CREATIONISM: BAD SCIENCE; WRONG RELIGION
From N. F. Gier, God, Reason, and the Evangelicals (University Press of America, 1987), chapter 14.
Copyright held by author
Has no one explained to you...that one can as little compare the biblical creation story and a scientific theory...as one can compare, shall we say, an organ and a vacuum cleaner....?
--Karl Barth
It is better to believe in the revealed Word of God than any science or philosophy devised by man.
--Henry M. Morris
The real issue is not the correctness of the interpretation of various details of the geological data, but simply what God has revealed in His Word concerning these matters.
--Morris and John C. Whitcomb
The Bible must sit in judgment on science....Metaphysics belongs to those who start with Scripture....and the integrity of the Bible...would be fractured by the acceptance of other viewpoints.
--Harold Lindsell
Satan has fathered this monstrous lie of evolution, for he is the father of lies.
--Henry Morris
We want to see hundreds of our graduates [of Liberty Baptist College] teaching creationism. Of course, they'll be teaching evolution, but teaching why it's invalid and why it's foolish.
--Jerry Falwell
There is no place for God in evolution because there isn't a place for God in that sense in empirical science. That doesn't mean that there isn't a God or that one shouldn't believe in one. It is just like saying that there is no place for a game of baseball in an opera house.
--Stephen Jay Gould
In his book Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, Philip Kitcher respects the creationists' request that their theories be treated as science. Although Kitcher and others have conclusively shown that creationism is not science, it has been evident all along that creationism is nothing but a disguised form of fundamentalist Christianity. Ironically, the creationists themselves are the best source of evidence to prove this claim. First, it is revealing to learn that the San Diego-based Creation Science Research Center has registered as a religious organization for its third-class bulk mailing permit. The Moody Institute of Science of Whittier, California, another source of creationist views, is also classified as a religious institute. When it comes to mailing permits, the creationists cannot hide their real identity. In public Moral Majority calls itself a political lobbying group, but the U.S. Postal Service knows its real identity for bulk mail purposes: a religious organization.
“OUR CREATIONIST MINISTRY”
Both the Creation Science Research Center and the Creation Research Society of Ann Arbor require members to subscribe to the same statement of faith, excerpts of which follow: "The Bible is the written Word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired thruout [sic], all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true....To the student of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.... Finally we are an organization of Christian men and women of science, who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior...." If the Bible has all the answers, then one might ask why do we need science at all?
One of the leading creationists, Henry M. Morris, has indeed written a book called The Bible Has the Answer, and in another book The Twilight of Evolution, he proclaims that "it is better to believe in the revealed word of God than any science or philosophy devised by man."1 Responding to Christian critics of their The Genesis Flood, Morris and Whitcomb make it clear that "the real issue is not the correctness of the interpretation of various details of the geological data, but simply what God has revealed in His Word concerning these matters."2 There is no question that religion, not science, is the original and continuing motivation of creationism. Another well-known evangelical, Harold Lindsell, echoes Morris' antiscientific bias: "The Bible must sit in judgment on science....Metaphysics belongs to those who start with Scripture ....and the integrity of the Bible...would be fractured by the acceptance of other viewpoints."3 It is clear that there is no room for an autonomous, self-correcting science in such a world-view.
In the November 1980 issue of Acts and Facts, the monthly newsletter of the Institute for Creation Research, there is a report about a trip Henry Morris made to South Korea. The article relates that one of his talks was entitled "Creation and Evangelism," and it also alleges that the teaching of evolution in Korean schools was the single most important obstacle in the way of South Korea becoming the "first truly Christian nation in the world." The creationists unabashedly proclaim that their ultimate goal is world evangelism. Each issue of Acts and Facts is accompanied by a cover letter from Morris which is always evangelistic in tone and always signed "Sincerely, in Christ." He writes that "we try to bring the message of creation to an ungodly world....to further labor in this key work of the Lord" (November, 1982). And of course he always makes a pitch for money for "this urgently critical field of ministry" (September, 1982); and he praises "the fine ministries of the creationist films" (August, 1982) some of which incidentally, have found their way into some public school rooms.
In other cover letters Morris writes that the "learning and spreading of the testimony of creation are growing rapidly" (March, 1982), and he states that the "ICR's ministry is one of the most strategic in the Christian world today" (December, 1981). In an ICR "Impact" article (#39) Morris proudly summarizes the results of a survey on "Spiritual Values in ICR Ministry," noting that there had been 80 new converts and many more Christians confirmed in their faith. In addition to being the director of ICR, Morris is also a professor at nearby Christian Heritage College. After being introduced to Morris through the quotations above, the reader should not be surprised to learn that his department is Christian apologetics.
The way in which Morris' evangelism precludes anything that we can call science is seen most dramatically in one of his articles, "The Futile Search for Life in Space." Writing before the actual landing of the Viking spacecraft on Mars, Morrris confidently predicts that no life will be found. He does this not on the basis of scientific evidence, but on the grounds of an a priori theological claim. He states categorically: "Wherever life exists, it must have been created by God! Refusal to believe in God as Creator is the only reason for believing that life has evolved from nonlife on the Earth or anywhere else." The answer to where God has created life is of course found in the Bible: "The Earth--not Mars or Alpha Centauri or Orion--is the center of God's interest in this universe. It is man on Earth who is the object of God's creative and redemptive work, a fact proved beyond a question when He became man on Earth Himself!"4
I summarize the scientific evidence against creationism in the last sections, but it is appropriate to make one point here about the possibility of extraterrestrial life. While Morris claims that these speculations are merely the result of an adamant atheism, more sober minds realize that scientists do not make these proposals without good evidence. Amino acids (protein building blocks of life) and pyrimidenes (a class of chemical found in DNA and RNA) have been found in meteorites. (In fact, RNA is known to synthesize spontaneously.) Recently an Anglo-Canadian team of radio astronomers has discovered cyanotriacetylene, the largest and heaviest molecule ever found outside the earth’s atmosphere. About 50 such large molecules have been recorded, including aldehydes, esters, and alcohols familiar to organic chemists. Furthermore, Cyril Ponnamperuma of the University of Maryland has recently identified in the Murchison meteorite, adenine, guanine, cystosine, thymine, and uracil—the five crucial bases in DNA.5
In his book The Waters Above (discussed in detail in the last Chapter) Joseph Dillow states that his main point in writing the book is “to demonstrate the truthfulness of the Bible in its statements on creation and the Flood.”6 Dillow believes that if the Bible can be trusted on these issues, then it can be trusted in all things. Going directly against the biblical ideas of faith discussed in Chapter Two, Dillow shows his evangelical rationalism by defining faith as “the rational decision of the will based on sufficient historical evidence.”7 Dillow ends his book by admitting that even many conservative Christians will not accept his vapor canopy theory, but "if the writing of this book results in but one reader's entering into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, the time will have been well spent." True to form, Morris joins Dillow in assuming that there is no conflict between evangelism and science, and he plans "to continue the present ICR policy of trying to be both scientific and Biblical, both evangelistic and objective, but at different times and places." Neither Morris nor Dillow heeds this proviso of "different times and places."8 The explicit theological basis of creationism automatically disqualifies it as true science. While the creationists claim to know a priori what has happened in the universe, science is a posteriori--tentative, open-ended, and self-correcting. The evangelist has always been taken to be the epitome of the non-objective, nonscientific mind, and the creation evangelists are no exception.
