This is the one volume of the three by Francis Jehl that describes the most important historical events in Edison'sareer.

This book is good for those who want to learn about genetics without reading a tedious, text-ridden book. The diagrams are simple enough to understand without being too involved. The text, usually complete, lacks in some areas. That's why I rated it a "4" instead of "5". I would recommend this book for graduate students in the "Biomedical sciences" and also dedicated medical students want a strong background in genetics.

This book contains the two lives of Saint Francis as written by Thomas of Celano. The two lives were written within twenty years following the death of Saint Francis and so represent a first-hand account of the his life written by one of his early followers. The translation of the original latin was done by a Franciscan, Placid Hermann. This is necessary reading if you are seriously studying his life.

St. Francis is someone everyone should know. He is a great mystic and peaceful saint and person. So get this great book if you haven't read about St. Francis.

This book is as true as St. Bonaventure's original book but so much more readable. The book stays true to the life of St. Francis and therefore, it is a great and enjoyable read.

The author writes of Francis's history, journeys, miracles, preaching, meditation, stigmata and death. The book is very readable and full of postscripts and notes to support the historical truth of St. Francis's life.

I rated this book 4 stars because it is not complete without another very unique book titled "Simple Peace : The Spiritual Life of St. Francis of Assisi". But, Simple Peace is not complete unless you read a historical account like this book, so read Thomas Celeno's book first, then search for Simple Peace.

Morris fails from the start since he grossly misunderstands Schaeffer's apologetics and presuppositionalism in general. I was surprised at this, since I have read other works by Morris, and they were decent. But as for this book, it is completely useless other than to illustrate how some people may misread Christian literature.

Morris' work is an excellent detail of weaknesses in Schaeffer's reasoning. This will help anyone get a grasp of the basic philosophical problems with some simple proofs for the existence of God. Morris' scholarly journey has not ventured into the realm of proofs for the existence of God. "Coherence" seems the place to be. I agree. Without a coherent conception of a personal God and humans, there's no reason to believe. Those who bury their heads in the Westminster catechism and fail to understand the basic problems of philosophy will continue to make over-reaching, and sometimes ridiculous, claims.

The demands of a sound metaphysics require one to follow where reason leads. Yes, presuppositions are the starting point belief about reality, but without adequacy, consistency, coherence, and applicability, irrationality or silence is the only option.

Schaeffer was too confident in his own argumentation and didn't take enough time to examine sophisticated criticism. He also did not have the pleasure to enjoy the last twenty years of the wonderful work in the Philosophy of Religion.

Civilization needs evidence and logical argumentation. When people have no understanding of the demands of a rational metaphysical system, people like Depak Chopra and John Calvin, we are left with crazy world views. Morris shows clearly how Schaeffer claimed too much in his apologetics. And this is what makes Morris so good-he sticks with the rational criteria. His argument in another text about reason and God's knowledge of the future is superb.

Determinism aside, a good starting point in metaphysics is the great recent work by Frederick Ferré, "Being and Value: Toward Constructive Postmodern Metaphysics."

Morris here presents an incisive critique of Schaeffer's apologetic -- both its method and its content. He begins with an examination of Schaeffer's presuppositional approach, which manifested itself in three major arguments for Christian theism: the Metaphysical, Epistemological, and Moral Arguments. The metaphysical argument proceeds along the lines of the classical cosmological and teleological arguments. In order to explain the reality of human personality - the mannishness of man, as Schaeffer put it - we must posit the existence of an ultimate personality. Likewise, to preserve the existence of cause and effect relationships, we must presuppose the existence of an ultimate rationality. Christian theism provides for both of these basic needs with its claim for the existence of an ultimate infinite-personal-rational God.

The epistemological argument attempts to show the usefulness of Christianity in explaining both the knowing subject and the known object, as well as ascribing meaning to human existence. Antitheistic thought is unable to provide a way to distinguish between reality and fantasy, a failing due to its lack of a basis for truth. If all thought is the result of the random movements of atoms or basic particles, then one thought can be no truer than another. Naturalism also cannot provide any guarantee for the reality of extramental existence. All these problems, asserts Schaeffer, spring from the starting point of rationalistic autonomy, a presupposition that excludes divine revelation. From the autonomous starting point, one can speak only of phenomena and never of noumena. Man cannot know the thing in itself. Naturalism is the result and man is plunged below the line of despair, unable to explain the meaning that he feels compelled to ascribe to his life. Starting from the Reformation axiom of divine revelation - He is there and He is not silent - man is justified in attributing an ultimate purpose to his life, he has a basis for distinguishing truth from falsehood, and he is able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy.

The moral argument undertakes to explain the reality of and justification for human moral judgments. Moral judgments are foundational to human society and inescapable - even atheists think it is wrong not to believe atheism. The impersonal starting point of naturalism, however, cannot provide a basis for making moral judgments. If man is but a collocation of atoms, then the rearrangement of these atoms - sometimes call murder - cannot be considered wrong. Cruelty becomes a meaningless term. Man cannot live devoid of morality or a moral sense, so he creates one. But all humanly manufactured systems of morality fall short of satisfying human longing for absolute, transcendent moral standards. Christianity, on the other hand, does provide such a foundation in the infinite-personal God and his commands. Only the Christian presupposition can explain man's awareness of moral standards and his current inability to abide by them.

