Customer Reviews

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

5 star:		(79)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

This review is based on the online version of the book, which I am relying on, pending the forthcoming 8th edition.

This is the kind of book that almost all reviewers give either five stars or one. I'm the first 3-star reviewer. It worked, right? You were curious enough to read this review out of the dozens of others.

Whether you find it persuasive or not, there can be no disagreement that this book by Dr Walt Brown (PhD MIT (Mechanical Engineering), Air Force Academy tenured professor (retired), Air Force Colonel (ret.), studied geology at Arizona State University), presents a theory which is stunning in the extent of its scope and the observed natural phenomena that it seeks to explain: from molten rock in the very depths of the earth to comets that traverse the far reaches of the solar system. One gets the distinct impression that Hydroplate Theory did not begin as an attempt to explain such a vast range of physical phenomena, but that it developed to do so, as one set of results connected with other observations and suggested new avenues of explanatory power.

Hydroplate Theory begins by postulating a set of initial conditions -- a vast subterranean water chamber sealed deep beneath a rock crust -- in a recently created earth. These set of initial conditions are not plucked from the blue, but are prompted by and consistent with a number of Biblical passages (obviously including the early chapters of Genesis, but also the Psalms and 2 Peter). Dr Brown is certainly not ashamed of his Christian faith. But as a scientific theory, Hydroplate Theory should stand or fall on its faithfulness to known physical laws (eg: conservation of matter-energy, the law of gravity, etc, etc) and its consistency with observed experimental and natural phenomena.

At this point, therefore, readers who do not accept the truth claims of the Bible can suspend their judgement, accept the posited initial conditions for the sake of exploring the argument as a 'what if' chain of physical reasoning. Those who have grown up on far-out science fiction have no excuse for being unable to exercise their mind's imagination in this way.

But this is not presented as a work of science fiction. On the contrary, Hydroplate Theory is a thoroughly serious effort to see what would happen if the laws of physics are applied to the set of initial conditions defined. The chain of events described is extremely dramatic. Super-critical subterranean fluid released in supersonic jets with sufficient energy and velocity to launch asteroids and comets, rapidly sliding continent-scale hydroplates, and rock buckling rapidly to create present-day mountains, is certainly not a scenario for the faint-hearted! The natural initial reaction of most readers -- both evolutionist sceptics and professing Christians encountering this for the first time -- is to laugh at the apparent absurdity and throw the book away.

But readers with a solid technical background who resist this impulse will be rewarded by being challenged to wrestle with some heavy-duty (well beyond industrial strength) engineering physics. To succeed, each individual component of Hydroplate Theory needs firstly to be shown to be consistent with known physical laws and secondly to be shown to be consistent with observed phenomena, and such laboratory or field scale experiments as it is possible to undertake. Some such experiments are described in the book. Numerous observed natural phenomena are referenced in support of the theory and the ability or inability of competing theories to explain them are compared. Particularly interesting in this respect are a number of tables with each row representing an observed phenomena and each column a competing theory.

The presentation of Hydroplate Theory is in "Part II: Fountains of the Great Deep." It brings all of the engineering sciences into play: fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, mechanics of materials, material science and chemistry, as well as celestial mechanics. Key numbers (inputs to and results from calculations) and diagrams are provided in the book. But many, if not most, of the detailed technical physics calculations necessary to confirm or deny the theoretical viability of the theory are left to the reader to undertake. Mechanical engineers, probably chemical engineers, maybe civil engineers, and capable physicists should be capable of undertaking such calculations. The book should be accepted as a genuine challenge by such readers.

Some readers may have prior assumptions (eg: the age of the earth or disbelief in the existence of the Creator) that act as a barrier to their acceptance of the initial conditions required for the Hydroplate Theory, even merely for the sake of making the calculations or following the reasoning presented on a 'what if' basis. "Part I: The Scientific Case for Creation" would seem to be intended for such readers. It presents very briefly, mostly in summary overview fashion, a compendium of grounds for rejecting evolutionary hypotheses. It is systematically arranged in three categories: the biosphere (the life sciences), the cosmos beyond the biosphere (the astronomical and physical sciences) and the realm below the biosphere (the earth sciences). Based on a once-through reading of Part I, a sceptical reader may not be persuaded, right there and then, to reject the wide gamut of evolutionary theories from the big bang to human evolution. However, it is sufficiently thorough and comprehensive to warrant a good faith reading of Part II, at least on the basis of 'what if' acceptance of the initial conditions.

Part III contains answers to Frequently Asked Questions.

This is a book for a general audience, characterised by approachable visualisations that most people can readily grasp to explain established physical phenomena. Sceptics who approach it in good faith and with an open mind will find plenty of material of both a theoretical and observational nature to challenge their explanations. Hydroplate Theory, first published in 1980 and refined and updated since, strikes this reviewer as the most robust candidate for a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) theoretical model of Creation, pre-Flood and post-Flood natural history consistent with (a) the Biblical account, (b) natural and experimental observed phenomena and (c) known physcial laws. But it is probably fair to say that it has not (or at least not yet) become THE standard YEC account. Nevertheless, YECs are likely to find it strengthens their views, while surprising them in a number of areas and prompting re-evaluation of some views.

As Dr Brown points out, multiple, parallel working hypotheses are a better basis for scientific inquiry than blind adherence to one single hypothesis or set of starting assumptions.

It's each individual's own responsibility to WEIGH THE EVIDENCE according to their own ability and understanding.

Dr. Walter T. Brown, a retired MIT Prof, retired full Colonel from the Air Force, has written a book that is one of the best compilations of scientific evidences and reasonings regarding the origins question.
One of the books great features is that it is about 30% quotes from well known and regarded scientists and publications. Another great feature is the surprisingly simple and logical explanations of current geophysical attributes that haven't been solidly explained by any current threories.
Dr. Brown plainly outlines how that from a scienific point of view organic macroevolution lacks necessary physical evidence. Even more seriously, it lacks any concrete plausible mechanisms, as many of the people quoted in his book readily say.
This book will give any open reader more than adequate material to really think about. To the closed reader, the sources quoted would be almost heroes, so he/she would really have a hard time arguing. I would especially encourage all opponents to an extranatural origin model to read this book. I would also highly engcourage any seeking student to read this to find out what science really knows, or professes to know. This book has had a tremendous impact on my life, especially my thought process and the way I view earth. This book will definitely make you think and possibly question what you believe and know, or think you know..

Brown's book - based on his hydroplate theory - may be the most workable concept to date on creation. Both the creationist and naturalist schools of thought have unexplainable processes and historical gaps in their theories, leaving the conclusions drawn from the observable evidence very subject to the presuppositions brought to the table.

As an educator, I find Brown's method of explanation far superior to most science taught in schools - for he not only states his position based on the evidence, but often lists opposing and contradictory concepts.

Most objections to his book are from those who refuse to follow the evidence into the possibility of an extra-natural dimension, by itself an anti-scientific position, resulting in the ignoring of unresolvable contradictions inherent in the concept of evolution.

Brown has taught the slowing of the light/energy field for years and been dismissed for so doing, but recent studies (eg. Moffatt project, U of T) have placed this is the naturalist mainstream. C14 in Diamonds are naturalistically impossible, but predictable by his theory, and found in nature. The laboratory experiments reducing isochronometers to mere hundreds of years are also predictable from his theory and are just beginning to appear in science.

Like those that threw off the "mainstream scientific" false concepts of flat earth, spontaneous generation, etc - Brown follows in the footsteps of many of the great men of science by allowing that there are more forces at work in our universe than simply naturalistic ones, and it is only by allowing science to expand into the possibility of a supernatural origin to the universe that we can truly understand what it is and how it functions. Anything less circumscribes science and diminishes scientific understanding.

Brown appears to cling to a 6000 year earth - not a biblical concept but well entrenched - but in any event his theory still works well with an earth age of 15000 years or so.

All in all a valuable book to read regardless of your position. Brown's background as a MIT professor, and Earth Sciences professor at NASA give him a unique perspective not available to many, including his critics.

I have owned almost every edition and await eagerly the next.

As a physicist with an interest in investigating creationist claims, I've spent some time studying Dr. Walt Brown's "In the Beginning..." I've found "compelling evidence" for creation and a flood - but I mean the creation of phony arguments and a flood of incorrect claims. The book is filled with quote-mining, misused evidence, and elementary scientific errors. Since I can't discuss the whole book here, I'll concentrate on selected portions, and document just some of the errors and misrepresentations I've found.

To evaluate the quality of the information in Dr. Brown's book, let's look at his section on "out-of-place fossils." Brown gives a list of fossils that allegedly occur in the "wrong" geological strata, in violation of the accepted evolutionary sequence. Of course, he doesn't mention the enormous number of sites that show billions of fossils in the accepted evolutionary order. But what about his examples of paleontological discrepancies? (All quotes are from the 8th online edition.)

Brown says, "Frequently fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order." Two of his references are from mainstream journals - one from Science, and one from Nature. I looked up these two references, and found that neither contains any mention whatsoever of out-of-place fossils.

Brown says, "In Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs." His reference is an article in Moskovskaya Pravda - hardly a credible scientific reference!

Brown says, "Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan and Arizona." His references include an article in Moscow News (!) and two articles in Creation Research Society Quarterly. I checked this with Glen J. Kuban, an experienced investigator of creationist paleontology claims. (Mr. Kuban's published research, accepted as valid even by creationist organizations, demonstrated that tracks of carnivorous dinosaurs sometimes resemble human prints.) He told me that nothing approaching a clear human print, let alone a striding sequence of distinct human prints, was found in Arizona. He noted that two experienced paleontologists who studied the Turkmenistan dinosaur trackways found nothing of a "humanlike" nature. For more information, see his website "The Paluxy Dinosaur/'Man Track' Controversy" (a great source of information on "anomalous" fossil reports).

Brown says, "Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina." He cites two articles from the 1870s, plus a personal communication. Glen Kuban is familiar with the 19th century reports. He says they provide no substantial documentation for mingling of fossils from different geological eras. Along with other fossil collectors and paleontologists, Mr. Kuban has been to Carolina phosphate mines, and observed their fossils. He told me there are large numbers of Tertiary fossils, both vertebrate and invertebrate, but no out-of-place fossils and certainly no dinosaurs. If dinosaur fossils did occur there, at some time during the last 140 years they would have been collected and reported in the scientific literature (not to mention documented in detail by young-Earth creationists).

Brown says, "No transitional forms of life have been found in amber." In reality, in the 1960s several scientists hypothesized that ants evolved from wasp ancestors, and predicted what features the transitional insects should have had. Several years after this prediction was made, Cretaceous ants in amber were discovered that showed almost all of the predicted transitional features.

Prior to November 2009, Brown's book said, "In Virginia, alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints, are other tracks described as hoofprints of some unknown quadruped." In truth, these prints were initially described as those of a brontosaurus-like dinosaur, not a hoofed mammal, by R. E. Weems (U. S. Geological Survey) in 1987. Even the popularized version of this research cited by Brown (a Science News article) should have made it clear to him that this was not an out-of-place fossil. But it gets worse - subsequent excavation showed that the "hooflike" features of the prints were caused by an algal mat that the animal was traversing. When the trackmaker moved onto a bare surface, the shape of the prints changed, and they were identified with a known animal - an aetosaur, something like an armored crocodile. Dr. Weems withdrew his earlier announcement of a new sauropod species in 2006. There are no hoofprints, and the maker of the tracks is not "unknown" (it is called Brachychirotherium parvum).

I confirmed all of this through correspondence with Dr. Weems, and by reading his published articles. I also informed Dr. Brown of this issue. He didn't respond to me, and the false information remained in his book. Finally, after I sent him this critique for review, and advised him that I was going to post it on Amazon, he removed the claim from the "out of place fossils" section. However, in another section ("FAQ's: What About the Dinosaurs?") he still cites the Science News article, in association with others alleging coexistence of horses and dinosaurs. Although he deserves at least a little credit for removing the most egregious statement of this ridiculous claim, his behavior in this matter reveals a cavalier attitude toward scientific truth, and a willingness to make claims without consulting the primary literature or contacting the scientists who did the work.