EVANGELICAL SCIENTISTS REJECT CREATIONISM
In their misuse of science the creationists have betrayed yet another great achievement of Western civilization. Creationists and inerrantists in general abuse science in a subtle way which has not yet been recognized, and ironically, in a way which is identical to the way some scientists have. There are some who believe that science is the answer to every question, and they often extend its methods and judgments into inappropriate areas. This has been called "scientism," i.e., an ideology based on the overextension of the scientific method. This is a form of gnosticism as well and can be seen as the Greek hubris expressing itself in science. The ideologues of science make science a god, and this is precisely what some evangelicals are doing when they insist on complete scientific accuracy in the Bible and strict rationality in Christian doctrine. In effect, science is their salvation, just as it is for scientism. Assuming an inerrant Bible, evangelical commentators systematically rationalize the biblical accounts so that they can be accepted by believers trained or impressed by science. They have essentially replaced sotierology (a doctrine of redemption) with epistemology (a doctrine of knowledge). They mistakenly believe, like all gnostic religions, that knowledge will somehow save them.
The scientism of creationism has misled generations of innocent Christians who have been deceived about the proper status of scripture. An especially poignant example of this is the case of Charles Larson, who led a campaign for the teaching of creationism in a Livermore, California school district. In a dramatic scene before PBS television cameras, Mr. Larson said that he would have to give up the Christian faith if the Genesis account of creation were not literally true. Mr. Larson should read an important interview in Christianity Today (June 17, 1977) which featured two Christian biology professors at Gordon College. This college is a member of the Christian College Consortium, whose science faculty teach either "progressive creationism" or "theistic evolution."
Gordon professor Jack Haas revealed one crucial difference between himself and "fiat creationists" like Henry Morris and Duane Gish: the seven days in Genesis are not to be taken as 24-hour days, especially the seventh day, which appears to last from Creation until the Last Judgment. This nonliteral reading of Genesis is a fundamental axiom of "progressive" creationism, that God creates over aeons of time. Haas also admits and tolerates the fact that conservative Christian scholars cannot agree on any one single interpretation of the biblical creation accounts. Haas does not hide his reservations about Henry Morris and his followers: "It's my view that the supporters of fiat creation really base their case on a narrow reading of Scripture and a flagrant ignoring of the scientific evidence." Haas responds to Morris' and Gish's use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics against evolution with a facetious "That old chestnut again!" Finally and significantly, he agrees with the followwing statement from the American Humanist Society: "Evolution is the only presently known strictly scientific and nonreligious explanation for the exisence and diversity of organisms." Haas states categorically that "no other approach makes scientific sense."
The other Gordon biologist Richard Wright also concedes that "there is no single orthodox Christian approach to origins and creation." But as far as science is concerned, he concurs with his colleague that "the evolutionary model is the only one." Following up Haas' remark about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Wright reminds us that this law holds only in an ideal, closed system and in the open system planet earth it only looks "as if you're going against the Second Law...." As far as gaps in the fossil are concerned, Wright states that "fossil preservation is a very haphazard process." Wright further states that "the scientific community continues to be grateful to Darwin. The basic insights he gave us into the evolutionary processes we recognize to be an extremely important historical development."
It is refreshing to learn of evangelical Christians who respect the distinction between faith and reason, between salvation and science. Science must remain within the bounds of naturalistic explanations, and the religiously inclined person should not push science beyond these strictly prescribed limits. For example, a fiat creationist like Joseph Dillow uses supernaturalistic explanation on an ad hoc basis. We have seen that after explaining away a solid sky-dome as incompatible with the inerrancy of Scripture, Dillow suggests that God miraculously holds the celestial ocean in place until God miraculously changes it into a vapor canopy. Evangelical scientists like Richard Wright and Jack Haas eschew this untenable method as not only unscientific but theologically unnecessary. As Wright states: "Fiat creation...implies that the process which God used is supernatural, which means that it's out of the realm of investigation; we can't touch it scientifically."
IS EVOLUTION A RELIGION?
The standard creationist response to the foregoing arguments is that evolution is just as much a religion as creationism. Creationists do not appear to see the logical implication of such a claim: if it is true, then both evolution and creation should be banned from public school science curricula. Henry Morris contends that both creation and evolution require faith, but Christians, he claims, have the highest order of faith. Contrary to the difficult, agonizing faith which we found in the Bible and the Christian fathers and reformers, Henry Morris' faith is "easy," fully cognitive, and objective. There is an "overwhelming body of objective evidence" for a Creator God and "for the historicity of the person and work of Jesus Christ--including His bodily resurrection from the grave."9 Not only does Morris completely misinterpret the nature of faith in the Bible and historical Christianity, he also has a completely untenable notion of evidence and proof.
Compared to the solid faith of the creationist, the faith of the evolutionist, according to Morris is weak and gullible. He maintains that "the faith of the evolutionist and humanist is of another order altogether. His is a splendid faith indeed, a faith not dependent on anything so mundane as evidence or logic, but rather a faith strong in its child-like trust, relying wholly on omniscient Chance and omnipotent Matter to produce the complex systems and mighty energies of the universe."10 Morris persistently misunderstands the nature of science and refuses to acknowledge that the factual bases of evolution require no faith but simple observation. I have defined religious faith as cognitive recognition and personal trust in the transcendent source of our lives and the universe. As we have seen in Chapter Nine, humanism certainly does not fulfill this definition, and evolutionary theory most definitely does not. Because of its commitment to a definite value system, humanism could fall within a broader notion of religion, but evolution as a strict science is prevented from any explicit commitment to values. I have argued that a fairly narrow definition of religion is required for a successful interpretation of the First Amendment; otherwise, we will be forced to ban the teaching of many secular philosophies, including the world-view which includes capitalism and free market economics.
A creationist might possibly concede and reformulate the argument in this way: "OK, evolution is not religion in your sense, but it is definitely antireligion. And it is not just passively antireligious, but evolutionists are actively conspiring to undermine our Christian faith." The principal agent behind this conspiracy, incredibly enough, is Satan himself. In his Twilight of Evolution, Henry Morris notes that rough evolutionary notions are behind all pagan philosophies. It is Satan "who has fathered this monstrous lie of evolution, for he is the father of lies....When one recognizes the satanic origin of evolution, then many otherwise confusing issues begin to come into focus....this God-rejecting, man-exalting philosophy of evolution spills its evil progeny-materialism, modernism, humanism, socialism, fascism, communism, and ultimately Satanism--in terrifying profusion all over the world."11 Morris is correct that most non-Western religions believe in some sort of evolutionary development in both God and nature. Therefore, evolutionary theory can be antireligious only in the context of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. As we have seen, many Christians, especially those involved in process theology, believe that this pagan evolutionary view is the correct one. Therefore a further qualification is necessary: evolutionary theory will pose a threat only to those Muslims, Jews, and Christians who believe in creatio ex nihilo and a literal six-day creation.
