Customer Reviews

Taking Back Astronomy: The Heavens Declare Creation

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The purpose of this book is to provide an introductory resource in the field of astronomy which interprets evidences from a biblical creation perspective. The book explores passages of Scripture which conflict with the current opinion of the majority of scientists regarding, among others, the age of the universe, the so-called "distant starlight problem," and the idea of extra-terrestrial life.

In Lisle's words, "Many people think the creation versus evolution debate is about evidence, and although the evidence is important, evidence is always interpreted through a person's world view. So the debate is really about world views. The debate is over which interpretation of the evidence is best. Think about it this way: both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. They have access to the same fossils and the same rocks. They study the same principles of genetics, chemistry and physics. They observe the same universe. Why then do they draw such different conclusions when it comes to matters of origins? Ultimately, it is because they have different world views, and so they interpret the same evidence differently."

Lisle has created this book to help us understand Astronomy through the biblical world view. There are five chapters: The Splendor of God's Creation, The Universe Confirms the Bible, The Age of the Universe, The Bible and Modern Astronomy, and War of the World Views.

The comprehension level is about 9th grade and up, but used as family reading in small chunks and depending upon the interest of the child, it could be used for other grade levels.

Lisle includes analogies to help make difficult concepts easier to grasp, such as showing a balloon expanding with points on the balloon getting farther away to explain the concept of the expanding universe. A glossary in the back of the book helps with definitions of unknown terms.

The book is printed on glossy paper and features full-color photos and illustrations.

Dr. Jason Lisle graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy and minored in mathematics. He received his master's degree and Ph.D. from University of Colorado in Boulder.

I highly recommend this book for students who are interested in astronomy and physics and all students headed for college. For the general student, I would suggest other resources from Master Books such as Astronomy by Design.

This is a very interesting book. From a formal point of view it is simply outstanding, with a very nice layout and wonderful pictures of the Universe. Substantively, the book makes a very important point that I would like to mention.

We all interpret the evidence according to our world view. If one starts from naturalist assumptions about the Universe (v.g. the Universe is all there is; the Universe arouse by itself and is evolving), one will naturally try to explain the data according to this model, accomodating by adding assumptions, explaining away or even dismissing all evidence that doesn't immediately fit.

There are many scientific problems with the naturalistic evolutionary model of the Universe (v.g. where did matter and energy come from? What caused the alleged Big Bang? Was there an early inflation of the Universe? If so, what started it? And what stopped it? Why are galaxies quantized? Why do "earlier" galaxies look mature? Why are comets still moving around? Why are nebulas expanding? What caused nebulas gravitational collapse? Where did the moon come from? Where was the moon 2 billion years ago? Why is there a "faint Sun" paradox?). In spite of the huge scientific problems facing the naturalist evolutionary model of the Universe, from which the above mentioned are but a few examples, the naturalists will hold on to this paradigm, even if it means building a precarious castle of assumptions over assumptions. The reason for that is that this model is the only alternative they have to creationism. If they abandon their model they will become creationists, something they want at all costs to avoid. For many naturalists promoting this model is the only way to advance their academic carriers and to get a pay check from their superiors. It also avoids being ridiculed by other naturalists. When one doesn't side with God, one is always afraid not to be accepted by others.

Naturalism has no scientific basis. Many observations do indeed point towards the existence of design features in the Universe, as even british atheist astronomer Roger Penrose has recently admitted in a BBC Prime interview. He admitted that it is entirely possible to build a totally viable and observation-based model of the Universe in which our galaxy comes in the center of the Universe. He also admitted that if we go back in time we will find more and more order, and less and less chaos, which is another way to admitt that the Big Bang model is far from being a satisfactory explanation for the Universe.

Very often we see naturalists discarding scientific observations that point to design features of the Universe, just because they are a priori commited to explain how things developed "naturally". Well, that's not really science. That's ideology!

Creationists start from the assumption that the Universe is not all there is, and that it was designed for a purpose. They accept the Bible as the revelation of the Creator and build from that pressuposition. That doesn't mean that the Bible is a scientific book, whose verses are expected to describe all the details of the Universe. It simply means that the Bible provides the leading assumptions from where true knowledge can be accomplished.

Naturalists reject all design assumptions as a way to do science. Creationists reject all naturalistic assumptions as a way to do science. Naturalism assume that there is no God or if there is one, his action remains totally irrelevant and undetectable. Creationists assume that there is a God, and a very active One. Different world views lead to different scientific views and ways of interpreting the same data.

