Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools

Much of the information duplicates the author's better-known earlier book (0890510075). He pokes fun at the "cosmic egg," denies the dual nature of the Archeopteryx, alleges the same gaps in the same places,and makes his usual stab at the Piltdown Man and the Nebraska Man. As usual, he quotes Fred Hoyle as saying that "the probability of the evolutionary origin of life is equal to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard would assemble a Boeing 747." (I am reading Hoyle's book, and Hoyle doesn't say that.) However, there is some new material. He adds considerably to his collection of out-of-context quotes. True to the title of this book, he brings the reader up-to-date about what is and isn't allowed in the science classroom. Most significantly, he expands on Creationist alternatives to radiometric dating. In his earlier opus, he mentions these alternatives with only a superscript and footnotes. That had left me very curious. Here, though, he specifies that he wants dating systems "based on the amount of helium in the earth's atmosphere produced by radioactive decay of uranium and thorium, the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the pressure of oil in petroleum deposits, the presence in rocks of pleochroic haloes of very short-lived radioisotopes, the rate of cooling of the earth (taking into account heat produced by the decay of radioactive substances), the Poynting-Robertson effect, the lifetime of comets, and the time required for clusters of galaxies to disperse." After each comma, there is a superscript, directing the reader to a footnote. These footnotes, as one would expect, correlate with those in "The Fossils Say No!" Unfortunately, though, Creationists spend less time in the lab and on the field than do Evolutionists, because they are too busy writing religious tracts like this one. I wish the Creationists would: 1. design instruments according to the above specifications 2. run these instruments on the same specimens 3. see of the readings correlate, and if so, are they significantly different from readings from instruments already in use It would be really dandy if such readings confirmed New Earth Creationism. I would take notice if: 1. none of the readings showed a date earlier than 4004 BC, the alleged date of the Creation 2. all of the layers in the Grand Canyon showed a reading of 2349 BC, the alleged date of the Flood Think you might be interested? Aw, come on. It's only 50 cents, and it's only 63 pages.