Short of Morris' embarrassing Satan thesis, what would be needed to confirm this evolution-as-the-enemy-of-religion hypothesis? First, one would have to assume that an archivist at the British Museum has discovered some of Charles Darwin's papers that contain hitherto unknown facts about Darwin's life goals. As a young student, our hypothetical Darwin secretly devoted his life to the promulgation of atheism and the destruction of religion, particularly Christianity. These papers also reveal that Darwin predicted that he would find scientific evidence that there is no God, that Jesus did not exist, that life came about as a result of an accident, and that human beings descended from apes. Second, one would have to assume that the bylaws of all scientific organizations required the signing of a statement of "faith" in which the new member pledged himself to evolution, atheism, and the destruction of religion. Such associations would also have established a ministry for these specific antireligious purposes and would have raised money to finance such activities. Furthermore, the National Association of Biology Teachers would have proposed several modes of indoctrinating the evolutionary "faith." There would be a "theistic" evolution model for use in America's Christian schools, a neutral model for the public schools, and then a hardcore "atheistic" evolution model for the teachers themselves, which would deal openly with the real assumptions of evolutionary science. (I have created these options following the creationists' own "scientific biblical creationism," "scientific creationism," and "biblical creationism" respectively.)
These scenarios are, of course, ludicrous. Science is a method which operates within very tight constraints; it is not a metaphysics, a philosophy, nor a world-view. It must be neutral with regard to the nature of reality. For example, many modern physicists, forming their own world-views outside of science proper, have rejected materialism. Indeed, thinkers such as Sir Arthur Eddington, Sir James Jeans, and Erwin Schroedinger have embraced mentalistic views, the very opposite of materialism. In his Mind and Matter Schroedinger uses philosophical argument, not science, to argue for his Hindu idealism. The world's foremost brain physiologist, Sir John Eccles, is an orthodox Christian and accepts a mind-body dualism. It is well known that Einstein was most impressed with Spinoza's philosophy, which might be best described as "neutral monism." One must keep in mind that scientific naturalism does not mean materialism, and that Werner Heisenberg believed that modern physics pointed to anything except classical materialism.
The main problem with our Darwin scenario is that it contradicts all the facts we know about Darwin before the famous voyage of the Beagle. Darwin's scientific discoveries came about as all good science does and must: they were dictated by the evidence and not by any preconceived ideology. After dropping the study of medicine at the University of Edinburgh, Darwin was persuaded by his father to take up the ministry, and he dutifully entered Christ's College Cambridge to study theology. At this time he believed in "the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible." He read William Paley's Evidences of Christianity and as John Chancellor puts it, "delighted in its logic, which he found as convincing as Euclid."12 His behavior on board the Beagle was, according to Gertrude Himmelfarb, "irreproachably orthodox," and he was "shocked when his shipmate confessed that he did not believe the biblical account of the flood."13 As he matured as a scientist and thinker, he did give up his orthodox belief and began to call himself an agnostic. Nonetheless, he continued to have utmost respect for his wife's piety and he allowed his children to be baptized and confirmed. As Himmelfarb observes, he carefully refrained "from open pronouncements on religious matters."15
It is clear that Darwin did not conceive of evolution as an all-encompassing world-view. His evidence came from the biological realm, and that is where the focus of his original theories remained. In fact, the second edition of The Origin of Species contained (in the last sentence) this creationist assumption: “Life . . . having been originally breathed by the Creator into the first few forms or into one . . .”16 Later, Darwin came to realize that such an assumption was not proper science, and speculated that life would be found to be a “consequence of some general law.” He made it clear in letters to G. C. Wallace that this idea was conjecture and not science. As a mature scientist Darwin realized that the question of God’s existence was not appropriate for the scientific method. When Harvard geologist Stephen Jay Gould was recently asked “Is there any place for God in evolution?” he replied: “That’s in a way a false question, because God is not part of the subject matter of science. There is no place for God in evolution because there isn’t a place for God in that sense in empirical science. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a God or that one shouldn’t believe in one. It is just like saying that there is no place for a game of baseball in an opera house. They’re just different things.”17
In an "Impact" article (#107) Henry Morris quotes from a number of scientists about their belief in evolution. He finds these thinkers using phrases such as "evolutionary dogma," "a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature," or a "metaphysical belief." Ernst Mayr, a Harvard biologist, calls evolution "man's world view today," and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin states that "evolution is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true." Morris asserts that "such grandiloquent terms as these are not scientific terms!" Morris is correct that these phrases are not scientific, but they are unguarded as well. The opinions of one scientist or even a group of scientists do not determine the position of science as a whole. The quotation from Teilhard de Chardin is particularly misleading, even if it is used by prominent biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky. The mature Teilhard is primarily a theologian and metaphysician (a very controversial one at that) and not a scientist. It is clear that his proposal is to be taken as strictly metaphysical.
This quotation "scatter-gun" approach is the principal polemical tool of the creationists. Typically, they use isolated, sometimes highly speculative, scientific claims and then imply that there is somehow a new scientific consensus. In order to counter an argument that a universe 10,000 years old would limit the maximum radius of the universe to 10,000 light-years, Morris refers to a single journal article to prove that it is possible for light to come from the end of the universe in only 15 light-years.18 A speculative hypothesis by an Australian anthropologist that apes actually descended from humans is billed as a new scientific theory of primate evolution.19 Such polemical maneuvers completely misunderstand how science operates and how it progresses, sometimes in a frustratingly slow manner, to new levels of consensus. The creationists simply do not appreciate the subtle checks and balances which operate in the international scientific community. For example, new theories in particle physics must be checked and double-checked in all the major laboratories of the world. Several generations of physicists have tried to prove Einstein wrong, but as yet none except for perhaps Niels Bohr have succeeded. One could never conceive of creation "scientists" seriously joining this self-correcting enterprise.
The creationists bombard their readers with quotations (sometimes out of context) and exploit differences of opinion among scientists. They are also able to score debating points for at least three basic reasons: (1) there are at least three different meanings of "evolution," and the creationists exploit this fact unfairly; (2) some scientists, as we have seen above, end up claiming more than science can allow; and (3) some commentators, many of whom are not practicing evolution scientists, do make evolution an ideology or pseudoreligion. First, evolution is indeed a fact if we define it as the development of complex forms of life from simple organisms. Stephen Jay Gould expresses the fact of evolution as "genealogical connection and descent with modification."20 Second, there is the theory of evolution, which entertains certain hypotheses about the mechanisms of modification and descent. This is where scientists cannot be completely certain. Some mechanisms are known quite well, some not so well, and some not at all. Third, there is nonbiological evolution, the basic theories about the formation of the elements, the stars, and the development of the universe as a whole. This is also theory, one whose mechanisms are very different from biological evolution, but theory with good evidence to back up some of its hypotheses. The creationists are simply wrong in saying that there is no evidence here: we have, for example, witnessed the birth and death of stars.21
In their attempt to prove that evolutionary thinking is behind all views which are evil and anti-Christian, the creationists make incredible blunders and oversights. As a result, they end up inventing their own history of ideas. For example, Henry Morris claims that Friedrich Nietzsche was a "rabid promulgator of Darwinism," and that Immanuel Kant resurrected the evolutionism of pagan philosophies.22 I have just read an excellent graduate student paper on Nietzsche's attack on Darwin, and anyone desiring to argue against moral relativism would not find a better philosophical ally than Kant himself. Furthermore, why have modern ethical theorists, like G. E. Moore and R. M. Hare, presumably committed evolutionists, devoted entire careers to the objectivity of moral values? The early church fathers thought that Satan had given communion to the Mithraists so as to test the faith of their congregations. Satan must also be very busy deceiving us about the efforts of Kant, Moore, and Hare.
