<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: An excellent summary of the main evidences for creation
Review: Creationists are fortunate to have such a highly qualified scientist as Dr Gish on our side. Even the famous evolutionary origin-of-life researcher and opponent of Gish, the late Dr Sydney Fox conceded:'Duane Gish has very strong scientific credentials. As a biochemist, he has synthesised peptides, compounds intermediate between amino acids and proteins. He has been co-author of a number of outstanding publications in peptide chemistry.' [_The Emergence of Life: Darwinian Evolution from the Inside_, Basic Books, NY, 1988, p. 46] This gives the lie to sceptical claims that no creationist has ever published in scientific journals, and there are many more. And it means that Gish is extremely well-qualified to discuss theories of the origin of life from non-living chemicals. But he is also widely read in many other fields. The style is lucid, and the book is beautifully illustrated. This makes this book a good introduction, mainly for young people but good for all ages.
Rating: 
Summary: Is this dude for real?
Review: I don't know whether to laugh at the silliness of this guy, or be angry at the thought of more kids being exposed to this purposefully misleading garbage. Quoting the bible is not science, and lying about the findings of science is not only dishonest, in a book aimed at children, it is reprehensible.
Rating:
Summary: Biblical Creationism is much more scientific than darwinism
Review: In this book, designed to explain creationism in simple terms, Duane Gish, with his strong knowledge and clear thinking, starts with the Bible and goes on to show that true science favours creation and not evolution. As he discusses the different topics of the creation /evolution debate, and as he points the different design features of the living creatures and of the universe, he is able to show how darwinist geologists, biologists and astronomers have been engaging in "scientific bootstrapping". Gish demonstrates, beyond reasonable doubt, that evolution is both a theological and scientific impossibility. As he points out, when he discusses the subject of "ape-to-man evolution", the evidence for evolution gets so vague and fuzzy, that some evolutionists are now suggesting that we have "man-to-ape evolution" instead. Such is the quality of the evidence!! Many people think that Biblical creationism, because it is based on a religious text, is more a matter of faith than of science. I blame them, because they are terribly wrong and should know better. Creationists start with assumptions, alright. So do darwinists. Creationists put their supernaturalistic assumptions forward. Darwinists tend to hide their naturalistic assumptions as long as they can (at least most of them). Creationists come up with some predictions clearly falsifiable on popperian grounds. Here are some of them: 1) Nature has many signs of complex specified information; 2) Information is a non-materialist entity with elements of statistics, syntatics, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. 4) The accidental origin of life is so highly improbable as to be virtually impossible; 5) Since there is design, there is abundant evidence of appearence of design; 6) Methods used to detect design and information in other areas of human activity will detect design and information in the universe. 7) In the fossil record, in molecular biology and in today's fauna there are no transitional forms between kinds (vertebrates; investebrates; fish, amphibians; reptiles, mammals, birds, etc; 8) Mutations will be rare, mostly harmful and unable to code for new structures and functions; 9) Geology will show many signs of catasthrophism; 10) One can expect many living fossils and many polystratic fossils. 11) The few alleged links will prove not to be such on a closer inspecion (v.g. Archaeopterix is a bird; Neandertals are Man) 12) There are no vestigial organs nor junk DNA. One should look for design functions; 13) There is no such thing as embrio reccapitulation; 14) Astronomical evidence will insist in debunking the big bang and the cosmological principle; 15) The universe should be fine-tuned for life; 16) Dating methods that assume uniformitarianism will give conflicting ages among themselves; 17) The Ice Age and Continental Drift can only be explained by a a global catastrophe. As you can see, when one is dealing with biblical creationism, one is doing much more than engaging in biblical exegesis. Biblical creationism has all to do with making precise and verifiable statments about the real world. Most of these statmens collide head on with evolutionary statements. That's the way, and creationists like it! If you deny or have doubts about the scientific character of biblical creationism, just check the evidence on those topics. Dare to do it! The proof that creationism is scientific is that it refutes evolutionary claims and evolutionary claims attempt to refute (so far without success) creationism.
<< 1 >>
| 
