In Six Days : Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation,   ISBN:9780890513415

Customer Rating: 

Biased from the beginning, this is a terrible book. If you want the gist of its arguments read Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" instead. Most arguments here are borrowed from it. Basic themes of their arguments are that evolution is not possible and people must believe in the literal 6 days of creation because: A) Irreducible Complexity (Behe's Argument) suggest cells are so complex they must have had a designer, B) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - that systems will return to a state of entropy allegedly precludes evolution (the theory is badly misused and incessantly and mindlessly repeated), C) Statistically, evolution to them as a "chance" occurrence seems statistically improbable, D) they doubt the authenticity of radiometric (carbon, argon, etc) dating -but provide no alternate proof themselves, E) they all fall back on the same Christo-Centric idea, i.e. why must I believe? Because their literalist conception of the Bible tells them so!
Apparently Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism - none of these are worth consideration, nor is liberal Christianity ("theistic evolution"). In short, their faith lens drives their science to look for "facts" supporting a pre-conceived idea. That isn't science. In fact, most of it is bluster - dogmatic assertions that they think they are correct, based upon scripture and half-baked criticism or analysis of science. None of the authors anywhere provides any proof that his/her religious tradition is infallible or correct; this is just assumed! So they follow an exclusive and narrow-minded agenda in which science is driven by "faith." They have only one conception of what faith can be: literalist. In their minds you cannot be liberal or accepting of evolution and still have faith. This will only take us back to the days before Galileo! Conveniently, none of them even mention Galileo, or reflect that their mindset prepares one to repeat that 17th century inquisition! At best the book points out that there are some complex things we might not understand about nature - but who doesn't know that? At the worst - I saw authors in this book outright lie, mislead, and otherwise confuse the reader with false science. Do yourself a favor - avoid this book. If you must, read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", or better yet John Haught's "Science and Religion." Haught gives a much more balanced and level-headed approach to religion than any of the authors in this book can hope to achieve.

Customer Rating: 

This is an easy (short chapters) but excellent, well written series of 50 articles written by top phd's from all over the US on the subject of the amount of time required to create the earth. There are simple and complex discussions, but ALL serve to convince the reader that the Biblical account of creation is the correct one.

Customer Rating: 

I recently purchased this book and have been reading it and rereading it. I am a mom who encouraged her bright kids to go to college only to have them return home confused and doubting their faith. Their friends told them I had brainwashed them. It was a huge blow. Was I a brain washer. Is my christian faith a joke. I found this book to be an electric charge to my faith. Maybe I wasn't the one doing the brain washing? God is wonderful. I was doing the right thing. I learned about bias and how it permeates science and life. Mainly this book inspired me to learn more about geology, radiocarbon dating, DNA, archeological finds and our earth's magnetism. I appreciate each of the essays and wish each of the contributors success in their current scientific endeavors.

Customer Rating: 

"Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creationism."

Alas! John F. Ashton, the editor of IN SIX DAYS: WHY 50 SCIENTISTS CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM, has omitted compelling testimonials from some of history's most eminent Creation Scientists.

Take, for instance, Yaldo Snard of Anaheim, California, a Ph.D. in Sandbox Technology who, in his youth, narrowly beat the rap at Nuremberg on minor technicalities: "The truth of Creationism became unmistakable to me after I somehow nail-gunned my left foot and my lower lip to the rafters of my basement ceiling. I dangled for nearly three days in ever-increasing agony before being found by a roving band of burglar-rapists. These heroes were at a loss how best to capitalize on my compromised position until they chanced upon my extensive collection of exotic branding irons. The next fourteen hours were the most memorable of my whole life, believe you ME! No tellin' HOW long my ordeal would've lasted if I hadn't offered to sign over MY LIFETIME INCOME PLUS A DOLLAR. And damned if the validity of the offer wasn't UPHELD BY THE COURTS! Now I don't know HOW I'm gonna pay off my so-called "creditors." And I've just been notified by my blood-sucking attorney that until I pay his bill, he's gonna hound me nonstop with litigation! Yep, any doubts I might have had about the truth of Creationism are GONE! Creationism is obviously true. Even my goldfish now believes it!"

And consider the case of Scooter Pudd, Distinguished Professor of Moronic Studies at Marlon Brando University, which floats in an air-borne blimp somewhere over the Great Barrier Reef: "Creationism? It's truth is absolutely undeniable. I ought to know. Last year my students locked me in the top drawer of my desk, where I was forced to subsist for almost a week on nothing but an ink pad and an artgum eraser. Does anybody really think I could have made it if Creationism weren't true?"

