is not a fact, and yet the scientific world declares evolution is a
fact, then the unkind conclusion is that the scientific world is
either deceived or somehow doesn’t know the meaning of the term
"fact." The Macmillan Dictionary for Students (1984) defines fact as
"something known to be true or real; that which has actually
occurred." For reasons that we will demonstrate later, it is
impossible that evolution can be "known to be true." Further, the
evidence declares that evolution has not occurred and could never
who declare that evolution is a fact should recognize the damage they
do to the credibility of science—and not just evolutionary science but
all of science. As more and more people gradually learn the truth
that, deliberately or innocently, science has mislead them on an
extremely crucial issue, their trust in the authority of science will
be over. The implications are hardly small.
trusts the scientific world to know the difference between fact and
speculation, between the proper interpretation of observable data that
can be proven valid and unwarranted conclusions derived from faulty
premises. When scientists everywhere assert that a highly suspect,
indeed incredible, theory is "an established fact of science," why
should anyone trust scientists to tell them the truth in other areas?
If the scientific world won’t tell the truth in so critical an area as
our own origins, with vast implications for each of us, why should it
tell the truth in matters of lesser import? In fact, the public’s
trust in science has already eroded significantly because of
consequences stemming from its adherence to naturalism,1
and because of sloppy science generally.
One of those
logical consequences is a nihilistic outlook on life.2 Even
an article in the prestigious journal Science for August 15, 1997,
correctly warned, "much of the anti-science mood in the country today
stems from the perception that by venerating meaninglessness, science
has become inhuman."3
But most scientists are unaware of how the
theory of evolution itself damages the progress of science.
comments of the Canadian scholar Arthur C. Custance, discussing a text
by noted evolutionist G. G. Simpson, This View of Life: "Throughout
the book this begging of the issue runs like an unending refrain.
Evolution is a fact, not a theory; evolution is one of the few basic
facts; it is an unassailable fact; a fact supported by all other
facts; a fact which only dishonest biologists would argue against....
According to Simpson, those who refuse to accept it are either
idiotic, dishonest, or both."4
comment here is significant because it applies to so many modern
science textbooks. Custance also says, "Observing the literature
carefully over a period of some 40 years, it is my impression that the
sense of urgency and special pleading in assuring the public that
Darwin was right, has increased steadily with the passage of time."5
more and more damaging evidence accumulates against the idea of
evolution, it is presented more forcefully as fact. This cannot be
science (or reason) operating, this is emotion and "politically
correct" science, pure and simple. And if scientists do science on the
basis of emotion and "political correctness," we are all in trouble.
lay people aren’t the only ones realizing that the scientific
establishment has been less than truthful. Many scientists who
investigate the matter openly are also discovering that the theory of
evolution has little or no evidence in its behalf. As Dr. Isaac Manly
(MD, Harvard Medical School) comments, "What I have learned in the
past ten years of review of recent scientific knowledge of cellular
morphology and physiology; the code of life (DNA), and the lack of
supporting evidence for evolution in the light of recent scientific
evidence is a shocking rebuttal to the theory of evolution.... There
is no evidence of any kind for this theory."6
Dr. Manly also commented that, as he read
Darwin’s Origin of Species, he was "struck by the lack of any real
evidence for Darwin’s theories."7
to have the same conclusion as we read modern evolutionary literature.
Manly is correct concerning Darwin’s successors attempts to prove
evolution: "they were quite willing to speculate and theorize to
degrees of absurdity to prove the unprovable."8
conclusions of noted U.C. Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson
can be multiplied hundreds of times from scientists on the basis of
scientific evidence alone. Johnson stated evolution
is not only unproven but
actually contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.... [W]hat
is presented to the public as scientific knowledge about
evolutionary mechanisms is mostly philosophical speculation and is
not even consistent with the evidence once the naturalistic
spectacles are removed. If that leaves us without a known mechanism
of biological creation, so be it: it is better to admit ignorance
than to have confidence in an explanation that is not true.9
evolutionist Pierre-P. Grasse, among the most distinguished of French
zoologists, remarks that "the explanatory doctrines of biological
evolution do not stand up to an in-depth criticism," while
evolutionist Bethel sees "Darwin’s theory... on the verge of
scientists want the public to trust them, and to pay taxes to fund
their research, then perhaps they should start telling us the truth.
