The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his065/anti_cre.arj/ANTI-CRE.TXT

Text File | 1991-05-22 | 12KB | 213 lines

                    VITAL ARTICLES ON

                     Science Creation

No. 97

The Anti-Creationist

By Henry M. Morris, Ph.  D.

There are many evolutionists who evaluate scientific data
objectively, even in relation to the controversial subject of
origins, and are, therefore, willing to allow both models of
origins (creation and evolution) to compete freely in the
marketplace of ideas.

     There are many others who are not merely evolutionists but
are anti-creationists, dedicated at all costs to discrediting the
creation movement.  Unfortunately such attempts often include a
very careless handling of facts.

     In this article, we have listed a number of these false
charges, with brief answers to them.

(1)  "The anti-evolutionists have been successful, (William G.
Mayer) explains, because they now use a Madison Avenue approach
and employ full-time staff while there is not one scientist who is
funded to devote full-time to espousing evolutionary theory."
(Science News, Jan. 10, 1981, P. 19)

     There is to our knowledge no one who devotes full time
to espousing creationism.  The ICR has a staff of ten part-time
scientists, each of whom has many other duties besides speaking on
creation.  On the other hand, large numbers of scientists on
university faculties spend far more time on evolutionist research
and teaching than anything creationists can afford.  Creationism
is anything but "well-funded" as Mayer charges, having no access
to government funding as Dr. Mayer did, when his B.S.C.S.
organization expended almost $20,000,000 of federal funds in
developing its evolution-based biology textbook series.

(2)         "The creationist model does not have the same kind of
scientific validity as the theory of evolution.  This is not to
say that it cannot be a true account of the origin of life.  It
could be." (Toda_v's Education, Apr-May 1981, P. 58G)

          The evolutionist's definition of "scientific" is
"mechanistic" or "naturalistic," but this is misleading.  Science
means knowledge, and the essence of the scientific method is
observation and repeatability.

Evolution is not "scientific" since macro-evolution is neither
observable

nor repeatable.  Evolutionists admit creation may be "true," so it
is appropriate - indeed essential - to include it in the
educational process if teachers sincerely desire their students to
search for truth, as they claim.

(3)  ". . creationists tend to be masters of the partial quote."
(Next, Mar.-Apr. 1981, p. 68)

          The author cited two alleged out-of-context quotations
by creationists, one by Dr- Gary Parker supposedly intimating the
Dr. Stephen Gould was "championing creationism," the other by this
writer supposedly claiming that two evolutionary geologists had
agreed that the strata of the great Lewis "overthrust" were all
flat and undisturbed.  The fact is that we are always careful not
to quote out of context.  Such quotations have to be brief, for
reasons of space, and so cannot give the full scope of the
author's thoughts on the subject, but they do not misrepresent
their nature and significance.  Out of the many thousands of such
references that are included in our writings, critics have to
search diligently to find even a handful that they can interpret
as misleading.  Even in the two that were cited, a careful reading
of the full context in each case will demonstrate that the
reporter was himself guilty of distortion.  Dr. Parker made it
quite clear that Dr. Gould is a committed evolutionist (in spite
of his arguments against certain Darwinian tenets).  In the Lewis
overthrust discussion, there was ample mention of the physical
evidences of disturbances, and the quote (actually appearing
only in a minor footnote) certainly did not affect the evidence developed
in the particular section against the "overthrust" explanation.  In no way
did it misrepresent the beliefs of the authors quoted.

(4)      "(Creationists) have shown a certain genius for couching
their arguments in scientific terms ... But their viewpoint remains
dogmatically fundamentalist and profoundly anti-scientific." (The Scien-
ces, Apr. 1981, p. 18)

          Whether or not the scientific creation model is compatible
with the Biblical record is irrelevant to the question of whether the actual
scientific data fit the model.  Most creationist scientists do believe that
the tenets of Biblical creationism are compatible with the tenets of
scientific creationism, but it is only the latter that we believe should be
taught in the public schools.  The fact that the scientific model of creation
can be used to support Christian theism is parallel to the fact that the
scientific model of evolution can be used to support Marxist atheism or
Religious Humanism or Theological Liberalism.  All this is irrelevant to the
fact that creation and evolution can both be discussed and compared
simply as scientific models.

(5)  "If the world view of fundamental Christians is presented
as science, why not that of the Hindus or the Buddhists?" (American
School Board Journal, Mar. 1980, p. 32)
               There are only two world views, evolution and creation.
Each of these has many variants.  Hinduism and Buddhism are variants of
the typical evolutionary world view, beginning as they do with an eter-
nally self-existing universe (the same is true of Confucianism, Taoism,
and all the other ancient pagan pantheistic religions).
Creationists do not want the Biblical record of creationism taught
in the public schools, but only the general creation model as a
viable scientific alternative to the general evolution model.