The creationists of course claim to find an intimate link between communism and evolutionism. But when Marx asked Darwin if he could dedicate the English translation of Capital to him, Darwin refused most resolutely.23 After a personal interviewwith Darwin, Marx's son-in-law came away quite disappointed with his nonaggressive, apolitical agnosticism. Although Darwin characterized himself as a Liberal (i.e., between a Tory and a Socialist), he was admittedly confused or sometimes indifferent about politics. His most fervent political commitment was to the abolition of slavery, and he was a strong supporter of the North in the American Civil War. Finally, he was not sympathetic at all with the social and political theorists (both left and right) who were busy exploiting The Origin of Species for their own purposes.
The most dangerous conspiracy, according to the creationists, is the link between evolutionists and humanists. But these two views are not completely compatible, especially if we take the theistic humanism of Plato, Aristotle, some Catholic theologians, and our Founding Fathers. Beliefs such as intrinsic human worth and the freedom of the will do not follow from evolutionary theory and are beyond any scientific verification. Some ideas, like the view that human beings are the crowning glory of evolutionary progress, are just myths of "pop" evolutionism. Scientists speculate that if it had not been for a worldwide catastrophe (probably a huge meteorite), dinosaurs could be still roaming the earth with small mammals groveling at their feet.
Another corruption of evolutionary theory is what Philip Kitcher calls "panevolutionism," another invention promulgated by the creationists. Morris, for example, claims that if evolution is true, the laws of nature and chemical combination must change and evolve. As we have already pointed out, the science of evolution can maintain that species have evolved only on the basis of empirical evidence, not on the basis of some preconceived ideology of evolution happening everywhere. The absurdity of Morris' charge is seen most clearly when we turn the tactic on the creationists themselves. We could say that they must commit themselves to "panimmutabilism," a view in which there can be no change at all. This would prevent the creationists from talking about evolution within "created kinds." It could also force them to conceive of human embryology in terms of the homunculus theory: namely, that the conceptus is a miniature human which simply matures. Without any auxiliary hypotheses, this is precisely what creationism should predict, and did in fact predict in the Middle Ages.
In this section we have shown that evolutionary theory can be successfully separated from any alliance with religion, political ideology, humanism, etc. The creationists seem to believe that they can separate creationism and religion. While it is clear that The Origin of Species was based primarily on empirical evidence, creationism originated in religion and will always be allied with it. The creationists themselves have been good enough to announce this alliance in all of their works. As Morris himself proclaims: "We seek not only to win scientists to Christ, but even to win the sciences themselves to Christ."24
THE VINDICATION OF EVOLUTION
One of the most significant aspects of Philip Kitcher's brilliant book Abusing Science is his handling of the philosophy of science issues in the debate. He chides evolutionists and creationists alike for using an outmoded view of how science works. Creationists, as well as noncreationist critics like Norman MacBeth, make much of the fact that evolutionary theory fails in some of the crucial criteria for legitimate science proposed by Karl Popper. Kitcher shows that all other sciences will also fail the test if we believe in what he calls "naïve falsificationism." Bringing us all up to date on the current "state of the art," Kitcher proposes that all good science must first have aspects of "independent testability." This criterion is especially important in introducing "auxiliary hypotheses" of explanation. The difference between good and bad "ad hocism" is the fact that a successful auxiliary hypothesis has an independent means of verification. The second criterion of good science is its "unifying" explanatory power, that it can apply "a small family of problem-solving strategies to a broad class of cases."25 Third, a successful science will be fruitful, it will open up new areas for discovery and shed light on heretofore inexplicable problems. Kitcher argues persuasively that on these criteria evolution theory is one of the most successful sciences in the 20th Century. Ironically but not surprisingly, the only point at which creationism even begins to approach science is by borrowing the problem-solving strategies of "Darwinian histories" to explain modification within "created kinds."
Even within the context of the Popperian criteria for acceptable science, the creationists, no doubt due to their fiercely polemical position, make egregious errors. As we have already seen, they claim that both creation and evolution are unfalsifiable and therefore do not count as sciences at all. But this means that neither can be taught in science classrooms at the creationists propose. To compound their problems, creationists say both that evolution makes no predictions (i.e., it is unfalsifiable) and that it makes false predictions. As Kitcher states: “Oddly enough . . . the most popular supplement to the charge that evolutionary theory is unfalisifiable is a determined effort to falsify it.”26 The creationists cannot have it both ways; simple logic forestalls this maneuver. We have seen, sadly enough, that the laws of logic do not deter determined evangelical rationalists.
With his reformulation of what makes good science, Kitcher does not want to leave the impression that scientific theories ought not to predict. The best of scientific theories do indeed lead to continuous, comprehensive, and reliable predictions, and evolutionary theory would too if the biosphere were not so incredibly complex. The predictive virtuoso of science, classical mechanics, continues to impress us because of the relatively simple systems it deals with. This is not so with evolution. Kitcher explains: “There is nothing vague or indefinite about the [Darwinian] problem-solving strategies themselves. If we knew enough about the ways in which environments will change, if we knew enough about the genetics of organisms—not only the primates themselves but the animals and plants with which they interact—then perhaps we could predict the future evolutionary path of the primates.”27
In controlled laboratory experiments, predictions can be made on the basis of evolutionary theory. Kitcher gives an example of Joshua Lederberg’s experiments dealing with the manufacture of proteins in certain microorganisms. Long ago scientists predicted, on the basis of common and close ancestry, that rhesus monkeys would make good subjects for the testing of commercial drugs. Furthermore, evolutionary scientists make “postdictions” all the time. A good example is the hypothesis that marsupials once lived on Antarctica. With the recent discovery of marsupial fossils on this subcontinent, the evolutionary sciences of biology, paleontology, and geology were once again vindicated.