Until that time, by declaring evolution a fact, they will only damage
their own cause.
article in Science magazine for August 15, 1997 correctly warned
(citing geneticist Francisco Ayala), "The financial structure of
American research depends on the goodwill of a body politic that
values religion. We are not wise to have the body politic seeing
science as antagonistic to spiritual commitment."11
example of how modern naturalistic science can damage the name of
science, consider the book Voices for Evolution, published by the
National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Berkeley. This text
contains the official statements of some 70 scientific, religious,
educational, and civil liberty organizations who virtually demand the
teaching of evolution, almost always as fact, in public schools, and
who demand we reject or strongly oppose the teaching of creation
science as a legitimate second theory for an explanation of origins.
This text is so full of distortions one hardly knows where to start.
The NCSE states its goal plainly enough in the foreword, "The
short-term immediate goal of NCSE... is to keep ‘scientific’
creationism from being taught as legitimate science in public
What is so
disconcerting is that this text offers an accurate representation of
the views of the scientific establishment, mainline religion, and
numerous educational organizations in America. Yet it shows an
ignorance as to the true nature of science, the true nature of
creation science and the undeniable facts of science as they relate to
the creation/evolution controversy. Worse yet, it clearly shows a
naturalistic bias which serves to distort science. We have elsewhere
cited experts relative to the "evolution is a fact" bias. Consider
One: Creation Is Not a Valid Scientific Theory
documentation exists proving that creation can be a valid scientific
theory. But apparently some people don’t want the public to know this.
If the evolutionary establishment is properly informed on the nature
of science, then they are misleading the public by the following
pronouncements. If they are not properly informed as to the nature of
science, then they should not make pronouncements as to what is or
Asimov in the introduction to Voices for Evolution— "There is no
trace of anything scientific in creationism.…"13
of Science of the Royal Society of Canada—"... ‘scientific
creationism’ has nothing to do with science or the scientific
Association for the Advancement of Science—"... the theory of
creation is neither scientifically grounded nor capable of
performing the roles required of scientific theories. ...
‘Creationist Science’ has no scientific validity…."15
Society of Parasitologists— "Creationism is not a science and cannot
become a science."16
Academy of Science— "Creationism is not science and the Academy
deplores and opposes any attempt to disguise it as science."17
University of California Academic Senate—"... a description of
special creation as a scientific theory is a gross misunderstanding
of the nature of scientific inquiry."18
Citizens’ Educational Coalition— "We oppose the teaching of
‘creationism’ as science in Georgia’s public schools. Creationism is
based on... religious belief… not on scientific theory."19
Civil Liberties Union— "ACLU also opposes the inculcation of
religious doctrines even if they are presented as alternatives to
scientific theories. ‘Creation science’ in all guises, for example
‘abrupt appearance theory’ or ‘intelligent design theory,’ is just
such religious doctrine."20
• New York
State Education Department—"... ‘scientific creationism’ is not
accepted as science by the majority of experts working in those
fields of science related to origins."21
Humanist Association— "Creationism is not scientific: it is a purely
religious view held by some religious sects and persons...."22
are only a few examples of the scientific, educational, and civil
liberties organizations making such statements. Indeed, virtually all
of the organizations cited are opposed to the teaching of creation as
a scientific alternative to evolution in public school classrooms.
However, if scientific creation is legitimate, as it is, then these
organizations are more concerned with scientific indoctrination than
scientific education. And recent history has shown how perilous this
can be. In this particular case, here is why they are wrong.
scientists and experts on the nature of the relationship between
science and religion have attested to the scientific case for
creation. For example, the volumes by Bird, Moreland (ed.), and
Geisler and Anderson23
are only some of those demonstrating that creation can be scientific.
points out that,
Seven of the fifteen
judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed
that the theory of creation is "scientific evidence" that "has no
direct religious reference whatever;" and two of the nine justices
of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. They correctly point out that
concepts of creation always have been a basic part of science, and
are still a vital part of cosmology....24
In What Is
Creation Science? Morris and Parker also demonstrate that creation can
Morris has a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota
with a major in hydraulics and hydrology and minors in geology and
mathematics. He is a full member of Sigma Xi and Phi Beta Kappa and a
Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Morris has published dozens of research papers in refereed scientific
journals, and has spent 28 years on the faculties of five major
universities and partaken in scores of debates with evolutionists.
Gary Parker earned his Ph.D. in biology with a cognate in geology
(paleontology) and has several academic awards including election to
the National Universities Scholastic Honorary Society; Phi Beta Kappa,
and a Science Faculty Fellowship from the National Science Foundation.
His research in amphibian endocrinology earned his election to the
American Society of Zoologists.
Kenyon, Ph.D., professor of biology and coordinator of the general
biology program at San Francisco State University wrote the foreword
to the above text by Morris and Parker. Dr. Kenyon is one of America’s
leading non-evolutionary scientists and has a Ph.D. in biophysics from
A former evolutionist and co-author of
Biochemical Predestination, a standard work on the evolutionary origin
of life, Kenyon now believes that the current situation where most
consider creation science simply a religion in disguise "is
regrettable and exhibits a degree of close-mindedness quite alien to
the spirit of true scientific inquiry."27
Kenyon is only one prominent scientist who has
"extensively reviewed the scientific case for creation" and finds it
In Volume 1
of his The Origin of Species Revisited, W R. Bird presents scientific
evidence for what he terms the theory of abrupt appearance, similar to
the theory of creation. He offers seven lines of evidence in support
of abrupt appearance: "These lines of evidence are affirmative in the
sense that, if true, they support the theory of abrupt appearance.
They are not negative in the sense of merely identifying weaknesses of
evolution. Nor do they depend on any assumption that the theories of
abrupt appearance and evolution are the only scientific alternatives,
except for the probability argument in part."29
lines of evidence include: 1) the empirical evidence of systematic
abrupt appearance; 2) the empirical evidence of systematic gaps; 3)
the argument from comparative morphology involving empirical evidence
of systematic similarity and stasis of organisms; 4) the information
content argument relating to natural laws of information science; 5)
the probability argument dealing with the laws of statistics; 6) the
genetics argument dealing with the natural law of limited change; and
7) the comparative discontinuity argument dealing with empirical
evidence from comparative anatomy, comparative biochemistry, and
The theory of abrupt
appearance is scientific. It consists of the empirical evidence and
scientific interpretation that is the content of this chapter. The
theory of abrupt appearance also satisfies the various definitions
of science in a manner comparable to evolution, as discussed in
chapters 9 and 10. Its many testable and falsifiable claims are
summarized in sections 10.3(a) and 10.4(a). The theory of creation
similarly can be scientific, as a number of its opponents concede.30
W. R. Bird
demonstrates that the theory of abrupt appearance is not only
scientifically evidential, in Volume 2 he shows it is scientifically
testable and refutable. In the area of biology; he shows that the
affirmative evidence for abrupt appearance in paleontology,
comparative morphology, information content, probability, genetics,
and comparative discontinuity not only have testable claims but they
affirm the theory of abrupt appearance. In the area of biochemistry,
he shows that the argument from information content, probability,
isomers, biogenesis and thermodynamics are not only testable, but also
affirm abrupt appearance. And in terms of cosmology he shows that
thermodynamics, information content, the Anthropic Principle,
heterogeneity, star and galaxy formation, and radio halos are testable
and provide evidence for abrupt appearance.31
Wilder-Smith also presents a scientific creation alternative to
Neo-Darwinism in his A Basis for a New Biology and The Scientific
Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory: Information Sources
scientific case for creation is also ably marshaled by several leading
scientists in J. P. Moreland’s (ed.), The Creation Hypothesis (InterVarsity;
1994). Some of the contributors include: William A. Dembski who holds
a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in
philosophy from the University of Illinois, Chicago, and has conducted
doctoral and postdoctoral research at Cornell (math), MIT (math), the
University of Chicago (math and physics), and Princeton (computer
science) and has been a National Science Foundation doctoral and
postdoctoral fellow. Stephen C. Meyer has degrees in physics and
geology and a Ph.D. from Cambridge in the history and philosophy of
science. Charles Thaxton has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Iowa State
University and was a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University as well
as a postdoctoral appointment in the molecular biology laboratory at
Brandeis University. Kurt P. Wise has degrees in geophysical science
from the University of Chicago and an M.A. and Ph.D. in paleontology
from Harvard University.
