Scientific Creationism

Scientific Creationism

Paperback(2nd ed.)

View All Available Formats & Editions
Choose Expedited Shipping at checkout for guaranteed delivery by Friday, October 25


The story of the origin of all things: Does the scientific evidence support special creation or atheistic evolution?

Authoritative and thoroughly documented, Scientific Creationismis easily understood by readers with non-scientific backgrounds.

Teachers, students, pastors, and other witnessing Christians can now be equipped with the convincing evidence for special creation. Updated and expanded, Scientific Creationismis a book that has changed the lives of people for Christ - people who have been blinded by the current origin-myth, evolution.

"All ministers of the gospel, teachers and professors of our Christian schools on the primary and secondary level, should read this book. A copy should be placed in every church and school library, and used as a textbook in our Christian high schools and colleges."

-Rev. C. Van Schouwen

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9780890510032
Publisher: New Leaf Publishing Group
Publication date: 04/15/2001
Edition description: 2nd ed.
Pages: 286
Sales rank: 609,187
Product dimensions: 5.20(w) x 8.20(h) x 0.70(d)
Age Range: 13 - 17 Years

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews

Scientific Creationism 2.8 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 5 reviews.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This book brings back memories of when I was at Ohio State one summer. I had just left the library and visited several used book stores on High street, then left to pick up my wife at work. She ended up working much longer than I expected, so I sat down and read several chapters of Henry Morris's book. It changed my life. Eventually, after 30 books later, I became convinced that Darwinism was not only not true, but impossible. Morris's book was a logical, well argued work and, as I knew the science, I recognized it as plausible even then. When one only learns one side in college, reading the other side at first challenges one, then, as the evidence piles up, it converts one if one will let the evidence speak for itself. When I look at other reviews, it is obvious that the book does not have the same effect on everyone. When one looks at why, it is obvious that some people hate God and go ballistic when one tries to present the case for God. They are especially adamant that the God idea is not mentioned favorably in the schools. Yet several U.S. presidents have been very open about the fact that their Christianity was the prime driving force behind their policies (the president that I have studied the most was Eisenhower but this includes President Bush). If God is so critical in running our country, why are some people so determined that He not get favorable mention in the public schools? I had years of atheistic propaganda as a biology major in school, but when someone tries to present the other side, it is considered by some as teaching religion (and therefore wrong)! This book only tries to present the case for a creator, and I think our young deserve to hear the other side (the side in this book). The concern of the atheists is that it may convince some as it did me (a Ph.D. in biology) and this is why there is no way certain people (often fundamentalist atheists) want this book in the schools (or anywhere else). Thus they write long reviews arguing because it presents the case for God and, therefore, they argue, it should not be allowed in the public schools.
Foundation More than 1 year ago
I bought a copy years ago and found the timing was perfect for me. It help to clarify my questions I had regarding creationism vs evolution. Morris assisted me in solidifying my new found faith in a creator. Highly recommended! 
Guest More than 1 year ago
once apon a time there was a bear. but thats besides the point. this book is somewhat ineresting but so hard to follow that it hardly is worth it. something you might have to write a critical analysis paper on in middle school.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Good science starts with a hypothesis and through research arrives at a conclusion, not the other way around. This book is an excellent example of what is scientistic: they started with a conclusion and interpreted their data to support that conclusion. Comparing this book to Origin of Species is a good exercise in cartesian logic. Also a good example for use in philosophy of science.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This book, the ICR informs us, was written by "the scientific staff of the Institute for Creation Research" (p. i). It is, the editor declares, a work of science, and "makes no reference to the Bible or other religious literature as its authority, but only on the facts of science" (p. v): "It is possible to discuss the evidences relating to evolution versus creation in a scientific context exclusively, without reference to religious literature or doctrine." (p. 3) "The purpose of Scientific Creationism (Public School edition) is to treat all of the more pertinent aspects of the subject of origins and to do this on a scientific basis, with no references to the Bible or to religious doctrine." (p. iv) Morris emphasizes again that the book treats creationism in "a strictly scientific context" (p. iii) and as a "scientifically sound alternative to evolution" (p. iii). After all this high-sounding talk about the scientific data and the lack of reference to religious doctrines or beliefs, what do we find as the very first tenet of "scientific creationism"?: "The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator." Morris's book echoes: "The creation model involves a process of special creation which is: (1) supernatural, (2) externally directed, (3) purposive, and (4) completed." (p. 11) It looks as though the game is over before it has even started. The "scientific" creationists, who ask us to judge them solely on the data of science, without any reference to any religious or Biblical doctrine, have blown it already, since the very core of their "scientific model" is based on a religious belief that a "transcendent Creator" made the universe "supernaturally". I have yet to meet the creationist who can explain to me how this tenet is "scientific" and not "religious" in nature. Nor have I met any creationist who has been able to demonstrate the existence of a personal transcendent Creator using scientific methods, without any reference to religious or Biblical doctrines. The creationists did try, though--and their argument was quite clever, if laughable. Their argument? "There is nothing inherently religious about the terms 'creator' or 'creation', as used in the context of Act 590. Act 590 is concerned with a non-religious conception of 'creation' and 'creator', not the religious concepts dealt with in the Bible or religious writings. . . All that creation- science requires is that the entity which caused creation have power, intelligence and a sense of design." (Defendant's Trial Brief, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) In other words, the creationists argue, their first tenet of "scientific creationism" is not religious even though it mentions a personal supernatural Creator, because this Creator doesn't necessarily refer to God. As creationist witness Norman Geisler argued in court (apparently with a straight face), a supernatural Creator is not a religious concept. In other words, creation "scientists" have attempted to argue that, instead of "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", "In the beginning, some personal transcendent supernatural Creator whose name we aren't allowed to mention created the heavens and the earth". Then, after pointing out that the latter argument doesn't mention "God", they have triumphantly concluded that it is therefore a "scientific" and not a "religious" argument. The absurdity of this argument is self-evident (the Arkansas Judge rather charitably commented that it was "contrary to common understanding"). (If I wanted to be nasty, I would also point out to the creationists that this conclusion is heretical as well, since it opens the possibility that the "Creator" who made the universe supernaturally was not God. One wonders how their fundamentalist Christian friends would feel if they realized that the creation "scientists" were peddling such theological heresy.) Is