Finally, Brown says," Coal beds contain...flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed." His reference is a 1923 article by A. C. Noe that described one such alleged anomaly. But the claim was disputed in another 1923 article, by A. C. Steward, that identified the fossil as an archaic plant, rather than a flowering plant. This identification was confirmed by J. M. Schopf in 1946. Brown is aware of these later published articles, but he ignores them.

Walt Brown has no credibility when discussing the published scientific literature. But what can we say about his own claims?

Like many creation "scientists," Brown explains the evolutionary progressions in the fossil record by invoking hydrodynamic sorting during the Flood, along with some contribution from differential mobility (i.e., animals trying to run to higher elevation as the Flood waters rose). Incredibly, his basis for the former claim is an unpublished study in which someone at Loma Linda University placed four unspecified animals ("a dead bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian") in a water tank and observed the order in which they sank to the bottom.

The hydrodynamic sorting and differential mobility claims are easily demolished. Flowering plants, for example, grow abundantly at low elevations and can't run very fast, yet their fossils don't appear until the Cretaceous. Fossils, as well as the individual particles that make up sedimentary deposits, do not show consistent progressions on the basis of size, shape, or density, as would be expected from hydrodynamic sorting. Brown's sketchy hydrodynamic "model" cannot explain why large and small individuals, or adults and eggs, of given species are found at the same geological level. Some fossil animals are found in death poses: dinosaurs sitting on top of their nests, "fighting dinosaurs" (a Velociraptor with its arm in the jaws of a Protoceratops), etc. These creatures clearly were not tossed about and hydrodyamically sorted in liquefied sediments, nor were they running up the sides of mountains to escape a global Flood. Many dinosaur fossils show evidence of scavenging by other dinosaurs, inconsistent with "rapid burial" during the Flood. (Fossil skeletons of large mammals never include shed teeth or toothmarks from carnivorous dinosaurs, because these animals did not live at the same time.) Finally, Brown's theory cannot explain why the famous iridium layer and the sudden disappearance of dinosaur fossils coincide with a sharp, discontinuous loss of many other fossil organisms, including microscopic ones like pollen and marine plankton.

Brown's unique "contribution" to creationism - the hydroplate theory - is based on an alleged underground ocean that erupted through cracks in the earth's crust and caused the Flood. These "fountains of the great deep" also supposedly shot an enormous mass of water and entrained rocks into space, forming the asteroids and comets.

As a physicist, I'm most qualified to comment on Brown's astronomical ideas. These are essential to his overall theory, because he invokes accelerated nuclear decay to explain radiometric dating results. As no creationist denies, compressing billions of years' worth of radioactive decay (at today's decay rates) into a year or less would produce enough heat to destroy the Earth. Brown has his own peculiar "solution" to this problem - he shoots the excess energy into space! Since the ejected material is not anywhere near our planet today, he needs a credible way of pushing it to the orbital locations of today's asteroids and comets. If he can't make these astronomical mechanisms work, he can't avoid melting the planet, and his theory is dead.

Brown says the total energy released during eruption of the "fountains" was equivalent to three hundred trillion H-bombs! Already, his theory is in trouble. Although he assumes that this energy went into orbital kinetic energy, it would not do so with perfect efficiency. Indeed, he needs much of the water to remain here on Earth to produce the Flood waters. If only 0.001% of the ejected material and energy had wound up in the atmosphere, the temperature would be raised by 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit! But the heat leakage would almost certainly have been much greater than this; Brown himself estimates that the total energy in the eruptions had to be ten times greater than the kinetic energy of the comets and asteroids, giving "inefficiency of the launch mechanism" as one of the reasons. Where did 90% of the energy go?

The Earth's upper atmosphere would have been contaminated with an enormous concentration of aerosols and solid particles, rendering the atmosphere almost opaque. Brown never explains how the already-stressed, genetically-depleted organisms from the Ark could have dealt with the resulting climate changes and loss of photosynthesis.

