
And such statements are made over and over again in the book with clarity and punch. From the design complexity of DNA, to the make up of intelligent language, to the improbabilities of evolution vs. the 2nd law of thermodynamics etc. the authors share the sparks that started the bonfires of their faith. And this is a remarkable thing, for they show powerfully that a person can have a fundemental belief in Biblical inerrancy, therefore believing in a literal Genesis account, and still believe in objective science. And that, is about time!
Moreover, the testimony type format of the book is very effective. For, not only do they present the arguments in favor of Creation and revealing the bankruptcy of evolution, they also do so in a way that reveals their own journeys of faith. It puts interest and substance into the essays.
This book provides tremendous proof in favor of God creating the world in 6 literal 24 hour days and puts further nails in the coffin of Darwinism. This book should be read by every person wh o is a skeptic, who has a passion for Creation or science, or just anyone who wants a better perspective on how literal creationists see things. This is a refreshing, solid book (both scientifically and theologically) and I highly recommend it.

Relish that the previous reviews are strongly conflicting! I find it humorous and a exciting because authentic issues of faith are rarely clearly resolved. Does this book touch on issues of faith? Certainly!, not as a scientific rebuttal to the theory of evolution but as a sketch from different scientific thinkers as to why Chreation, with it's own untestable mysteries, is convincing to them. If I had no doubt that evolution is an impregnable fortress of truth, and were looking to pick a fight, this book would not change me into a Bible-thumping creationist. Fact is, there are thousands of scientists (not just 50) who believe that a creator God is more than nursery rhymes. There are multiple arguments that stack up agaisnt both creation and evolution. Here, 50 scientists, in one chapter apeice, share the arguments that cast evolution in a fog. To think that each chapter is a complete and convincing appology to evolutionists, as several of the reviewers of this book anticipated, seems to miss the point. The point is that thinking people find faith in the Bible to be as relavent as science. (Let hardcore evolutionists shake their heads here--you will not be convinced by faith or reason).
As for me, I have been an old earth, young creation Bible believer; but this book has moved my mind toward a young earth, young creation persuasion. Some of the arguments in the book will hit you, others may not. The beauty of this book is that it's written by 50 authors--all with qualified scientific credentials. Each took one chapter to share a scetch from their personal story of doubt, reason, and faith. If you want to line your quiver with darts to throw, it might produce a few, but you have missed the target. This book is about the experience of those who have balanced reason and faith and can not disqualify either. I recommend this book to evolutionists and creationists to don't know everything yet.

Start with the first "essay" by Jeremy Walter. He perpetuates the myth that the analysis of the sediments deposited by Mt St Helens after its famous eruption "proves" that the Grand Canyon could have been formed quickly. First, the ash and other sediments are a far cry from hard rock; it takes much less time to "erode" them than it did the Grand Canyon. Second, the volume-vs-time scale is grossly underestimated - using the correct volume for sediment removed, and assuming that the rate of removal is the same for rock (which it wouldn't be), it would still indicate a formation time for the Grand Canyon of at least a million years. Additionally, the Grand Canyon exhibits characteristics that can ONLY be explained by long-term erosive effects and would not occur if it was formed over the less-than-a-year period espoused by the Morrises and their YEC comrades.

I found this book to be very helpful. Despite what you may have been told, this book proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are many highly credentialed, highly thought of scientist who believe in Creationism. In fact, the more I research the more I realize how many highly educated people (scientist, doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc.) believe in God, and believe that what He says in His Word is true. I found the arguments to be very logical, very well thought out and cast very real doubts on the theory of evolution, and the theory of orgins.

I would also like to point out that a lot of what has been said in the negative reviews have not been true. I have read people saying that many of the scientist in this book are mixing up the theory of evolution and the theory of orgins. This is simply not true. The scientists argued that the theory of evolution was false because no mechanism has been found that would make naturalistic evolution work. They also pointed out that mutations do not provide the answer because mutations are almost always negative. One of the engineers made a very convincing argument against evolution by pointing out the intricate design in the flight of birds and other types of animals. As to the theory of orgins, the scientists made arguments the arguments that life is simply too complex and too engineered to be the product of random chance. Even prominent atheist such as Richard Dawkins are abandoning the view that life on earth could have started on it's own and believe that panspermia is a viable option (and it isn't, it really just moves the question). If you are going to write a negative review, at least have the facts straight.

So someone found 50 scientists that choose to believe Creationism. Notice the title "choose to believe in creation" --these scientists didn't use their scientific background to come up with this pseudo-science fairy tale. They are starting with a conclusion and retrofitting it into biblical mythology.
It reminds me of the book published by 100 German physicists in Nazi Germany "refuting" Albert Einstein. When Einstein was told of the book, he simply said "if I am wrong, it would only take one person" (source "Little Brown Book of Anecdotes", more factual than the bible).
Christian apologetic books like this just go to show that scientists are human, and in the blink of an eye can throw out years of training if it conflicts with an ingrained myth. You can probably find 50 scientists in Afghanistan that would gladly write a book on how ancient statues of Buddha should be smashed.

This collection of essays achieves what it sets out to do, namely to demonstrate that a significant number of scientists believe literally in all or part of the Biblical account of Earth history. I found the format more readable and authentic than a combined work, showing the range of perspectives and ideas from the many authors, many of whom have impressive credentials.

After reading all the negative reviews I thought to myself - wow, this book is a complete sham (I had this book at home for years and never read it).

I'm sure it is poorly written and mostly devoid of any scientific information whatsoever.

I took the book off my shelf, blew the dust off the top and read it.

I was wrong.

It is a well written book by 50 scientists who believe in a literal 6 day creation.

The goal of the book is to state why these scientists, a few were aggressive evolutionists, changed their point of view or found creation to be a more reasonable explanation to our existence.

My opinion is that the negative reviews have more to do with damage control than an open mind inquiring on the facts but that's what I would do if I still believed in evolution.

