This book is extremely useful for any parent wishing to highlight the foolishness of fundamentalist belief.
Rating: 
Summary: mystery solved
Review: I found this book to be very useful in explaining dinosaurs to my childern in a way that is consistant with my Biblical beliefs. It answered my own questions and I recommend it to anyone of any age. It is a great tool for reinforcing what we know to be truth.
Rating:
Summary: mystery solved
Review: I found this book to be very useful in explaining dinosaurs to my childern in a way that is consistant with my Biblical beliefs. It answered my own questions and I recommend it to anyone of any age. It is a great tool for reinforcing what we know to be truth.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Biblically-based book about dinosaurs
Review: It's the best book I have ever bought for my children re: science. So often, as a Christian parent, I have found all the books slanted towards Darwinism and opinionated scientists. This book explains how dinosaurs became extinct from a Biblical perspective. Parents need more books like this one!
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: Is evolution fact or faith?
Review: There's been a common misconception among the public (see reviewer comments below) that creationists are blind, biased fanatics (creationists have always admitted their starting bias), whereas evolutionists are unbiased pillars of objectivity. As will be documented below, with extensive quotes from evolutionists' own literature, nothing could be further from the truth!
But don't simply take my word for it. 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, true.origins and ICR (Institute for Creation Research) websites for much more information.
Rating:
Summary: An Unbiased Look at Dinosaurs
Review: This book gives an unbiased logical look at the whole mystery of dinosaurs from start to finish. No one really knows exactly what the dinosaurs looked like, what they were like and what happened to them etc. The author challenges accepted scientific assumptions that have never been proven and provides other logical alternatives to the mysteries surrounding dinosaurs. The ideas are presented in an extremely interesting fashion and ideas are easy for young readers to grasp and evaluate.
Rating: 
Summary: A book with an admirable purpose that failed miserably.
Review: This book has the admirable purpose of explaining the existence of dinosaurs from a different (biblical) point of view. However, as it claims to be a science book for children, it would have been nice if the 'facts' presented in this book bore some passing resemblance to scientifically accepted thought. This book contains several errors. For example, the author is mistaken in the time periods in which humans and dinosaurs exist, the amount of time it takes for a fossil to form and in the diet of certain dinosaurs. Knowledge of general geology and biology/anatomy is sufficient to discover this book is riddled with error and inconsistency. I had hoped this book would do a better job of melding evolutionary thought with the bible, but was sorely disappointed.