But apart from these issues, what can we say about his theory of the asteroids? He claims that a cloud of gaseous water molecules accompanied the rocks and ice into space, and that pressure differences in this cloud pushed the rocks past the orbit of Mars, allowing them to take their present positions in the asteroid belt. He says that the rotating rocks were heated by the Sun, and cooled on their "night" side. "After sunset, surface temperatures would rapidly drop." "Hot gas molecules hitting the hot side of an asteroid bounce off with much higher velocity and momentum than cold gas molecules bouncing off the cold side. Those impacts slowly expanded asteroid orbits..."

Until recently, Brown's book said that temperatures on the "night" side would "plummet toward nearly absolute zero." This is a wild exaggeration. I did calculations, using a finite-difference heat diffusion code, that showed a day/night temperature difference of only 20 to 60 degrees Kelvin (depending on rotation rate). The dark side of the asteroids would not get anywhere near absolute zero.

Recently, I sent my thermal calculations to Dr. Brown. I see that he has taken out the "absolute zero" claim, presumably because he knows he was wrong; but he has not chosen to communicate with me or to acknowledge this or any of the other errors I've identified in his book. And, of course, if his calculations formerly assumed temperature differences of hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit, the asteroid orbit perturbations he computed must be invalid. Yet, he has changed only one sentence in his book. His conclusions are apparently immune to facts.

Brown's mechanism needs to push the rocks away from the Sun. The required increase in orbital angular momentum must be provided by a torque (a sideways "push"). He says that, since asteroids spin, the hot and cold zones would rotate a bit past the boundary between the illuminated and non-illuminated sides, allowing the colliding gas molecules to exert a tiny torque. But, even in principle, this mechanism could only work for asteroids that rotate in the same direction ("prograde") as their orbital motion around the Sun. Asteroids with retrograde rotation (of which there are many) would have been pushed closer to the Sun! And rocks that happened to have little rotation would have stayed near the Earth. Since the asteroids allegedly were ejected from huge explosions on the Earth, there is no reason to think they would all be spinning in a convenient direction or at the necessary rate.

The supposed cloud of interplanetary water molecules could not exert enough unbalanced force on the asteroids to push them tens of millions of miles in a thousand years or less. To make this argument as rigorous as possible, I did calculations using elementary physics equations and a number of assumptions wildly favorable to Brown (I've put the details into the "Comments" section below). My conclusion is that Brown's mechanism would require the total mass of water expelled into space to be equal to, or greater than, the mass of the Earth! Freshman-level physics shows that his theory is utterly unworkable.

Brown says he has a computer program that validates his theory of asteroid orbital enlargement. But his book provides no details, and he says he got his results using "arbitrary" values for parameters like gas density. What we need to know are the actual values! If he won't give a straightforward listing of his assumed parameter values, the best way to evaluate his claims would be to inspect and run his computer code. Unfortunately, my polite requests to him for more information resulted only in repeated statements that he is "not an answering service," along with challenges to a "telephone debate." He said his calculations were checked and approved by "a very capable astronautics professor," but refused to give this person's name. He said it would be too difficult to print out and send me the code he used to do the calculations, even though I offered to pay him for his time.

He claims to have made a great discovery, but refuses to disclose how he did his work. No one who acts like this deserves to be called a scientist.

Based on my study of his book, I conclude that Dr. Brown's work is without scientific merit. But I've tried to treat him fairly, and I've communicated many of my objections to him via e-mail. In some cases, as noted above, these communications caused him to quietly alter his book, although he has never admitted his errors and continues to claim, to me and to others, that I don't know what I'm talking about.

I've repeatedly told Dr. Brown that I'll be happy to engage with him if he wants to defend his book. Since a suitably detailed discussion would have to include analysis of his asteroid computer code and other mathematical matters, a telephone debate would not be appropriate. A blog capable of displaying equations would be best. If he will provide information on his calculations, at a level of detail equivalent to what a scientist expects in a standard peer-reviewed research paper, I'll be glad to discuss or "debate" his claims on his or any other website, with or without a moderator, anytime. He has made no response to this offer.