First let me say that Darwin died even before the discovery of electrons. People who haven't asked serious questions about Darwinian evolution since 5th grade science class should not even be allowed to write reviews. (The same goes for people who haven't asked questions about Genesis since Sunday school.) Darwin never had the benefit of basic knowlege we take for granted, such as DNA, which was discovered long after his death. Imagine if you walked through an entire museum filled with greatly varying sculptures, paintings, and photos. Then you discover that under a microscope, all the brushstrokes and clay are done in such a way as to form tiny letters: "GACTCTAGTAA." Darwin never got to see that a code, the same programing, was the underlying thread running through the animal kingdom. So open your mind a crack and say, "Let's not rush off to church, but perhaps it's time to stop trying to patch up the Darwinian model?"

The book's biodiversity essay was quite good. We all know from documentaries what happens if you subtract even just one animal from an ecosystem:

-the plants that were fertilized by that animal would die,

- the predators that ate that animal would die, and that predator's other prey would thrive and decimate their food sources and die off,

-the plants that were eaten by the animal run wild and overgrow other plants so that those would also die,

-then the animals that ate THAT plant would then die, ad nauseum.

So that said, how did the first species survive after crawling out of the ooze? What did it eat, and where did its food in turn, get ITS food? The writer continued on to raise further issues in that essay.

The other blow was the mathematician writing about the probability of the human skeleton and body randomly acheiving its current configuration. Extremely compelling stuff; his computations were fascinating probabilities with one digit followed by half a page of zeroes.

The major problem I have with this book is that it too heavily discusses only a literal six-day creation, that is, six 24-hour days. But it's well known among scholars that the Hebrew word "day" can stand for a time period or era, like when we say, "Back in my day I had to walk to school 3 miles uphill in the snow." In some verses it can mean about 1 year, and in others 1000 years. This problem adversely affects the whole view of the book (right from the title,) thus the 4 stars instead of 5.

The positive thing is that though these essays might not be perfect, they do raise many rational questions. People can't blindly stick to evolution without questioning, just like you can't blindly assert creation without questioning; we are reminded that evolution still has many questions it cannot answer, and it is time for an alternative theory.

This book is composed of many different scientists and doctors who have extreme amounts of research, evidence and experience. They use their knowledge to explain the evidence that the world was created by God. They have lots of excellent points that should be considered. I recommend this book to believers of Christianity and non-believers alike, especially those who hold fast to the religion of evolution. This book has been an excellent tool in my own study and for homework.

-Christian Fobian, Author of Why Christ?

Creationism is not science it is religion.

Lets go over the "science" of "Noah's flood" which seems to be an absolute favorite of creationists. Well since there are no "facts" which support this mythology anymore than there are "facts" to support Jack and the Bean Stalk or Pinocchio lets discuss the real facts which point to this being little more than mythology.

1. The fossil record shows clear evidence that species appeared on the planet gradually and did not live all at once as the Bible suggests.
2. There is not enough genetic diversity in a population of 2 individuals to constitute a healthy gene pool. Inbreeding would result in the extinction of any such population within a few generations.
3. The distribution of plants and animals suggests biological evolution as different animals adapted to different environments and selective pressures. The distribution of animals that we observe is inconsistent with all animals hopping off of the "ark" in the middle East. We should find sloths and kangaroos in the middle east if this happened.
4. Fitting every species of animal on a boat half the size of the Titanic is inconsistent with what we know of reality. Also the most expert ship builders today have deemed it impossible to build a ship that large without it sinking.
5. There isn't enough water on the planet to flood the entire planet. With what we know of the water cycle water is not destroyed it simply goes into the atmosphere and then rains down. So if the Earth was flooded...A. Where did the water come from? B. Where did it go? C. Why does the geologic record show no evidence of it?
6. We don't observe plants growing at the bottom of the ocean. Why would it be ok for all plants to be under water for a year? It wouldn't. Noah and all the animals would have landed on essentially a dead planet with no plants after this "flood".
7. "The water covered the highest mountain". I guess that would be 30k+ feet then so everything on the ark would have froze to death. Next.
8. Noah's family which consisted of 8 people were capable of taking care of millions of animals and feeding them, providing veterinary care, and disposing of their waste everyday? You have a cramped wooden boat which would not be able to house all species that exists which I would classify as harsh living conditions out to sea for nearly a year with no margin of error because every species HAD to survive. It's seems more likely that this is a fairytale like Peter Pan or the Little Mermaid.

I argue that if someone slipped Jack and the Bean Stalk into your children's Bible while growing up, you would adamantly defend the story today. You would refer to botanists as "non-beanstalkists" and argue that beanstalks could grow into the clouds. You would argue with physicists and say that castles could exist on clouds because where else would the giant live in the story? Books that were written that defended castles floating on the clouds and plants growing thousands of the feet into the atmosphere would be defended by you as "scientific" because that is the dogma you were taught. Think about that. Is it at all possible that all of what you think is simply due to you being told it was true because the story said it was true. If Harry Potter at the beginning of the book series told you it was a perfect infallible story and at the end it said all of it was true and for evidence see the beginning of the book to see where it stated it was infallible would you call that evidence?

This book is among my favorites to gift to my science friends to troll them. So for that 5 stars.

Hmmm. I dont mean to call creationists idiots, but when i see the same WRONG reasons why evolution is wrong, I can't hold my tongue. OK where should I start... oh yeah the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In a closed sytem all things will break down. So therefore, simple molecules could not make complex cells because that would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Oh ok that settles it. Oh wait the laws thermodymaics occurs in a closed system but energy is constantly being pumped into this sytem we call earth. Anyway. Thinking about this book makes my head hurt. If you are in for a good laugh, then buy this book. I do, howver, could suggest some other humorous books

Funny that so many people object to their children being told the truth at school. The Theory of Evolution is one of the crowning glories of Victorian era science. Now we know so much more about the mechanisms behind the observations Darwin made our understanding has grown and grown.
Whatever these books say about there being no evidence for evolution has no truth to it. If there was overwhelming evidence for young earth creationism I would accept it. And if it was true the evidence would be there.
The God that I believe in (and I do call myself a Christian) would not hide these things from us.

I think the subtitle pretty much shows what this is all about. Notice it does not say "why 50 scientists THINK creationism is TRUE" but why they CHOOSE to BELIEVE IT. That's the whole problem with religious thinking; it's not about truth but about wishful thinking.

