Rating: 
Summary: Pure trash.
Review: That this book is receiving these high marks is the saddest demonstration of the scientific illiteracy of the American culture that I can think of. Plain and simple, this isn't a book about science; it is a book about religion. More specifically, this is a book for religious people who favor a narrow interpretation of their particular holy books over an accurate understanding of reality. If you aren't a religious zealot, then this book isn't for you.
Rating: 
Summary: Without Substance
Review: This book can be a case study of the creationist redefinition of science and invalid argument techniques. The overwhelmning use of non sequitors begins on the first page of the introduction with, "It's also hard to believe that evolution is an 'essential concept' in biology, because most 'key' aspects of living things were discovered by creationists." Using this as an argument against evolution is like using the fact that Heisenberg's was a nazi to 'disprove' the uncertainty principle. Sarfati, who should know better, then once again acuses the evolutionist of a naturalitic bias. Duh! Science, by definition is the search for the naturalistic explanation of the world around us. He goes on to define science as 'only that which has been witnessed', and that it is dependent on ones 'philosophical bias'. This is the same argument that astrologists and UFO wackos use. It is more postmodernist [garbage]. He uses the disputes between current researchers in evolutionary mechanism to deduce that because we are not yet sure on some of the details, the whole evolutionary framework is wrong. Once again, non sequitor. They just don't stop.As a Christian, I am embarrassed by the pure intellectual drival that this book presents as a valid argument. It is no wonder that Christians are marginalized by the secular world. Any non-Christian reading this book would think that we are stupid, and that makes it difficult to have credibility in other arenas.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Primer on the Origins Debate
Review: Jon Sarfati, a Ph.D in Chemistry, has written a nice little book on the creation/evolution debate. I received this book in Sept of 99 and already very familar with the topic, put it on the book shelf. My wife read it and told me that it was a great book and I should read it anyway. I agree. His ability to concisely explain difficult subjects in an orderly - scientific method is this books strong suit. His chapter on "Bird Evolution" which deals with the famous Archaeopteryx masterfully introduces one into the major arguemnts without getting boged down in jargon. This is a must for beginners into this subject. His chapter on "Variations and Natural Selection" is also worth noting. Using animals and plants, Sarfati again knows his audience and communicates the data well. As a primer this is a great book and is best suited for begginers and probably youth groups.
Rating: 
Summary: Applying NOMA to naturalism and science
Review: Jonathan Safarti and Ken Ham have the best theology and the best science. This particular book puts forward a sample of hard questions that evolutionists simply can't answer convincingly. For those who like to read about this subject, this book has only one disadvantage: it only takes a couple of hours to read it. This book by Jonathan Safarti exposes the naturalistic assumptions that are used to define science in a priori materialistic terms, and transform the scientific community in a closed circle of naturalistic friends and some acolites of a purely subjective religious persuasion. Count me out. I simply do not accept those naturalistic rules of the game. They are not required by a true science, one the is ready to go so far as the evidence leads, one that is ready to boldly go where no naturalist philosopher or scientist has gone before. Naturalists have to have faith that somehow nothing evolve to become something, that non-life generated life, that invertebrades became vertebrades, and apes evolved to become man. For them, also, faith is the certainty that something happened that they could not and cannot see. One cannot separate science and christian religion. Both envolve facts and assumptions. If God created the world, including our minds (and science cannot rule that out), then he must have a say in the formation and nature of the real world and of our minds, as well as in the connection between the too. God, the Absolute Reason, the intelligent designer of the universe, allows for the connection between objective reality and subjective knowledge of this reality. Since science cannot prove the inexistence of a Creator, so it cannot define itself as excluding the possibility of there existing one. Richard Dawkins says we are overwhelmed by appearence of design and surrounded by "designoids". But we now know that "specified complexity" (Dembski) and "irreducible complexity" (Behe) are scientific notions that allow us to infer design with reasonable certainty. A refutation of design would rest on improbabilities of the wildest order. Design in nature is not just apparent. What's more, design is not just a purely subjective theological interpretation of the facts. It can now be detected and measured with formal rigour and precision, through the concept of complex specified information, in the same way we infer design in all other fields of human activity. So, if specified complexity can detect intelligence, design and information everywhere else, why not in nature? Why reject objectively detected and measured design in nature just because we have an a priori subjective naturalistc dispostion to do so? Steven Jay Gould's NOMA concept doesn't make any sense. But if evolutionists really want to stick to that concept, at least they should understand that naturalistic philosophy and true empirical science should also be treated by their own standards as two non-overlapping magisteria.
