Rating: 
Summary: A Refreshing and Solid Book!
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Great read that even oposing opinions are weak!
Review: I found this book mind-boggling. From day one in the classroom people are taught evolution is not really a theory but a fact (in my opinion). This is an OUTLANDISH absolute claim, which holds no validity at all. To be honest this book has about 15 essays which are phenomenal, 15 that are a waste of time, and about 20 that are good reads. The 15 that are week are not really talking within their area of expertise. Although each has a good working knowledge of other areas I don't believe that is what the reader is searching to find out. Some talk more faith based then actual science. Science, I believe, is why most are picking up this book in the first place. Leave faith based essays as a separate read. This book doesn't necessarily prove Creationism but it definitely gives a convincing insight as to why evolution is a theory. Some critics of this book attack one area or another of this book. Some compelling arguments could be developed (like Thermodynamics). However, ask that same reviewer how the first functional complex cell originated from a simple non-information life form and he/she is stumped. Even Darwin stated that until this main point is adequately proven or understood the rest of evolution would always be a theory. Any reviewer to suggest otherwise is absurd. If the reviewer did have an original answer then I rest assured that individual would be on the cover of EVERY paper, journal, new story on the face of this earth. This is why evolution is a theory. A theory which can be compared to building a house. A house can be sturdy from framework, to masonry, plumbing, to roofing and etc. The house could even look like as beautiful, fascinating, or strong as a castle. However, if the foundation of that house or castle is built on a weak foundation (fault line, quicksand, flood zone) it doesn't matter how strong or sturdy the structure is... The structure will crumble. This book points out that the evolutionary model is just that, a model. An interesting and possible model over time given that one understands the foundation first. That possibility will NEVER be discovered though. This book was rated 4 stars due to the 15 weak essays. Take them out and you have a definite 5 star!
Rating:
Summary: A great book...
Review: I rated this 5 stars to make up for the moron who rated it one star based on thermodynamics, his arguments were really nothing and he didnt deserve to be able to rate it. Apparently he never read past the first chapter?
Anyway, It probably deserves 4 stars. It provides a good mix of Scientific/philosophic arguments for Creation. If you are looking for a book that provides exclusively scientific evidence, then this may not be for you. However, I found the Philosophic arguments just as compelling as the scientific and enjoyed the book as a whole. It was a relatively easy read and it contained a wide variety of experts giving their input. All in all it was a good book that I got a lot out of. If you are a creationist looking for more insight on the subject, or if you are an open-minded evolutionist I highly recommend this book. However, if you are one of those evolutionists clinging to their 'religion' at all costs (such as Mr. Jason Scottie with his eloquent and objective review...) ... then dont bother. You will never learn anything until you open your mind and look at the evidence objectively. (like I did when i was a hardcore-evolutionist, and realized that the evidence for the Bible is all around us)
Rating: 
Summary: Are creationists really this ignorant?
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Sigh
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Is evolution fact or faith? (repost)
Review: It seems that 90% of my previous review didn't show up for some reason ("Is evolution fact or faith?"), so here's a repost. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world's leaders in evolutionary biology. He recently wrote this very revealing comment. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation - regardless of whether or not the facts support it. "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." -*Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of demons", The New York Review, January 9, 1997, page 31. So here we have one of the world's leading evolutionists admitting what the general public was never told - that evolutionists have universally accepted a materialistic interpretation scheme as truth. All evidence stands or falls based upon it's fit with the dogma of evolution. Any data that does not fit within this hypothetical framework is discarded or explained away. But let's not stop with Lewontin. Let's see what other prominent evolutionists have actually admitted. Is evolution truly fact, or faith? "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."-*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in "Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur", p. 33. "Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas with or without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."-*L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967. "[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."-*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition). "The facts must mold the theories, not the theories the facts . . I am most critical of my biologist friends in this matter. Try telling a biologist that, impartially judged among other accepted theories of science, such as the theory of relativity, it seems to you that the theory of natural selection has a very uncertain, hypothetical status, and watch his reaction. I'll bet you that he gets red in the face. This is `religion,' not `science,' with him."-*Burton, "The Human Side of the Physiologist: Prejudice and Poetry," Physiologist 2 (1957). "It is therefore a matter of faith, on the part of the biologist, that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."-*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 150. "If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."-*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p. 63. "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory-is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."-*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by *Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi (1971 edition). "In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it."-*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980). "[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: `A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory."-*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1977), p. 150. "The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with and even more incredible deity-omnipotent chance."-*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102. Interested in discovering mountains of additional facts and information you've never been told? Want to decide for yourself which side presents the more logical and scientific arguments of the two? I recommend checking out the answersingenesis and ICR (Institute for Creation Research) websites for much more information.