I did't waste my money on this nonsense, but checked it out from my library, to see if it was as lame as the subtitle suggested -- it was even worse. I only read about 3 of the 50 essays before I turned my attention to the 3 by geologists (since geology is where YECism is most clearly refuted. That brought me close enough to my gag threshold to return it to the library well before its due date.

If you are interested in creationism, I recommend Eugenie Scott's "Evolution vs. Creationism", Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True", David Montgomery's "The Rocks Don't Lie" or anything by real scientists who are not simply acting as fundamentalist apologists. John Brockman's "Intelligent Thought" anthology is excellent, too,

I can't believe the majority of the other reviews. How badly are they lacking in science, logic and common sense? Unfortunately, this lack of information and education appears to follow throughout this book, as well. Sure, the authors of these essays are Ph.D. holding "scientists". But the very fact that they publicly state that their belief in Young Earth Creationism is a choice based on their personal religious tenets, and NOT on the actual evidence is very telling.
I would guess that the majority of the reviewers of this are not educated even to the level of baccalaureate, let alone to the Ph.D. If that is the case, then how would they be able to honestly, fairly and completely understand and interpret the evidence and theories being discussed? Especially when those theories and evidences encompass such incredibly diverse and generally unrelated topics as genetics, cosmology or paleontology? Heck, I have a M.S. in Microbiology, and I can see that most of the arguements and commentary in this book are simply trotting out of many old and previously refuted ideas. At least from the first reading, I don't see ANY new or original ideas.
Then again, perhaps one of the other reviewers, or even the participating authors, would be so kind as to present a novel idea on this topic?
Anyway, I don't get why anyone who didn't already have their mind washed by the Young Earth Creationists would even consider most of the discussion in this book. It's a complete and utter waste of time. (and personally, I'm sorry I spent the money and time to acquire and read it)

If the second law of thermodynamics caused a constant breakdown of order everywhere at all times, nothing would grow. The fact that all the creationists were once babies and are now full blown...should indicate a problem with dismissing evolution because of the drift towards entropy. I can imagine some...argument that entropy only prevents evolution, not growth because Jesus wants us to grow(of course, said more "scientifically"). Besides maybe offering something weak like that, creationists must accept that while on the whole (the universe is a big place) entropy is increasing, this would not prevent evolution.
Has anyone else noticed that every creation "scientist" is a raving evangelist? If there is ever a book on this subject written by someone whose motivation is science and not god, someone let me know.

The "scientists" in this book seem to have a high correlation
with the Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research
hacks, who have been misrepresenting science for years.
They have dragged out the same old tired arguments from personal incredulity and distortions of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics originated by the P.T. Barnum of Creation Science, Henry Morris.

Awful, trite, boring, and repetitive - this book insults the intelligence of the reader. A bright torch burning the way toward ignorance. Brings new meaning to the word dishonest.
Most people with a college level education should be able to see right through this...unless of course you majored in communications or religious studies.

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.

Quoted excerpt from the back cover of this book:
"Science can neither prove nor disprove evolution anymore than it can creation...However, certain factors are present today which are capable of swaying one's beliefs one way or the other."
The object of this book is to obviously induce the scientifically uninitiated into accepting the account of Biblical creationism as true using scientific "evidence" which contradicts the theory of evolution, as an influential source of persuasion.
This book abounds with scientific hypotheses which attempt to discredit evolution yet, once this "evidence" is used to discern the shortcomings of evolutionary theory, these testimonies unscientifically assign these facts as correlating truth-claims regarding the Christian Bible's account of creation.
From the onset Mr. Ashton wants you to accept a fallacious and preconceived dichotomy, one in which you are simply an atheist who believes in evolution, or a Christian who believes in creation. Mr. Ashton fails to note that there may be a variety of alternative explanations (metaphysical or otherwise) derived from such "evidence". This book simply alludes by default a biased interpretation of the evidence, exclusively that of Christianity.
One example of this is biodiversity, which it must be noted that certain religions predating Christianity have made claims of "inextricable oneness" when describing man in relation to the universe.
Another testimonial goes to great length to discount spontaneous generation in support of biogenesis which states that "life *must* come from life." Then proceeds to (fallaciously) presume God's inevitable role in the matter. The problem here is in considering God a life-form.
If you consider God (the entity) a life-form then (via biogenesis), God himself/herself must derive from a previous form of life. (how can this be?) Conversely, if you consider God the fountainhead of life (not a life-form per se) then "God creating life" is in complete contradiction with the biogenesis claim.
Finally, from the dawn of time man has sought to appease some type of God for that which he does not fathom. This book is no different. Science cannot prove how the universe came into existence therefore God must fill the gaps that science has left unexplained. This is simple "God of the gaps" argumentation.
Each testimonial indicate a Christian bias and by assembling this collection the author is disingenuously using science to disclaim any preconceptions held in favor of evolution yet, he expects the uninitiated reader to unscientifically, accept the unsubstantiated preconceptions he holds toward creationism.
In summary: Scientifically it is interesting - Theologically it is useless - Philosophically it is a joke!

