What do you think?
Rate this book
Guide to Creation by Institute for Creation Research
What can God’s creation tell me about its Creator?If the things scientists write oppose what the Bible says, whom do I believe and why?Why is the world so perfectly fit for life but at the same time full of imperfections?Find answers to these and many more questions in Guide to Creation Basics, featuring the work of Institute for Creation Research scientists and scholars. Loaded with hundreds of full-color illustrations, this is the one book you need to learn the basics about creation!Topics The Flood The Fossil Record Mount St. Helens Carbon Dating Problems with the "Big Bang" Recent Creation of the Universe Life's All-or-Nothing Design Dinosaurs in Scripture Myths and Fallacies Genesis and the Curse Design in Creation Humans Are UniqueFor more information, visit www.icr.org.
Hardcover
First published May 31, 2013
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
December 14, 2022
Wonderful, scientific book by Institute of Creation Research that covers multiple aspects of creation science: flood, fossils, geology, astronomy, biology, the ice age, plate tectonics, carbon dating, radiometric dating, physics, starlight, DNA, dinosaurs, darwins' theories and so on. It covers a lot, so it a good start and then you can choose which aspects do you want to learn more thoroughly. The book is a nice coffee table book - it is colorful and interesting.
March 30, 2014
This is the full colour glossy picture book that accompanies the proper book “Creation Basics & Beyond: An In-Depth Look at Science, Origins, and Evolution”, both by the Institute of Creation Research (ICR). The more in depth book was distinctly better due to the simple fact that there was sufficient space to develop an argument. The picture book was by necessity a summary and this meant that some arguments were presented in a deceiving manner.
The two most disturbing (and possibly deceitful) items for me were the section on Genesis 1, and the one item in the astronomy section. On page 14, all of Genesis 1 is reproduced, except for verse 3. Why not verse 3? Because each “day” starts with “And God said”. The interpretation of Genesis 1 insisted on by the ICR presumes that the first day starts in verse 1, but verse 3 says “And God said: let there be light”. So the simple reading has the first 2 verses existing prior to the “first day”. But this view is rejected by the ICR as it leaves room for the gap theory. Secondly on page 57 a claim is made that blue stars should no longer be in existence as they would have burned out long ago. This is downright silly (or merely deceiving). All scientists who believe in an old universe believe that there have been different generations of stars, and these generations were necessary to generate the heavy elements that are required for life. Dr. Lisle knows this, and thus I am a bit confused why he would claim that the presence of blue stars is a legitimate argument for recent creation. While not as disturbing as the previous two arguments, the authors provide a “solution” to seeing stars and galaxies that are millions of light years away that is very, very poor. As a Physicist, I find it rather embarrassing. Every day in my fibre optics lab, we see and reproduce data that demonstrates the explanation to be false.
Objectively the book is attractive, and the pictures were mostly well chosen. A very poor picture was chosen to show refraction and dispersion by an optical prism. The Physics in this particular picture was entirely wrong! It must have been drawn by someone who was illiterate in optics, and it is too bad the authors who know Physics did not spot the error. Similarly the equation for the Fibonacci numbers was incorrect – the minus sign in the equation should have been an equal sign. This was a bit sloppy. On a more general level, the ICR consistently defined their favourite interpretation of scripture as biblical, while all other interpretations of the bible as not. This type of dogmatism is depressing.
The two most disturbing (and possibly deceitful) items for me were the section on Genesis 1, and the one item in the astronomy section. On page 14, all of Genesis 1 is reproduced, except for verse 3. Why not verse 3? Because each “day” starts with “And God said”. The interpretation of Genesis 1 insisted on by the ICR presumes that the first day starts in verse 1, but verse 3 says “And God said: let there be light”. So the simple reading has the first 2 verses existing prior to the “first day”. But this view is rejected by the ICR as it leaves room for the gap theory. Secondly on page 57 a claim is made that blue stars should no longer be in existence as they would have burned out long ago. This is downright silly (or merely deceiving). All scientists who believe in an old universe believe that there have been different generations of stars, and these generations were necessary to generate the heavy elements that are required for life. Dr. Lisle knows this, and thus I am a bit confused why he would claim that the presence of blue stars is a legitimate argument for recent creation. While not as disturbing as the previous two arguments, the authors provide a “solution” to seeing stars and galaxies that are millions of light years away that is very, very poor. As a Physicist, I find it rather embarrassing. Every day in my fibre optics lab, we see and reproduce data that demonstrates the explanation to be false.
Objectively the book is attractive, and the pictures were mostly well chosen. A very poor picture was chosen to show refraction and dispersion by an optical prism. The Physics in this particular picture was entirely wrong! It must have been drawn by someone who was illiterate in optics, and it is too bad the authors who know Physics did not spot the error. Similarly the equation for the Fibonacci numbers was incorrect – the minus sign in the equation should have been an equal sign. This was a bit sloppy. On a more general level, the ICR consistently defined their favourite interpretation of scripture as biblical, while all other interpretations of the bible as not. This type of dogmatism is depressing.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews