THE BOOK REVIEW EDITOR COMMENTS
Marlin Kreider, Book Review Editor
From: JASA 17 (March 1965): 30
This being the first edition in which I have actually edited the Book Review Section (I cannot claim the previous two listed under my name) I want to compliment the previous editor Walt Hearn for his indefatigability in enlarging this section and setting up guidelines and policies and finally for enlivening this section by his own viewpoints,These same general policies as outlined under Book Reviews in JASA 14(4) 1962 (Dec.); 15(4) 1963 (Dec.) will be followed until new and better ideas are forthcoming. Briefly, any book will be considered for review which deals directly with the encounter between science and Christian faith or that deals with current theological, social, ethical or educational problems about which every scientist who is a Christian should be thinking. The length of the average book review should be not more than 500 words. This will enable a coverage of more books in this section. However, occasionally a larger review will be accepted if it is of such vital interest and extensiveness to justify a more detailed coverage. The editor, with fresh memories of painful slashing and rewriting of his own articles by critical reviewers, hopes, in turn, to be merciful, realizing that there is more than one acceptable way of presenting a subject.
I may also make comments, as did the previous editor, which will likewise reflect my own bias and any unsigned material should be assumed to be of this origin.
Readers are cordially invited to send in names of books for review; volunteer to write a review; and give comments and criticisms so that this section may be most helpful and enjoyable.
Dying embers of The Genesis Flood fire are still around. Another criticism of previous criticisms has been received by the editor. Do you want it or have you had enough? This whole episode of criticism and countercriticism. has been very interesting and has reminded me: (1) that people do read this Book Review Section (2) that reviewers (also scientists in general) must he accurate and concise in their communications, and (3) that personal biases do influence the arrangement and interpretation of scientific information.
This article in my possession is from Dr. John N. Moore, Associate Professor, Dept. of Natural Science, Michigan State University, who has studied one of the references (Spieker, E.M., Bull. Am. Ass. Pet. Geol. 40:1769, 1956) used in The Genesis Flood which a former critic has accused as being "lifted out of context and misapplied." Dr. Moore supports the author's use of the reference to point out the weaknesses of the geological time scale and to show that there is no actually identifiable boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary. if you should like to keep the fire going and want to hear more of this review let the Book Review Editor hear from you.