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.

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.

The author is concerned with somehow creating connections to the world of humanistic interpretations of international relations and voyaging between these various interpretations and the more formal interpretations of logical and economic analysis. The collection of essays in this book is a republication of Alker's previously published articles.

The book makes plain things confusing, which is, I guess, how you become an illustrious academic in the dark forest of irrelevance and obfuscation that some social sciences have become. For example, the Milean dialogue from a well-known book by Thucydides is converted from its plain meaning that "might makes right" into a pretentious quasi-logical puzzle full of some portentous "humanistic" meaning.

Much of the book is unreadable. And all of it is irrelevant for understanding what is going on in world politics. In reality, the author moved from MIT to Santa Monica; and intellectually he moved from abstract econometrics (which has little to do with the way the real economy works) to abstract analysis of "humanistic" doctrines (which are completely irrelevant in the real world of politics). This book gives you a sanitized world of concepts that cannot be applied to reality. In fact, there is no reality here. The author worries about things that do not exist in the real world.

He is (pathetically) trying to get some mileage out of attacking Ronald Reagan for calling nuclear-tipped missiles "peace keepers." Am I the only Danish storyteller who sees that the emperor's new clothes still leave him naked? How can one fail to recognize a typical, stereotypical, hackneyed liberal attack under a highfalutin veil of "narrative" analysis, or some other such ruse?

This book shows just how much out of touch the upper echelon of power within the profession has become.

I was very excited to see a new book coming out on this great actress. When I saw the price I thought it was probably a large coffee table book with a lot of big color photos of Miss Hayward inside. I knew something was amiss when I saw the size of the box it came in and how light it was when I picked it up. Inside was a very small hardcover book with reviews of her films inside and a very small commentary on her personal life. Interspersed were small black & white photos from her films. Only 174 pages, followed by index and research notes. I paid [money]for this!! Where did they come up with this price? There is no price listed anywhere on the book. I feel very ripped off. Don't make the same mistake as me.