"In Six Days", for those wishing to understand "young earth" creation theories, provides thought-provoking questions and answers. As with any book that looks at a highly charged issue, it is important to come to it with an open mind. That many reviewers here on both sides of the issue cannot keep from vehemently pointing fingers at each other says nothing about the actual content of "In Six Days", unfortunately, so I hope this review can find some middle ground. Rather than making this review simply another in a line of rabid apologetics for one side or the other, I hope to relate whether the book succeeds in accomplishing what it intends.
To create this book, many Christian scientists (of various disciplines) from around the world were asked "Why do you believe in a literal six-day biblical creation as the origin of life on earth?" The fifty best responses ultimately were included.
Sadly, this format makes "In Six Days" less than useful - on any level. The answers provided resemble testimonies rather than useful scientific analyses. Respondents tended to repeat each other, answer too generally, or (conversely) too technically on a single point. Further compounding the problems of the book, the great majority of the scientists refer to points outside their own discipline. If I were looking for serious answers to important questions about a six-day creation, would I want to read a mechanical engineer's musings on organic chemistry? Probably not. This book would be infinitely more helpful if the question had been posed as "What are five discoveries within your field of expertise that point specifically to a six-day creation?" But as phrased here, the original question automatically leads to unfocused answers.
In truth, only about twenty of the respondents provide compelling arguments. Of those twenty, half spoke about ideas outside their disciplines. That doesn't leave the reader with much unimpeachable "ammunition" to counter evolutionists.
This is not to say that nothing here satisfies. Twenty percent of the respondents had compelling information that either casts doubt on treasured pro-evolution precepts or supports a God-inspired young earth. Unfortunately, for those that have some passing knowledge of the Creation vs. Evolution hysteria, few of those ten scientists had anything new to contribute to the body of work out there already in the pro-creation community. For this reason, it must be assumed that this book is intended for people who have never explored the claims of creationists. Given some of the issues already mentioned, the result is less than stellar.
And this is a shame since there are many excellent books that make strong arguments for the creation viewpoint. Several of the scientists quoted in "In Six Days" refer to these books. My question is then: "Why not skip 'In Six Days' and just read those more scholarly and better-constructed books?" One book, "Darwin's Black Box", was mentioned repeatedly - it's probably a good bet.
If you have some knowledge of the debate, pass on this book. If you know someone who is asking questions and doesn't have a tremendously technical bent, "In Six Days" might work for them in spots. Otherwise, there are increasingly more pro-creation, young earth, and intelligent design books out there that offer the reader a better use of their time.

This books just shows America's craze in the last century is more than just a craze, it's a retalition against science. This presents the views of few estranged scientists, try reading Larson's Summer of the Gods or Gilkey's Creationism on Trial for a more equitable view of the creationism v. evolution debate!

This book changed my life. I have never encountered many of the arguments and facts presented in this book by the contributing scientists. I strongly recommend this book to the creationist and the evolutionist!

I suppose it is an indictment of our educational system that people can get through school and still have no knowledge of basic science. But this bit of claptrap, with it's endorsements of "scientists" who dispute evolution because they think it refutes their narrow brand of religious belief is a crime because people who may not know better will be led to believe that evolution is not a fact.

Yeah, the dumbing down of America has occurred in the last 50 to 75 years when the theory of evolution was introduced and force fed into the students of public schools. Most evolutionary theories are unproven and have been debunked. At least I know how the earth was CREATED!!

Genesis's six-day creation story is both allegory and metaphor; but, it is more than that. It is a portrait of humanity's consciousness of itself; that, as creatures, we are intricately bound up in the spontaneous life-generating processes; processes that we actively think about and define - even deify.
Now, just as `God' could be self-generated; it is not illogical to say that nature itself could be self-generated.

If you are researching the scientific or biblical evidence for Young Earth Creationism, or any brand of Creationism (or even just the six 24-hour day view of Genesis 1), this book is not the place to start. If you want insights into how various types of people (who happen to be scientists but not necessarily in fields which helped them to understand the evidence and scientific concepts better than the average person), this book may have sociological value. But if you are a Young Earth Creationist who simply wishes to find reassurance and "safety in numbers" (even if the numbers of scientist in the relevant fields who endorse the YEC brand of "creation science" are tellingly tiny), this book may help you to feel better. (That's not a taunt. The Bible will indeed help you in that way.)

I could stop there but the "creation science" fans who carefully browse every negative review and comment under every "creation science" book and try to discredit anyone who dares criticize their viewpoint, this time I'll provide more details, even though it will be met by their complaints about its length and "But you didn't address X and Z! You know you have no good answer to that!" But if some sincere reader wishes to ask me questions about my review and earn my respect and merit a substantive response, send me a private message to my the store profile and my assistant will send you an invitation to the non-public Bible.and.Science.Forum, an invitation-only environment where our copyright ownership and protections are preserved. That is the only forum where I engage in dialogue with individual inquirers. (And, of course, forum members meaningfully discussion Bible-related Science topics without the childish antics and distractions of far too many of the public forums.)

And by the way, I'm well aware that Young Earth Creationism is not the only type of Creationism. But for simplicity and general applicability, I will tend to refer to YEC and those who hold to YEC, aka the YECs!

1) This is a "reassure the troops" preach-to-the-choir type of book. In large part it is based on the general public's misunderstanding of a Ph.D. It is basically, "Look! We've got scientists with legitimate Ph.D.'s, not just the diploma mill kind, who believe this. And everybody knows that Ph.D.'s are smart guys! So if they believe this, it must be true." But the general public doesn't necessarily understand that there's plenty of chemists who know just as little about evolutionary biology or astrophysics as the electrician or welder who lives down the street.

2) Many of the contributors to the book were impressed by DARWIN'S BLACK BOX. That told me a lot about their understanding (lack, that is) of how science works. It also suggests that they suffer from "confirmation bias": They WANT to believe something so they are able to adjust data and arguments to fit what they wish to be true. DARWIN'S BLACK BOX is one of the best example I've ever found of The Argument from Personality Incredulity Fallacy. ("If I don't understand X then nobody understands X. So the prevailing consensus must be wrong and my view is right.") The author, Michael Behe, was humiliated and his last remnants of credibility demolished (along with his Irreducible Complexity argument) in the Dover Trial. His testimony and cross-examination was, sadly, probably the last bullet in what is now the ID corpse. I personally am a strong believer in ID (Intelligent Design) in the ultimate sense of God creating everything. So I truly wish I could keep rooting for him. But Behe's poorly formulated brand of ID and his publishing of simplistic, almost child-like speculation without making any serious effort to apply the scientific method to it was just plain pathetic as his trial testimony continued. Behe has yet to propose a theory of ID [which even the Discovery Institute has officially stated is something which someone needs to do.] And on the witness stand Behe even admitted that he has never systematically examined the scientific literature for peer-reviewed refutations of his dubious ID examples. Let's just say that after Behe's failure, any future scientist who proposes and substantiates a great theory of ID is going to have a much harder time being taken seriously. In fact, DARWIN'S BLACK BOX and efforts like it have so seriously damaged the reputation of ID hypotheses that I doubt that the term "ID" can ever be resurrected to any kind of credibility. So if some scientist ever proposes a solid Theory of Intelligent Design, I predict he will have to refer to it by some other term.

