A real gem

I love this book, really love it. This is one of the gemstones of my private little library and highly recommended.

Don't take me wrong here. I'm not, repeat not, repeat not, a "young earth creationist". Precisely for that reason, I adore this book. This collection of testimonies from 50 Christian-fundamentalist scientists PROVE that young earth creationism is bogus, and that people adopt it for dogmatic religious and psychological reasons, NOT for scientific ones.

Unsurprisingly, the book is published by Answers in Genesis, one of the more extreme creationist groups, substantially worse than even the notorious "Institute for Creation Research".

I will now take the liberty and quote extensively from this book, hopefully without breaking any copyright rules. All these quotes are for review puposes only!

>>>>>ANDREW SNELLING (p. 280): I believe in the creation of life by God in six literal days, and in God's destruction of life and the earth by a year-long cataclysmic global flood, for two reasons - first, and foremost, because the Bible clearly records these events as real, literal history, and second, because the scientific evidence, correctly understood, is totally consistent with this biblical account. As a geologist I continue to find scientific investigation of God's world very satisfying and exhilarating, because I always discover that ultimately the evidence in God's world agrees with what I read in God's Word.>>>>

Comment: Andrew Snelling believes in creationism first and foremost because the Bible tells him so. He then distorts the scientific evidence to "prove" his point. This is science?

>>>>>STEPHEN TAYLOR (p. 284) I became a Christian at the age of 16 by seeking forgiveness for my sins and committing my life to the Lord Jesus Christ in a simple prayer. Although aware of the apparent contradiction between science and the Bible, the fact that Jesus believed in the Genesis account as historically true was enough to convince me as a young Christian that I should also! The disciple is not above His Lord. Many years later, I am more than ever convinced not only of the truth of the Christian gospel , but also of the harmony between the biblical revelation and true science. It is extremely important to realise that, contrary to what we are often told, there is no proven fact of science that can be shown to contradict the biblical account. When scientific theories appear to contradict, it is important to examine the evidence for and interpretation behind such ideas.>>>>>

Comment: Same basic story. At the age of 16, this man decided for some kind of psychological reasons to embrace a narrow, fundamentalist form of Trinitarian evangelical Christianity. Later, he distorted science to fit his preconcieved subjective dogma!

>>>>> ELAINE KENNEDY (s. 294-295) Those of us who believe in a short chronology and a six-day creation do not have an adequate explanation for radiometric dates; however, we do know that much research needs to be done and we know multiple interpretations of the distributions concerning the processes involved are possible. Despite this possibility, dates are often used to refute biblical chronologies as though no questions or arguments oppose these conclusions. When interpreting scientific data, I use the same techniques and approaches as my colleagues, but my assumptions come from my biblical paradigm. I often recognise conflicts; indeed, the geologic literature reminds my daily that conflict exists, and many aspects of the geologic record are difficult to explain to the satisfaction of my colleagues or myself. This does not mean that they are correct and I am wrong, but rather that much research needs to be done. This attitude seems an impossible bias to some, but I find my faith leaves me open to alternatives, while I continually question the interpretations in my work because of my science. (...) Although I have been a Christian since I was seven years of age, it was not until I was in the midst of my geologic education that I decided to include my geologic assumptions within a biblical world view. In effect, I realised that I consider God's revelation more valid than human reason, because I experience His recreative power in my life daily.>>>>>

Comment: Elaine Kennedy admits that scientific evidence disproves the Bible, but she has decided to remain a creationist anyway, for purely psychological reasons, "because I experience His recreative power in my life daily". How sad. She could have become a good geologist.

>>>>GEOFF DOWNES (s. 310-311) I chose to accept the Bible as the basis for all my thinking, and understand Genesis in the plain sense in which it was written. I could not explain all the things that I observed in nature within that framework, and I still cannot. But I knew that, if these lecturers could be inconsistent in the sense that they were not able to make the evolutionary framework fit the evidence at every point, then I could also hold in "tension" those areas of science that I could not explain within a creationist framework. My understanding of the creationist perspective became steadily stronger in its ability to accommodate and explain the real scientific evidence.>>>>

Comment: Same basic story as Elaine Kennedy.

And finally, the ultimate gem of them all, a real shocker, already a classic, and suitably placed at the very end of the book.

>>>>KURT P. WISE (s. 332) Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.>>>>>

And there you do indeed stand.

As for the Earth (and science), "and yet she moves".

Warmly recommended.