In my opinion, biblical creationism, with its model of Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, Dispersion, etc., is more plausible and complete than naturalism, because it explains the origin of matter, energy, time, space and information (v.g. DNA), and can also accomodate both evidence of design (v.g. the fine-tuning of the Universe for Life) and evidence of decay (v.g natural disasters; predation; suffering; death).

Naturalism has no way to explain the origin of the Universe and Life, nor can it explain their design features, which becomes a very serious problem, especially when naturalists themselves (v.g. Dawkins; Sagan) admit that evidence of design is overwhelming and that the DNA of a cell has much more information than the whole Library of Congress. Time and chance are not enough.

The Bible tells us that the Universe is much more complex than we will ever be able to understand. That's why we should trust God's Word (and not fallible human ideas) as a starting point for our being and our thought. Both will have only meaning if they are sustained by God's Word.

Science has not any alternative to death and decay. Naturalist scientists can only delay decay when they introduce intelligent design. Genetic entropy and genetic engineering are a good example of this.

God has a clear alternative do death and decay, as was made clear through Jesus Christ's ressurrection with an incorruptible body (an historical fact that was witnessed by many who were willing to sacrifice their lives to proclaim it). This history changing event has shown, to all who are willing to see, that there is hope and life beyond death. God has demonstrated, in front of many witnesses, that He can generate life from non-life. Miller and Urey didn't even come close to that! Nor has anyone else after them.

Taking Back Astronomy is one of the first books on astronomy from the young earth creationist's perspective. Dr. Lisle did a fine job of writing an introductory level book on a subject that is typically very difficult to understand for the average person. Visually, the book is stunning as it is filled with gorgeous pictures of various astronomical bodies. Truly "the heavens [do] declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19: 1).
The book is divided into five chapters. The first deals with explaining some of the incredible details in our universe. Few can fathom the size of our own solar system, let along our galaxy and universe. Dr. Lisle provides some helpful illustrations to help the reader understand the immensity of God's creation. In Genesis 1: 16 we are told that God "also made the stars." Something so magnificent and grandiose seems as though is was just an afterthought for God.
The second chapter deals with many of the biblical passages that touch on astronomy. Long before the days of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, God inspired the biblical authors to write accurately on this subject. The Bible is shown to be correct in every area it touches upon.
The third chapter deals with the ever controversial subject of the age of the universe. Once again, the evidences for a young earth and universe are overwhelming - even in the field that supposedly has dealt the death blow to young earth creationism. Dr. Lisle eloquently points out some of the numerous unsolved problems with the current big bang theory.
In the fourth chapter of the book, Dr. Lisle takes aim at the philosophy of naturalism and shows how it has severely hampered scientific research in this field. Most astronomers hold to a naturalistic viewpoint and attempt to interpret their findings within that framework. Oftentimes, they are forced to add numerous ad hoc arguments to make the evidence fit the story. Dr. Lisle shows that much of this evidence fits in perfectly with the biblical account and does not need to add any of these "epicycles" to make sense of the data. This chapter also includes an excellent discussion on the ever popular subject of aliens.
The fifth and final chapter of the book deals with the influence that one's worldview has when interpreting the evidence. Everyone has a worldview and everyone must interpret the evidence through the lens of that worldview. Facts do not speak for themselves - they must be interpreted. The naturalist seldom acknowledges this because he does not want anyone to know that his view is not necessarily true science but only a philosophical interpretation of the evidence.
Throughout the book the author includes some sections entitled Creation In-depth. These sections are semi-technical but usually quite easy to understand. Here is a list of each of the subjects of these sections:
- The Hubble Law: What Does it Mean?
- The Law of Gravity
- The Horizon Problem
- Recession of the Moon (probably the most technical part of the book)
- Getting Around the Magnetic Field Evidence
- Magnetic Dynamo Versus Magnetic Decay
- Dr. Humphreys' Model of Planetary Magnetic Fields
- Where's the Antimatter?
- Extra-solar Planets
- What About UFOs?
- Internal Inconsistencies in Worldviews
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the book. It should serve as a great introductory book to this complex topic. I also loved the numerous pictures of the planets, galaxies, and nebulae. It seems as though the earlier reviewer who attacked this book had more of an axe to grind against young earth creationism instead of dealing with the content of the book.

When an astrophysicist with a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado at Boulder writes a scientific book that says that the universe is not billions of years old, people should take notice. This book makes a lot of sense. It is both scientific and practical. Every college student should buy a copy and it will help them understand the other side of the scientific puzzle and how it connects with theist ideas.