I've never met Dr. Brown, but based on material on his website, I suspect that he has many good qualities. I have no personal issues with him, but I am dismayed at his distorted presentation of science. He has misled countless people who are sincerely searching for the truth.

All of us understand the world through a combination of independent thinking and trust in others. We are impressed by people with advanced degrees, and many of us assume that a deeply religious person will behave with scrupulous integrity. Dr. Brown, with his identification as a man of science and a man of God, has inherent power and trust. His abuse of that power and trust is evident in his book, and, sadly, in the words of the good people he has misled.

Having read this book through several times, it is quite obvious that Dr. Brown is a first class scientist. Being a Ph.D. scientist from UC Berkeley (chemistry) myself, this book was extremely refreshing in its originality and complexity. I am quite certain that the established dogmatic priests of plate tectonics and uniformitarianism will use bombast and demagoguery to refute what Dr. Brown posits. But overall, his research is thorough, his thoughts are well articulated and his Hydroplate Theory is refreshing and brilliant. Bravo! A MUST read. When does the 8th edition arrive?

Dr. Brown has opened my mind to yet another of the many falsehoods that our modern society is based upon. I found this book to be so compelling that I intend to read it several more times just to soak it all in.

This review is based on the online edition of the Seventh Edition of "In the Beginning" which is more recent than my print copy. It is one very long series of errors and misrepresentations. Brown, like many "creation scientists," cites and quotes many actual scientists lending an apparent connection between his work and reality. If a reader does not have the educational background, or time to personally read these citations, they might be fooled into thinking there is some support for Brown's wild ideas.

I'll take two examples as typical of Brown's disconnect from reality. In his "Frequently Asked Questions" section titled "68. Old DNA, Bacteria, and Proteins?" Brown cites Giuseppe Geraci et al., "Microbes in Rocks and Meteorites," (Rendiconti Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Vol. 12, No. 9, 2001, p. 51) for support of the notion that "fountains of the deep" (see Genesis 7:11) blew massive amounts of the earth into outer space. This article was published with a long list of objections and cautions that its conclusions were provisional, and that there were many doubts regarding methods used by the principal investigators. Brown ignores these cautions, nor does he note that over forty years of meteorite investigations have always found terrestrial contamination to be the source of microorganisms found in meteorites, e.g. "Bacterial Contamination of Some Carbonaceous Meteorites" J. ORO T. TORNABENE (1965 SCIENCE, VOL. 150, pg. 1047-1048). The probability of contamination increases in direct proportion to the amount of handeling the samples are subjected to under unsterile conditions. The two meteorite samples examined by Giuseppe Geraci had been recovered, handled and publicly displayed for many decades, one for over a century. Brown builds everything on this one error having ignored decades of related research.

In the same section, Brown claims that the discovery of "proteins, soft tissue, and blood compounds preserved in dinosaur bones" preclude an ancient earth. I have dealt with these topics at considerable length elsewhere, and the links to these articles are in the first comment below. In short, Brown's argument fails on this as well.

In a section on transitional fossils, Brown serves up massive numbers of out-of-context and manipulated "quotes." These are known as quotemines and most of those used by Brown are exposed in the "Quote Mine Project" maintained by the TalkOrigins Archive, which is dedicated to exposing the sort of creationist chicanery as Browns book.

Brown makes the statement, "If evolution happened, many other giant leaps must also have occurred: the first photosynthesis, cold-blooded to warm-blooded animals, floating marine plants to vascular plants, placental mammals to marsupials, egg-laying animals to animals that bear live young, insect metamorphosis, the transition of mammals to the sea (whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, and manatees), the transition of reptiles to the sea (plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs), and on and on."

