Customer Reviews

What Is Creation Science?

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

Henry M. Morris (1918-2006) was one of the foremost biblical creationists of the late 20th century; he was also the author/coauthor of books such as The Genesis Flood the Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications, The Scientific Case for Creation, Scientific Creationism, etc. Gary Parker was a faculty member of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) for twelve years, and is the author of books such as Creation: Facts of Life (Revised & Updated), Dry Bones and Other Fossils, etc.

In the Introduction to the revised 1987 edition of this book, the authors say, "Just what IS this creation science the newspapers keep writing about?' ... 'But is it really possible that there is scientific evidence for creation, as the creationists claim?' 'Isn't creation just a religious belief, as the evolutionists claim?' This book has been written to answer such questions as these and to show that the concept of creation is every bit as scientific as the concept of an ongoing naturalistic evolutionary process."

Here are some additional quotations from the book:

"Once in a great while a child will be born with a 'tail.' But, is it really a tail? No, it's not even the coccyx. It doesn't have any bones in it; it doesn't have any nerve cord either... It's just skin and a little fatty tissue." (Pg. 65-67)
"Is there any clue in Archaeopteryx as to HOW the reptilian scales evolved into feather? No, none at all. When we find feathers as fossils, we find fully developed and functional feathers." (Pg. 137)
"Only the gracile australopithecines (Donald) Johanson and the Leakeys are presently working on remain as even possible evidence of an ape/human transition. These specimens do deserve serious consideration---but so do the 'anatomical features that warn against a too-ready acceptance of this story.'" (Pg. 160)
"The question of the nature and duration of earth history is, indeed, an important related issue, but it is not the MAIN issue. Whether or not all things were created is the basic issue." (Pg. 230)
"Scientific creationism is NOT based on Genesis or any other religious teaching. There is not a single quotation from the Bible in this entire book!" (Pg. 297)

I received this book as a gift a few years ago. At the time I had no idea what Creation Science was or how it stacked up with Evolution on a scientific basis. I had spent my entire life learning about evolution in public schools. Learning isn't an accurate statement. I memorized what they told me, got the A, and moved on without thinking about it. Dr. Morris and Dr. Parker did a great job of showing me the scientific fallacy behind evolution. After reading this book and thinking about the evidence behind both sides, I found the assumptions behind Evolution to be preposterous. In fact, Evolution is such a stretch, it should not be taught in our public schools. Unfortunately, you can't prove, by scientific definitions, either case. Creation Science, however, is a much more comprehensive, methodical, and logical approach. Oh, by the way, I'm a Mechanical Engineer and fully grasp scientific theory and reasoning, formation and testing of hypotheses, and rational and object analysis. But don't take my word for it, read it yourself.

Near the close of the twentieth century we have seen a noticeable split between creationist (and I use the term broadly) movements. One, like Dembski and others (confer "Mere Creation"), use more significantly sophisticated and legitimately scientific (even if it is flawed) work to support their case. The other one, stemming from the "scientific creationist" movement of the 1970s and 80s, can be seen in books and writings like those of Henry Morris. Gary Parker, who possesses a Ph.D. in biology, is a notable exception and might be considered a borderline case. I regard this ICR ("Institute of Creation Research") book as one of the three major creationist books (the other two are "The Genesis Flood" and "Scientific Creationism," which will be referred to as SC for sake of abbreviation). For sake of abbreviation, I will refer to "What is Creation Science?" as WICS. The book could be considered a sort of sequel to the earlier ICR book, SC.

People, even many well-intention scientists, often misconstrue creation science as the idea of a Supreme Being creating the universe as literally described in the book of Genesis. Yet creation science (as presented by the authors of WICS) neither mentions Scripture nor theology. Creation science on the biological scale is the theory that life was created artificially (p. 34). This is also called "intelligent design theory" by other authors and scientists. Creation science as applied to cosmology is the theory that the universe is not a completely isolated system (pp. x, 9, 190). Thus the theory suggests that the universe was an open system for it to be created.

In part because of how "creation science" is defined, one of the improvements made is that WICS has a much less religious appearance. Scripture seemed to be more of an inspiration and a motivation behind SC. WICS made almost no inept religious intervention (unless one believes the theories defined to be inherently religious). Parker especially did an excellent job of not referring to religious principles when describing and making the case for creation science.