This is an excellent book that shows how the "heavens declare the glory of God". Written at a level easy for even young people to understand, it also includes in-depth scientific details for those interested in more technical details. The best book I have read on Creation Astronomy.

I liked the presentation style and content to briefly cover a complex topic. If you take the Bible literally as I do, you will like it. If you don't believe in a God or the Bible, you will not. Your choice.

The book is more of theology and philosophy of worldviews than science. The book has a lot of good graphics on high quality paper, but is down hill from there.

The obvious biggest hurdle for young earth creationist is the so-called starlight distance problem. The author states that there are several possible mechanisms and that they have been published elsewhere "so will not be repeated here." This casual dismissal is done without even a footnote referencing his best shot at a plausible explanation. There are plenty of references cited on lesser points. The author points out that the big bang theory has a problem with the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) - the horizontal problem as it is known. Wait a minute, is not the CMB one of the best pieces of empirical evidence in support the big band - a remnant of the after glow when the temperature dropped enough for protons to capture and hold onto electrons? Furthermore, there is no other physical explication for this pervasive radiation, which displays a perfect blackbody spectrum.

The author claims that spiral galaxies can not be billions of years old as they would now be too tightly wound up due to differential orbital rotation of their stars. In the 1970's Vera Rubin and Kent Ford using newly developed image intensifier techniques found that the stars, even in a galaxy's far periphery, orbited at nearly the same angular velocity. This finding has lead to the postulation of dark matter. Certainly an astrophysicist should be aware of this finding.

The bottom line is that this book is about bible worship and not science. This book does serve a useful purpose in illustrating why young earth creationism (creation science) should not be taught in public or private schools, as it is not science by any stretch of the imagination.

I couldn't figure out who the target audience for this book is. At times, it reads like it is aimed at bright high school students, and at other times, it gets fairly technical, at least in terminology. I also find that his writings are confused about whether they are aimed at Bible-believers, or at those who don't accept the Bible. There are beautiful photos of various celestial features, sometimes with explanations, sometimes not. The book itself is a work of art, which may be aesthetically pleasing, or not, with its layout and other aspects, but at times the background interferes with the readability of the text. I always cringe when I see pages with a black background, because I know if I touch them, I will leave a visible smudge mark, and I hate that! A few of the pages in this book were like that.

The substance of the book consists mainly of various examples of why the universe cannot be all that old. These examples are quite fascinating, and some of them definitely make a very old universe and a very old earth impossible. The organization of the material, however, is, to my mind, quite haphazard. It's almost as if it is really a collection of articles from a magazine, without this fact being admitted. I often found redundancies, and the issue of God would pop up unexpectedly, or not, and in general, I just found that the whole thing wasn't particularly coherent. The information in there is very, very important and should give anyone pause, and it's worth reading for the information, but don't expect to come away being satisfied that this book was written to be helpful to you as a particular reader. Like I said, I'm not sure who his target audience truly is. The organization of a coherent argument is this book's biggest lack. I hope the author will revise it with this in mind, and organize the material in a way that flows, in the future. I definitely feel the book has offered NO plan for taking back astronomy at all, and I think this needs to be addressed. Also, I feel rather strongly that it puts the cart before the horse. Taking back astronomy should be the goal, which means looking for truthful answers and conclusions. The appreciation of the existence of God will come naturally, if the focus is on evaluating the evidence ACCURATELY, and not on some other agenda. Restore the integrity of science. The rest of it will come. Three stars for useful and excellent information, but because of how disorganized it is, not my top rating.

Although this book be a starting point to the biblical view for the origin of the universe, it touches on the important issue of the secular scientific methodology, which is adapted to adjust models to naturalistic beliefs. Many current models based on naturalistic concept are really questionable, as shown by Jason Lisle. I loved this book also because this was the first I read in which uses a biblical vision to explain the universe around us consistently with current scientific evidence. So I recommend it to all who enjoy astronomy and to all who desire to know a world view that are in harmony with robust scientific evidence and the bible.

"Taking back Astronomy" is aptly named - this outlandish and hollow hermeneutic takes the science of Astronomy back in time to 1611 - the year Galileo faced the Inquisition for his Copernican views. Even by the shallow standards of junk "creation science" some of the assertions made in this book are simply astonishing. Claims conjured into existence ex nihilo include:

The Bible proclaims the conservation of mass and energy: "All things were made by him (John 1:3)," "And on the seventh day God ended his work (Genesis 2:2)," God is "upholding all things (Hebrews 1:3)," and "by him all things consist (Colossians 1:17)" - don't worry you have every right to be confused. Quote mining out of order sentence fragments hardly constitutes proof or even comprehensibility in this instance.