Lets just look at a few gross errors in that paragraph. First is the most obvious error regarding the supposed transition of "placental mammals to marsupials." Sorry Walt, it didn't happen that way. If you reverse it from marsupials to placental mammals you will be still wrong. The evolution of cyanobacteria and the evolutionary innovation of endosymbiosis lead directly to the evolution of photosynthesis, and while not complete, these must first be refuted scientifically before Brown can claim they cannot be completed. Then there is the question of sea mammals. Brown lumps three major groups, the Cetaceans (whales and allies), the Pinipeds (seals, walrus, sea lions) and the Sirenians (manatee, sea cow and dugong). Demanding a common group of fossils for these would be asinine. The transitional fossils for the cetaceans are the best known and the most accessible general reader source is from the laboratory of Dr. J. G. M. Thewissen, also an excellent source on the evolution of Sirenians. The known transitional fossils fall into six families, Indocetidae, Pakicetidae, Ambulocetidae, Remingtonocetidae, Protocetidae, Dorudontidae, and Basilosauridae. The transitional fossils of the Sirenians are less well studied with only about fifty specimens. None the less, the broad outline connecting the elephants, hippos, and manatees is known. The early transitional fossils for the pinipeds are the least well known, but one in which I have personal experience. The best fossil specimen in the world (over 90% complete) of the most likely ancestor of the pinipeds, Gomphotaria pugnax, was discovered by one of my former students and is curated by a museum where I was a director. Gomphoria shows the fossil connection between the pinipeds and ancient ancestors of bears.

These basic errors show why engineers should not write about biology or paleontology- they are ignorant. It is for these reasons that I wish there were "negative" points I could award to Brown's pernicious book.

As truly a lay person whose hobby is all things science, a science teacher, and someone with an open mind (who is, above all else--in the interest of full disclosure--a Christian), I find Brown's work to be very intriguing. None of the stories men of learned minds and great pedigree have come up with works to explain the physical realities around us 100%, especially on origins or how geology can help us understand the ancient past. Neither does this one. However, it sure is a serious contender--especially when you realize the length and breadth of the weaknesses of the prevailing theories on the many topics this book addresses. I am not saying Brown's work is super-strong with this statement. I am saying they all are much weaker than we want our explanations and understanding of the world around us to be.

That said, I still really like the work done here. It needs tweaking, and, to Brown's credit, he keeps tweaking it over and over again as the years pass by. The next edition (the 8th) is basically what he has up on the web now, and it addresses some weaknesses previously pointed to.

So, this work is as empirically sound as any science can be when it is hoping to speculate on things long past. Read a book on prevailing theory behind plate tectonics or evolutionary theory or geology, and then read Brown's work. You will find that you have to make many decisions about which aspects of each of them you believe, and it won't be easy. There's a lot to slog through, and he is thorough. Also, he's treading in territory a lot of these other theories avoid, so some of it you have decide to take at face value or not until you can do your own seismic soundings, ice-core drillings, etc. The same goes for all such works.

If you're going to keep reading this long review, I'm going to take a second and make a few things clear about me:

As an Orthodox Christian, I have no theological reason to buy into young-earth Creationism, to feel a need to disprove evolution, or any of this. The Orthodox Church just doesn't care to say much more than however it happened, you can be 100% sure that it was God's work. Theistic evolution, billions of years old earth, you can have me. Just not to the exclusion of my faith. So, I have no theological horse in the race.

I do, however, have a mental need to be convinced of any theory before I might say I believe it. Based on empirical evidence, sound reasoning, a minimum of assumptions, etc. For example, while it would be much easier to just swallow and regurgitate the consensus rulings on the following topics, I can't. I don't buy subduction the more I read about what evidence would be needed to support it. I don't buy any form of macroevolution--but do believe in genetic change over time, even extreme change, as a result of losses in genetic information--not increasing complexity brought about by chance and sorted by any kind of natural selection fairy. I don't feel Genesis forces a young earth on its readers at all. So, don't box me into the Creationist Fool category. Put me in the Fool Who Thinks He Can Reason Out Facts For Himself category. I know "real" scientists hate this Fool even worse than the other kind. This kind of Fool makes them defend their works in the arena of common sense and empirical data from outside the box they might not be aware they have placed themselves. Infuriating.

Anyway, I like the book. I recommend the newest edition. It needs to be put alongside all other serious works on the various topics it addresses and dealt with. There are parts I don't buy. There is a lot I think is compelling and clearly explains things in the natural world that other theories simply don't. For that reason, it should be more food for thought than the object of derision it is. Brown is a pariah in the scientific community. On some fronts, he can be declared fallible. On too much of the backbone of his story about Flood catastrophism, he is simply unanswered.