And how about alleged Nobel-nominee Osteo Myelitis, Professor of Advanced Tinfoil Mastication at the prestigious Bad Axe Institute for the Incorrigibly Outre: "Yep, Creationism's the only way, no doubt about it! Take it from me: it's GOTTA be true. You know, the cretins just LAUGHED at my intention to develop a gasoline-powered television set. Now I'm the only one on faculty at the Bad Axe Institute who doesn't have a private office. I have to operate out of a stifling 4' x 4' cubicle with dingy, headache-inducing battleship gray partitions. Last year, while attempting to execute a forward roll in that very cubicle, I snagged my nasal hair in the locking mechanism of an overhead bin. It took a team of four janitors several hours to get me free. Damn near tore my nose off, the sons o' b@#$%&s! And my stinking, lousy Department Chairman VIDEO-TAPED THE WHOLE THING for broadcast over a local cable access station! Now everybody and his brother thinks I'm an imbecile! You better BELIEVE Creationism's true!"

'Fess up, all you erstwhile skeptics about Creationism. Surely you can feel the miracle of conversion taking place at this very instant, can't you? Yes, believe! BELIEVE! Come on, now! Bring your buttocks and the backs of your knees into play! BELIEVE! BELIEVE!

"But...but...none of this addresses the SPECIFIC contents of IN SIX DAYS!" you sputter, features twitching in a paroxysm of indignation as you struggle against your impulse to gnaw carbon deposits off the tailpipes of passing vehicles. "For all anybody can tell, you've never even SEEN the book, much less read it!"

Well, if you insist....

Let's try out, say, John R. Rankin's contribution (cf. IN SIX DAYS, essay 10, pp. 118 - 122). Rankin, described as a "senior lecturer in the Department of Computer Science and Computer Engineering, La Trobe University, Australia", starts out with the regulation Creationist ploy of smudging the distinction between the Theory of Evolution proper, which is concerned only with the mechanisms and patterns of biological diversification, and the generalized cosmology offered by secular astronomy. Rankin disingenuously portrays himself as the only assiduous scientific investigator of cosmic origins. He claims that he devoted "five years of heavy mathematical research concentrated on this one question", whereas "evolutionist" astronomers have forsaken research entirely in favor of mere dogmatic assertions about the universe's origin and development by exclusively natural process. The following quotation (cf. op. cit., p. 122) serves as an epitome of Rankin's essay:

"Do we hear of any of these supporters [of evolutionary theory] being willing themselves to spend years of their lives pursuing the complex mathematics involved in their patched-up but unproven theories? Alternatively, are they willing to pay others to do this work and approach the problems objectively, that is, willing to accept that physical theory could result in a negative answer, indicating that their modified explanations are also wrong?

"Unfortunately, the supporters of evolution now seem to be less willing to support or pursue this research themselves. As a result, there are few researchers left in the field, with the exception of the changing population of final-year research students. After all the research to date, we are still unable to explain the origin of galaxies as inhomogeneities in the universe from the perspective of evolution. We seem, in fact, to be further away from a satisfactory explanation of evolutionary galactic origins than we were when we started to study the subject, using modern physical theory. As in one field of science, so in all others, we are unable to explain the origin of the beautiful and complex realities of this world from an evolutionist approach."

I've quoted Rankin rather fully, because otherwise nobody would readily believe that he actually declares himself UNIQUELY qualified to speak with authority about cosmology and blithely promulgates the festering, bald-faced lie that secular science has practically abandoned the subject altogether. The guy's a real piece work. To quote another genius of true coin, the great Bugs Bunny: "Nyeh..., what a maroon! What an ULTRA-maroon!"

Let's also reflect upon the contribution of Jack Cuozzo (cf. IN SIX DAYS, essay 33, pp. 288 - 290), who's characterized as "a research orthodontist and head of the orthodontic section, Mountainside Hospital, Montclair, New Jersey". Savor, if you will, the following declaration: 'The peaceful biblical rendition of man's origin stood in direct contrast to the millions of years of bloodshed and violence that would have characterized a world in the throes of evolution. My dilemma was real, and my faith was being threatened. Were there millions of years of bloodshed in the Garden of Eden before sin? The Bible makes this point very clear: the answer is no, because there were six mornings and six evenings, while everything was "very good."'