By the way, I've always found it fascinating how so many YECs consider Michael Behe a hero and either ignore or are entirely unaware that he accepts the "common descent doctrine" that is at the very heart of the Theory of Evolution. In fact, his scientific conclusions defy much that YECs hold dear. (Of course, quote-mining---both deliberate and accidental---has become nearly epidemic within the "creation science" movement, another one of the few newer developments which one rarely saw when I was a creation science enthusiast in the 1960's. So that may explain why few know and even fewer care that Dr. Behe is not "pure" in his "creation science" thinking.)

I would have to admit that if a trained scientist believes that DARWIN'S BLACK BOX makes a convincing case ON A SCIENTIFIC BASIS (rather than on some kind of a philosophical, epistemological, or anecdotal basis), they do not have a solid grasp of the scientific method and the very definition of modern science. (And in that regard I can at least highly respect some of the contributors to the book---though not so much stated within the book itself---in their demand of a redefinition of science and how it works. [I don't believe that they will be successful in that quest but at least I can understand their desire.] I respect consistency and logic. And I have some YEC colleagues still on university science faculties who I believe do a much better job in that regard than most of the contributors to this book.)

Of course, many Christian readers of my review will scoff at my outrageous claim that even some working scientists don't understand the scientific method. But that is because they too have no idea how modern science (which began to develop within the work of pioneers like Roger Bacon and Paracelsus) works. For example, many confuse methodological naturalism (which takes no position pro or con on the existence of God) with philosophical naturalism (which is usually inherently atheistic. I've known a number of scientists who I've heard speak at churches and Christian conferences who clearly confuse the difference between the two.

3) I was an ardent Young Earth Creationist, anti-evolution speaker/debater in my younger years. I marvel at how the actual attempts at "scientific arguments" presented in the book are mostly the same as what we used in the 1960's and 1970's after Morris & Whitcomb published THE GENESIS FLOOD. (The ID arguments are among the few exceptions.) Those arguments were debunked long ago (which is why so many of us left the YEC camp.) Weak would be an understatement. Many Bible-believing Christians have written excellent rebuttals to these arguments. But one of the best, well-indexed and organized resources is the TalkOrigins.org website. I doubt that there is an argument presented in this book which is not addressed and shredded by means of scientific evidence on that website. Yet, the kind of readers (i.e., presuming their church and confessional background is similar to mine) will probably want to deal with the Biblical counter-arguments first before they consider the scientific ones. I must admit that I tended to ignore or deny (or build strawman arguments around) the scientific evidence which denied my "creation science" views back in my YEC days. So it actually took a lot of study in the Bible itself and ESPECIALLY improving my Hebrew exegetical skills and learning about Biblical linguistics in general for me to start allowing my mind to be open to the various "sides" of the debates. [Like far too many Biblical scholars, I focused my energy on Greek exegesis and hardly sharpened my Hebrew skills after seminary.] So I'm saying that many readers are probably like I was: unwilling to really look at the science until I realized that the Biblical text itself didn't support my Young Earth Creationist views.

Indeed, I saw a lot of myself and my personal history (and relationship with my Savior Jesus Christ) in the testimonies which comprise this book. (Indeed, this book has very little value in terms of apologetics or understanding of "creation science" pro/con arguments. For that, look elsewhere.) These accounts are meant to reassure the reader, "Look at these smart guys. If they believe these things, so can you. You can hold your head high!" That wouldn't be a problem if the facts of the debate could be settled first but this book doesn't try to do that. In fact, there are probably just as many logical fallacies and strawman distortions of opposing positions among the contributors to this book as one would find among the science-illiterate of the general public. (And the reader is never told that several of the prominent scientists in the Young Earth Creationist camp openly admit that science has NOTHING to do with their position because they made their decisions based on their interpretations of Genesis and not any sort of scientific evidence. Many of those same very honest scientists even admit, "Yes, if I were relying upon the scientific evidence alone, my conclusion would be obvious. ALL of the scientific evidence points to a 4+ billion year old earth and there is zero geologic evidence for a planet-wide flood. But I choose to adhere to my personal interpretation of scripture.")

I feel great affection and kinship with my Christian brethren who contributed to the book. But I also feed sad that they all have to deal with the never-ending tension and conflict of a position which almost always puts the evidence from the Bible and the evidence from Creation in disharmony. I praise God that he showed me how I was a kind of "double-minded man" which the scriptures talk about. Now I understand that God wrote two books: the Book of Scriptures (the Bible) and the Book of Creation (Science) and just as we would expect of a single author, they tell the same story and do not contradict. And while they overlap in many ways, in general the first book answers our questions about God and his relationship to his Creation (especially the humans upon which he endowed the IMAGO DEI) and the second book answers our questions about that Creation (especially the processes functioning within it.) Just as I was once burdened under the heavy load of my sins, as a Young Earth Creationist I labored under the burden of trying to remain intellectually honest while living in a world of seeming contradictions. But just like a Pharisee of Jesus' day, I confused my man-made cherished traditions with what the scriptures ACTUALLY say.

Indeed, if I could see my prayers for the Christian reader of the book fulfilled, it would be that the Holy Spirit would do the same work in them that he did in me: He led me to recognize that I was clinging to the traditions of my Christian life experience and my Christian peers. I had molded the Biblical and scientific evidence to fit them. God opened my eyes and allowed me to "see" the scriptures and Creation as if I was starting over again with a clean slate and following the example of the Bereans.

I don't doubt that everyone involved in the production of this book had sincere and honorable intentions. But this is NOT the book for gaining a foundational understanding of the issues. At best it allows one to see how various Christians have reached some sort of stalemate in terms of the evidence---even though they try very hard to only see what supports a set of traditions which are deeply entrenched in the American brand of Christianity. (Unless they have traveled extensively abroad and worshiped/fellowshipped with Bible-believing Christians in other cultures, they have no idea just how strange this type of fundamentalism/evangelicalism seems to so many of our Church brethren worldwide. YECs are a major contingent in the USA but in most other countries they are a curious minority.)

