» » Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies

Download Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies fb2

by Alan Hayward

  • ISBN: 028104807X
  • Category: Religious books
  • Author: Alan Hayward
  • Subcategory: Religious Studies
  • Other formats: mbr azw txt doc
  • Language: English
  • Publisher: SPCK (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge); 2nd edition (September 15, 1994)
  • Pages: 240 pages
  • FB2 size: 1207 kb
  • EPUB size: 1591 kb
  • Rating: 4.2
  • Votes: 950
Download Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies fb2

Creation and Evolution book. Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Start by marking Creation and Evolution: Facts and Fallacies as Want to Read: Want to Read savin. ant to Read.

Creation and Evolution book.

In Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies (1985), he expanded on these ideas, supporting a form . Flowmeters: A Basic Guide and Source-Book for Users (1979). Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies (1985).

In Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies (1985), he expanded on these ideas, supporting a form of ancient creationism. He was strongly opposed to young earth creationism, and refuted all its major arguments. God's Truth: A Scientist Shows Why It Makes Sense to Believe the Bible (1983).

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts.

Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies London: SPCK, Triangle, 1985.

Alan Hayward is a British author of a number of books on the subject of science and faith. A scientist shows why it makes sense to believe in God" (1978):-(previously "God is: A scientist shows why it makes sense to believe in God") "Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible" (1985):-(previously "Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies") "Why many scientists now believe. in Creation" (date unknown).

Includes bibliographical references (p. 208-224) and indexes. The genuine scientific objections to Darwinism. Winds of change ; Biologists who reject Darwin ; Other evolutionists with serious doubts ; The design argument stages a comeback - The age of the earth. Another wind of change ; The witness of the sedimentary rocks ; More evidence of age ; 'Flood geology,' and related fallacies ; Some young-earth arguments examined - Bible teaching on creation. The days of creation ; Some other biblical questions ; Some biblical objections to theistic evolution.

A fresh look at a topic that often pushes Christians to heated defensiveness or embarrassed silence

A fresh look at a topic that often pushes Christians to heated defensiveness or embarrassed silence. A fresh look at a topic that often pushes Christians to heated defensiveness or embarrassed silence. Even non-Christian scientists are attacking the traditional evolutionary theory still taught in many schools as fact.

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy .

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation. Many evolutionary books, including Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, contrast religion/creation opinions with evolution/science facts. It is important to realize that this is a misleading contrast. Creationists often appeal to the facts of science to support their view, and evolutionists often appeal to philosophical assumptions from outside science. While creationists are often criticized for starting with a bias, evolutionists also start with a bias, as many of them admit.

Alan Hayward (1923–2008) was a British engineer and physicist who was also active as an old-earth Creationist writer, and Christadelphian. Good afternoon, students, faculty, family, friends and special guests. The 56th Commencement Exercises of the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences are now underway. My name's Alan Tucker.