Rating:
Summary: can't believe
Review: I can't believe that so many people gave this piece of garabge high marks. This book and any thing else ever written Ken Ham is an absolute waste of a tree.
Rating:
Summary: Great informative book
Review: This is a great book. It raises a question though, after reading negative reviews about this and other creation science books. If evolution is irrefutably scientific and objectively factual, as evolutionists have tried to persuade themselves, then why do they seem to become quickly emotional and angry when any scientific question is raised about its validity?
Rating:
Summary: Refuting nothing
Review: Sarafati's book begins promisingly, but soon degenerates into blatant and unashamed creationist propoganda. He presents a few problems regarding evolution that are worth ruminating over, but for the most part he merely contradicts himself and asserts, without evidence, that his view of the creation of the world fits sceintific evidence better than evolution does. The reader does not have to read far until Sarafati sheds any illusion of scientific fairness or reason. Good for an ardent creationist who would like a source to quote in argument, bad for anyone looking for any real scientific insight.
Rating:
Summary: Why bother with science?
Review: Although the author would argue this point vigorously, this is not a book about science. It is a book about religion, as a reading of the first chapter would make completely clear. And it is not just any religious perspective, but that of fundamentalist Biblical literalism. This embodies the young-earth creationist (YEC) position that any scientific finding that is at odds with their particular reading of the Bible, especially the early chapters of Genesis, must undoubtedly be in error. This error is ascribed variously to an incorrect point of view on the part of the scientist(s), to incompetence in performing scientific research, or to a satan-inspired will to disbelieve (with scriptural evidence provided). Against such a backdrop, one wonders why scientific topics are discussed all, since any findings contrary to YEC dogma are rejected out of hand, and all that agree are accepted quite uncritically. The book does serve as a useful conterpoint to its principal target, the pamphlet "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science", published by the National Academy of Sciences. It mounts the standard YEC arguments in a wide variety of areas in sufficient detail for those versed in those subjects to see their emptiness. For this reason alone, this book belongs in the library of any scientist or teacher concerned with our national scientific literacy.
Rating:
Summary: Best intro to creation science and weaknesses of evolution
Review: This book by a highly qualified scientist gives a fine introduction to the issues, and is accessible to a wide audience, from high school to fellow scientists. I like the way it first starts by showing that evolution is a religion, while real science is hardly anti-Christian and was actually founded by creationists and had stalled in other cultures (the author provides documentation, contrary to what some reviewers claim). The subsequent chapters are full of scientific information on variation within a created kind and natural selection; the fossil record with its lack of transitional forms; separate chapters on the origins of birds, whales and people; astronomical support for creation and careful analysis of the Galileo affair and the difference between the historical narrative of Genesis and the poetry of Psalms; the age of the Earth; and design. There are useful introductions to each chapter and a helpful summary at the end. I have to be amused at the intemperate attacks by old-earthers who claim that people won't pick this book up because it promotes a young-earth view (in one chapter!). One must then wonder how it's had a print run of over a quarter of a million! Of more concern are attacks by apostates that are practically identical, and based on a review on an anti-Christian website. But when the sources are checked out, they are found to be full of bluff. For example, the author is accused of overlooking Wernher von Braun's Nazism. But the 'authority' for this is actually a song by the well-known satirist Tom Lehrer! This automatically made me skeptical of the other sources and the integrity of the critic, and sure enough, when I checked the source of the supernova remnant claims, it comes from an article by a self-confessed non-astronomer in an article on an anti-creationist site. Then the 'authority' for the claim of Newton's anti-Trinitarianism turns out to be documentation that Newton denied the authority of the Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7 - but if that makes Newton anti-trinitarian, then so are James White and Don Carson! (For those who are unaware, these authors have written books against KJV-onlyism explaining why this passage is inauthentic, but have also has authored books defending the Trinity and deity of Christ). ...
Rating:
Summary: Not Exhaustive, but Informative.
Review: I loved this book when I first read it, because it was the second Creationist book I had read, and it provided a quick overview of the YEC position. However, the book is not very detailed. Each chapter could probably consist of a book. For fossils, Dr. Duane Gish's book "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO!" is useful, and for the age of the Earth one might want to try "The Young Earth" by Dr. John D. Morris. However, this book does an excellent job at what it is for- which is to introduce readers to the Creationist position as well as challenge some of the statements that appear in "Teaching About Evolution" This book is useful for a younger individual or someone who hasn't read a lot of Creationist material, but for the more serious Creationist there are other books which contain much more information about specific topics. Still, this book is an excellent overview of the Creationist position and is recommended for most.
| 