Part II, written by Parker, was called "The Life Sciences," and contains the most legitimate science in the book. By far the largest improvement has been in biology when one contrasts WICS to SC. There are several reasons for this. First of all, Parker has a Ph.D. in biology and has taught evolutionary biology at the university level (pp. vii, 31-32). The Ed.D. has clearly made him well qualified to speak on the subject. Second, he was once a former evolutionist (p. 32) and he was an evolutionist because he thought the scientific evidence favored that theory (p. 182). He displays the most rational approach I have seen for a creationist biologist who is affiliated with ICR. Even if his arguments are not considered good enough (and that, of course, is debatable), they clearly exhibit a higher level of scientific sophistication than what one sees in some other creationist works.

Regardless of its scientific merit, there still some relatively minor flaws, which I hope will be fixed in a later edition. On page one, "evolution" is misspelled as "evoluion." One mistake by Parker is that the story of the peppered moths is given the award of being THE showcase for evolution (p. 81), and then later the exact same award is given to the bird-like Archaeopteryx specimen (p.135).

In sum, WICS is a fairly good book on the contemporary lower-tier creationist position. Although I do not believe it has reached the embodiment of pure science, these two authors present a case for creation science that deserves consideration by the open-minded individual interested in this controversy. It seems doubtful, as Parker suggests, that the evidence is all one-sided in favor of either theory.

"What Is Creation Science?" (1987) by Henry Morris and Gary E. Parker, from the Institute for Creation Research, is intended as an overview of why creation science is more scientific than evolution.

The book is divided into two main parts. In the life sciences section, Parker reviews homologies, vestigial organs, the fossil record, and biochemical similarities from the creationist viewpoint, carefully avoiding any inconvenient data, such as the detailed fossil record of reptile-mammal evolution and the detailed sequence of gradually increasing cranial capacity in hominid fossils.

In the physical sciences section, Morris reviews the geologic column, radiometric dating, thermodynamics, and the Big Bang theory. If Parker's section could be characterized as hopelessly biased and incomplete, Morris' section could be characterized as bizarre. Morris' argument that radiometric dating is invalid because it measures only "apparent age," not actual age, borders on delusional.

Regarding Morris' thermodynamics argument, the simplest response is that two of the greatest thermodynamicists in history, Ludwig Boltzmann (proposed the atomic theory of gases) and Ilya Prigogine (Nobel Prize for work on dissipative structures), were both enthusiastic evolutionists. I'll take Boltzmann and Prigogine over Morris any day.

Morris' goofy statistical arguments are also fatally flawed, being based on his erroneous belief that evolution is a purely random process. Apparently, Morris is so clueless that he doesn't understand that survival of the fittest is a NON-random process. In any case, here too, the simple fact of the matter is that one of the greatest statisticians in modern history, Sir R.A. Fisher, was also one of the most prominent evolutionists in modern history. I'll take Fisher over Morris any day.

Some specific comments:

1. Even granting that overviews are necessarily superficial, WICS takes the simplifications way too far. Page 1 states there is no scientific evidence that cannot be explained as well by creation, but WICS maintains that argument only by ignoring voluminous, contrary evidence, such as the data related to magnetic reversals, the 20 million varves in the Green River Formation, the data related to plate tectonics, data related to population growth, and the fact that the pyramids in Egypt don't show any water damage, even though the oldest pyramids were built before Noah's Flood is alleged to have occurred. Creation has no explanation at all for any of those data!

2. In addition to glaring omissions, the book also contains numerous inconsistencies. For example, page x states that evolution is based on the atheistic belief that there is no god; but page 17 lists 21 separate religions alleged to be structured around evolution. How can an atheistic theory that denies the existence of god be the basis for 21 separate religions, some of which specifically include a deity? This sort of illogical inconsistency is repeated several times throughout the book. (And why a book supposedly intended to show the "scientific" basis for creation science would spend so many pages on religious issues in the first place is a mystery all by itself.)

3. There are also many, serious, factual errors. On page 16 WICS says that oil deposits are found indiscriminately (i.e., proportionally) in rocks of all ages. Well, according to the people I worked with in the land department at Shell Oil, that's simply not true!

