This book is used as the primary text in my university's introductory Philosophy course, and I think it's an excellent choice. It includes classic texts written by well-known philosophers and the writings of scientists, novelists, religious figures and many others. The inclusion of philosophical writings from such unlikely sources is a great illustration of how philosophy is woven into all aspects of our lives. Reading this book will help you to realize how many philosophical issues you already deal with in your own life and will also help you to find new ways of thinking about and dealing with them.

I ordered this book as a requirement from a great professor during college. Having only read just more than a handful of chapters in that semester I became hooked. I have since moved on and really started to appreciate the ultimate questions of life. Not that this book answers them. That is still the uniqueness of humanity, individual thought. I would highly recommend this to anyone wanting to be a better skeptic. We so readily just accept things that our ancestors accepted without a thought as to how reality really is. The wide array of topics is to be applauded and a great concept to take a look at may arenas of thought. Thank you professor Buenter(Binter).

This is a really good book. It really shows the bacics of philosophy. When i came home i have been wanting to read the rest of the book badly.

The Genesis Debate allows 3 pairs of scholarly authors to present (and dialog on) the 3 most widespread evangelical interpretations of the creation days. The presented views are the 24-Hour (young earth created in 144 consecutive hours), Day-Age (old earth created over 6 extended periods of time), and Framework (Genesis 1 is a literary expression of actual non-sequential creation events at some unknown time in history). The book format allowed each team to present their view, the other 2 teams respond to that presentation, and then the view presenter responds to the responses. This back and forth format was better than many similar multi-view books.

Norman Geisler gives a very wise forward to the book. He states that "the creation-day debate is not over the inspiration of the Bible, but over it's interpretation...no one holding any of the views should be charged with unorthodoxy for the position he espouses in this volume...the Church needs to shift its focus to the real enemy - evolutionism - not to other forms of creationism that remain true to the historicity of the events recorded in Genesis". I think all believers involved in these discussions would be wise to heed Dr. Geislers advice and lower the intensity and frequency of their attacking of one another.

The 24-Hour view based their arguments primarily on tradition. They went to great lengths to show how most interpreters in the early history of the church (pre-1800) held a view similar to theirs. They also presented a bible overview of various verses that speak of creation. The main weaknesses (pointed out by the other scholars) of their presentation is that tradition has been wrong in the history of the church. While tradition is important, if evangelicals/protestants thought it was the ultimate authority then the reformation would never have occurred. The second weakness of their presentation was that their Bible overview had virtually nothing that contradicted the other two views. The verses basically all supported the concept that God performed special creation (something the other two views agree with).

The Day-Age view based most of their arguments on how well scientific discoveries correlate with the sequence of events in Genesis 1. The science presented was very convincing. Unfortunately, neither of the other 2 teams had the knowledge or inclination to dialog on any of those issues (other than a few feeble attempts to instill doubt in the scientific evidence). Perhaps another book where the 24-hour vs. Day-Age view, focussing primarily on scientific evidence, would be good. Another major facet of this presentation was to show how various Hebrew words have multiple meanings (e.g. yom - 24-hours, daylight period, or unknown period of time). There was some good dialog, especially between the Framework and Day-Age teams, on these lexical type issues.

The Framework view (surprising to myself) was actually the most interesting. They went into great depth of exegesis on Genesis 1 and several other creation related passages. Though I'd not seriously studied this view before, I found myself more persuaded by their presentation than either of the other two (though I wasn't convinced, I was persuaded to consider this a viable and legitimate option). Interestingly, Framework holders can believe in either a young earth or an old earth, since (as they interpret) the issue of "when" in creation really isn't covered in the text.

Overall, this was a good book. I wouldn't recommend it to someone new to this topic (as some level of previous knowledge is required to follow parts of the presentations), but for someone wanting to expand their understanding of the issues and read a relatively polite dialog on an often heated issue this is about the best book I've come across.

In getting two Young-Earth proponents to debate their ideas in a civilized format with proponents of other views, the editors of this volume have more than earned their 5 stars (I'd give them six if six were an option). Young Earth'ers are vociferous dogmatics who routinely castigate other believers as heretics for not subscribing wholeheartedly to their particular interpretation of Genesis - in arranging for a fair debate between Young Earth creationists and other scholars, this book reveals how Biblically hollow and unsatisfying Y.E. arguments really are. I was literally shocked to the point of revulsion at how weak YEC theories are - all the YEC team did was assert that ALL prescientific Biblical commentators (Calvin, Luther, various church fathers) believed that the Earth was 6,000 years old and that anyone with another view was a liberal-compromiser with evil "science." The YEC team's assertation that all pre-1800 Christians believed in a young earth was quickly shown to be false (although the YECs refused to accept the truthfulness of the Old Earth team's quotes!), and the YEC team was unable or unwilling to interact with or deal with the scientific evidence or the Biblical evidence. I came away from the YEC essays with a profound feeling of disgust at how so many Christians can be seduced by this blatantly false ideology.

