What do you think?
Rate this book
The Battle for Creation: Acts / Facts / Impacts, Vol. 2
Book by Morris, Henry Madison
321 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1974
9 people want to read
About the author
Henry M. Morris
133 books66 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author with this name in the Goodreads database.
Henry M. Morris (1918–2006) was an American engineer and young Earth creationist, widely regarded as the father of modern creation science. He founded the Institute for Creation Research.
Not to be confused with his eldest son Henry M. Morris III.
Henry M. Morris (1918–2006) was an American engineer and young Earth creationist, widely regarded as the father of modern creation science. He founded the Institute for Creation Research.
Not to be confused with his eldest son Henry M. Morris III.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 19, 2025
THE FIRST COLLECTION OF ARTICLES FROM THE ICR’S ACTS/FACTS/IMPACTS PUBLICATION
The Introduction by Henry Morris to this 1974 book explains, “The I.C.R. monthly publication ACTS AND FACTS, together with the ‘Impact’ article enclosed with each issue, has truly been making an impact on many people… The ACTS AND FACTS is sent free-of-charge each month to all who request to be on our mailing list... Requests for back copies … are becoming more numerous… This book is a compilation of all these back issues, from the first one in June 1972, through ... December 1973. All the articles of continuing interest, especially each article in the ‘Impact’ Series, have been incorporated… The book, hopefully… will serve as a documentary on the creationist revival we believe our nation is beginning to experience… We anticipate that a similar compilation will be issued in book form annually in the future.”
An author observes, “No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial, and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people---until it is examined QUANTITATIVELY, that is!” (Pg. 6)
Another states, “the knowledge we have of the present ratios of radioactive isotopes and of their decay products tells us nothing about their original ratios, and, therefore, tell us nothing about the age of the rocks or of the earth. The present ratios of radioactive elements and of their decay products, we believe, are dependent on the original created state of the rocks and on geochemical and geophysical changes that have taken place since and, thus, have nothing to do with the age of the rocks.” (Pg. 43)
Harold S. Slusher wrote, “Harold F. Blum… points out that an increased time span for a biological system increases the probability of reaction equilibria being set up in the chain and does NOT increase the probability of improbable reaction products being formed. Time cannot supply what the evolutionist needs, even if it existed in the quantities he demands.” (Pg. 79)
He adds in another paper, “As comets travel around the sun, they are continually undergoing disintegration from gravitational and radiative effects of the sun and planets. This phenomenon may be taken as … [an] indication of young age of the solar system… The German astronomer, Swimme, estimates the maximum life of a short-period comet is 25,000 years. Lytlleton estimates that no short-period comet can survive longer than approximately 10,000 years… Calculation of a short life for comets has led to a number of hypotheses to explain away the obvious, that the Solar System is young.” (Pg. 83)
Henry M. Morris suggests, “civilizations existed before the Flood and … therefore men carried with them aspects of that common civilized knowledge as they gradually spread around the world from Mount Ararat… The rise of civilization in that region might be attributed to favorable physical and climatological conditions … However, there may be a more subtle correlation between the Bible and geography than this… since God intended for man to ‘fill the earth’ after the Flood (Gen 9:11)… wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that God had arranged for the ‘port of disembarkation’ to be located somewhere near the geographical center of the land which man was commanded to fill?” (Pg. 117) He adds later, “This particular research investigation was first proposed by Andrew J. Woods… The most significant conclusion, of course, is that the geographical center of the earth is indeed located in the so-called ‘Bible lands,’ as the Biblical and theological considerations discussed earlier would imply.” (Pg. 120)