4. Even apart from the repeated religious rants, the book doesn't read like a science book. On the vast majority of issues, instead of discussing specific pieces of evidence, WICS instead presents quotes from this or that scientist, as if quotes were a substitute for evidence. What kind of bizarre science book focuses on quotes instead of evidence???

5. Even worse, it's obvious that some quotes were deliberately chosen for the purpose of misleading readers. Regarding the evolution of flowering plants, WICS quotes a botanist lamenting the lack of fossil evidence. But the quote is from 1961! The explosion of fossil discoveries confirming the predicted evolutionary sequence, didn't occur until the mid-60's. Since WICS was written 20 years after those discoveries, the choice of quotes can only be characterized as dishonest.

6. Ironically, Henry Morris complains bitterly throughout the book about how those mean old evos are always unfairly accusing creationists of using misleading quotes. What a weasel.

7. Finally, many important arguments were supported by citations to what turned out to be nothing more than books or articles published in the popular press, newspaper articles, etc. Apparently Morris and Parker are happy to take their "scientific" support from even the most amateurish sources. One citation, for example, was to Melvin Cook, a creationist bungler who concluded that radiometric dating was unreliable because decay rates were not constant. Cook based that conclusion on his "detailed" comparison of different radioactive isotopes. Unfortunately, in his "detailed" analysis, Cook failed to notice that not all of his samples were actually radioactive!!!

So, What Is Creation Science? Apparently, it's pretty stupid!

WICS was supposed to demonstrate the quality of "scientific" creationism, and indeed I think it does, but not in the manner that Morris and Parker intended.

Reading "What is Creation Science?" was an extremely painful experience. Many people who sincerely believe in creationism will state that I did not read this book with an open mind. I like to use a quote from scientist James Oberg in this case, "I like to keep an open mind but not so open that my brains fall out."

The entire argument that Morris and Parker use to advance creation science is a negative thrust at evolution. Each time they believe they're shown a minor error in evolution, they believe they've scored a victory for creation. However, this is not a case where there are only two mutually exclusive points of view (as the authors claim): creation and evolution. Creation cannot be proven by giving evolution tiny pinpricks and saying its deficiencies support creation. Creation "scientists" must advance some scientific ideas of their own that do not amount to "It is this way because of design."

More specifically, Morris and Parker make a number of errors on the evidence. Anyone interested in an in-depth discussion of them should read Philip Kitcher's "Abusing Science." However, in brief: 1) As a physics student, Morris's discussion of thermodynamics and his dismissal of the open vs. closed system explanation was particularly painful 2)Parker's calculation about how unlikely mutations are to produce evolutionary changes assumes that all the successful mutations must occur at once and that beneficial mutations cannot become fixed in a population 3) The idea that the fossils of simpler organisms are found in lower rock strata because they lived at lower elevations is laughable 4) The complete dismissal of radiometric dating methods based on objections stating that radioactive decay constants might not be constant is peculiar (and the general objection to uniformitarianism is strange because Parker uses a uniform population growth of 2% when he tries to show that the earth is relatively young based on the number of people inhabiting it.

I realize that few people who believe strongly in creation science will listen to what I have to say, and that is as it should be. Those who believe in a theory (though here I wouldn't exactly call creation science a scientfic theory at all) or idea should never abandon it at the first sign of trouble. Every person should read this book and "Abusing Science" by Kitcher and make up their own mind.

After having read this book, I still don't know. M&P never defines "creation"; on pp. 9, we are treated with some handwaving about "the basis of the creation" being that "at least some things must be attributed to completed supernatural processes in an open universe", but they never specify what those "supernatural processes" *are*, and what evidence they have for them. Later (pp. 10), Morris tells us that the creation model predicts that "organisms will reproduce only their own type" (whatever *that* is). But if "creation science" is nothing but the belief in "supernatural processes", how can it ever make a prediction like this? Polls show that although 90% of the American population believe in "supernatural processes", only about 45% of them think that they were created ex nihilo, in seperate "kinds" or "types".

Confusion futhermore abounds, as Morris and Parker seem to be in internal conflict with each other. For example, on pp. 10-1, Morris claims that no one has ever cited an example of a speciation, while Parker, on pp. 118, acknowledges that speciations indeed *has* been observed, but then turns around and says that this is consistent with creation as well. Well, which one is it? If speciations have never been observed, why does Parker think that they have? And if they don't matter one way or the other, why did Morris make an issue of them?