Morris critique consists of five major points. First, Morris contends that Schaeffer fails to recognize the importance of predispositions in addition to presuppositions. Predispositions are non-propositional orientations such as likes and dislikes, cultural factors, and the aggregate of experiences of life. By ignoring predispositions, Schaeffer treats the unbeliever as a completely rational being who rationally deduces propositions from axioms and realizes all the implications of his beliefs. But humans are not like this. Second, Schaeffer claims too much for his arguments. If valid, then at best they prove some kind of immaterial, personal being, but not the Trinitarian, incarnational God of the Bible, and in no way do they prove the reliability of the Scriptures or other fundamental beliefs of Christianity. Third, Schaeffer impugns modern irrationalists like Kierkegaard and Sartre for taking a leap of faith in order to cross the line of despair. But, Morris points out, Schaeffer takes the leap of faith at the beginning of his endeavor. Presuppositions are nonlogical beliefs in that they have no basis, but are themselves the basis for all other beliefs. Therefore, everyone takes some kind of nonlogical leap of faith. Certainty is a chimera. Fourth, Schaeffer presents his arguments as conclusive. He acts as though they really prove Christianity. But in reality all he has done, if his arguments are correct, is to disprove naturalism. This "indirect proof" of Christianity is no proof at all.

If we cannot prove Christianity, if presuppositions and predispositions are intractable, as Morris seems to indicate, then what is the use of apologetics? Is it not a futile endeavor? In Part 2 of his book, Morris addresses these concerns. He concludes that apologetics is indeed futile - apart from the grace and work of the Holy Spirit on the heart of the unbeliever. As with the proclamation of the Gospel, the Christian's witness is never efficacious unless the Holy Spirit empowers it.

Morris also addresses the question of presuppositionalism vs. evidentialism. He believes that presuppositionalism is a valid, indeed necessary, approach in confrontation with atheistic thought, but that evidentialism serves its purpose in dialogue with other theistic systems.

I heartily recommend this insightful evaluation of Schaffer's thought to anyone interested in apologetics and apologetical method. Morris presents a readable and organized account of Schaeffer's strengths and weaknesses. I have but a few reservations. First, Morris criticizes Schaeffer for the imprecision and incompleteness of his arguments. I believe this is a result of Morris' background in analytic philosophy. He wants every premise to be explicit and every argument to be detailed and exact. But to expect this from the man of L'Abri is to misunderstand Schaeffer's role. Schaeffer was primarily an evangelist and thus his style is more that of a propagandist (in the best sense of the word) than a trained philosopher.

My second disagreement with Morris centers on his endorsement of Schaeffer's use of hypothesis in apologetics. It seems to me that the very notion of hypothesis is the product of the Enlightenment mentality which both Morris and Schaeffer were trying to overturn. It calls to mind the idea of the objective, neutral, presuppositionless man choosing a worldview. But it never happens like that. Presuppositionalists say that starting points are chosen, not proved. But we must take it one step farther. We say that starting points are given not chosen. No man who adheres to naturalistic presuppositions is able to choose a Christian worldview. The fundamental desires and values of Christians are at variance with those of atheists. How then does the gestalt switch from naturalism to Christianity take place, since no piece of evidence or even logical argumentation can effect it? The answer is that the Holy Spirit regenerates the heart of the unbeliever, reshaping the values and desires, and providing him with an entirely new worldview and set of predispositions.

Third, and related to my second criticism, is Morris' use of the concept of probability. He seems to think that probability is a useful tool in apologetic argumentation, but fails to realize the way this compromises the nature of Christian doctrine. Starting points, by their very nature, cannot be ascribed a degree of probability. They are themselves the measurement, basis, and standard for determining probability. If the existence of God and the inspiration of the Scriptures are the starting points of Christianity, as I believe they must be, then they admit of no probability. They must be argued for presuppositionally, not evidentially.

In toto, though, Morris' critique is an excellent read, a good summary of Schaeffer's thought, and an enlightening examination of apologetic methodology.

This book is puzzling. It's a contorted read that breathes platitude after platitude, but does more to demonstrate how to write obscurely than with clarity. At first, I thought the book was a satire, deliberatly using ambiguity, the absence of punctuation, and the lack of clarity to make its points. But, that's clearly not the case. The authors seriously believe they are about making "truth" clearer, but then fail to make a single argument to support any of its propositions. This is one of the worst books on style and clarity I've seen. Not only is it superficial, but its grammatical and syntactical mistakes are glaring. Do the authors know anything of punctuation? IF they do, they don't show it.