Collectively, the authors in this volume alone have published hundreds
of scientific articles in refereed scientific journals. They are only
nine examples of thousands which make the evolutionists’ claims
amusing: "No reputable scientist believes in creation."
creationism is really only a religion, why do evolutionists
consistently lose their scientific debates to creationists? Such
debates have been held since 1970. In 1979, The Wall Street Journal
for June 15 reported, "The creationists tend to win" the debates. Six
months later a report in Bioscience for January 30, 1980 agreed: "Why
do creationists seem to be the consistent winners in public debates
In an ICR letter of August 1979, Henry Morris
could report: "By now, practically every leading evolutionary
scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a
scientific debate on creation/evolution."34
One wonders why if evolution is a proven scientific fact and creation
only a religion?
creationists were still leading, even according to the evolutionists.
Evolutionists had 20 years to improve their debating record and yet
did not. Today, these debates are "almost always won by creationists,
according to evolutionists.…"35
and Dr. Morris says of Duane Gish, who has had over 300 formal
debates, "at least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences,
he always wins."36
[in all these debates
that] have been conducted throughout the U.S. and in other countries
during the past 20 years, creationists have carefully avoided all
references to religious concepts and literature and have based their
arguments strictly on scientific evidence, such as the fossil
record, the laws of thermodynamics, the complexity of living
organisms and probability relationships, etc. The fact that
evolutionists themselves admit that creationists have won most of
the debates does seem to be saying something important.37
this helps explain why, despite erroneous and biased legal decisions,
polls indicate most people favor the idea of schools teaching the
theory of creation in addition to the theory of evolution. This
includes more than 85 percent of the national public, two thirds of
lawyers nationally (who also find it constitutional), most university
presidents at secular universities, and two-thirds of public school
board members. One poll indicated 42 percent of public school biology
teachers favor the theory of creation over the theory of evolution.38
Yet very few schools actually allow their
teachers the option of a two-model approach. Something would certainly
seem to need addressing here.
Two: Poisoning the Well
organizations quoted below are some of the most prestigious and
respected in America. But note how the reader is prejudiced against
creation beforehand by the terms and language used. Among logical
fallacies, this is known as "poisoning the well"—the attempt to refute
an argument beforehand by discrediting the source of the evidence for
the argument: "Everyone knows creationists are pseudoscientific
religionists, so why trust their arguments?"
bias against creationism can be seen in the following examples:
for Amateur Scientists: "SAS [Society for Amateur Scientists] will
never participate in creationist research."39
Civil Liberties Union: "To reject creationism as science is to
defend the most basic principles of academic integrity and religious
California Academy of Sciences: "The appropriate place in the
science curriculum for the notion that organisms have been designed
is the same as that for the notion that the earth is located at the
center of the universe."41
Science Teachers Association: "[Teachers in the state of Utah
should] help students understand that accepting the theory of
evolution by natural selection need not compromise their religious
beliefs.... [and] help students understand that creationism, as
taught by prominent creationist organizations of the day, is
pseudoscience and not science."42
only a few of the declarations that could be cited. What’s worse,
scientists who are creationists are actually regarded as incapable of
understanding any of the sciences because the scientific disciplines
can, supposedly, be understood only in terms of the theory of
evolution. We find it incredible that respected scientific
organizations would make these kinds of statements. Consider some
examples (emphases added):
Anthropological Association: "…evolutionary theory is the
indispensable foundation for the understanding of physical
anthropology and biology…."43
Psychological Association: "Principles of evolution are an essential
part of the knowledge base of psychology. Any attempt to limit or
exclude the teaching of evolution from the science curriculum would
deprive psychology students of a significant part of their
of Vertebrate Paleontology: "[Besides paleontology and biology]
evolution is equally basic to geology, because the patterns of rock
formations, geomorphology, and fossil distributions in the world
make no sense without the underlying process of change through
Association of Biology Teachers: "Teaching biology in an effective
and scientifically honest manner requires classroom discussions and
laboratory experiences of evolution.... Effective teaching of
cellular and molecular biology requires inclusion of evolution."46
From Religion Foundation: "Biology makes no sense without
recognizing the fact [of evolution]."47
words, none of the thousands of creationist or non-evolutionary
scientists who reject evolution are considered capable of
understanding scientific disciplines such as biology, anthropology,
paleontology, geology, or molecular biology! But there’s more.