"...[M]illions of years of bloodshed in the Garden of Eden before sin?" Duh..., say WHAT? How the hell does anybody get THIS out of the Theory of Evolution? Cuozzo, a card-carrying member of the fundamentalist Young Earth lunatic fringe and the author of BURIED ALIVE (Master Books, Inc., 1998), a masterpiece of paleoanthropological incompetence reflecting profound ignorance about the developmental phenomena of neotony and gerontomorphosis [Colin Groves, Professor of Biological Anthropology at the Australian National University, in his January, 1999, NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE review, states that "the entire first section of the book, fifteen chapters long, is a paean of paranoia."], is precisely the kind of self-stultifying spokesman for so-called "scientific Creationism" who inspires derision by secular scientists.

Want more? How about the essay of John M. Cimbala (cf. IN SIX DAYS, essay 20, pp. 200 - 203), who's characterized as a "professor of mechanical engineering, Pennsylvania State University"? Cimbala opens with the follow heart-warming testimonial:

"I was raised in a Christian home, believing in God and His creation. However, I was taught evolution while attending high school, and began to doubt the authority of the Bible. If evolution is true, I reasoned, the Bible cannot also be true. I eventually rejected the entire Bible and believed that we descended from lower creatures; there was no afterlife and no purpose in life but to enjoy the short time we have on this earth. My college years at Penn State were spent as an atheist, or at best as an agnostic.

"Fortunately, and by the grace of God, I began to read articles and listen to tapes about scientific evidence for creation. Over a period of a couple of years, it became apparent to me that the theory of evolution has no legitimate factual evidence, and that scientific data from the fossil record, geology, etc. could be better explained by a recent creation, followed by a global Flood. Suddenly I realized that the Bible might actually be true! It wasn't until I could believe the first page of the Bible that I could believe the rest of it. Once I accepted the fact that there is a creator God, it was an easy step for me to accept His plan of salvation through Jesus Christ as well. I became a follower of Christ during my first year of graduate school at Cal Tech."

"...[T]he theory of evolution has no legitimate factual evidence..."? Then why did Cimbala believe in evolution and "doubt the authority of the Bible" in the first place? Surely the man's not just a credulous fool, is he? "...I began to read articles and listen to tapes about scientific evidence for creation." We're not told specifically what any of these articles and tapes had to say about the matter, but because the truth of Biblical creationism doesn't follow logically from the theory of evolution's falsity, it's difficult to imagine an "atheist, or at best...an agnostic", who's NOT a credulous fool being converted merely by the theory of evolution's refutation. Observe: Cimbala rejects the theory of evolution as having "no legitimate factual evidence", but he conspicuously forbears to apply the same criterion to his fundamentalist religious beliefs. A level playing field evidently isn't important to him. Oh, well, that Cimbala's not too quick on the uptake logically doesn't mean that one shouldn't reflexively accept him as a technical savant and believe without reservation everything he says, does it?

Having described the miracle of his personal flip-flops between belief in evolution and faith in Biblical fundamentalism, Cimbala goes on to say: "...There are many pieces of evidence about which I could write; here I choose one: The Second Law of Thermodynamics."

Ah, yes! Predictably, Cimbala, like Walter T. Brown, Henry M. Morris III, and other ersatz "Creation Scientists" with Ph.D.s in Engineering, floats the thoroughly-discredited canard that the very possibility of evolution is ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Sorry, John M., no sale. Anybody who's interested in what's wrong with Cimbala's argument should check out P. W. Atkins, THE SECOND LAW (Scientific American Books - W. H. Freeman and Co., 1984).

Well, then, now that we've put to rest any doubts about even having seen the book, we can readily appreciate how Yaldo Snard, Scooter Pudd, and Osteo Myelitis fit right in with the likes of Rankin, Cuozzo, Cimbala, and the other 47 bozos whose testimonials have been collected between the covers of IN SIX DAYS. Editor John Ashton apparently sized up the book's prospective readers as intellectual cripples, because the face validity of the assembled essays is rather less than just wafer-thin.

By the way, readers of IN SIX DAYS: WHY 50 SCIENTISTS CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM will be edified to see how the lunatic views of those 50 so-called "scientists" are thoroughly debunked in SCIENTISTS CONFRONT CREATIONISM: INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND BEYOND, Laurie R. Godfrey and Andrew J. Petto, Editors (W. W. Norton & Co., 2007).

And finally, for those of you who somehow missed it: a Creation Scientist is no more a REAL scientist than a plastic Jesus is the real Jesus.

Customer Rating: 

In Six Days is an excellent resource to help people understand Intelligent Design better from the perspective of 50 doctoral scientists on the matter. Some of these scientists, former evolutionists, were compelled by the evidence in their respective field that we were intelligently created. Well written and easy to read.