Entropy as a concept is first revealed to humanity in the Bible since heaven and earth "shall wax old like a garment (Isaiah 51:6)." This phrase occurs in several other biblical texts. As usual apologists blithely ignore context and the consequent meaning of the passage. Entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics remain centuries in the future.

Another instance of magical thinking also centers on the 2nd law of thermodynamics and can be paraphrased as follows: A tendency toward disorder must have existed from Creation since life is designed around this principle. Originally, entropy must have been balanced by God's organizing power so that there was no net decay before sin. At the fall, God removed some of his sustaining power, allowing the universe to decay beyond its original design. All creation now suffers under this bondage of corruption and awaits God's restoring power - no evidence or mechanism is offered to support these dubious claims - only a blatant "must have" assertion.

How could a Ph.D. in Astrophysics devolve into a pre-scientific shaman? It all comes down to misplaced faith and who signs the paycheck. The author, Jason Lisle, is an employee of Answers in Genesis (AiG), a credulous Young Earth Creationism disinformation clearinghouse. As such he has signed the following "Statement of Faith:"

BASICS ARTICLE 3: "The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe."

GENERAL ARTICLE 6: "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

This conceptual straightjacket routinely produces results that range from the mildly amusing to utterly ridiculous as noted above. Let's take a look about what the Bible really has to say about astronomy:

Celestial bodies are sentient beings and can be subjected to torture if they are disobedient: (Job 38:4-7, Revelation 9:1-2, Isaiah 14:11-15, Isaiah 24:3-6).

Did you know that the Earth can be moved by great violence (Jeremiah 49:21, Jeremiah 50:46, Isaiah 24:18-20, Job 9:6, Psalm 18:7)? But the Bible also claims that the Earth is immovable (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5).

The placement and shape of the Earth are also subjects addressed by biblical astronomy. The Earth either hangs upon nothing (Job 26:7) or is supported by pillars (Job 9:6, Samuel 2:8, Psalm 75:3). Of course the Earth is also flat (Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:11) and has four corners (Job 38:12-13, Revelation 7:1, Revelation 20:7-8, Isaiah 11:12). Our planet also features a bottomless barbeque pit (Revelation 9:1-11, Revelation 11:7, Revelation 20:1-3).

The firmament (heaven) is either a solid dome (Job 37:18) or like a tent (Isaiah 40:22, Psalm 104:2). It can be bent (2 Samuel 22:10) and opened (Ezekiel 1:1, Psalm 78:23-25, Mark 1:9-10, Matthew 3:13-16, John 1:47-51). A foundation of pillars is also provided for the firmament (Amos 9:5-6, Job 26:11, 2 Samuel 22:8). Finally the firmament is waterproof since it seperates the waters above from the waters below (Genesis 1:6-8).

Stars are just lights set in the firmament (Genesis 1:14-18) and will fall to Earth without engulfing it (Revelation 6:13, Revelation 12:3-4). Stellar dynamics and motion of stars around the Earth are also fully explained (Job 38:32-33, Isaiah 40:26). Other insightful facts are revealed - the Sun and the Moon also dwell in the firmament (Genesis 1:14-18), are stowed away after they set (Job 38:18-20, Psalm 19:1-6), and move around the Earth (Psalm 19:1-6, Joshua 10:12-13, and Ecclesiastes 1:5).

Lisle forgot an old but extremely relevant aphorism: the Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. He deliberately reads every biblical passage literally, except where he doesn't. He accepts the findings and language of modern science when the Bible stands mute, and dismisses the same scientific evidence whenever the Bible offers an unsubstantiated and unverifiable special revelation on any astronomical topic. Since Lisle is hired gun (small caliber at that) for AiG the following quote, with a modification (in parentheses), comes readily to mind:

You can't make somebody understand something if their salary (or faith) depends upon them not understanding it - Upton Sinclair.

A book written by an omniscient being (or the work under review that extensively cites a book supposedly written by one) should contain information about astronomy that, after two thousand years of continuous use, would still be the richest source of astronomical insight humanity has ever known. Instead, this book contains no credible discussion of astronomy and some obvious astronomical errors. The faithful, including Lisle, have found ways of rationalizing around this - but those rationalizations cannot conceal the obvious deficiency of the Bible as a source of astronomical insight. In fact, it does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the Bronze or Iron Age. This fact should deeply trouble Lisle and the "creation science" claque. Getting drunk on dogma is not a mitigating circumstance.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one" - George Bernard Shaw.