Creationists and other non-evolutionary scientists aren’t considered
able to understand any of the sciences. Indeed, creationists, etc.,
can’t even teach biology apart from evolution:
Citizens’ Educational Coalition: "It is no longer possible to teach
biology without the study of the scientific theory of evolution,
which has been universally accepted into mankind’s general body of
knowledge, and stands today as the organizing principle of biology
and the general theory of life."48
Association of Canada: "A student cannot possibly understand any of
the life sciences without understanding the process of evolution
that is the foundation of these sciences."49
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study: "It is no longer possible to
give a complete or even a coherent account of living things without
the story of evolution."50
for Amateur Scientists: "Genetics, astronomy, geology, paleontology,
biology, physiology, anatomy, and physics all speak with one
voice.... The evidence [for evolution] is abundant and irrefutable."51
In light of
such statements, no wonder so many people think creation is
pseudoscience and creationists scientific know-nothings. Sources
quoted here and others liken creationism to such false ideas as a flat
earth, astrology, the anti-germ theory, and even divination by goat
No wonder the terms used in rejecting creation science
are so adamant: "deplores and opposes," "strongly opposed," "strongly
deplores," "condemns," "vigorously opposes," etc.
introduction to Voices for Evolution, the late scientist Isaac Asimov
calls creation, "nothing but a disgraceful imposture" pointing out
that "creationists do not hesitate to distort scientific findings, to
misquote scientists, and to play upon the emotions and prejudices of
their unsophisticated followers." Creation is regarded as
"unscientific gibberish" because it believes the literal words of the
Bible are true.53
The Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism tells
us that "biblical creationism is an ongoing and serious threat to
science education, responsible research, critical thought, and free
In light of
this, it is hardly surprising that we find the following descriptions
of creationists, creationism, and teaching creation in science
classrooms. Some of the leading scientific, religious, and educational
organizations in the country employ the following terms:
pseudoscience; bad science; the forces of unreason; counterfeiters;
misleading to students; artificial; denigration of legitimate
science; misnamed religious propaganda; myth; ignorance; bigotry; a
threat to the very integrity of science.55
science speaks in such a manner, it should not be surprised that tens
of millions of Americans who are creationists would learn not to trust
modern science. If science says that the scientific evidence for
belief in a divine Creator is a horrible thing to allow in children’s
science classrooms, scientists shouldn’t be surprised at the outcome.
however, one can find rare glimpses of the truth. Consider again the
West Virginia Academy of Science declaration that, "Dogmatic
assertions are inconsistent with objective considerations of any
subject. Science is always tentative and does not pretend to offer
The Association of Pennsylvania State College and University
Biologists says that biology teachers in Pennsylvania should teach the
theory of evolution "not as absolute truth..." but as the most widely
accepted scientific theory.57
The Iowa Department of Public Instruction
emphasizes that evolution should be taught as a well-supported
scientific theory, "not a fact...."58
should not be dogmatic and evolution should not be presented as a
fact, then all the "voices for evolution" must be wrong in
dogmatically declaring it a fact.
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
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
most people in our society are ignorant on this subject, including the
prestigious organizations listed below:
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 faiths."60
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.’"61
Louisiana Academy of Sciences: "... organic evolution is amenable to
repeated observation and testing."62
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."63
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 invalid."64
Orleans Geological Society: "Creation-science data 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.…"65
• New York
Academy of Sciences: "Scientific creationism is a religious concept
masquerading as a scientific one."66
Humanist Association: "There are no alternative theories to the
principle of evolution... that any competent biologist of today
for the Study of Evolution: "The study of evolution is an
empirically based science which employs the scientific process of
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
Virginia Academy of Science: "Their claim that scientific
creationism is independent of biblical creationism, which they admit
is religious, is demonstrably false."70
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 it...."71
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 verification."72
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."73
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.74
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 views."75
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.
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 modern American
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. 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.76
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."77
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.
1 Cf., Phillip E.
Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in
Science, Law, and Education (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995).
2 John Ankerberg, John
Weldon, Darwin’s Leap of Faith (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1998),
3 Gregg Easterbrook,
"Science and God—A Warming Trend?" Science, August 15, 1997, p. 893.
4 Arthur Custance,
Evolution or Creation? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), pp.