The reader should remind themselves that it is very difficult to find professional biologists with advanced degrees who hold the positions described in this book. And that is because they are aware of the mountains of evidence in Creation (and for those who are also Christians: the Bible) which contradicts the less-than-fully-informed scientists in this book. (For a humorous take on this fact, check out Project Steve.)

Books in this category tend to try to create the impression (even if only by inference) that "their side" is that of God and the Bible and "the other side" [when in fact there are multiple "other sides"] is at war with them and are inherently anti-God and anti-Bible (even if unaware of the fact that they are, allegedly, being used by Satan.) And many readers subject to "liver shivers" will assume that the emotions they feel when reading such books are the voice of God telling them, "This is what you should believe." That was my experience in the 1960's & 1970's and I don't think my story was unique.

[And by the way, for an excellent example of a scientist who also used to publish pro-YEC articles for "creation science" journals and gave a testimony similar to those in this book, Google these keywords: Glenn Morton geologist. What changed such a passionate YEC Christ-follower such that he dropped the YEC part of his self-description? His oil exploration company employer moved him from an office out into the field where he had to work daily with geologic formations and data. He could no longer ignore the evidence. But the most revealing part of his story were the cult-like reactions of his Christian brethren. Just as I found, simply asking sincere but pointed questions provoked anger and even accusations of heresy! I have been shocked at how many Christians working in the sciences can relate to Morton's testimony. I used to bristle at the thought that I was once part of a "cult" --- and I still have my difficulties with the term --- but I can certainly agree that the culture surrounding and "protecting" today's "creation science" movement has taken on cult-like attributes and extremes which were not so obvious in my day. (Of course, in the 1960's there were no $23 million annual operating budgets for Young Earth Creationist ministries like today's Answers in Genesis under non-scientist-and-non-Biblical-scholar but talented-fund-raiser entrepreneur Ken Ham, as one example. Today, "creation science" is a well funded industry where AiG, The Discovery Institute, ICR, and many others individually dwarf any YEC organizations that existed in the 1960's when Gish, Morris, and Whitcomb were just about the only YEC speakers/authors promoting such ideas.)

By the way, when writing reviews of "creation science" books [I've been reading dozens of them because of a research project], I find that I "just can't win": If I write a concise summation of my assessment of a book, YECs blast me for not writing what would have to be a full-length book of its own which refutes the positions of the author and provides countless examples of the book's flaws. But if I write a longer review like this one, they complain "From the length of this rant, you obviously have an axe to grind!" So it depends upon my time priorities and whether I think I can be a help to the average person who consults these reviews. Anyone who thinks all Young Earth Creationist books are flawless and represent "God's view" are going to complain no matter what I write. And many will say, "It is obvious that you had some sort of bad experience or couldn't get along with your former YEC colleagues so you left the movement with a bitter taste in your mouth and are just trying to get even." And in one book review where I happened to mention using the Jonathan Edwards manuscript collection at the Yale University library during one of my sabbaticals, an angry commenter said, "From your mention of Yale University we know that you are obviously a liberal and hate the things of God!" AND THAT IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF THE KINDS OF CULT-LIKE BEHAVIOR which I've encountered far too often within the Young Earth Creationist segment of American society. And we as Christ-followers need to think seriously about that phenomenon. It is time we started dealing with the cult-like fanaticism and even the forum-posting nut-jobs who all too often foster the worst stereotypes of the "ignorant Christian" which harm ALL of us who are trying to carry out the Great Commission.

Lastly, I remind all angry Young Earth Creationists who will post negative comments under my review, don't forget to include the requisite, "It is clear that the reviewer never even read the book!" (If history is any guide, you won't forget to include that accusation. But I wouldn't want your YEC colleagues to see you slipping up and failing to do your duty in refuting my post!)

Peace be with you.

This book is the most counter-effective exercise in persuasion that I have met. It appears to provide to people with creationist sympathies the supporting intellectual arguments that they might otherwise lack. In practice, it does the opposite. I admit that I approached the book with evolutionist views but as science provides only probabilistic conclusions and all these merit assault, I was interested to find out what were the best arguments that creationists could assemble. But these! Are these the best the creationists can offer?
There are several arguments that occur many times and all could be demolished even in a review such as this one. I will give one example.
About a quarter of the essayists claim that the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution. Dr. Don B. Deyoung states it thus, "It describes unavoidable losses in any process whatsoever which involves transfer of energy. The energy does not disappear but some always becomes unavailable, often as unusable heat. Stated another way, everything deteriorates, breaks down and becomes less ordered with time". This is nearly right but not quite. It states only that the entropy (disorder) of a closed system AS A WHOLE steadily increases. It does not prohibit decreases in entropy (more order) within a closed system provided they are local and temporary. If he and all the other essayists who consistently omit this truth were right, there would be no mountain building, no rain, no tides, no photosynthesis and therefore no life. Agreed that the solar system as a whole (a closed system) is suffering steadily increasing entropy (more disorder) but within it, locally and temporarily, more order is permitted and we are some of it. The denials of this by people with Ph. D. degrees are astonishing or sinister. Take your pick.
There are similar examples relating to the role of chance, the fossil record and dating techniques. If you want to become an evolutionist, read this book.

I have always felt throughout most of my life that there must be a place to go beyound six days when it comes to criticize books that go into the six days model of how the universe was created.
In avoiding to be profane or irresponsible in my criticism of this book as hard as I can , I have to admit I find it extremely bizzare that people today are so ignorant and blind of hard facts and evidence.
I do believe in Creation but my beliefs are grounded in spirituality , not fundamentalist religious views or fundamentalist scientific views.
I am simply an agnostic on such views.
I hope this critical view of mine on this have conclusions which have been drawn in a satisfactory and appropriate manner.
It is often very hard to judge or criticize books like this and one tends to fall into profane speech and not thinking carefully before acting in terms of the overall criticism.
My view on the theory that planet Earth is only six thousand years old is that I believe that theory to have been officially dismantled long enough time ago.

