The Creation Hypothesis
Willam Lane Craig made a statement at one time that you never convince an evolutionist of his fallacy if he isn't open to reasonable hypothesis. I have read this book once and am reading this book again. If your going to be a critic Stephen based on the critque of the dogmatic naturalist, your the one with a closed mind. JP Moreland, and the article contributors to this volme are well qualified, and experienced in both observation, philosophy, and sound reasonable logic. If your going to read this book with an already closed naturalistic point of view don't bother. If your ready to read it with a teachable mind, your getting a point of view that is logical, easliy understood with thought on your part, and a good understanding of what creation is and what it is not. Evolution is not a fact it is the dogmatic stance of God haters.
May 28, 2010
In response to Stephen from Pasadena, Yes, "Experts" indeed. Many, such as Stephen use the typical irrational, emotional attacks against Design Theorists. The scientists in this book have the credentials to give any open-minded, non-obscurantist a very thought provoking study. This book is a great addition to other well-respected scientist/authors such as; Polkinghorne, A.E. Wilder Smith, Henry F. Schaefer III... After studying this book, you will conclude that the possibility of the universe coming about by pure chance from nothing, or that living matter can spring from dead inorganic material, would be an incredible leap of wishful thinking. The FAITH of the atheist would be exposed.
February 9, 2002
"Experts" indeed. That is, none to be found in this work (as is the case in virtually all "creationist" literature): No credentialed, respected scientists whatever in dealing with issues of paleontology, biological evolution or anything else covered for that matter. Just lots of mis-information in regards to scientific method, inquiry, and data (as well as necessary conclusions in terms of Christian theology!). Hence, it is this kind of "information" that fortifies Moreland's assumptions when he himself critiques evolutionary theory contra "creationism." However, if one enjoys old arguments of this nature rehashed and restated perhaps this work will not disappoint.
March 6, 2001