This book is unique in a useful and interesting way. I agree with the negative reviews, to the extent that the book's structure as a 'useage' description was more confusing than it needed to have been. And I agree with the positive reviews, to the extent that I also recognize the philosophical issues within forceful, memorable prose. Since few other books, and virtually no intellectual traditions, look at the issues involved here, the strengths of the book are more important than the failings within the structure and the rhetoric.
One can especially see that the authors are doing something very unusual when reading their discussions of Descartes. Most intellectual traditions and institutions prattle on about 'Descartes' Error'. In fact, criticism of Descartes is so common, I would suspect that there is a book on aerobics that is built around a criticism of Descartes. The error discussed is the way in which Descartes understood and located the certainty of objective knowledge. Certainly many of our worst problems derive from intellectual traditions that rely on Descartes' error--though it is always a question of the level of culpability, regarding Descartes and his users. This book asserts that Descartes' writing style exemplified an understanding that 'truth can only be understood within the context of the speaker and audience'. Descartes' Error ostensibly springs from NOT understanding this. The authors have strong evidence, and while I'm not necessarily convinced, at least they are swimming against the current in a way that abjurs glibness and rejects mainstream intellectual glibness.
Also worthy of praise is that the authors identify, describe and discuss at length the nature of classic prose vis-a-vis the nature of all prose. They are almost hyper-aware of the fact that classic prose can only say things in a very limited way, and that classic prose is not the only--and not certainly even the best--way to be eloquent. I'll certainly give a chance to anyone aware of the holes in their perspective, and I think it is worth it for others to give them a chance too.
The one concern is that the limits of classic prose becomes an excuse for the problems that arise from it. But a more positive view of relativism is fine here, because errors here are often benign, often recognized and addressed, and usually quickly and persuasively identified for the ignorant. I won't pull down an idea that can be exploited by scoundrels no more easily than a typical idea or view. Maybe, though, there isn't enough time in the book to the limits of classic prose made clear by the use of the word 'classic'--i.e., that ideas outside the 'classical' mainstream or the everyday mainstream can't be integrated into classic prose, or proven to be worthy of inclusion in the 'classics' through a defense written in classical prose. For example, I could never say 'classically', "Each man faces his culture as Winston Smith or Winston Rodney," because the eloquence of the statement can't make people more familiar with reggae music, and if you don't know much about reggae, Rastafarianism, or the artist Burning Spear (Christian name: Winston Rodney), then you can't understand or recognize the eloquence or cleverness or usefulness of the equation. Orwell's 1984, though, is almost too 'classically' prominent. How then do we expand the classics?

Contrary to other reviewers, I have found this book wonderfully useful. It was not written as a how-to book, but the style -- indeed the whole philosophy that the truth is both pure and simple -- is refreshing and enticing. While Oscar Wilde didn't believe it, neither did he believe half of what he himself said.

The writing is clear and pure. Classic style does not portend to talk down to the reader, but assumes that she is capable of understanding the concepts presented. It is a style to intelligently present information and ideas for the consumption of the intelligent. And, as the authors rightly point out, there are frequently other styles appropriate for other things. Unlike other books about writing style (the best of which is perhaps Williams' "Style"), this book does not give rules or advice, but simply observes and inspires.

To me, this book is the prosaic equivalent of Edward Tufte's books on visual design (and Robert Bringhurst on typography). I re-read these books regularly, and try to follow their intelligent examples.

This Book begins using something called horizontial statments and then in chapter 5 switches to regular T accounts thus confusing students completely, I have yet to find a student that tells me the book is easy to understand or useful. It would be helpful if there was a solutions manual. Our school will change books next semester. It's not even good enough to make dorm furniture.

I've read the reviews stating that this is a confusing book. I disagree completely. Although the author does not immediately delve into traditional T-accounts, the introduction of the "horizontal model" serves as a good foundation for building the awareness of the accounting equation that should be second nature BEFORE tackling T-accounts. The text's preface states: "A horizontal financial statements model replaces the accounting equation as the predominant teaching platform. The model enables students to VISUALIZE THE SIMULTANEOUS EFFECTS OF A SINGLE BUSINESS EVENT on the income statement, balance sheet, and statement of cash flows." I felt as though this methodology was very effective for my learning style. Recording transactions in T-accounts came almost as second nature after mastering the horizontal model.

The "Working Papers" (a separate workbook) makes doing the assigned problems easy by providing a ready-made template for each problem. If you've had to draw your own T-accounts or your own journal in a notebook before, you will definitely appreciate this.

This text serves as a good introduction to the skills necessary to master financial accounting.

This book is an excellent book to go with a Financial Accounting course. Everything is laid out in plain English, and shows you in diagrams and models exactly how each kind of transaction works. I recommend for professors everywhere to adopt this book for their clases. I'm glad mine did!

Too vague and general for someone using the book to use as a reference. Does not go into a lot of key points you actually use on patrol. Also, tends to make remarks that do not reflect the reality of todays police work. The author seems out of touch with policing today.

I had to read this book for a promotional examination and found it to be a good refresher of the very basic points that we all learned at the beginning of our police careers. When I am approached by someone who is not yet in police work and wants to read a good, simply written and understandable book on law enforcement, I always recommend this one. It may seem to be too basic for those of us in this field for the years I have served, but many areas are still very relevant.