This "book" is actually a collection of religious testimonies of 50 Christian "scientists". Actually, it has no central theme except for the bashing of evolutionary and comological science on religious grounds, not scientific grounds. And many of the "scientists" are not researchers, but practical applicants, such as engineers and doctors. The majority of these people speak outside their area of expertise, and when speaking inside their expertise, they fall back on personal feelings and outrageous speculation, not science, to uphold their belief in a 6 day creation. No new information is brought to the table at all, and little logic. No scientific basis is offered to dispute evolutionary science or cosmology. Scientifically speaking, this book is cartoonish. Theologically speaking, it's like a Baptist revival of nerds decrying god's magical power. Probably the worst thing this book does is continue the fallacy that one must adhere to a literal, fundamental interpretation of the Bible in order to call themself a Christian. It also promotes the fallacy that science objects to religion. Science has taken these cheap shots for years, yet the theories still stand and are more valid and accurate than ever before, and becoming moreso every day with every technological development. When will the Christians learn?

"Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creationism."

Alas! John F. Ashton, the editor of IN SIX DAYS: WHY 50 SCIENTISTS CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM, has omitted compelling testimonials from some of history's most eminent Creation Scientists.

Take, for instance, Yaldo Snard of Anaheim, California, a Ph.D. in Sandbox Technology who, in his youth, narrowly beat the rap at Nuremberg on minor technicalities: "The truth of Creationism became unmistakable to me after I somehow nail-gunned my left foot and my lower lip to the rafters of my basement ceiling. I dangled for nearly three days in ever-increasing agony before being found by a roving band of burglar-rapists. These heroes were at a loss how best to capitalize on my compromised position until they chanced upon my extensive collection of exotic branding irons. The next fourteen hours were the most memorable of my whole life, believe you ME! No tellin' HOW long my ordeal would've lasted if I hadn't offered to sign over MY LIFETIME INCOME PLUS A DOLLAR. And damned if the validity of the offer wasn't UPHELD BY THE COURTS! Now I don't know HOW I'm gonna pay off my so-called "creditors." And I've just been notified by my blood-sucking attorney that until I pay his bill, he's gonna hound me nonstop with litigation! Yep, any doubts I might have had about the truth of Creationism are GONE! Creationism is obviously true. Even my goldfish now believes it!"

And consider the case of Scooter Pudd, Distinguished Professor of Moronic Studies at Marlon Brando University, which floats in an air-borne blimp somewhere over the Great Barrier Reef: "Creationism? It's truth is absolutely undeniable. I ought to know. Last year my students locked me in the top drawer of my desk, where I was forced to subsist for almost a week on nothing but an ink pad and an artgum eraser. Does anybody really think I could have made it if Creationism weren't true?"

And how about alleged Nobel-nominee Osteo Myelitis, Professor of Advanced Tinfoil Mastication at the prestigious Bad Axe Institute for the Incorrigibly Outre: "Yep, Creationism's the only way, no doubt about it! Take it from me: it's GOTTA be true. You know, the cretins just LAUGHED at my intention to develop a gasoline-powered television set. Now I'm the only one on faculty at the Bad Axe Institute who doesn't have a private office. I have to operate out of a stifling 4' x 4' cubicle with dingy, headache-inducing battleship gray partitions. Last year, while attempting to execute a forward roll in that very cubicle, I snagged my nasal hair in the locking mechanism of an overhead bin. It took a team of four janitors several hours to get me free. Damn near tore my nose off, the sons o' b@#$%&s! And my stinking, lousy Department Chairman VIDEO-TAPED THE WHOLE THING for broadcast over a local cable access station! Now everybody and his brother thinks I'm an imbecile! You better BELIEVE Creationism's true!"

'Fess up, all you erstwhile skeptics about Creationism. Surely you can feel the miracle of conversion taking place at this very instant, can't you? Yes, believe! BELIEVE! Come on, now! Bring your buttocks and the backs of your knees into play! BELIEVE! BELIEVE!

"But...but...none of this addresses the SPECIFIC contents of IN SIX DAYS!" you sputter, features twitching in a paroxysm of indignation as you struggle against your impulse to gnaw carbon deposits off the tailpipes of passing vehicles. "For all anybody can tell, you've never even SEEN the book, much less read it!"

Well, if you insist....

Let's try out, say, John R. Rankin's contribution (cf. IN SIX DAYS, essay 10, pp. 118 - 122). Rankin, described as a "senior lecturer in the Department of Computer Science and Computer Engineering, La Trobe University, Australia", starts out with the regulation Creationist ploy of smudging the distinction between the Theory of Evolution proper, which is concerned only with the mechanisms and patterns of biological diversification, and the generalized cosmology offered by secular astronomy. Rankin disingenuously portrays himself as the only assiduous scientific investigator of cosmic origins. He claims that he devoted "five years of heavy mathematical research concentrated on this one question", whereas "evolutionist" astronomers have forsaken research entirely in favor of mere dogmatic assertions about the universe's origin and development by exclusively natural process. The following quotation (cf. op. cit., p. 122) serves as an epitome of Rankin's essay:

"Do we hear of any of these supporters [of evolutionary theory] being willing themselves to spend years of their lives pursuing the complex mathematics involved in their patched-up but unproven theories? Alternatively, are they willing to pay others to do this work and approach the problems objectively, that is, willing to accept that physical theory could result in a negative answer, indicating that their modified explanations are also wrong?

"Unfortunately, the supporters of evolution now seem to be less willing to support or pursue this research themselves. As a result, there are few researchers left in the field, with the exception of the changing population of final-year research students. After all the research to date, we are still unable to explain the origin of galaxies as inhomogeneities in the universe from the perspective of evolution. We seem, in fact, to be further away from a satisfactory explanation of evolutionary galactic origins than we were when we started to study the subject, using modern physical theory. As in one field of science, so in all others, we are unable to explain the origin of the beautiful and complex realities of this world from an evolutionist approach."