In his book The Monkey Business Niles Eldredge speaks of the predictive power of evolutionary theory in a more general way: "This is evolution's grand prediction: that the patterns of similarities in the organic world are arranged like a complex set of nested Chinese boxes."28 In response to the creationist charge that there is no evidence that dogs, coyotes, and wolves arose from a more primitive kind, Eldredge presents one set of nested boxes: "Dogs are united with foxes...because all share some peculiar features of the middle ear. This group...shares other similarities (particularly in the ear region) with bears, raccoons, and weasels. In turn, all these creatures share carnassial teeth...with cats, civets, and seals: the group zoologists call the Order Carnivora. Carnivora...share three middle-ear bones, mammary glands, placental development, hair, and a host of other features with a number of other organisms, including ourselves."29
It is most important to note at this point that the creationist could have, and indeed does, make the exact same predictions about the relationship of these species. The crucial difference, however, is that evolutionary theorists propose reasons and mechanisms for what Eldridge calls “one coherent patter of similarity interlinking all forms of life,” while the creationist can only say “God created them that way.” Evolution science, like all good science, assumes the uniformity of nature and a basic framework of interacting natural laws. This of course is absolutely essential for any successful scientific explanation. But the creationists openly admit, for example, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics did not go into effect until Adam ate the apple, so that we cannot count on any uniformity or continuity at the most important points in origin of dogs, cats, whales, and human beings. Duane T. Gish lays his unscientific axioms right out in the open: "God used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to divine creation as special i.e., nonscientific creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by God."30
If modern molecular biology had found significant genetic discontinuity among otherwise closely related species, the theory of evolution would have been in a very precarious state of affairs. It just so happens that evolution is once again vindicated by contemporary genetic research. Notice that the creationist would have been "vindicated" in either case: genetic discontinuity or genetic continuity--God could have done it either way, especially if no methods or laws have to be revealed. Philosopher Harvey Siegel phrases the point succinctly: "Creationism can make no possible testable prediction, because no conceivable test results could contradict predictions licensed by the creationist view... Creationism confuses a hypothesis explaining evidence and a hypothesis being compatible with evidence. Creationism is compatible with a great deal of evidence--so compatible, in fact, that compatibility is its greatest failing. For creationism is compatible with all possible evidence. Because it is compatible with everything, it explains nothing."31
In recent years some philosophers have argued that one of the basic principles of evolution, natural selection, also lacks explanatory power. The fact that natural selection may be just a piece of circular reasoning is not news to eminent biologists. Ernst Mayr of Harvard says that the "fitter individuals will on the average leave more offspring" is a "trivial and meaningless circular statement."32 C. H. Waddington of Edinburgh also observes that natural selection "turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology....It states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those which leave the most offspring) will leave the most offspring." Waddington then goes on to claim that with the theory of natural selection so clearly formulated, biologists can now "realize the enormous power of the principle as a weapon of explanation."33 Waddington cannot have it both ways. If the principle of natural selection is a tautology, then it can have no explanatory power. Tautologies do not tell us anything new about natural things and events.
In the area of natural selection it appears that evolution is as weak as creationism: it cannot show why and how the fit survive, we can only say that they in fact have. Kitcher shows that this critique is based on a confusion of the molar and molecular levels. We cannot tell the fit animal from the unfit just by outward appearance or even by a detailed knowledge of its behavior. It is only at the molecular level that we can scientifically determine the fitness factor. In mathematical population genetics natural selection is not tautological at all: it has tremendous explanatory power. For example, those individuals who are homozygous for the recessive gene which is responsible for sickle-cell anemia will be less fit than those who are heterozygous for the same gene. Specific genetic examination, therefore, gives the mechanism and reasons why some individuals are able to leave more offspring.
TRANSITIONAL FORMS: ARE THEY REALLY ABSENT?
The most effective tactic in the first creation-evolution debates was Gish's or Morris' presentation of "gaps" in the fossil records. The rhetorical power of such a point is brought out forcefully in Gish's provocative book title Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!. The creationists exploit the natural biases and weaknesses of paleontological evidence to their full advantage. They do not fully realize that "fossil preservation is a very haphazard process," as conservative Christian Richard Wright phrases it. For example, Gish insists on a full fossil record of the evolution of flight, when he should know that flying animals do not fossilize well at all. Another plausible reason for some of the gaps is that, as Kitcher says, "an ancestors population may split into two parts that can then diverge from one another by natural selection. After millions of years of evolution the two descendant populations are morphologically very different and there are no intermediates."34
There is one dramatic example of a flying animal fossil and that is the well-preserved specimen of Archaeopteryx. Here the creationists misrepresent the scientific evidence in the most outrageous way. They insist, and quote from reputable sources, that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form, but a true bird. They are correct only insofar as modern taxonomy is concerned: it is classified as a bird because it is the first animal to have feathers. All the other features are either reptilian or transitional. Its skeleton is essentially reptilian including reptilian teeth, claws on its wings, and a many-jointed tail (the joints fused as one in modern birds). The pelvic girdle is in three parts like reptiles, while in birds the pelvic bones and the sacrovertebrae are all fused into one. This is why Archaeopteryx could only glide and not fly: it lacked a bird-like breastbone and strong breast muscles. Archaeopteryx is a good example of a transitional form between reptiles and birds.
Not all the gaps in the fossil record can be filled, but there are enough examples to prove that it is not the problem that creationists make it out to be. There is for example, Peripatus, a lobe-legged, worm-like creature which spans the gap between the segmented worms and the arthropods. The transition from fishes to amphibians was accomplished by the crossopterygian fishes. These bony fishes, related to lungfishes, reveal important skull features which we find in land vertebrates. A comparison between the crossopterygian fishes and the earliest amphibians--the ichthyostegids--reveals important transitional features. As E. H. Colbert states: "In the postcranial skeleton Ichthyostega showed a strange mixture of fish and amphibian characters. The vertebrae had changed but little beyond the crossopterygian condition, whereas in the caudal region the fin rays of the fish tail were retained. In contrast to the primitive vertebrae and the persistent fish tail, there were strong pectoral and pelvic girdles, with which were articulated completely developed limbs and feet..."35
The evolution of mammals can be seen clearly by a study of the Therapids. Although there are many transitional features, paleontologists focus on the jaw joints: the mammalian jaw is formed by the dentary and squamosal bones while the reptile jaw is made of the quadrate and articular bones--bones which form parts of the ear in mammals. Gish's response to this particular transition is this: "There are no transitional forms showing, for instance, three or two jaw bones, or two ear bones. No one has explained yet, for that matter, how the transitional form would have managed to chew while his jaw was being unhinged and rearticulated, or how he would hear while dragging two of his jaw bones up into his ear."36 Kitcher's response is worth quoting in full: "Three points are made, and all are hopelessly wrong. First of all,, evolutionary theorists are in no way committed to the idea that two bones forming the reptilian jaw joint must have migrated separately so as to form part of the auditory structures. That is purely a figment of Gish’s imagination. He speculates about the character of transitional forms, and then chides paleontologists because they do not find what he demands.”37 As far as the transitional forms being able to chew: the evidence shows that no jaws were “unhinged” at any point during the transition. Diarthrognathus (literally “double jaw joint”) has a full set of both reptilian and mammalian jaw joints, so we can safely assume that none of these animals went without a meal because of temporary evolutionary “repairs” of the sort envisioned by Gish.