(6)           "The creationist movement boasts a number of adher-
ents who have been trained in science.  Significantly, few are
biologists.  Creationists have done afmost no original research."
(Time, Mar. 16, 1981, p. 8I)

          There are thousands of well-qualified creationist
scientists today, a large percentage of whom are in the life
sciences.  Over half of the present and past members of the Board
of Directors of the Creation Research Society, for example, are in
biological fields.  In addition, of the 29 scientists associated
directly with ICR (including the ten staff members, plus trustees,
advisory board members, and regional representatives), 17 are in
the life sciences.  At least 15 scientists in these two groups
have regular Ph.D's in Biology from leading universities, and the
others all have terminal degrees in closely related fields
(biochemistry, medicine, etc.). As far as research is concerned,
the ICR staff may be typical.  These ten scientists (H. Morris,
Gish, Bliss, Barnes, Slusher, Parker, Cumming, J. Morris, Austin,
and Rybka) have published at least 150 research papers and ten
books in their own scientific fields - all in standard scientific
refereed jour-nals or through secular book publishers - in addition
to hundreds of creationist articles and perhaps 50 books in
creationism and related fields.

(7)      "The basic premise, the basic dogma, is the existence of
a divine creator.  What they espouse as academic freedom to teach
creationism is the academic freedom to teach the flatness of the earth."
(Discover, Oct. 1980, p. 94)

          No creationist scientist teaches a flat earth nor, for that
matter, is such a notion taught in the Bible.  The "dogma" of the
existence of a divine creator is not one bit more "dogmatic" than the
evolutionist's assumption of "no creator" and of the preexistence of
matter as the source of this marvelous universe and its infinite array of
complex systems.

(8)         "ICR is apparently well-funded.  This money is used to
advance their cause through lobbying and publication.  They lobby at all
levels of government, and have attempted to introduce a bill in the U.S.
Congress to obtain money, time, and space equal to that awarded to
concepts involving evolution." (Geotimes, Jan. 1981, p. 12)

          The Institute for Creation Research is not well-funded.  ICR
has five major divisions with many functions and activities, and a current
full-time equivalent staff of at least 20 persons.  This large and complex
operation is financed on a very modest budget of $650,000 - which is
considerably less than the financing available to many university
departments of biology, for example.  ICR never has initiated or lobbied
for any creation lawsuit or legislation, believing that education and
persuasion are more appropriate and effective than compulsion.  ICR staff
members occasionally serve as expert consultants or witnesses in
such situations, but these actions are wholly initiated and
financed by local groups of concerned citizens.

(9)  "The Institute stood to make $2 million a year in textbook
sales, with a contract renewal option, if HB 690 were enacted.
To achieve its ends, it distributes a kit to creationist lobbies
with a sample resolution drafted by 'Dr.' Henry Morris, who
cautions users not to reveal its source." (The Humanist, May/June
1980, p. 59)

          The above statement was in reference to the creation
bill currently stymied in the Georgia legislature due to such
distortions as this.  ICR's sample resolution (not "creation
bill") was prepared in response to many requests from local
groups, in order to help keep such actions focussed on science and
education rather than religion and social issues.  The suggestion
that those who might adapt the resolution for their own uses
should try to keep ICR out of the picture was simply to emphasize
that it was the local groups of citizens, not ICR, who were the
sponsors.  As far as profits from potential book sales are
concerned, this may well be the reason behind much of the
opposition to bringing creationist literature into the schools.
Evolutionist writers and publishers have for many years reaped
tremendous profits from their monopolistic control over
school-adopted book sales.  Such publishers, in the past,
have refused even to examine creationist (or two-model) textbook
manuscripts.  Accordingly, some of us had to pool our own very limited
resources in order to get ICR books published.  Rather than being
profitable, however, this operation has been at a significant loss to all its
investors, each of the six years it has been in existence.  If, perchance,
school boards actually should begin to specify a two-model approach in
their schools and begin to look for appropriate textbooks, one can be
certain that the big publishers would finally begin to publish such books
themselves.  We would have no objection to this, of course; they have
the resources to do it and, if they treat the subject properly, we will
cooperate in every way we can to help them.

     In all their polemics, the anti-creationists invariably avoid discussing
the actual scientific evidence for macro-evolution.  If there were any such
evidence, they could easily settle the whole conflict merely by presenting
the evidence! Instead, they seem compelled to resort to bombast,
ridicule, defamation, intimidation, and distortion.  Surely that great body
of working scientists, largely uninvolved so far in the creation/evolution
conflict will soon begin to see that a two-model approach to all scientific
study is salutary and will persuade their more emotional brethren to
open their minds to potential truth wherever it might be found.