But the book does one better: rather than casting the debate as strictly old earth vs. young earth, the book gets to the heart of the problem: how is the Bible rightly interpreted? Proponents of the Framework theory point out that the Bible is a literary account of creation, not a scientific one, and debates about how old the earth is may be scientifically interesting, but they simply aren't Biblically relevant. The Bible doesn't tell us how old the Earth is - it tells us that God created us in his image to love and know him, and man is lost because of disobedience.

I was raised, like many, to believe in Creation Science, but immediately I was unconfortmable with the position. The old-earth or "Day-Age" theory appealed to me, but I never felt that theory was 100% right. I am not a scientist, and I cannot debate the fine points of geology or chemistry. I do, however, have a degree in literature and an advanced degree in Writing. When I applied the techniques of my own discpline to Genesis, I arrived at the Framework view. The Genesis story has plain symbolic elements (e.g., the Snake), and from a literary standpoint, it's a parable. It is not against a "literal" interpretation of the Bible to say that a portion of the Bible with obvious symbolic elements is, well, symbolic. Even the most literalistic among us routinely recognizes this quality in other portions of Scripture, and even within Genesis 1 itself. (Relatively few people will argue that man really fell simply due to a talking snake...particularly since the Bible later informs us that the Snake was a symbol of Satan.) I'm glad that my insight was not an aberration, and that this view point is in the ascendency. I greatly respect Hugh Ross and other old earth creationists, but even their reasonable attempts to reconcile a literalistic reading of Genesis with modern cosmology, while a vast improvement over YEC theories, aren't really faithful to the Bible's own character. I work with engineers, and I know that scientific people are often very literal in their mindset and aren't the best people to interpret a poetic text. English majors are the ones who really have the goods on Genesis 1, and debates on the earth's age belong wholly outside any discussion about the meaning of Genesis 1.

Critique:

Each of the three pairs of authors have contributed something vital to the Genesis 1 discussion for which they should be commended and thanked for their time and effort. Duncan and Hall have rightly reminded the reader of the dangers that conformity to the present age presents to every generation. Their appeal to past interpreters further reminds us of the dangers of "novel" thinking and the importance of an orthodox consensus. Ross and Archer bring with them an arsenal of scientific understanding that has been used by the unbelieving community to attack the Bible and have sought to use it in support the Bible. They have found no reason to reject the Bible in the name of science. Their efforts affirm that the Bible can be reasonably interpreted without compromising inerrancy or a critically scientific mind. Irons and Kline offer a strongly textual argument reminding the reader that the Genesis 1 text had and has primarily a theological and a literary meaning. By offering an exegetical and theological argument that leaves ample room for secondary apologetic considerations.

Of the three arguments presented, the strongest by far is the framework view. Irons and Kline have put together an impressive work of exegesis and theological erudition that places the biblical text in its proper place without snubbing a literal treatment of the text or sidelining the concerns of science. On the other hand, Duncan and Hall do not present a unified and exegetically convincing argument. Too much rests upon the lexical use of a single word divorced from a broader context. Ross and Archer similarly offer a minimal amount of exegetical work and only that for which accommodates their pre-commitment to make science fit the textual data.

Presuppositions become clear in this discussion. The 24-hour view and the day-age view appear to come to the text with a strong commitment to something other than letting the text speak for itself. Duncan and Hall even chide Irons' and Kline's work for doing this. Yet the chiding reveals that they themselves have not done this. Duncan and Hall are set against a conformist's view and see anything less than a belief in their view as a compromise to worldliness. But the accusation only stands if the biblical text demonstrates their view convicingly. And while in actuality it might, it does not in their presentation. Their constant appeal to church tradition rather than a fully orbed exegesis appears to show a failing in their argumentation. Other voices have to shore up where textual evidence has fallen short.

Ross and Archer show a pre-commitment even more strongly than Duncan and Hall. They are unabashed about their belief in certain facts of science as irrefutable, requiring the text to accommodate for them. They assert that general revelation ought to share a proper place alongside special revelation. But in practice, it seems that general revelation is taken as "fact" whereas special revelation is subject to interpretation and is more subjective, thus the Bible can bend in places where its strict literalness can be questioned. Here Ross and Archer have not demonstrated the awareness that science is just as subjective and involving interpretation as biblical exegesis. Not only are the scientific "facts" today often overthrown or changed tomorrow, but most importantly, while the "facts" do not lie, the way they are interpreted, handled, systematized, and shown in relation to other facts (which cannot be avoided in any knowledge-based inquiry) is absolutely a matter of interpretation. The most recent hermeneutical discussions have not only crossed philosophy, theology and linguistics but are now branching into the realm of science which is beginning to see that it, indeed, involves interpretations of facts and the use of models to generate systems of knowledge. Ross and Archer seem to take the "facts" of science too much for granted, not allowing for immense complexity involved in moving from observation of phenomena, to understanding of said phenomena, to extrapolation of said phenomena from present observation to past reality, and then to abstract principles that govern theological issues such as creation. Each of these steps involve many levels of interpretation, especially since no one ever has "all the facts" even in scientific inquiry.