HUMAN EVOLUTION: THE “MOTIVATING” LINK
As might be suspected from the title of his book The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge is convinced that the crucial hidden agenda for all creationists involves the descent of humans from age-like ancestors. Support for this thesis comes from the most famous creationist in the 20th century—William Jennings Bryan. Just before the famous Scopes trial Bryan confided to Howard A. Kelly that he had no objection to “evolution before man but . . . the truth of evolution up to man furnishes our opponents with an argument which they are quick to use, namely if evolution accounts for all the species up to man, does it not raise a presumption in behalf of evolution to include man?”38 Eldredge is probably correct in implying that creationism would not now exist as a movement if evolutionary theorists did not have any evidence to link human beings with the rest of the animal kingdom. But here again the intermediate forms are so telling and convincing that the creationists must resort to the most incredible claims to preserve their theological beliefs about man’s special creation.
If we share a common ancestry with chimps and gorillas, one would expect to find fossil remains of ape-like creatures which show an increase in brain size and other hominid characteristics. Marvelous is the predictive power of evolution, for these are indeed the type of fossils we have found. As Stephen Jay Gould states: “What better transitional form could we desire than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its ape-like palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours?”39
The creationist charge that australopithecus was not bipedal has been completely refuted by the recent discovery of their human-like footprints in volcanic ash. Creationists also contend that australopithecus was fully ape-like, but evidence shows that from the neck down, a typical australopithecus would look just like a small, very hairy, human being. Between australopithecus and modern humans we have found extensive evidence for homo erectus, an intermediate form with a much greater cranial capacity and more human characteristics. Homo erectus used fire and made sophisticated stone tools. As we have already related, Morris and Gish cannot possibly accept homo erectus for theological reasons, and are unable to explain him away except by their hoax hypothesis. Exploiting the fact that some early examples of homo erectus turned out to be fakes, like Piltdown man and Nebraska man, Gish and Morris hope to somehow divert our attention away from all the excellent contemporary fossil evidence of homo erectus.
Many other evangelical Christians besides Wright and Haas have established a successful modus vivendi with evolutionary theory. J. J. Davis has no trouble, especially since he believes that Genesis genealogies cannot be trusted, in accepting the current hypothesis of human ancestors going back millions of years. (Davis claims the support of the famous evangelical B. B. Warfield on this point.) Davis and evangelical J. O. Buswell accept homo erectus and other early humans as "pre-Adamic nonmen."40 The evolutionist will of course reject this categorization as theology and not science, but at least it is better than the incredible Morris-Gish attempt to label as fakes all fossil examples of humans other than modern humans.
Russell Doolittle, professor of biochemistry at the University of California at San Diego, believes that the problem of gaps in the fossil record is completely taken care of by biochemical analysis of the various species. (One could also cite embryology as well, as long as the outmoded theory of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is not assumed.) For example, in the analysis of hemoglobin molecules in chimps and humans, no differences were found when 141 amino acids were examined in the hemoglobin alpha chain. In rhesus monkey the same analysis showed four differences; in horses, eighteen; in rabbits, in excess of twenty; in chickens, 59; and in fishes, more than a hundred. Doolittle looked long and hard for some biochemical differences between chimps and humans and finally found one. Darwin speculated that chimps would be our closest living ancestors, and now we have precise scientific evidence to back up this claim.
In a PBS-TV program Duane Gish challenged Doolittle's findings with the contention that other protein analyses have shown humans to be more closely related to bullfrogs or chickens than to chimpanzees. Doolittle's response is the following outburst and wager: "Oh bullfrog! I've heard that gibberish before . . . I have . . . a book full of data here of amino acid sequences from thousands of proteins . . . from many hundreds of species, and I will give Dr. Gish my entire set of worldly belongings—that’s a ’63 Volkswagen and half a house . . . if he can find one protein in which chickens or bullfrogs are more closely related to human proteins than are chimpanzee proteins.”41 Science writer Robert J. Schadewald has tried for over four years to force Gish to produce evidence to answer Doolittle's wager. So far Gish has failed to do so.42 Gish finally admitted that he had made a mistake about the explosion mechanism in the bombardier beetle, but he continued to use the false evidence in debates for several years after his mistake was demonstrated by two scientists before Gish and a public audience.43
Another effective debating tactic by the creationists is their misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Gish's presentations sound very learned and sophisticated, but closer scrutiny reveals polemical maneuvers which misinterpret and misrepresent the science of thermodynamics. The Second Law states that entropy will increase in a closed, ideal system. Although Morris himself knows what this means--"there is no such thing in nature as a closed system"44--he and Gish ignore this and proceed to argue that because of its decrease in entropy evolutionary progress defies the Second Law. They then conclude that only a divine being could supply the necessary outside energy for the existence of a biosphere. Kitcher's response is the following: "Evolutionary theory would contradict the Second Law if (and only if) the construction of Darwinian histories required us to suppose the existence of thermodynamically closed systems in which entropy does not increase. But no such supposition is required. Darwinian histories do presuppose that large amounts of energy remain available for work in large numbers of systems of living things."45
THE ABSURDITIES OF “FLOOD” GEOLOGY
The creationists at the Institute for Creation Research, following the implication of their literalist interpretation of the "days" of Genesis, believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. I have already related a standard response to such a view: Einstein's theory of special relativity would then limit the maximum radius of such a universe to 10,000 light years. True to form, Gish and Morris respond in two mutually exclusive ways: first, they cite an obscure, speculative journal article which suggests that light could reach us from the ends of the universe in 15 light years; and second, they let God solve the problem by creating the photons in between the stars. Morris even admits that God created the universe to appear old: "A very important fact to recognize is true creation necessarily involves creation of age. It is impossible to imagine a genuine creation of anything without that entity having an appearance of age at the instant of creation. It would always be possible to imagine some sort of evolutionary history for such an entity, no matter how simple it might be, even though it had just been created."46 No comment is necessary, for Morris has destroyed his position with his own words.
Another bit of pseudoscience which is used to support the "young earth" theory is the claim that human footprints have been found in the same strata as dinosaur tracks along the Paluxy River in Texas. Henry Morris' son, John, is the author of the most definitive article on this "discovery" (Impact #35). Morris goes into great detail describing what he observed to be mud "squishing" through the toes of these brave men and women who walked among the greatest animals that ever lived on earth. Creationist B. Neufeld has studied the tracks first hand and has categorically rejected them as human. Without exception other scientists are also unconvinced about John Morris' claim. These observers have found no signs of "squishing" between the alleged toes of these tracks. This phenomenon is, however, readily observable in the fully formed dinosaur footprints.
This has led Robert Slaughter, vertebrate paleontologist at Southern Methodist University, to speculate that some of these marks were just "the heel print of a camptosaur that apparently was going slightly down grade without the toes showing. So that bean-shape comes from the instep of the dinosaur and...8, 10 feet away I could see where the track was broader, and then there was another one where it was broader, and then finally you could see the beginning of the three toes."47 Slaughter also tells of returning to the site a year later and discovering that one of the "human" prints had sprouted toes. John Morris does admit that pranksters have indeed carved human footprints in this area since the 1930s, but he claims that the fakes are clearly distinguishable from the genuine prints. But these most likely are partial dinosaur tracks as Slaughter conjectures. As an independent test, one would assume that human fossil bones could be found alongside the dinosaur bones. Slaughter spent five summers gathering bones in a two hundred mile area around the Paluxy River and found bones of dinosaurs, fishes, lizards, frogs, salamanders, and a few early mammal fossils--but not a single human bone.