Rating:
Summary: A look at some myths about scientists
Review: One of the most common ideas that people have is that creation science is somehow more biased, more 'one-eyed' than 'real science'. After all, creationists begin with the Bible, so how can they be objective, like other scientists are? Many creationist writings have already pointed out the impossibility of dealing with the past directly, without having some sort of beginning bias. This review will not repeat any of that, nor will it again point out the essentially religious nature of evolution. Instead, it will deal directly with the powerful myth that scientists are somehow neutral and super-objective in their approach to evidence. In doing this, one is not being anti-science or anti-scientist; the findings apply to all scientists, including those of creationist persuasion. We are just facing up to the fact that scientists are as human as anyone else. A 1980 sociological research paper surveyed scientists on their attitude to the most common traditional beliefs about themselves and their profession.[1] Some of the interesting results: (1) Belief: Science is organized scepticism. This means that '. . . no scientist's contribution to knowledge can be accepted without careful scrutiny, and that the scientist must doubt his own findings as well as those of others.'[2] About three-quarters of the scientists surveyed disagreed with this, and said that in fact it was not abnormal to accept what fits your own conception on a subject, and doubt that which does not. We read that the history of science demonstrates'. . . that scientists often operate in a subjective way and that experimental verification is of secondary importance compared to philosophical arguments, at least in some of the major conceptual changes that have occurred in science.'[3] (2) Belief: Emotional Neutrality. This means that a scientist should not have an emotional commitment to particular ideas or theories. This was very strongly rejected by a great majority of the scientists surveyed. Referring to another study,[4] the author states that 'the myth of science being a passionless enterprise, carried out by objective detached men, does not hold.' And further, that 'the image of the objective emotionally disinterested scientist is taken seriously only by the layman or by young science students.' The interesting thing about this and similar surveys is not only that the popular image is wrong, but that the professionals know it to be so, and accept this as normal. It seems that the classical view of the scientific endeavor may not even be regarded as an ideal to strive for, since the respondents did not even try 'to live up to the idealized image of the objective, critical, disinterested truth seeker who shares his discoveries and information with his colleagues.' All this is, of course, only what one would expect from what Stephen J. Gould calls a 'quintessentially human activity' (referring to science). And as humans, the vast majority remain deeply emotionally committed to a view of origins which allows them to escape responsibility to their Maker and Redeemer, and which seems to do away with the ideas of sin and judgment. Hopefully, with this information in mind, one can better evaluate claims from evolutionists feigning scientific objectivity (creationists at least will acknowledge their starting bias). REFERENCES: [1] Nina Toren, 'The New Code of Scientists', 1333 Transactions on Engineering Management, Volume EM-27, No.3, August 1980. [2] N.W. Storer, The Social System of Science, Holt, Rinehart, Winston, New York, 1966, p.79. [3] S.G. Brush, 'Should the History of Science be Rated X?' Science, Volume 188, March 22, 1974, p.183; T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1970. [4] American Sociological Review, Volume 39, August, 1974, pp.579-95.
Rating:
Summary: Uselessly biased and inane argumentation
Review: 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!
Rating:
Summary: My mind was changed
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Shows scientists are just human
Review: 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.
| 