I find the various published attacks on Brown's work to be very interesting. Google hydroplate theory and read the first 20 pages that come up. Most of it will be highly critical and derisive of his work in tone. Most of it will speak from a set of assumptions you may buy--or you may not. A lot of the criticism is shallow in that it does not address the weaknesses of their theory they champion as pointed out in Brown's work, nor do they attack the greatest strengths of his work. There's nit-picking with extreme prejudice, and most of it loses any umph if you haven't bought what they were selling in the first place. They look no better after reading Brown--or reading their critique of Brown. And Brown doesn't look worse, either. Oddly, they don't defend vigorously against his reasons for why they are wrong. Simply repeating the consenus line does not actually reinforce it. It is very strange. And somewhat telling . . . It's like watching a boxer keep landing light punches that can't win the fight because he's convinced the other guy is going to forfeit any minute--or, more likey, that the fight isn't for a title so it doesn't matter how this one goes. I think it illustrates the depth of the influence of assumptions.

In the end, a great work, warts and all.

Creation Science is a growing field today. The more popular theories such as the Canopy Model and Catastrophic Plate Tectonics have been at the forefront of Creation Science for many years now. In this book, Dr. Walt Brown introduces an alternative model called "Hydroplate Theory".

According to this theory, the Earth was once filled with high-pressure salt water under its crust, and then exploded about 4,300 years ago. The immense pressure created a crack on the earth's surface, releasing millions of tons of debris/water which flooded the planet's surface and forever changed the landscape. The author presents the model quite convincingly, with comprehensive documentation of related scientific theories and laws for the layman. In my opinion, When compared to other creation models, the Hydroplate Theory stands out as creation's best candidate to battle the Theory of Evolution in the scientific arena and in the minds of the youth.

If one has never been introduced to the creationist view, this book is a perfect starting point. In the endnotes and references, Dr. Walt Brown makes mention of the works of other great creationists such as Henry Morris, Bill Cooper and Barry Setterfield. Additional research can be conducted from thereon, providing the reader with enough reference materials to build a thorough understanding of Creation Science.

In many ways, Dr. Walt Brown revives the classical formula of using Theology for scientific research, in the same manner that Isaac Newton pursued science with Biblical scholarship, which resulted to the single greatest scientific work: The Principia. Many would argue that this methodology is unacceptable in the age of computers and genetics, but then again this very same system was employed in the age of discovery in the 16th and 17th centuries, before the Theory of Evolution was popularized by Charles Darwin. This does not mean, however, that Dr. Walt Brown supported his theories solely by using Scriptures. On the contrary, much of the content were supported by evidences in nature, as supported by conventional science.

I understand that people tend to be skeptical of the unknown, especially of things that were not taught in the academic institutions where evolution is widely promoted (and creationism widely dismissed). But regardless of your beliefs, this book will serve as an INVALUABLE REFERENCE to both Evolutionists and Creationists, just so one would be aware of the key scientific evidences and issues presented in the Hydroplate Theory.

Dr. Walter T. Brown, a retired MIT Prof, retired full Colonel from the Air Force, has written a book that is one of the best compilations of scientific evidences and reasonings regarding the origins question.
One of the books great features is that it is about 30% quotes from well known and regarded scientists and publications. Another great feature is the surprisingly simple and logical explanations of current geophysical attributes that haven't been solidly explained by any current threories.
Dr. Brown plainly outlines how that from a scienific point of view organic macroevolution lacks necessary physical evidence. Even more seriously, it lacks any concrete plausible mechanisms, as many of the people quoted in his book readily say.
This book will give any open reader more than adequate material to really think about. To the closed reader, the sources quoted would be almost heroes, so he/she would really have a hard time arguing. I would especially encourage all opponents to an extranatural origin model to read this book. I would also highly engcourage any seeking student to read this to find out what science really knows, or professes to know. This book has had a tremendous impact on my life, especially my thought process and the way I view earth. This book will definitely make you think and possibly question what you believe and know, or think you know..