Part and parcel of the young earth theory is the claim of a single worldwide flood which destroyed all creatures and carved out and laid down most of the geological features we know today. Included unabashedly in this theory is the voyage of Noah's ark, complete with the incredible notion that dinosaurs might have been passengers. As John Morris states: "Dinosaurs evidently survived the flood, either on board Noah's Ark or somehow surviving outside."48 Morris claims that the Bible explicitly tells of the creation of marine dinosaurs (Gen. 1:21) and that Job, who is the actual postdiluvian author of the book by his name, speaks frequently of these sea monsters. We have already discussed these mythological creatures in connection with the Hebrew's three-story universe (p. 289 above).
In a film called In Search of Noah's Ark, a presentation so fraudulent that even the ICR had to disown it, Henry Morris is asked how all the animals including the dinosaurs could have been healthy and well fed during the voyage. Morris' answer is typical: God caused them all to hibernate. Here again is the primary methodological motto of the creationist: "When in doubt, say that God did it." Geologist C. G. Weber phrases the creationists' basic problem aptly: "The creationists have to postulate so many miracles to keep these creatures alive through the Flood that it would be much simpler and easier for God to create them all from scratch again after the flood, and just forget the floating zoo."49 In anticipation of questions about how one could explain the distribution of all animals from the "mountains of Ararat," Morris and Whitcomb again turn to theology: "We see the hand of God guiding and directing these creatures in ways that man, with all his ingenuity, has never been able to fathom."50 Again Kitcher is the one who asks the best and most embarrassing questions about the implications of Flood geology and biology. First, he observes that the marsupials, especially the koalas who live only on eucalyptus leaves, would have perished very soon after being released from the ark. Evolutionary biology and geology are not as agnostic as the creationists on the distribution of animals, for we have been able to fathom some of the secrets here. Very plausible Darwinian histories, complete with good paleontological evidence, have been established for the distribution of marsupials; and unfortunately, northeastern Turkey does not appear to play a central role.
The creationists would have us believe that all the major geological formations were laid down within a year's time, and that the strata should show that the prediluvian animals were destroyed in one cataclysmic flood. The key factors in the distribution of these animals would be that lower dwelling animals would be found in the lowest strata; that animals with favorable hydraulic characteristics would be found at higher stratas; and that swifter, more agile animals would have been able to reach greater heights fleeing the rising waters. Kitcher has a number of specific questions for this hypothesis:
Why are bottom-dwelling marine invertebrates found at all levels of the strata? Why are some very delicate marine invertebrates, which would have been likely to sink more slowly, found at the very lowest levels?... Why are whales and dolphins only found at high levels, while marine reptiles of similar size are found only much lower?...Why were not most of the birds 'exhausted,' since perching places would have been hard to find in the raging Deluge?51
Kitcher discusses one of the "severe anomalies," the teleostean contemporary sardines and swordfish, appeared in late Triassic times (200 million years ago) and show up more frequently with the passage of time. This of course contradicts the predictions of Flood geology: these deep-sea fishes ought to be found in the lowest strata. To counter any auxiliary hypothesis, Kitcher demonstrates that in general the teleostean fishes had no special hydraulic features and they were not especially fast swimmers. "Yet," as Kitcher concludes, "all these lucky teleostean fishes managed to resist the flood waters for a long time, while large numbers of speedy fish are buried beneath them."52
Geologists know of rock strata which are 12 miles thick, and conventional theory would require millions of years for such deposits. Geologists are now aware of more rapid deposits during major storms; therefore, they are more sympathetic to the idea of geological quick-changes which "catastrophists" want to make the norm rather than the exception. But as Preston Cloud proposes: "A modern reservoir, say 60 meters deep, made by damming a river in a rapidly eroding area, takes about 100 years to fill with sediment, even allowing for catastrophic floods.”53
Creationists claim that ancient documents all over the world tell of a great flood which covered the entire world. These human accounts are backed up by some geological evidence. Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami speculates that some of these accounts could be connected with a rapid thaw during the last Ice Age (about 10,000 B.C.E.), which could have caused worldwide flooding.54 But this evidence is far too old for the fiat creationists, who date the Deluge at 2500 B.C.E. In 1929 archaeologists digging at Ur, the ancient capital of Sumeria, found clay deposits eight feet thick. C. L. Woolley dated this thick layer of sediment at 3200 B.C.E. and suggested that this was the evidence for the flood on which Hebrew writers based the story of Noah.55 There is no question that it was a major catastrophe, because the artifacts in the strata above and below the clay deposits are significantly different. While this was a gigantic flood (probably inundating an area four hundred by one hundred miles), it was by no means worldwide in scope. Indeed, Egyptian history is continuous throughout the Fourth and Third Millenia, with only some political instability in the middle of the third.
The Genesis account of the Flood relates that “the water prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep” (7:20). Isaac Asimov calculates that such an amount of water, five and one half miles deep, would be three and a half times the total amount of water on Earth.56 Dillow therefore, feels vindicated in his theory of huge celestial oceans, although he still has to account for the final resting place of most of this water.57 Did it disappear into the earth? Other creationists would have to assume, without sufficient evidence, that there are unknown underground sources which were the “fountains [springs?] of the great deep [which] burst forth” (Gen. 7:11). We must conclude that although there were catastrophic floods in areas around the world which impressed themselves forcefully in human memory, there is no evidence of, let alone physical possibility of, the great Flood of Noah.
Again we see the creationists revealed for what they truly are: fundamentalist Christians who mistakenly believe that they need to prove the Bible as fact before they can accept it on faith. Kierkegaard’s judgement of evangelical rationalism is cutting but apt: “He who first invented the notion of defending [the rationality of] Christianity is de facto Judas #2.”58 Calvin’s words are also worth requoting: “Those who wish to prove to unbelievers that the Scripture is the word of God are acting foolishly, for only by faith can this be known."59 The creationists have betrayed their own religious tradition and have denigrated science, one of the greatest achievements of Western civilization. Creationism and evangelical rationalism are indeed bad science and wrong religion.
ENDNOTES
1. Morris, Henry D., The Twilight of Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 78.
2. Morris, Henry D. and J. C. Whitcomb, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 16 (1964), p. 60, quoted in Ronald L. Numbers, "Creationism in 20th Century America," Science 218 (November, 1983), p. 542.
3. Lindsell, Harold, "Where Did I come From? A Question of Origins," Christianity Today (June 17, 1977), p. 18
4. Acts and Facts (August, 1976), p. 4.
5. See Robert C. Cowen, "Biochemists Build Case for Organic Life beyond Earth," The Christian Science Monitor (September 8, 1983). See also his "Earth's Primordial Molecule," The Christian Science Monitor (December 16, 1982).
