with Dr. John Ankerberg
and Dr. John Weldon
(from Darwin's Leap of Faith, Harvest House, 1998)
As an example of how modem 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
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 other examples:
Distortion One: Creation Is Not a Valid Scientific
Abundant 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 isn’t scientific.
in the introduction to Voices for Evolution—"There is no trace
of anything scientific in creationism.…"12
Academy of Science of the Royal Society
‘scientific creationism’ has nothing to do with science or the
scientific method. " 13
American 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…."14
American Society of Parasitologists—"Creationism
is not a science and cannot become a science."15
Iowa Academy of Science—"Creationism
is not science and the Academy deplores and opposes any attempt to
disguise it as science."16
University of California Academic
description of special creation as a scientific theory is a gross
misunderstanding of the nature of scientific inquiry."17
Georgia Citizens’ Educational
Coalition—"We oppose the
teaching of ‘creationism’ as science in Georgia’s public
schools. Creationism is based on... religious belief… not on
American 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
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
American Humanist Association—"Creationism
is not scientific: it is a purely religious view held by some
religious sects and persons...."21
The above 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
Many noted 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 Anderson are only some of those
demonstrating that creation can be scientific.22
Bird also 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...."23
In What Is Creation Science?
Morris and Parker also demonstrate that creation can be scientific.24
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.
Dean H. 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 Stanford University.25 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."26 Kenyon is only one prominent scientist who has
"extensively reviewed the scientific case for creation" and
finds it legitimate.27
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."28
These seven 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 classification.
In essence, "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."29
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.30
Dr. 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 and Structures.31
The scientific case for creation is also ably
marshalled 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
Finally, if 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 with
evolutionists?"32 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."33 One wonders why if
evolution is a proven scientific fact and creation only a religion?
By 1993, 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..."34 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."35 In conclusion, 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."36
Perhaps all 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 now favor the theory of creation over
the theory of evolution.37 Yet very few schools actually allow their
teachers the option of a two model approach. Something would certainly
seem to need addressing here.
11. The National Center for Science Education, Inc., Voices
for Evolution, p. iv.
12. Ibid., p. x.
13. Ibid, p.16.
14. Ibid., pp. 24-25.
15. lbid., p. 37.
16. lbid., p. 46.
17. The National Center for Science Education, Inc., Voices
for Evolution: Addendum, rev. edition, 1995, p. 19.
18. The National Center for Science Education, Inc., Voices
for Evolution, p. 130.
19. Ibid., p. 159.
20. The National Center for Science Education, Inc., Voices
for Evolution: Addendum, p. 11.
21. The National Center for Science Education, Inc., Voices
for Evolution, p.
22. J. P. Moreland (ed.), The Creation Hypothesis; 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).
23. Bird, Origin... Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 6.
24. See the discussion in Henry M. Morris, Gary E.
Parker, What Is Creation Science?
25. See the biography note in Bird, Origin...
Revisited, Vol. 1, p. xvi.
26. Dean Kenyon in the introduction to Morris and
Parker, What Is Creation Science?, p. 3.
27. lbid., p. 3.
28. Bird, Origin... Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 44.
29. Ibid., p. 45.
30. Bird, Origin... Revisited, Vol. 2, pp.
31. 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.
32. Dennis Dubay, "Evolution/Creation
Debate," Bioscience, Vol. 30, January 1980, pp. 4-5.
33. Available from the Institute for Creation
Research, Santee, CA.
34. Gish, Creation Scientists Answer, p. ix.
35. Ibid., p. vi.
36. Ibid., p. 63.
37. Bird, Origin... Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 8.
Copyright 2006, Ankerberg Theological Research Institute