In another paper, Morris asserts, “the Second Law [of Thermodynamics] proves, as certainly as science can prove anything, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of AVAILABLE energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy would have been progressively greater until, finally, we reach the beginning point, when available energy equalled total energy. Time could go back no further than this…. Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion… is that: ‘In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.’” (Pg. 127)
In another paper, Morris says that theistic evolution “is inconsistent with God’s methods… the idea of ‘survival of the fittest…. is flatly contradicted by the Biblical doctrine of love, of unselfish sacrifice, and of Christian charity. The God of the Bible is… not a God of confusion and cruelty.” (Pg. 141)
He turns to the ‘Day-Age’ theory, and argues: “The Hebrew word for ‘day’ is ‘yom,’ and this word can occasionally be used to mean an indefinite period of time, if the context warrants. In the overwhelming preonderance of its occurrences in the Old Testament, however, it means a literal day---that is, with an entire solar day or the daylight portion of a solar day… Not only is the day-age theory unacceptable Scripturally, but it is also grossly in conflict with the geological position with which it attempts to compromise. There are more than 20 serious contradictions between the Biblical order and events of the creative days and the standard geological history of the earth… But the most serious fallacy in the day-age theory is theological. It charges God with the direct responsibility for five billion years of history of purposelesness variations, accidental changes, evolutionary blind alleys, numerous misfits and extinctions, a cruel struggle for existence… rampant disease, disorder, and decay, and, above all, death. The Bible teaches that … God pronounced His whole creation to be ‘very good,’ in spite of all this.” (Pg. 143-144)
He continues, “The local flood theory is even less defensible. The entire Biblical account of the Flood is absurd if read in a local-flood context. For example, there was obviously no need for any kind of an ark if the flood was only a local flood… Furthermore, God’s promise never to send such a flood again, sealed with the continuing testimony of the rainbow, has been broken again and again if the Flood was only a local flood.” (Pg. 151)
Stuart E. Nevins argues, “The purpose of this paper is to examine erosion and sedimentation rates to see who has the better model for the world ocean… The present topographic continents above sea level have a volume of about 30.4 million cubic miles and a mass of about 383 million billion tons. If the present continents were eroded to sea level, about 383 million billion tons of sediment would be deposited on the ocean floor. This mass is a little less than half the mass of sediment present in today’s ocean. Stated another way, it would only take the erosion of twice our present continental mass to produce today’s mass of ocean sediments!” (Pg. 165-166)
He continues, “How long would it take to deposit the present thickness of sediments on the ocean floor assuming constant rate of erosion?… In only 30 million years ASSUMING constant rate of erosion all the ocean sediments could have accumulated. This age does not square with the over 1 billion year age assumed by evolutionary uniformitarian geologists.” (Pg. 169)
This book may appeal to some (non-technically-oriented) modern creationists.
The Introduction by Henry Morris to this 1974 book explains, “The I.C.R. monthly publication ACTS AND FACTS, together with the ‘Impact’ article enclosed with each issue, has truly been making an impact on many people… The ACTS AND FACTS is sent free-of-charge each month to all who request to be on our mailing list... Requests for back copies … are becoming more numerous… This book is a compilation of all these back issues, from the first one in June 1972, through ... December 1973. All the articles of continuing interest, especially each article in the ‘Impact’ Series, have been incorporated… The book, hopefully… will serve as a documentary on the creationist revival we believe our nation is beginning to experience… We anticipate that a similar compilation will be issued in book form annually in the future.”
