Starlight and Time---question that must be answered

Hi all,Dr. Russell Humphreys’ book has been out for some 8 years, if I am not quite mistaken.I wonder what has been the reaction of the academic world till now. I am aware only of the comments by Samuel N. Corner and Don N. Page as well as Dr. Hugh Ross. All those comments were highly unfavorable of Russell Humphreys’ book.I wonder if there were any other academic comments on the book? I have an impression that the book caused some struggle between the Old Earth and Young Earth creationists but the majority of physicists and astronomers didn’t even notice it. Is this impression correct?

Brad,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
A, I havent tried to research this but when "Mere Creation" came out, I bought it and tried to read Ross himself but unlike my experience with Humphreys this was *not* the same pleasent experience. If ICR backs up some creationist then I have in these cases never been dissatisfied when I finally get/got around to putting my mind to the thoughts within the "promotion". I was also not satisfied with the way that I heard Ross come across the "air-waves" from Janet Partial's American Station on Earth but then that was before I compared Janet to the BAD GIRLS of the Bible (to whom I jocularly refer GOOD DAY LIVE Dorthoy and ZoloffCanadaGirl-Jill (both claimed "Catholic") which came on at the same time recently.

---

Hmmm I would say, Brad, that reading Isaac Asimov’s stories is even more pleasant.However the question remains: did the mainstream physicists and astronomers even notice Humphreys’s book and regard it as science, not science fiction?