In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

[Punchy]

http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scie...0960911?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178070349&sr=1-2

In reading this book, I was surprised by how many of its contributors were, not creation scientists with dubious scientific credentials, but university professors and research scientists. Furthermore, it shows that young earth creationism is a worldwide movement, not just limited to American Evangelicals. This book is definitely worth the read, for creationists and evolutionists alike.

Peace.

 

[Nitron]

stupid question removed

 

[RichardT]

Yeah, the myth that YEC is restricted only to the USA is dying.

 

[timeout]

To quote Daniel Edelton:


Sadly, this format makes "In Six Days" less than useful - on any level. The answers provided resemble testimonies rather than useful scientific analyses. Respondents tended to repeat each other, answer too generally, or (conversely) too technically on a single point. Further compounding the problems of the book, the great majority of the scientists refer to points outside their own discipline. If I were looking for serious answers to important questions about a six-day creation, would I want to read a mechanical engineer's musings on organic chemistry? Probably not. This book would be infinitely more helpful if the question had been posed as "What are five discoveries within your field of expertise that point specifically to a six-day creation?" But as phrased here, the original question automatically leads to unfocused answers.

 

[flatworm]

"Why 50 scientists belive in creation"? I'm willing to bet it's because their religion so enjoins. Does even one of these scientists believe in a six-day creation against their religious beliefs or at least in the absence thereof?

Perhaps the better question would be "Why millions of scientists do not believe in creation."

 

[TheBear]

Have you heard of Project Steve?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yeah, the myth that YEC is restricted only to the USA is dying.

Actually George McCready Price who many consider the founder of modern YEC was a Canadian and of course those wonderful wackos from Answers in Goofyness who are building a museum in my neighborhood actually started out in Australia.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Yeah, the myth that YEC is restricted only to the USA is dying.

Oh, it's not restricted to the US. But it is far more prevelant in the US, among Western nations. You'd probably have to go Islamic countries to find a general populace more fervent about this stuff than the US.

Regarding the OP, I'd put big money on that not one of those scientists believes in YEC because of science.

 

[Paulos23]

I am 5 essasys into the book and they are already repeating themselves. Some of the essasys are on topics outside the authors field, which negates the weight of their degree. Others are just to technical for me to follow well, but then I find older disproven points in the middle of that.

Mostly the book attacks evolution and geoligy rather then try to build up the arguement for ID or creation, which I would expect from scienties. Disproving a theroy doesn't make your correct. You still have to find evidence for it.

 

[Jase]

Oh, it's not restricted to the US. But it is far more prevelant in the US, among Western nations. You'd probably have to go Islamic countries to find a general populace more fervent about this stuff than the US.

Regarding the OP, I'd put big money on that not one of those scientists believes in YEC because of science.

You would only have to go to Turkey. They are the only country more opposed to evolution than the U.S.

 

[Punchy]

Regarding the OP, I'd put big money on that not one of those scientists believes in YEC because of science.

Actually, the first half of the book is devoted to scientific arguments for creation. It's worth reading at least to understand what real scientists who believe in a literal Genesis actually think, rather than what such irrelevant figures like Kent Hovind happen to say.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Actually, the first half of the book is devoted to scientific arguments for creation.

In the creationist material I have read, I've never seen a single scientific argument for creation. Does this book have anything different to offer?

 

[Tiberius]

Wait, what fields are these scientists in? I mean, who cares if a mechanical engineer or rocket scientist believes in creationism? Why would they need to know about the age of the universe?

Show me a paleontologist, a molecular biologist, or a geologist who believes these things. Show me a scientist who works in a field that creationism claims is wrong, who also conducts their work according to a young earth model. And then show me the scientific results that they have gathered using the young earth model, and show me how the scientific community has accepted those results.

 

[dud1]

It is a shame that people who are expert in one field are automatically believed to be an expert in all fields. Creationism does rely on this a lot.The Institute for Creation Research actually give out doctorates for money and a number of their workers have self awarded doctorates which are totally worthless but look good on a letterhead.Convict Kent Hovind (now serving ten years for fraud) had a similar doctorate which like him was worthless.

 

[Garnett]

These threads are always the same and focus on a review of purported scientific backing for Creationsim, rather than the science itself.

This is for the simple reason such scientific evidence does not exist.

If it did it would have been cited here, by the OP or any of the other proponents of Creationism.

The whole "scientific" argument for Creationism is always "Have you read this book? In it So-and-so disproves such-and-such." Never the actual proof.

It is all smoke and mirrors to hide a complete absence of anything substantive.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Actually, the first half of the book is devoted to scientific arguments for creation.

Then post one of them. I for one would (metaphorically) die for the chance to see a scientifically valid argument for a literal Genesis.
Please?

 

[Nitron]

Only one I can think of is the zircon helium, which supposedly disproved uniformitarianism with uniformtarianism.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

It doesn't matter who believes in creationism, like it wouldn't matter if Einstein rejected the theory of relativity. The facts and the proof for evolution are there, have been tested in multiple fields, and still stand.

Stephen Hawking could come out tomorrow and say he believes in creationism, but it wouldn't make it true unless he could produce the evidence.

 

[Punchy]

The facts and the proof for evolution are there, have been tested in multiple fields, and still stand.

Everyone has access to the same facts, but our interpretations will be different. Evolution, apart from its underlying assumptions, is unproven and unprovable. This book is worth reading, at least to see what a substantial minority in the scientific community happens to believe and why.

 

[Edx]

Actually, the first half of the book is devoted to scientific arguments for creation. It's worth reading at least to understand what real scientists who believe in a literal Genesis actually think, rather than what such irrelevant figures like Kent Hovind happen to say.

Except its the same kind of bunk science Hovind promotes, and Hovind still promotes creationism being scientific. Theres no difference.,