6. Dillow, Joseph, The Waters Above (Chicago, IL: The Moody Press, 1981), p. 425.
7. Dillow, Joseph, The Waters Above (Chicago, IL: The Moody Press, 1981), p. 425.
8. Morris, Henry D., "Purpose of the Impact Series," Acts and Facts (September, 1976), p. 3. Morris' science-denying religious ideology is ubiquitous: It is now evident, both from Scripture and from experience, that scientific biblical creationism can and should play a vital role in evangelism and in Christian faith and life as well as in true science and education" (Impact, #39, September, 1976, p. iv). Also: "Evolutionary science stands in contrast to the sound basis in Holy Scripture upon which the assumptions in our interpretation are based" (Morris and Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood, Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961, p. 386). "The evolution model...is found thereby to be still further weakened, since it contradicts so explicitly the testimony of divine revelation on the subject" (Morris, Henry D., The Troubled Waters of Evolution, San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974, p. 102).
9. Impact #111 (September, 1982), p. i.
10. Impact #111 (September, 1982), p. i.
11. Morris, Henry D., The Twilight of Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1963), pp. 77, 83.
12. Himmelfarb, Gertrude, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959), p. 40.
13. Himmelfarb, Gertrude, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959), p. 43.
14. Himmelfarb, Gertrude, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959), p. 362
15. Himmelfarb, Gertrude, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959), p. 363.
16. Quoted in G. G. Stimpson, “The World into which Darwin Led Us,” p. 960.
17. Gould, Stephan Jay, Interview, Unitarian Universalist World (February 15, 1982), p. 8.
18. Morris, Henry D. and John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961), p. 368.
19. "Evolutionist Declares Apes Evolved from Man!" Acts and Facts, (August, 1976), p. 1.
20. Stephen Jay Gould, Interview, Unitarian Universalist World (February 15, 1982), p. 8.
21. As David Schramm, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago states: "In fact, we can observe stars forming right now in the Orion Nebula stars...forming out of gas clouds. Of course, the process takes ten million years. Obviously, none of us has watched it for ten million years. What we do see is a series of different stars in various stages of formation." Quoted in Robert A. Steiner, "The Facts Be Damned!" Reason (December, 1981), pp. 28-9.
22. Morris, Henry D., The Twilight of Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 18; The Troubled Waters of Evolution (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), p. 65.
23. Himmelfarb, Gertrude, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959), p. 361.
24. Morris, Henry D., The Troubled Waters of Evolution (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), p. 161.
25. Kitcher, Philip, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982), p. 48.
26. Kitcher, Philip, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982), p. 39.
27. Kitcher, Philip, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982), p. 79.
28. Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business (New York, NY: Washington Square Press, 1982), p. 36.
29. Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business (New York, NY: Washington Square Press, 1982), p. 37.
30. Gish, Duane T., Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!, p. 42.
31. Siegel, Harvey, "Creationism, Evolution, and Education" Phi Delta Kappan (October, 1981), pp. 98-99.
32. Mayr, Ernst, "Cause and Effect in Biology," Science 134 (1961), p. 1504.
33. Waddington, C.H., "Evolutionary Adaptation," Evolution After Darwin, ed. Sol Tax (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 385.
34. Kitcher, Philip, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982), pp. 68-69. Of course, many conservative Christian scientists support Kitcher's position. See, for example, Roger Cuffey's response to the fiat creationists in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 24 (December, 1972), pp. 55-63.
35. E. H. Colbert, Evolution of the Vertebrates, p. 75; quoted in ibid, p. 109.
36. Gish, Duane T., Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!, p. 85
37. Kitcher, Philip, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982), p. 111.
38. Numbers, Ronald L., “Creationism in 20th Century America,” Science 218 (November, 1983), p. 540.
39. Steiner, Robert A., “The Facts be Damned!” Reason (December, 1981), p. 30.
40. See J. J. Davis’ article in Inerrancy and Common Sense, pp. 142, 144.
41. Quoted in "Creation vs. Evolution: Battle in the Classroom," KPBS-TV transcript of broadcast on July 7, 1982, p. 18.
42. See Schadewald's article on the opinion page of the Minnesota Daily, February 14, 1985; reprinted with additional comments by Schadewald in Creation/Evolution Newsletter 5:2 (March/April, 1985), pp. 14-16.
43. See Schadewald's article on the opinion page of the Minnesota Daily, February 14, 1985; reprinted with additional comments by Schadewald in Creation/Evolution Newsletter 5:2 (March/April, 1985), p. 16.
44. Morris, Henry D., Scientific Creationism (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), p. 139.
45. Kitcher, Philip, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982), p. 92. Stan Weinberg of the Iowa Academy of Science counters the creationists in a similar way: "...Nothing in the Second Law forbids a decrease in entropy in systems smaller than the whole universe over the short run. In fact, when chemical engineers measure the entropy of chemical systems...sometimes the entropy increases, sometimes it decreases, and sometimes it remains the same....In 1977 Ilya Prigogine was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for a the oretical corollary to the 2nd Law which says this: any system which can export its entropy or disorder to the environment, and which can import energy from the environment, not only can but must evolve! Living organisms are such systems." ("Critique of Videotape 'The Timeless Issue of Life: Creation or Evolution,'" typescript of the Iowa Committee of Correspondence (undated), p. 8).
46. Morris, Henry D., The Twilight of Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 56.
47. Quoted in videotape "Creation vs. Evolution," p. 14.
48. Impact #35 (May, 1976), p. vii.
49. C. G. Weber, quoted in Steiner, “The Facts Be Damned!” Reason (December, 1981), pp. 29-30. An author in the Creation/Evolution Newsletter 4:3 (May/June, 1984) contends that it would take six major miracles for flood geology to work.
50. Morris, Henry D. and John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961), p. 86.
51. Kitcher, Philip, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982), p. 131.
52. Kitcher, Philip, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982), p. 134
53. Cloud, Preston, “Scientific creationism—A New Inquisition Brewing?” The Humanist (January-February, 1977), p.14.
54. Cloud, Preston, “Scientific creationism—A New Inquisition Brewing?” The Humanist (January-February, 1977), p.14. Henry Morris does allow for a Flood date of 6,000 B.C.E., but he prefers an earlier date. See The Troubled Waters of Evolution, p.154.
55. Bratton, F.G. A History of the Bible (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1959), p. 43-45.
56. Asimov, Isaac, In the Beginning. . . (New York, NY: The Stonesong Press, 1981), p. 163. Bernard Ramm's own calculations require eight times the amount of water now present on Earth (see The Christian View of Science and Scripture, p. 166; quoted in Barr, Fundamentalism, p. 94.)
57. In defense of his theory Dillow confirms the calculations of Asimov and Ramm: "The normal hydraulic cycle would, therefore, have been incapable of supplying the tremendous amounts of rain that biblical record describes (op. cit., p. 71).
58. Kierkegaard, Soren, Fear and Trembling and Sickness unto Death, trans. Walter Lowrie (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1941), p. 218.
59. Rogers, Jack B. and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1979), p. 106.