Another important issue is natural selection, but here, too, M&P just obfuscate it. In another of his books ("Scientific Creationism") Morris claims that natural selection is a tautology, and thus have no scientific value (pp. viii), while in "What is Creation Science?" Parker claims that not only does natural selection play an important role in preserving the "types", but creationists actually "thought of it first" (pp. 82). Perhaps Parker and Morris should have spent some time sorting out their internal conflicts before trying to sort out the conflicts between creationists and the scientific community.

Of course, M&P don't need each other to confuse things; they can do well enough on their own. For example, Morris seems to think that entropy *increases* in an open system (pp. 206), and that any system requires a "program to direct growth" and a "mechanism to store energy" to decrease its entropy (pp. 209). Morris has a Ph.D in engineering, so it should be no problem for him to cite the papers supporting his claims. But he never does! All he does is propose some weird version of the second law of thermodynamics, offer no support for it, and then act surprised when the entire scientific community laughs at him.

His discussion on the age of the Earth is also highly amusing. On pp. 288-91 he cites 68 estimates of the age of the Earth (based on the exact same "uniformitarian assumptions" that he rejects when it comes to radiometric datings), and then claims that the low ages are "likely to be more accurate" than the high ones (pp. 286). Apart from being an example of an extremely faulty logic, this apparently means that the Earth is no older than 100 years! If one ignores the "dating methods" that yield ages "too low to be measured", the lowest age given is by method no. 53, based on "the influx of aluminium to the ocean via rivers", dating the Earth to be 100 years old. Given that this book's first printing was in 1982, this must mean that the events in Genesis 1-2 happened in the year of 1882, about 300 years after the first English translation of the KJV-Bible.

This book provides an excellent contrast between the Evolution and Creation models for the origins of life, pointing out the major weaknesses of evolutionary theory (all versions of it). Effectively makes the case that the Creation model better fits the known data that has been accumulated in various fields of scientific study as well as the accepted laws of modern physics. The book sticks fairly closely to the scientific data while avoiding dogmatic theistic arguments of any particular theory about Creation (eg. Bible, etc.).

This book is interesting only as an shocking example of a person attempting to twist facts to support a premise he cannot bring himself to question. As I read it (and I confess I could not finish it) I was reminded of Cinderella's ugly step-sister hacking at the crystal slipper trying to get her big foot into it. It doesn't fit, Mt. Morris.

The late Henry Morris created a comprehensive, yet concise review of arguments for and against Creationism from the biblical worldview.

I read this book in 1991, and it changed my entire mindset regarding evolution. Just that morning I laughed at my best friend because he thought Creationism was science. At the time, I waa a hardened evolutionist, and essentially athiest. But I made an agreement with him to study the matter and talk again.

That afternoon, as I walked into the fourth floor of my University library to study, there was "What Is Creation Science" on the go-back shelf, right at eye level. Amazing coincidence.

So I picked up the book, went into my private study room, and nine hours later, finished the book. I began reading it a staunch evolutionist with a great reputation in the biology department as a premier student of science. I finished this book a convinced creationist, and I have never wavered from that change.

The most utterly convincing arguments for creation are in the geologic record. Amazing truths, just amazing stuff. "Hydraulic geologic shock" is a phrase from the book that I will remember until I die. Buy the book and read it. You'll love it. Plus, once you intellectually understand the creation arguments, everything seems to snap into focus. Things "make sense" regarding Genesis, time lines, age of earth. It radically changed my life for the better.

Evolution is a pitiful joke. It's just utter nonsense, and most scientists who speak positively of evolution do so because they are paralyzed with fear of arguing against their peers. They are afraid to fair mindedly examine the evidence, because they want to be considered "smart" and part of the intellectual elite (which exists in their own mind). Plus, most scientists are unbelievers in God, Jesus Christ as diety, and the Bible in general. Evolution specifically does that to people. It denys God.

Pride, then, is the enemy of great science, which is a damnable pity because we need the best answers we can get. Evolution is a virus in the scientific community that kills intellectual freedom to know the truth.

Study creationism. Read the best arguments for creationism, and if you have the guts to say "This, if true, means a young earth and a creator", you will be on your way to a whole new life, I assure you. You'll look at everything with new eyes, and answers will jump out at you. Go. Do it. You will always be glad you did.