Scientific Creationism [Paperback]

Henry Madison Morris (Author)

Product Details

• Paperback: 277 pages
• Publisher: Master Books; 2nd edition (December 1974)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0890510032
• ISBN-13: 978-0890510032
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.2 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 7.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (54 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #202,236 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

21 of 26 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Not the best attack against evolution., January 28, 2000

By 

Wade A. Tisthammer "Minnesotan" (Minnesota) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Scientific Creationism (Paperback)

Henry M. Morris and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) present a summary of arguments for what they call "scientific creationism" (in this book, their "scientific creationism" makes no explicit reference to Scripture). Although I do not exactly believe in naturalistic evolution, there have been much more legitimately scientific criticisms of evolution than this book (e.g. "Mere Creation").

Although the book tried to distinguish between "Biblical creationism" (creationism based on the Bible) and "scientific creationism" (creationism based on scientific evidence and making no explicit reference to the Bible) the distinction could have been done much better. At its worst, the book states (p. 188) that the "creation model" would "predict" that the origin of civilization would be located around Mount Ararat (where Noah's Ark is said to be) or near Babylon (where the Tower of Babel allegedly existed). Such "predictions" are clearly based on religion and not on creationism in its less religious form.

On the upside, "Scientific Creationism" does refute the myth that all real scientists are evolutionists. The book presents a list of creation scientists who reviewed the book (pp. i-ii), the vast majority of which hold Ph.D. and M.S. degrees in relevant areas. Even so, anti-evolutionists and even ICR itself have presented significantly better, more legitimately scientific cases for creationism (such as "What is Creation Science?" by Morris and Gary E. Parker) since the book was published.

I do think there are some good, rational, legitimately scientific criticisms of evolution (I am not an adherent of Darwin's theory), but this book does not go far in providing them. The arguments presented in this book are often strained, overgeneralized, and not very scientific. Part of the problem lies in the details. For instance, take the catastrophist argument (from this book) that the fossils were laid down by the flood through the processes of economic zonation, hydrodynamic zonation etc (pp. 118-120). While it does have some explanatory power (trilobites are bottom dwelling sea creatures and are found at the lowest layers) these factors are rather imprecise and tend to explain only the most general features of the geological column. Because of this, the specific details of the data are often missed. For instance, many lines in the fossil record exhibit a progression in the encephalization ratio (a measure of brain size to body size) and both ecological zonation and hydrological sorting are utterly irrelevant here (encephalization ratio does not have anything to do with overall size, shape, streamlining, or anything of the kind). There are no known catastrophic processes that are likely create this sort of order (if we leave out things like ecological zonation, what we have left is simply random-natural processes). This is not to say catastrophism is right or wrong (I make no claim here). However, this book often uses vague theories with vague data (compared to other scientific theories and compared to more sophisticated attacks on evolution) and this is simply not very productive because it does not refute the criticisms (which lie in the details) that could easily be brought forward, like I showed in the example above. Maybe such criticisms can be refuted, but using vague data and theories like this will not solve the problem. You simply need a higher level of sophistication. Although the book may have some collective value, it is certainly not the best of what anti-evolutionists have to offer.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Creation Model vs. the Evolution Model....a great read, November 8, 2011

By 

James Graul - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Scientific Creationism (Paperback)

I thought the ideas were thought provoking and logical. It thoroughly exposed the common notion that a series of mutations could evolve a creature from one vertical position of complexity to another. The argument being that the creation model says the creature is made whole cloth and perfect for what it is but within it's species there is room for variation from built in genetic information already present to accommodate changing surroundings. The book attacks the idea that a series of mutations could move a species forward in complexity toward a new species. There is not one case where a mutation has benefited a species and moved it toward evolving into a new species. In the creation model a mutation would be harmful as it defies the original design of the creator. In fact the creation model does predict the harmfulness of mutations while the evolutionary model relies on the beneficence of mutations in the evolutionary march forward. I am not a scientist but I found the book more than interesting. I found the first half of it compelling. This book is important because our kids are taught not to critique Darwinism. Just to accept it. That to me is unacceptable. Especially today as we learn more and more about the complexity of the cell, the many molecular machines that keep it running and the amazing blueprint that holds all the data for creation of the materials the organism needs to sustain itself and reproduce itself shows not only supernatural design but insists on it.
There is a lot of information on probability. It is very interesting. But common sense will tell you that even given the materials to build a watch or a house you could have all the time in the world and it would not assemble itself without an intelligent design and a intelligent mind guiding it. The author was accused of already having his mind made up. Well that is what a model is for. You use it to make predictions. The model of evolution does not even begin to work and this book makes that clear. It is a good read. I was flabbergasted at the people who had nothing good to say about this book. This book is a wonderful medicine to the lies our kids are being taught in biology class. It teaches one to think and not mindlessly accept the easy critiqued ideas of Darwin's scientific materialism. Kids need to know they are a special creation of a loving God.

19 of 27 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Amazing mental gymnastics, May 10, 2009

By 

Krisko Isackson "Peace, Love, Krisko!" (Minneapolis, MN) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Scientific Creationism (Paperback)

Someone recommended this book to me to convince me of the truth of "Scientific Creationism". I also recommend this book for anyone who wants a good laugh. One of my favorite parts was Morris' explanation of Noah's flood (with no mention of Noah, for after all, Creationism is nonreligious).

In a chapter entitled Uniformitarianism or Catastrophism?, Morris tries to posit that the reason we see progression in the fossil record is because the more complex forms could get to higher ground better. "Mammals and birds would be found in general at higher elevations than reptiles and amphibians, both because of their habitat and because of their greater mobility."

Think about that. This would mean that not one mammal was so slow or injured that they died in the lowlands during the early part of the flood. It would also mean that not one single dinosaur or pterosaur overtook the sloths and kiwis in the race for higher ground. Not to mention this provides no workable concept of why we should see progression in the marine fossils. And we're asked to take this as sound science?

This book also makes the laughable claim that "most fossilized organisms can be found living today, if one ignores differences caused by environmental fluctuations." I know I fear going out at night in case I bump into a T.rex. And I prefer my Trilobites sauteed in garlic sauce. And I'm firmly against Archaeopteryx hunting.

Obviously the term "Scientific Creationism" isn't quite on, as it seems to me they're doing more creating than science.