Reviews about Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies (7):
Kalv
I purchased this as a Christmas gift for my husband. It seemed to be a book to capture his interest.
Prinna
The author is a physicist and was a practising scientist, he is British and therefore he writes from a slightly different perspective to the books coming out of the USA. The most significant part of the book is the section on the age of the earth where he looks at the young earth arguments and demolishes them quite effectively. It is also significant that in the same year (1985) another book written in the USA by the physicist Don Stoner also debunked the young earth arguments. Hugh Ross in his 1994 book Creation and Time exposed the same fallacies as well as demonstrating the cosmological arguments for an old universe. All young earthers should read Hayward's book. "Claiming that the Bible teaches a young universe only adds an unnecessary stumbling block to those who are sceptical about the faith." - Matt Perman.
Jeb
Hayward argues against both recent creationism and evolutionism in making the case for ancient creationism. The book contains some interesting ideas and should be read by any recent creationist. While his arguments against recent creationism are quite solid he fails somewhat in his arguments against evolution. Many of his purported "problems" with evolution have quite simple explanations that have been tested and hold up to the scrutiny of scientific testing. Overall, this may be a good introductory book but it is somewhat dated.
Talrajas
Hayward argues that the case for a very old earth is overwhelming, but the case for the evolution of species is weak and unproven. He attempts to quote evolutionists in context, which has not always been the case. He presents a history of Christian thinking on science and the Bible, and shows that there were many prominent scientists who were Christians and believed the above 2 theses prior to the 1950s. Hayward argues that the Creation Science movement is not staffed by scientists recognised as experts in the fields in which they do battle with the scientific world.
The book is well worth reading, whatever your convictions about the creation-evolution debate. It is one of the very best books available on the subject.
Gir
Unfortunately, Mr. Hayward's interpretations raise far more problems than they attempt to solve (as will be documented below).
I do not believe that those who adhere to some form of theistic evolution (God used evolution to create everything) or progressive creation (God intervened at various points in the process of evolution) fully realize that their position violates clear concepts revealed in the Bible--indeed much that is foundational to the very Gospel itself.
For instance..
Concept violated: the goodness of God
The Bible says 'God is good' and in Genesis 1:31 God described his just finished creation as 'very good'. How do you understand the goodness of God if He used evolution, 'nature red in tooth and claw', to 'create' everything?
Concept violated: Adam's sin brought death and decay, the basis of the Gospel
According to the evolutionist's (and progressive creationist's) understanding, fossils (which show death, disease and bloodshed) were formed before people appeared on earth. Doesn't that mean that you can't believe the Bible when it says that everything is in 'bondage to decay' because of Adam's sin (Romans 8)? In the evolutionary view, hasn't the 'bondage to decay' always been there? And if death and suffering did not arise with Adam's sin and the resulting curse, how can Jesus' suffering and physical death pay the penalty for sin and give us eternal life, as the Bible clearly says (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive")?
Concept violated: the divine inspiration of the whole Bible
If the Genesis accounts of Creation, the Fall, the origin of nations, the Flood and the Tower of Babel - the first 11 chapters - are not historical, although they are written as historical narrative and understood by Jesus to be so, what other unfashionable parts of the Bible do you discard? The biblical account of creation in Genesis seems very specific with six days of creative activity, each having an evening and a morning. According to the evolutionary sequence, the biblical order of creation is all wrong. Do you think God should have inspired an account more in keeping with the evolutionary order, the truth as you see it, if indeed He did use evolution or followed the evolutionary pattern in creating everything?
Concept violated: the straightforward understanding of the Word of God
If the Genesis account does not mean what it plainly says, but must be 'interpreted' to fit an evolutionary world, how are we to understand the rest of the Bible? How are we to know that the historical accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection should not also be 'reinterpreted'? Indeed, can we know anything for sure if the Bible can be so flexible?
Concept violated: the creation is supposed to show the hand of God clearly
Dr Niles Eldredge, well-known evolutionist, said:
'Darwin . . . taught us that we can understand life's history in purely naturalistic terms, without recourse to the supernatural or divine.' [Niles Eldredge, "Time Frames - the Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium", 1986, Heinemann, London, p. 13.]
Is it not philosophically inconsistent to marry God (theism) with evolution (naturalism)? If God 'created' using evolution which makes Him unnecessary, how can God's 'eternal power and divine nature' be 'clearly seen' in creation, as Romans 1:20 says? Evolution has no purpose, no direction, no goal. The God of the Bible is all about purpose. How do you reconcile the purposelessness of evolution with the purposes of God? What does God have to do in an evolutionary world? Is not God an 'unnecessary hypothesis'?
Concept violated: the need of restoration for the creation
If God created over millions of years involving death, the existing earth is not ruined by sin, but is as it always has been - as God supposedly intended it to be. So why then should He want to destroy it and create a new heavens and earth (2 Peter 3 and other places)?
Starting to get the picture of where Mr. Hayward's compromising theology leads?
See the Answers in Genesis website for volumnes of eye-opening information.
Books I would strongly encourage one to read instead: "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells, "Bones of Contention" by Marvin Lubenow, "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!" by Duane Gish, "In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation" by John F. Aston, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton, "Astronomy and the Bible" by Donald B. DeYoung, "Refuting Evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati, "The Answers Book" by Ham/Snelling/Wieland, and "The Young Earth" by John Morris.
Hinewen
The first part of the book provides a nice critique of many young earth arguments. For the second part of the book, Hayward says that the fact of common descent falls apart unless a mechanism for evolution is provided. He then says that natural selection is the only candidate explanation, and that many biologists reject natural selection as a mechanism for evolution.
He considers Francis Hitching to be a credible source on evolutionary biology, so right away you can see that the author is way out of his field of astronomy. His main thesis is faulty. Common descent can be inferred without reference to a mechanism. Natural selection is hardly the only candidate mechanism.
He advances the usual creationist argument that transitional forms could not make a living because they would be stuck between two worlds. He uses the whale as example, which is pretty ironic given the recent series of whale fossils which shows the transition he claims is not possible.
Ffel
Hayward makes numerous silly claims throughout the book. For instance, he claims that a fortuitous Rb-Sr isochron would be akin to spilling peas on the floor and finding that they all line up. Fact is: No creationist supposes that isochrons form by such random processes. Instead, mixing lines can give rise to isochrons instead of millions of years of in-situ 87Rb decay.

Related to Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies fb2 books: