Customer Reviews

Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Time and Time again one can read in evolutionists material how that the Creation Scientists "misquote" them or "quote out of context". This is done in hopes of discrediting them so that their observations will not have to be considered. Dr. Gish Tackles two problems with this book. 1.) He sets the record straight as to who is quoting who out of context. He does this by documenting the actual claims of evolutionists who assert the misquotes and then showing exactly what was said in the quote being attacked. The end result of which shows that the cited Evolutionists are the ones in error. It does get a bit tedious reading all the quotes at times, since the pattern becomes repetitive where the assertions are shown to be erroneous. 2.) After clarifying whos' integrity is really in question, the good stuff is noted. Many theories that are put forth as evidence for evolution are shown to be flawed or simply to be speculative. Among the most interesting discussions is on the Laws of thermodynamics and of course the Fossils. I would recommend this book for anyone who is serious about the study of origins and have only been exposed to the speculations on the evolutionary side of the issue including the negative propaganda levelled at creationists. See for yourself that Creation Scientists are apparently better "Scientists" than their counterparts.

Even by the stunted standards of 'creation science' Duane Gish stands out as a cornucopia of cluelessness unconstrained by any philosophical, intellectual, or ethical criteria. Gish's pseudoscientific sophistry and staccato stupidity during debates is universally derided as the 'Gish gallop.' His farcical fire, ready, aim approach to logic delivers one non-sequitur after another - a stock-in-tirade that also applies to "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics."

Although Gish didn't invent the lying for Jesus genre he successfully marketed it to current Young Earth Creationists. Luther would be proud of them all:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church - a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

- Martin Luther

This obscurationist opus beats stables of dead horses in a vain attempt to refute mainstream science. My personal favorite is Gish's through misunderstanding and misapplication of thermodynamics in general, and the second law in particular, as he attempts to prove (by his bonsai-brain standards anyway) that evolution is impossible.

Ilya Prigogine (a reality-based scientist) won the Nobel prize in 1977 for his work on the thermodynamics of nonequilibrium systems. Part of this research included publication of an article explaining how nonequilibrium thermodynamics allows life to originate and increase its state of order (complexity) in spite of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics (Prigogine 1972).

The second law states that the ability of energy to do useful work in a closed system decreases over time as energy is converted into forms that are unavailable for use. This is the concept of entropy - an increase in disorder. Creationist cretins superficially interpret this to mean that complex living systems could never evolve from simpler forms because "things run down rather than build up." However Prigogine irrefutably demonstrated that living entities are open systems far from a state of equilibrium. They acquire energy from the sun or other sources and can locally decrease entropy (increase in order and complexity) without violating the second law. In a very fundamental sense Prigogine proved that the second law, and entropy, are essential to the origin of life and evolution!

Gish plays a amateurish shell-game with the facts by claiming that Prigogine said the origin of life is virtually impossible because of the second law of thermodynamics. Prigogine's words were deceptively quote mined from the beginning of his 1972 article where he summarized the fallacious argument that he spent the next several pages demolishing. Perhaps a lazy Gish only read the first page. He also implies that Prigogine is not competent to theorize on the origin of life claiming that he "hasn't spent any time in the laboratory in years." Gish writes:

"Prigogine's theoretical ideas are buttressed with a large amount of complicated mathematics which few biochemists and molecular biologists can understand, but it all does look deliciously scientific. Since Prigogine's speculations lend comfort to his fellow evolutionists among the biochemists and molecular biologists, they are only too eager to bow to the authority of this Nobel Prize winner." (pp. 186-187)

A logical inference from this slanderous statement is that Gish, a biochemist who never seen the inside of a laboratory in years, does not understand the significance and profound importance of Prigogine's mathematics. Unwilling to admit this, he casts an aspersion on the entire scientific community by attributing lemming-like obeisance to a Nobel prize winner. All of this dirty dish from Gish - who couldn't win a third place prize at a 'homeskhool sceince fayre.'

Gish's tenuous grasp of reality was cruelly confirmed years ago, when he was invited along with Henry Morris (the founding fraud of contemporary Young Earth Creationism), to give a dinner presentation to a group of United States Geological Survey scientists. Gish and Morris were invited as entertainment - but both creationists thought they were on the verge of completely revamping geological orthodoxy!

Ben Franklin noted that the definition of insanity "is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." By this standard Duane Gish's apologetic reductio ad absurdum known as "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics" is simply insane.

Gish recently retired, so let's take one last look at one of his major books, Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics (CSATC).

The book has ten chapters, three of which respond to specific books: "Scientists Confront Creationism," (Laurie Godfrey, ed.); Philip Kitcher's "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism;" and Niles Eldredge's "Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism." (All three books were very good, by the way, especially the first, though they are all a bit dated by now, being over 20 years old.). The other chapters were more general discussions about thermodynamics, the fossil record, and general creationist theory. The last chapter consisted of nothing but quotations, most of them ancient, many of them irrelevant. That's just bizarre.

Those quotes also present a problem. Throughout his creationist career, Gish was a prime example of the "lying for Jesus" strategy, with a dreadful reputation for using quotes out of context. The number of quotes in this book, many of them ancient, many more with no context given whatsoever, are highly suspicious, given Gish's well deserved reputation for dishonesty.

For example, in debates in the '70s and `80s, Gish claimed that the geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution, but in 1982 Chris McGowan challenged him with a geology book written before Darwin had even been born, showing essentially the same geologic column used today. Faced with this evidence, Gish admitted his error and withdrew the argument. So, that seems reasonable. Gish made an innocent mistake, admitted the error, and withdrew the argument. End of story, right? Not quite. Despite having admitted that the argument was wrong, Gish continued using it in subsequent debates and books! That's contemptible.

Richard Trott reports a whole series of falsehoods by Gish during a 1994 talk at Rutgers. For example, Gish stated that there are no fossil precursors to the dinosaur Triceratops. In reality there are well known precursors, Monoclonius and Protoceratops, which appear in proper sequence in the fossil record and show the expected change in body size, number of horns, etc. Gish also indicated that all three ceratopsians were contemporaneous. In reality, Protoceratops came first, followed by Monoclonius, followed by Triceratops. Trott's article about Gish's falsehoods prompted a reply from Gish which contained still more dishonest statements! (Which certainly makes one wonder about Gish's truthfulness in the responses he put in this book!)

Joyce Arthur reports another series of Gish falsehoods. In the 1979 version of Evolution? The Fossils Say No! (ETFSN), Gish claimed that Dubois concealed his discovery of Wadjak Man for about 30 years. But in 1982 C. Loring Brace corrected Gish, informing him in a debate that Dubois had actually published, not one, but two reports about Wadjak Man shortly after its discovery. Nevertheless, Gish repeated the same falsehood in Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985) and again in a 1992 debate with Karl Fezer. At that point, Fezer provided Gish with the specific references for Dubois's publications on Wadjak Man, but Gish repeated the same falsehood yet again in the 1995 edition of ETFSN. Arthur herself corrected Gish's falsehood again in 1996, but Gish repeated it yet again in a 1997 debate! Such blatant dishonesty, carried on for almost 20 years, is simply contemptible.

During a 1983 PBS broadcast, Gish dismissed the significance of the similarity of chimp and human proteins, claiming that some bullfrog proteins were more similar to human proteins than chimp proteins were. Asked to identify the specific proteins, Gish promised to do so, claiming that he had them in his records, but he never produced them. In fact, there were no such proteins. Gish simply fabricated the whole thing.

Gish recently announced his retirement from the Institute for Creation Research, an organization that worked hand in hand with Gish in spreading falsehoods. The ICR promotes and sells Gish's trashy books, including his comic book Have You Been Brainwashed? The ICR continued selling the original version for at least nine more years after Gish himself admitted that it contained numerous errors. The ICR is still selling a revised, 1994 version, but the revised edition still contains some of the same errors as the original! So who is brainwashing whom???

The ICR was also involved in promoting the notorious hoax concerning the "discovery" of Noah's Ark in 1993. The "piece of Noah's Ark" that they promoted was nothing more than an old railroad tie that had been soaked in teriyaki and barbecue sauces and then microwaved and baked to make it look old. So Gish and the ICR were certainly a good match for each other!

These examples (and many others) show how dishonest Gish is and help explain why creationists publish their ideas in oral debates and lectures, or in popular books like CSATC, not in professional science journals. In debates, if Gish is caught in a falsehood in front of one audience, that doesn't prevent him from repeating the same falsehood in front of other audiences. And in books like CSATC, Gish knows he can get away with lying, because most creationists aren't likely to check his statements. Such blatant dishonesty can't survive the peer-review process of professional science journals, however, which is why creationists like Gish never publish their creationist trash there.