Hence, the approach of Irons and Kline not only takes us back to the proper focus-- the text-- but also to the proper focus of the text which is theological and practical issues. Since it is a theological conclusion we are attempting to reach, priority is placed rightly by Irons and Kline in the exegesis of the text rather than upon science or an appeal to a single lexical term or to church history. Duncan and Hall claim that when all is said and done the 24-hour view will stand when science and novel interpretations have fallen away. What is more accurate is that the Biblical teachings will endure when all else has fallen away, and Duncan and Hall have asserted more than successfully argued that their interpretation is the correct one. Irons and Kline have presented a more biblically convincing argument and have used their space in their essay to argue the text of Genesis 1.

Overall, the book was interesting, readable, and helpful in understanding three of the major views on the debate. I commend and recommend it highly.

The first time I read this book I was 14 yrs. old and I was living in Logan WV., about 30 miles from Crum, WV. That was in 1985. I fell in love with the book immediately and read it all the way through. There were times when I cried and times I laughed so hard I couldn't stand it and much of the time I felt like he was telling my story and talking about my feelings and experiences. I have let about half a dozen people read my copy and it's getting pretty ragged. Lee Maynard, I don't know how you did it but you have written the best book I have ever read, next to the bible of course. Man, you're up there with Twain. Thank you so much.

I know it sounds kind of stupid, but this is really the best book I've ever read. And I've read quite a lot books in my life. I was fascinated by the persons in Crum, and the town kind of reminds me a bit of my homeplace here in Norway. Keep up the good work Lee, Maynard and Amazon.com!!!!

A hilarious, bittersweet saga of growing up in hardcore West Virginia. Crum isn't in the gentle mountains those of us who live here love, but a played-out, bleak wasteland locked in the heart of what used to be productive coal country. It is the dark West Virginia whose existence we like to deny. In Lee Maynard's Crum, the high school is the single bastion of hope and the single hope for living well is to get out of Crum. I first visited Crum a few weeks ago and began longing for my longlost copy of the book, first read, then read aloud to friends, then loaned away. The meatwagon chapter ranks as great American literature and I can't think why I've never seen it in an anthology. Would that another printing came about...

I thought this book would be very funny. It was in parts but I got bored with it very quickly. I liked the idea of a romance with a djinn(genie) but I just didn't think the characters were very interesting. I would have liked to have read more about the djinn Jim. About his past assignments, what life is like as a djinn when he's not granting wishes. It seemed to focus more on the heroine, Meredith and her career. I would have liked to see him do a bit more mischief that he seemed to imply was the way of the djinn. I just wish, sorry about the pun, that this story had had more substance and that I hadn't gotten bored with it so soon.

Meredith's Wish, by new romance author Karen Lee, did something many books by seasoned authors have failed to do in recent months: entertain me. In a genre currently over saturated with interchangeable suspense laden plots and annoying or boring characters Meredith's Wish was a welcome breath of fresh air.

Meredith is a hard working young woman hell-bent on attaining a vice presidency position. She figures she has the promotion nailed but her boss has other ideas and decides to have a little fun by turning the job opportunity into a contest. Now she has to play beat-the-clock with her rival and secure a contract from an eccentric client who will only deal with married woman. The trouble is, Meredith is as single as they come with no prospects in sight. Frustrated beyond belief she weeps into her cell phone and, handily, out pops a hunky genie to answer all of her prayers.

Okay, so I never said this was a realistic story, did I?

Jim has been a naughty genie and has only thirty days to prove to the Chairmen of the Genie Board that he is a useful addition to genie society. Meredith is his final task and if he fails to grant her heart's desire he will cease to exist. Her wish to find true love is, unfortunately, one of two that he is unable to grant so he is forced to improvise. And his improvisation results in some very hilarious situations and blind dates.

Personally, I'm bone tired of grumpy, bossy, brooding heroes. I can't stand 'em in real life and am finding them terribly difficult to stomach in my pleasure reading. Jim, much to my relief, turned out to be quite the opposite of the typical romance hero. He's fun-loving, lives to create mischief and has a terrific sense of humor. He never takes himself seriously and perfectly complements practical and workaholic Meredith.

Meredith's Wish is cute but never cloying and single-handedly pulled me out of a depressingly long "bad book" slump. It's not a perfect book though. The conflict is as light as they come and, as a result, the story loses momentum at the midway mark. Still, this weakness is easy to overlook because of the good humored hero and the sense of fun that permeates the story.

I can easily recommend this to any romance reader tired of the same old stale story-lines overcrowding most bookstores. Karen Lee is an author with a fresh new voice who clearly knows that romance can be sexy and fun. Ahhh, if only all debuts were this charming!

Meredith is determined to win the vice-presidency of her company. Help is on the way in the form of a handsome djinn(genie) named Jim! However, Jim's career as a djinn is in danger, and he's determined to grant Meredith's wishes to save his djinn status, that is until she wishes for true love!
Jim is falling for Meredith too, and he knows it's impossible for their love to develop since he's not human! Karen Lee spins a tale that'll keep you turning the pages!