I've quoted Rankin rather fully, because otherwise nobody would readily believe that he actually declares himself UNIQUELY qualified to speak with authority about cosmology and blithely promulgates the festering, bald-faced lie that secular science has practically abandoned the subject altogether. The guy's a real piece work. To quote another genius of true coin, the great Bugs Bunny: "Nyeh..., what a maroon! What an ULTRA-maroon!"

Let's also reflect upon the contribution of Jack Cuozzo (cf. IN SIX DAYS, essay 33, pp. 288 - 290), who's characterized as "a research orthodontist and head of the orthodontic section, Mountainside Hospital, Montclair, New Jersey". Savor, if you will, the following declaration: 'The peaceful biblical rendition of man's origin stood in direct contrast to the millions of years of bloodshed and violence that would have characterized a world in the throes of evolution. My dilemma was real, and my faith was being threatened. Were there millions of years of bloodshed in the Garden of Eden before sin? The Bible makes this point very clear: the answer is no, because there were six mornings and six evenings, while everything was "very good."'

"...[M]illions of years of bloodshed in the Garden of Eden before sin?" Duh..., say WHAT? How the hell does anybody get THIS out of the Theory of Evolution? Cuozzo, a card-carrying member of the fundamentalist Young Earth lunatic fringe and the author of BURIED ALIVE (Master Books, Inc., 1998), a masterpiece of paleoanthropological incompetence reflecting profound ignorance about the developmental phenomena of neotony and gerontomorphosis [Colin Groves, Professor of Biological Anthropology at the Australian National University, in his January, 1999, NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE review, states that "the entire first section of the book, fifteen chapters long, is a paean of paranoia."], is precisely the kind of self-stultifying spokesman for so-called "scientific Creationism" who inspires derision by secular scientists.

Want more? How about the essay of John M. Cimbala (cf. IN SIX DAYS, essay 20, pp. 200 - 203), who's characterized as a "professor of mechanical engineering, Pennsylvania State University"? Cimbala opens with a heart-warming testimonial:

"I was raised in a Christian home, believing in God and His creation. However, I was taught evolution while attending high school, and began to doubt the authority of the Bible. If evolution is true, I reasoned, the Bible cannot also be true. I eventually rejected the entire Bible and believed that we descended from lower creatures; there was no afterlife and no purpose in life but to enjoy the short time we have on this earth. My college years at Penn State were spent as an atheist, or at best as an agnostic.

"Fortunately, and by the grace of God, I began to read articles and listen to tapes about scientific evidence for creation. Over a period of a couple of years, it became apparent to me that the theory of evolution has no legitimate factual evidence, and that scientific data from the fossil record, geology, etc. could be better explained by a recent creation, followed by a global Flood. Suddenly I realized that the Bible might actually be true! It wasn't until I could believe the first page of the Bible that I could believe the rest of it. Once I accepted the fact that there is a creator God, it was an easy step for me to accept His plan of salvation through Jesus Christ as well. I became a follower of Christ during my first year of graduate school at Cal Tech."

"...[T]he theory of evolution has no legitimate factual evidence..."? Then why did Cimbala believe in evolution and "doubt the authority of the Bible" in the first place? Surely the man's not just a credulous fool, is he? "...I began to read articles and listen to tapes about scientific evidence for creation." We're not told specifically what any of these articles and tapes had to say about the matter, but because the truth of Biblical creationism doesn't follow logically from the theory of evolution's falsity, it's difficult to imagine an "atheist, or at best...an agnostic", who's NOT a credulous fool being converted merely by the theory of evolution's refutation. Observe: Cimbala rejects the theory of evolution as having "no legitimate factual evidence", but he conspicuously forbears to apply the same criterion to his fundamentalist religious beliefs. A level playing field evidently isn't important to him. Oh, well, that Cimbala's not too quick on the uptake logically doesn't mean that one shouldn't reflexively accept him as a technical savant and believe without reservation everything he says, does it?

Having described the miracle of his personal flip-flops between belief in evolution and faith in Biblical fundamentalism, Cimbala goes on to say: "...There are many pieces of evidence about which I could write; here I choose one: The Second Law of Thermodynamics."

Ah, yes! Predictably, Cimbala, like Walter T. Brown, Henry M. Morris III, and other ersatz "Creation Scientists" with Ph.D.s in Engineering, floats the thoroughly-discredited canard that the very possibility of evolution is ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Sorry, John M., no sale. Anybody who's interested in what's wrong with Cimbala's argument should check out P. W. Atkins, THE SECOND LAW (Scientific American Books - W. H. Freeman and Co., 1984).

Well, then, now that we've put to rest any doubts about even having seen the book, we can readily appreciate how Yaldo Snard, Scooter Pudd, and Osteo Myelitis fit right in with the likes of Rankin, Cuozzo, Cimbala, and the other 47 bozos whose testimonials have been collected between the covers of IN SIX DAYS. Editor John Ashton apparently sized up the book's prospective readers as intellectual cripples, because the face validity of the assembled essays is rather less than just wafer-thin.

By the way, readers of IN SIX DAYS: WHY 50 SCIENTISTS CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM will be edified to see how the lunatic views of those 50 so-called "scientists" are thoroughly debunked in SCIENTISTS CONFRONT CREATIONISM: INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND BEYOND, Laurie R. Godfrey and Andrew J. Petto, Editors (W. W. Norton & Co., 2007).

And finally, for those of you who somehow missed it: a Creation Scientist is no more a REAL scientist than a plastic Jesus is the real Jesus.

50 scientists? There are almost 500,000 scientists in the US (484,100 in 1999), so 50 scientists out of 484,100 is .0001%. In the world, in 2006, there were 5.8 million scientists. This brings our 50 scientists down to .000008%. Yes, let's ignore the 99.9999% of US scientists and the 99.999992% of world scientists and believe that a god created the Earth in 6 days.

No reputable scientist would put his name to this emetic creationist drivel which insults the intellect of all humanity and demeans the efforts of 3 centuries of the advancement of science, so as to promote the stultifying of the minds of children and poorly educated adults.

A great book for the reader who believes that science and Judeo-Christian belief are to incompatible. Great conversation starter: creation vs. non-creation = belief system arrived at via logic. Empirical proof? Read on.