If nothing else, Dr. Gish reveals how critics will stoop to very low bounds in order to make a creationist look bad. As one other reviewer stated, this book is mostly a response to numerous false accusations levelled at creationists. Many good points are made even though they are intertwined with explanations of subtrifuge on the part of evolutionists. Hats off to Dr. Gish in letting the world see the lack of integrity to be attributed to these critics and that an evolutionist's so called scientific fact is not to be mistaken for scientific truth!

Dr.Gish reviews the arguments and misinformation in what should be a free and open discussion and scientific analysis. Unfortunately one can see by the book reviews of books on creation (life) by design, remarks unusually printed in all capital letters, that an intelectual discussion about scientific evidence, based on Facts and not personal attacks, is difficult given the almost cultist like hatred held by those believing their brains are the product of coagulating pond gunk. This book is a great resource for those interested in reviewing the history and persons involved in the historical arguement.

The creationist case can be better stated, [Mark Eastman for instance] but this book is more of a response to evolutionists attack on creationists. It does bring up faults in evolution that leading evolutionists such as Stephen Gould admit. For instance, Gould has acknowledge the lack of transistional forms, and problems with the idea of transistional species. The quotes at the end of the book, by evolutionists themselves say it all.

Academic creationists feel that their writings have been grossly and unfairly misrepresented in books and journals, while they have been denied the right of reply. This book is a composite refutation of the many and varied attacks on creation scientists. It includes, among others, chapters on scientific integrity, the fossil record, and a particularly detailed one on thermodynamics which includes two lengthy appendices. It discusses topics such as the relationship between creation and evolution on the one hand and science and religion on the other, the nature of evolution as a dogma and the intolerant attitudes of its adherents, the abuse of science, probability arguments, and so on. A closing chapter contains extensive and extended quotes, mostly from evolutionist authors, which expose the weaknesses of evolution theory. The ideas are well articulated and the work is well documented. The book has evidently ruffled not a few feathers, but that is no bad thing! While some may wish to burn it, those with an open mind will find it stimulating reading, whether they agree with the author or not.

Duane Gish once again produces another book based on finding presumed weaknesses in evolutionary theory and completely lacking in any positive evidince for creation. Unfortunately, for every one of the examples he gives for creationists being quoted out of context that I have independently checked, it is Duane who has actually twisted the meaning. For any Christian truly interested in knowing the truth and getting a relatively unbiased appraisal of the evolution/creation controversy, I highly recommend the following books, all written by Christian scholars, teachers, and pastors. The Biblical Flood, by Davis A. Young - Portraits of Creation, edited by Howard Van Till - Foundation, Fall, and Flood, by Glenn R. Morton - and Creationism's Upsidedown Pyramid, by Lee Tiffin. Another excellent resource is the American Scientific Affiliation which is the largest association of Christian scientists in North America. The views of these Christians who also happen to be professional scientists are very telling; these critics were dissapointingly completely ignored by Duane Gish.

His attempt to justify the teaching or elevation of "creationite assertion" to level of science is amusing. Unfortunately, the fundamentalites have been on the attack since the Scopes trial and this is their latest attempt to raise myth to the level of science; Gish fails miserably. While Dennett's book was not intended as a response to such misguided foolishness, Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" is a very good reply to such diatribe.

Gish, while claiming a phd. insults the intelligence of anyone with even a modicum of education. I suggest any reader interested in the issues of scientific and not myth or legend, or worse yet, pseudo-science as presented by Gish, read any or all of the following: Science Matters by Hazen and Trefil; Beginnings, by Asimov; The Demon Haunted World and COSMOS, by Carl Sagan; The Origin of the Universe, by Barrow; A Brief History of Time, by Hawking; Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Dennett (the most most complete overview of the science of and logic of evolution to date); Climbing Mount Improbable and The Blind Watchmaker, by Dawkins; The First Three Minutes, by Weinberg; The God Particle, by Lederman; From Quarks to the Cosmos, by Lederman and Schramm. These are just a small sample of real science and logic (Dennett and Sagan) that the scientists, as opposed to pseudo-scientists and mythologists like Gish, Morris and McDowell, have to offer. It is a shame that the ICR and the reich wing have such influence in this country. The decline in science scores and the increased interest in mythology and pseudo-science appears to be directly related.