VITAL ARTICLES ON Science and 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.