5 Ibid., p. 172.
6 Isaac V. Manly, M.D.,
God Made: A Medical Doctor Looks at the Reality of Creation (Joplin,
MO: College Press, 1994), pp. 13, 116.
7 Ibid., p. 52.
8 Ibid., p. 143.
9 Johnson, Reason, pp.
10 Bethel, "Darwin’s
Mistake," Harper’s magazine, February 1976, pp. 70, 72 in W. R.
Bird, The Origin Of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and
Abrupt Appearance, Vol. 1 (NY: Philosophical Library, 1991), p. 136.
11 Easterbrook, "Science
and God," p. 890.
12 The National Center
for Science Education, Inc., Voices for Evolution (Berkeley: NSCE,
1995, rev), p. iv.
13 Ibid., p. x.
14 Ibid, p.16.
15 Ibid., pp. 24-25.
16 Ibid., p. 37.
17 Ibid., p. 46.
18 NSCE, Voices for
Evolution: Addendum, rev. edition, 1995, p. 19.
19 NSCE, Voices for
Evolution, p. 130.
20 Ibid., p. 159.
21 NSCE, Voices for
Evolution: Addendum, p. 11.
22 NSCE, Voices for
Evolution, p. 162.
23 J. P. Moreland (ed.),
The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for An Intelligent
Designer (InterVarsity Press, 1994); Bird, Origin... Revisited,
Vols. 1 & 2, passim; Norman L. Geisler, J. Kirby Anderson, Origin
Science: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Controversy (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987); Henry M. Morris, Gary E. Parker, What Is
Creation Science? (San Diego, CA: Creation Life, 1982).
24 Bird, Origin...
Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 6.
25 See the discussion in
Morris and Parker, What Is Creation Science?
26 See the biography note
in Bird, Origin... Revisited, Vol. 1, p. xvi.
27 Dean Kenyon in the
introduction to Morris and Parker, What Is Creation Science?, p. 3.
28 Ibid., p. 3.
29 Bird, Origin...
Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 44.
30 Ibid., p. 45.
31 Bird, Origin...
Revisited, Vol. 2, pp. 104-07.
32 A. E. Wilder-Smith, A
Basis for a New Biology (Einigen/Schweir: TELOS- International,
1976) and his Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary
Theory: Information, Sources and Structures (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFP
Publishers, 1987), cf., p. v.
33 Dennis Dubay,
"Evolution/Creation Debate," Bioscience, Vol. 30, January 1980, pp.
34 Available from the
Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA.
35 Duane Gish, Creation
Scientists Answer Their Critics (El Cajon, CA: Institute for
Creation Research, 1993), p. ix.
36 Ibid., p. vi.
37 Ibid., p. 63.
38 Bird, Origin...
Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 8.
39 NCSE, Voices for
Evolution p. 74.
40 Ibid., p. 160.
41 Ibid., p. 41.
42 Ibid., pp. 154-55.
43 Ibid., p. 20.
44 Ibid., p. 35.
45 Ibid., p. 78.
46 Ibid., pp. 140, 142.
47 Ibid., p. 168.
48 Ibid., p. 130.
49 Ibid., p. 169.
50 Ibid., p. 124.
51 Ibid., p. 73.
52 Ibid., p. 139;
addendum, p. 4; see also Karl Wessel in Commentary, Sept. 1986, p.
53 NCSE, Voices for
Evolution, pp. ix, x.
54 Ibid., p. 166.
55 Ibid., pp. 40, 48, 73,
50, 51, 170, 172, 118 and addendum, p. 6.
56 Ibid., p. 81.
57 Ibid., p. 119.
58 Ibid., p. 136.
59 Russell L. French,
preface in Bird, Vol. 2, p. xviii.
60 NCSE, Voices for
Evolution, p. 38.
61 Ibid., p. 174.
62 Ibid., p. 51.
63 Ibid., p. 54.
64 Ibid., p. 59.
65 Ibid., pp. 61, 63.
66 Ibid., p. 65.
67 Ibid., p. 161.
68 Ibid., p. 75.
69 Ibid., p. 74.
70 Ibid., p. 82.
71 Ibid., p. 128.
72 Ibid., p. 168.
73 Ibid., p. 171.
74 See Recommended
Reading in Darwin’s Leap of Faith.
75 NCSE, Voices for
Evolution, p. 48.
76 Ibid., p. 33.
77 Ibid., p. 159.