IN SIX DAYS: WHY FIFTY SCIENTISTS CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN CREATION edited by John F. Ashton

by JF

Interesting book of 384 pages. First published in 2000.

Fifty creationist scientists were asked to explain why they were creationists and not darwinists. These fifty then responded with a brief essay or letter, providing a rationale for their worldview. Most of the essay responsives are quite cogent and circumstantiated; some, however, are laconic enough to make the reader wonder whether these scientists got the message that their response was actually going to be published, suffering not so much from lack of scholarship as simply from an obvious lack of time and effort. Again, fortunately this is not the case with most. Don DeYoung’s response letter was probably the skimpiest of the minority of skimpy ones. I cannot say this surprised me as, on a personal note, I once tried to contact Mr. DeYoung and never got a response back from him, nor from a representative of his. That man wrote a great and scholarly book that I had read and which obviously entailed much time and effort for him to produce, but personal interaction with his readers apparently does not elicit much time and effort from him.

On another sort of personal tangent here, I was a little piqued to see that the only jesuitically educated scientist in the book, Jack Cuozzo, was listed as—you guessed it!—scientist #33. There is that number again. Yes, THAT number. Was this a mere coincidence, or do we have another little secret-societal, high-degree, wink-and-nod thing going on? I do not know, but I might be inclined to bet on it, assuming we could ever really find out.

A surprising number of these creationist scientists hail from Australia. I found that somewhat interesting.

Another point of interest: Some scientists tended toward the analytical in their explanations. These tended to throw many numbers around, of course. Some other scientists tended more toward the philosophical, frankly. Yet, it was indeed intriguing to read how forceful was either approach in exposing the vacuity of darwinism.

This is highly recommendable reading, and I would predict that it would be just about guaranteed to elicit some sort of emotional, gut reaction from passersby who would be of the “purely scientifically minded” darwinist, a.k.a. evolutionist camp.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ
4/2015

Advertisements