In Six Days : Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

Rating:
Summary: Creation is fact, fact, fact!
Review: This is a most valuable collection of essays. They show the obvious: there is no evidence, whatsoever, of abiogenesis, common ancestor, intermediate forms in the fossil record and in molecular biology, information generating mutations, and so on. What keeps evolution alive is naturalistic assumptions, plus circunstantial evidence (regardless of the fact that this evidence can be better predicted and accounted for through a creationist model) and naturalism-of-the-gaps-kind-of-faith. I only whish some of these authors would have developped their arguments a bit more, since the overall result, although quite interesting and stimulating, is a bit umbalanced.Maybe next time these and other creationist can put up a "Summa Teologico-Creationistica" or some kind of Creationist Encyclopledia or Treatise that could speak directly to the scientific community.
My personal experience tells me that many scientists, while publicly afraid to show any interest in creationism, are already in the level of privately entertaining the thought that creationism may be right after all. The reason for that is that both arguments for creation and against evolution are increasing quantitatively and qualitatively in an exponentional way in all disciplines. This book has the advantage of allowing us a glimpse og the big picture, by exploring arguments in the fields of biology, chemistry, ecology, geology, geophysics, astronomy, physics, astrophysics, information theory, probabilities. All these disciplines cry out loud: creation is fact, fact, fact!

Rating:
Summary: An honest sample of one sort of opinion
Review: This is an interesting book in showing the variety of reasons or lack thereof for believing Genesis among 50 men and women who work in science. It loudly makes the point that there are some with credentials in science who disbelieve evolution while being both intelligent and literate. At the same time it amazes me how so many with advanced degrees not only have such a hard time with concepts that I understand well with my mere bachelor's degree in physics, but all make exactly the same oversimplification. 10 of the 50 stories invoke the second law of thermodynamics as prohibiting evolution in a way that if it were true would also prohibit the growth of any individual organism, whether from seed to tree or fertilized egg to adult human. Some reviewers here are just as sure of themselves on this point. There are two common themes. One is that of those who have never done enough homework to challenge their own ideas. So many in this book champion the ideas of Michael Behe with no awareness at all of how a book like Finding Darwin's God shows Behe to make unjustified claims. That is not so strange given the second theme, which is that many of the authors here flatly state that there faith is in the Bible regardless of materialistic arguments. This would be such a more understandable subject if people would be as honest as some are in this book on that point. Science can never prove that the material world is not an illusion. Neither is there any flaw in evolution as a material idea. Extremists from many sides cannot stand to leave it at that. This book is a better way of understanding that than some of the grandiose alternatives.

Rating:
Summary: Solid testimonies from a large array of scientific fields
Review: Working from a young earth creation perspective, this book presents 50 essays on origins and evolution. The essays range from scientific objections to evolution, to religious objections, to personal testimonies. Some of my favorite essays were those by Henry Zuill, Stephen Grocott, Andrew Mcintosh, J.H. John Peet, and Werner Gitt. Throughout the book were found several new insights into the design and beauty of nature, and the problems with evolution. Individually, the essays were very well written, with very few exceptions. This is an excellent resource for anyone who doubts the tenability of a young earth creation. Unfortunately there is a fair amount of overlap in the topics of discussion raised in the different articles. But on the upside, each author had a unique perspective to offer.