An author observes, “No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial, and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people---until it is examined QUANTITATIVELY, that is!” (Pg. 6)
Another states, “the knowledge we have of the present ratios of radioactive isotopes and of their decay products tells us nothing about their original ratios, and, therefore, tell us nothing about the age of the rocks or of the earth. The present ratios of radioactive elements and of their decay products, we believe, are dependent on the original created state of the rocks and on geochemical and geophysical changes that have taken place since and, thus, have nothing to do with the age of the rocks.” (Pg. 43)
Harold S. Slusher wrote, “Harold F. Blum… points out that an increased time span for a biological system increases the probability of reaction equilibria being set up in the chain and does NOT increase the probability of improbable reaction products being formed. Time cannot supply what the evolutionist needs, even if it existed in the quantities he demands.” (Pg. 79)
He adds in another paper, “As comets travel around the sun, they are continually undergoing disintegration from gravitational and radiative effects of the sun and planets. This phenomenon may be taken as … [an] indication of young age of the solar system… The German astronomer, Swimme, estimates the maximum life of a short-period comet is 25,000 years. Lytlleton estimates that no short-period comet can survive longer than approximately 10,000 years… Calculation of a short life for comets has led to a number of hypotheses to explain away the obvious, that the Solar System is young.” (Pg. 83)
Henry M. Morris suggests, “civilizations existed before the Flood and … therefore men carried with them aspects of that common civilized knowledge as they gradually spread around the world from Mount Ararat… The rise of civilization in that region might be attributed to favorable physical and climatological conditions … However, there may be a more subtle correlation between the Bible and geography than this… since God intended for man to ‘fill the earth’ after the Flood (Gen 9:11)… wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that God had arranged for the ‘port of disembarkation’ to be located somewhere near the geographical center of the land which man was commanded to fill?” (Pg. 117) He adds later, “This particular research investigation was first proposed by Andrew J. Woods… The most significant conclusion, of course, is that the geographical center of the earth is indeed located in the so-called ‘Bible lands,’ as the Biblical and theological considerations discussed earlier would imply.” (Pg. 120)
In another paper, Morris asserts, “the Second Law [of Thermodynamics] proves, as certainly as science can prove anything, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of AVAILABLE energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy would have been progressively greater until, finally, we reach the beginning point, when available energy equalled total energy. Time could go back no further than this…. Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion… is that: ‘In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.’” (Pg. 127)
In another paper, Morris says that theistic evolution “is inconsistent with God’s methods… the idea of ‘survival of the fittest…. is flatly contradicted by the Biblical doctrine of love, of unselfish sacrifice, and of Christian charity. The God of the Bible is… not a God of confusion and cruelty.” (Pg. 141)
He turns to the ‘Day-Age’ theory, and argues: “The Hebrew word for ‘day’ is ‘yom,’ and this word can occasionally be used to mean an indefinite period of time, if the context warrants. In the overwhelming preonderance of its occurrences in the Old Testament, however, it means a literal day---that is, with an entire solar day or the daylight portion of a solar day… Not only is the day-age theory unacceptable Scripturally, but it is also grossly in conflict with the geological position with which it attempts to compromise. There are more than 20 serious contradictions between the Biblical order and events of the creative days and the standard geological history of the earth… But the most serious fallacy in the day-age theory is theological. It charges God with the direct responsibility for five billion years of history of purposelesness variations, accidental changes, evolutionary blind alleys, numerous misfits and extinctions, a cruel struggle for existence… rampant disease, disorder, and decay, and, above all, death. The Bible teaches that … God pronounced His whole creation to be ‘very good,’ in spite of all this.” (Pg. 143-144)
He continues, “The local flood theory is even less defensible. The entire Biblical account of the Flood is absurd if read in a local-flood context. For example, there was obviously no need for any kind of an ark if the flood was only a local flood… Furthermore, God’s promise never to send such a flood again, sealed with the continuing testimony of the rainbow, has been broken again and again if the Flood was only a local flood.” (Pg. 151)
Stuart E. Nevins argues, “The purpose of this paper is to examine erosion and sedimentation rates to see who has the better model for the world ocean… The present topographic continents above sea level have a volume of about 30.4 million cubic miles and a mass of about 383 million billion tons. If the present continents were eroded to sea level, about 383 million billion tons of sediment would be deposited on the ocean floor. This mass is a little less than half the mass of sediment present in today’s ocean. Stated another way, it would only take the erosion of twice our present continental mass to produce today’s mass of ocean sediments!” (Pg. 165-166)
He continues, “How long would it take to deposit the present thickness of sediments on the ocean floor assuming constant rate of erosion?… In only 30 million years ASSUMING constant rate of erosion all the ocean sediments could have accumulated. This age does not square with the over 1 billion year age assumed by evolutionary uniformitarian geologists.” (Pg. 169)
This book may appeal to some (non-technically-oriented) modern creationists.
Displaying 1 of 1 review