Distortion Three: Errors as to the Scientific Status
of Creation and Evolution
In light of our previous discussion, we will simply
list these without comment. Such declarations reveal the unfortunate
depth of misinformation on this subject.
When Russell L. French, one of
America’s leading educators, read W. R. Bird’s 1,100-page critique, The
Origin of Species Revisited, which covers almost everything
important in the creation-evolution controversy (including scientific,
educational, and legal aspects), he commented as follows: "This
book is frightening to me because it clearly demonstrated to me how much
I did not know until I had read it. If that was my condition,
what about others, perhaps a majority, in our society?"58
Regrettably, most people in our society are ignorant
on this subject, including the prestigious organizations listed below:
American Society of Parasitologists:
"The 123-year history of
creationism clearly shows it to... be overwhelmingly rejected by the
majority of Christian denominations and by scientists of all
The National Committee for Public
Education and Religious Liberties:
"Teaching creationism is
impermissible as a matter of law; either in lieu of scientific evolution
or as a ‘companion theory.’ "60
Louisiana Academy of Sciences:
"... organic evolution is
amenable to repeated observation and testing."61
National Academy of Sciences:
"[Teaching creation science]
would be contrary to the nation’s need for a scientifically literate
citizenry and for a large, well-informed pool of scientific and
technical personnel.... Special creation is neither a successful theory
nor a testable hypothesis for the origin of the universe, the earth, or
of life thereon. Creationism reverses the scientific process."62
National Academy of Sciences:
"Its documentation is almost
entirely limited to the special publications of its advocates. And its
central hypothesis is not subject to change in light of new data or
demonstration of error. Moreover, when the evidence for creationism has
been subjected to the tests of the scientific method, it has been found
New Orleans Geological Society:
almost invariably are of questionable quality, obsolete, or taken out of
context from the scientific literature. Even well-known creation
scientists such as Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research
have readily admitted that creation science is not at all scientific....
Creationism, as a scientific concept, was dismissed over a century ago
and subsequent research has only confirmed that conclusion. Scientific
creationism threatens to do great damage to the credibility of
legitimate scientific research.…"64
New York Academy of Sciences:
"Scientific creationism is
a religious concept masquerading as a scientific one."65
American Humanist Association:
"There are no alternative
theories to the principle of evolution... that any competent biologist
of today takes seriously."66
Society for the Study of Evolution:
"The study of evolution is
an empirically based science which employs the scientific process of
Society for Amateur Scientists:
"None of the arguments which
scientific creationists make against evolution withstands scrutiny and
most were first refuted nearly a century ago. And the creationists have
never been able to martial quality evidence that strongly supports their
West Virginia Academy of Science:
"Their claim that scientific
creationism is independent of biblical creationism, which they admit is
religious, is demonstrably false."69
Committee for Scientific Investigation of
Claims of the Paranormal:
"... Virtually no active scientist challenges the fact that
evolution has occurred.... There is no scientific evidence supporting
the instantaneous creation of the earth and all the creatures on
Freedom from Religion Foundation:
"The only ‘evidence’
creationists present is the story in Genesis, or other religious texts,
that must be accepted by faith, not by rational principles of
Institute for First Amendment Studies:
"By faith [creation
scientists] begin with belief in creationism—then they search for
evidence to back that belief. True scientists study the evidence,
drawing their conclusions from that evidence."72
Upon reflection, such statements are
incredible. The falsehood of all the above statements is either
documented in our Darwin’s Leap of Faith or in other scientific
and philosophical literature.73 But we would be remiss not to point out
two additional statements from this book. First, according to the
National Association of Biology Teachers, "science is a constantly
self-correcting endeavor to understand nature and natural
phenomena" and second, from the Iowa Academy of Science on
Pseudoscience, "in contrast to pseudoscientists, scientists seek
out, expose, and correct any logical fallacies or other errors which
could weaken their theories or interpretations. To assure complete
scrutiny open criticism is not only tolerated but often rewarded,
particularly when it results in significant revisions of established
If this were true, first, science would be
teaching a proper definition of science. Second, it would not be
teaching evolution as a fact. Third, creation would not be
falsely ridiculed and rejected out of hand on the basis of solely
naturalistic presuppositions or other bias. Fourth, creation scientists
would not be subject to the extreme prejudice they are currently subject
to. Fifth, creation scientists would be rewarded for their research,
which has not only advanced science by correcting the deficiencies and
errors in evolutionary theory, but has presented quality evidence for a
more believable theory of origins.
Even though the definition of science is a
philosophical one, scientists should know the definition of
science—what it is, what it isn’t, and what it involves or doesn’t
involve. This is part of their responsibility as scientists. If American
university life isn’t educating them properly on this subject, then so
much worse for the state of modem American education.
We can clearly see how and why science
suffers today—its own biases and prejudices force it to deal unfairly
with the scientific data and to distort the truth. To portray evolution
as science fact (and therefore sacrosanct) while portraying creation as
merely faith (and therefore suspect) is a reversal of reality. As we
will see later, it is evolution that rests on faith, and creation that
employs good science. When the American Institute of Biological Sciences
says that "creationism is based almost solely on religious dogma
stemming from faith rather than demonstrable facts" it is not
looking at the issues fairly.75 And when the American Civil Liberties
Union apparently deliberately distorts the nature of true religious
faith, which is based on logic and sound evidence as we demonstrated in Ready
with an Answer, it can hardly expect sympathy from those who know
better. Consider this statement for example: "Creationism
necessarily rests on the unobservable; it can exist only in the ambiance
of faith. Faith—[i.e.,] belief that does not rest on logic or on
evidence—has no role in scientific inquiry."76
Unfortunately the majority of Americans have no idea
of the unjustifiable abuse that creationism is subject to by the
evolutionist establishment. It would be unfair of us not to point out
that even though this establishment claims to function according to the
principles of objectivity and fairness, this is simply not the case.
58. Russell L. French, preface in Bird, Vol. 2, p.
59. The National Center for Science Education, Inc., Voices
for Evolution, p. 38.
60. Ibid., p. 174.
61. Ibid., p. 51.
62. Ibid., p. 54.
63. Ibid., p. 59.
64. Ibid., pp. 61, 63.
65. Ibid., p. 65.
66. Ibid., p. 161.
67. Ibid., p. 75.
68. Ibid., p. 74.
69. Ibid., p. 82.
70. Ibid., p. 128.
71. Ibid., p. 168.
72. Ibid., p. 171.
73. See Recommended Reading in Darwin’s Leap of
74. The National Center for Science Education, Inc., Voices
for Evolution, p. 48.
75. Ibid., p. 33.
76. Ibid., p. 159.