While my criticism is harsh, I feel it is completely warranted, particularly in view of the author's vindictiveness toward those who disagree with them. For example, they assert: "A person who accepts the evolution premise as valid can not be convinced through intellectual reasoning that he is wrong." And, "To any honest open-minded observer, the vast fossil evidence from all over the world confirms the Bible record of creation." [p. 75] Evidently the authors believe that anyone who finds the preponderance of the evidence to support evolution is, by that criterion alone, both dishonest and closed-minded. Such ad hominem attacks are not only uncalled for, they are fallacious. Arguments with genuine substance needn't employ such tactics.

There are far too many egregious errors in this book to list in a short review, so I will merely select a few random quotes: "The majority of the methods for determining the age of the earth indicate the earth is young. Only a few questionable methods of geochronology support the evolutionary concept of billions of years of age." As harsh as it may sound, this is a great example of the fallacy known as "invincible ignorance"; the authors simply refuse to acknowledge the colossal mountain of evidence against them. It hardly warrants further comment.

Here is another: "[Water] is one of the few compounds which does not follow the natural laws of chemistry. Instead of contracting when it is frozen, water expands to create ice." To say that water "does not follow the natural laws of chemistry" is precisely like saying that helium balloons do not obey the law of gravitation. The somewhat unusual (but not unique) property of expanding when frozen is an immediate consequence of its crystalline structure, which follows from its bond angles, which follows from quantum mechanics; Laws of chemistry, all the way down.

But the authors make the most spectacular blunder I have ever seen in print. Here is what they have to say about a world-wide deluge (Noah's flood): "All manner of life would be mixed and scrambled together and quickly buried." [p. 82] "Vegetation and animal life would be scrambled together, torn, and buried in the layers of the earth in no particular order." [p. 83] "According to the biblical model of the flood, all kinds of life would have been caught and destroyed in the layers of the earth. Fossils should not be found in a sequential order of simple to complex." [p.86]

The authors spell out what Biblical creationism predicts and correctly observe that it is dramatically different from what evolution predicts. After setting up this most appropriate test, which unequivocally distinguishes between two rival hypotheses, the authors simply abandon the entire argument and move on to a new topic, never once taking a close look at what we actually find in the geological record. While the authors do inject some odd statements later on (p. 165) about fossils everywhere appearing to have been formed by a sudden catastrophe, these are unsupported, wildly misleading, and evasive. The most relevant question is how (or whether) the fossils are ordered in the geological record.

Here is what we find: The fossils of the geological column are ordered according to phylogeny (relatedness) and not homology (similarity of form), revealing world-wide strata corresponding to epochs of immense duration, unerringly separating both flora and fauna into hundreds of distinct groups, and showing an unmistakable progression from simple organisms in the Precambrian era to complex multicellular organisms in the Cambrian era and beyond. Creatures are layered according to the most minute anatomical differences, such as the number of bones in the ear, the number of toes, or the number of lenses in a compound eye. Flowering plants (angiosperms) diversified in the mid-Cretaceous, as did insects, so the types of plants and insects that we find are quite different on either side of the Cretaceous strata. Not a single reptile or mammal has ever been found among the countless fossils of the Cambrian strata. Primates are found first in the Cretaceous era, never in strata below. On and on it goes. Few things in science are as spectacularly clear or well-documented as that. The words "slam dunk" come to mind.

Infer what you will about why the authors failed to mention any of that. Also, please consider again what the authors had to say about honest observers. Enough said.