Scientific Creationism

Rating:
Summary: Creationism's best foot forward is flat
Review: *Scientific Creationism* is the Institute for Creation Research's summa against evolution. I gave the book three stars because it is well written, and does an outstanding job of summarizing the views of several major creationists, most notably Henry Morris (who is responsible for most of the written text) and Duane Gish. I can't in good conscience give it any more stars than that due to the content of the book itself, which is tremendously problematic.

Start with the goal of the book. The book is supposed to be used as a resource for balanced teaching of evolution and creation. However, the whole book is devoted to criticizing evolution. Not exactly a presentation of "balanced treatment". Maybe the ICR thinks that evolution is already well enough understood by science teachers. However, unless they are deliberately misrepresenting evolutionary theory (which I find it very hard to rule out), their own presentation of evolution belies this claim. Similarly, some recent studies have revealed that evolution is *not* well understood, not even by those who teach it to high school students. One may also take issue with the general approach of the book--attempting to refute evolution, even if successful, does nothing to bolster creationism. This work does not even *attempt* to show how creationism explains the relevant data--it merely asserts that it predicts it. For all this book tells us, evolution and creationism might *both* be lousy. Don't bother looking for it in their other works either; I've tried, and come up with a big goose egg for my troubles.

Second, the title. Unfortunately, on their *own* standards, creationism is *not* scientific. Creatonists and other critics of evolution (like Philip Johnson) continually assert Popper's view that the defining feature of science is empirical, and primarily experimental, falsification. Yet the ICR explicitly claims that *neither* evolution *nor* creation is testable in this way. So how can they assert that evolution is not scientific, but creationism is? The very title of the book reveals a dishonest double-standard.

Third, why has this book never been updated? About 30 years have passed since this book was first written, and an awful lot has happened in biology since then, most notably the new developments in population genetics and molecular biology that provide new evidence for evolution. Yet the ICR has chosen not to respond to these new developments, either as a body or as individual members. They continue to repeat the same refrain, like an old record sadly skipping over and over.

Speaking of which, another way in which the ICR has refused to change with the evidence is in their continued adherence to Popper's view of *the* scientific method, as taught to all of us in jr. high. Unfortunately, those doing work in philosophy of science have known for 4 decades now (even before this book was written) that Popper's view faces serious theoretical, applicational and historical difficulties. So why do we still see them proclaiming Popper unabashedly? (Johnson, in many ways a much better critic of evolution than the ICR, is similarly wedded to a naive Popperian view of science.)

I think the answer to this lies in the overall strategy of he ICR: say whatever you have to to discredit evolution, regardless of whether it's true. New developments in our understanding of science make their contention that evolution is not scientific problematic, so stick with Popper come hell or high water (so to speak). "Science" is a laudatory term, so call your view "scientific" even if by your own standards it isn't. Say that biologists haven't given you transitional forms, and when they do, deny that they're transitional. (Note for example the ICR's insistence that since the Archaeopteryx had feathers and flew, it *must* be a bird, no matter what anyone says.) Unfortunately, this tactic is displayed in abundance in this book, in every permutation possible--and maybe even some that aren't.

While *Scientific Creationism* is indeed well-written and accurately reflects the overall positions and arguments of the ICR members, it is filled with so many half-truths, vagaries and double-standards that it singlehandedly demonstrates the old maxim that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". If this book is the ICR's best foot forward, creationism is liable to trip over its own flat feet and fall on its face.

Rating:
Summary: Not the best attack against evolution.
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: A bit over the deep end.
Review: I am a Christian and believe that God created the world, however I find it very hard to believe that He did it in the method descibed in this book. I used to hold to this version of creation also but recently I started reading other books and magazine articles and began to realize the shallowness of Morris' evidence. First I would like to say that "evolutionists" are NOT stupid. Evolution of non-living things is certainly possible if by no other means then chance but I don't believe that living things evolved significantly. Second, evolution and the age of the earth are two entirely different things. I don't see any real evidence that the earth has been around for only a few thousand years. Morris' views on the flood are also out of wack. It gets to the point where laws of nature would have to be broken in able for his theory to work. I do not know for sure how creation happened. I would like to dig into this more myself, but if you want a book that makes more sense and is probably closer to the truth read a Hugh Ross book.

Rating:
Summary: Real science supports creation
Review: Though this book is a bit dated, it is still an excellent overview of the scientific creation model for earth history. Morris demonstrates effectively, without reference to biblical texts, that scientific evidence strongly supports 1)a recent date for the origin of the earth 2)limitations of biological change in organisms 3)impossibility of the change assembly of life from non-living chemicals 4)worldwide evidence that the geological column was laid down rapidly mostly from a single event in the recent past.

The main flaws with this book is that Morris uses some arguments that are no longer popular in modern creationist's circles like the man/dinosaur tracks in Paluxy river bed and the moon dust argument. An update to this book would be helpful since the last one was in 1985.

Having read some of the negative reviews posted it seems pretty clear few have read this book and are just posting the usual canards that are uncritically thrown at anyone attempting to defend the accuracy of the Bible. For instance one critic called Morris responsible for more people losing faith in the Bible than anyone in history. This is so absurd that it hardly deserves a response. Morris has penned dozens of books defending Bible inerrancy, participated in numerous debates and seminars defending the Bible and has been the president of one of the most important organizations in the world defending the Bible from the destructive influence of Darwinism on Christianity. What has the critic himself done for Christ? He claims Morris 'insists' the Earth is 6000 years old. Obviously he never read the book because Morris makes it clear there is much uncertainty in the geneologies in the Bible. Instead Morris insists God meant what He said in Exodus 20:11 that God created in 6 literal solar days. Where is all this overwhelming evidence for billions of years in the Bible the critic is referring to? The critic failed to demonstrate a single verse.

Another critic claims Morris denies the production of any new species contradicting Duane Gish. Actually the critic needs to read more carefully. In pages 51-54 Morris describes the variation and selection creationist model. This model involves the creator supplying the original created kinds with a large gene pool of variation. The so-called 'speciation' the critic refers to is nothing more than recombinations of existing genes. Morris is referring to the lack of any observed evolution of new traits such as new organs or body plans not present in the original gene pool that particles to people evolution needs to account for. The critic also claims Morris misrepresented the second law. He obviously either didn't read this chapter or needs to take some classes on reading comprehension. Morris addresses every counter argument to the second law in this book including the one's the critic offers such as the development of seeds. The response is trivial. The seeds already have the blueprint in their DNA to do the work required to decrease entropy. However evolution needs to account for the origin of these instructions. No evolutionist has ever offered a plausible scenario of how the needed work to assemble life from non-living matter can be done even with the energy from the sun being available. He then critizes Morris for ignoring the fact that there are variations in genes that life can work with. The fact that differnet organisms have slightly different variations in their gene pools does little to the actual calculations. The fact is many proteins are 65-75% conserved. So for a 400 amino acid protein, maybe 300 are critical. Such small omissions do little to undermine Morris calculations. In fact Morris mostly quotes from evolutionists in this chapter whose conclusions support his. He also criticizes Morris for using a citation from 1951 on the evolution of plants. Well the fact is little has changed since 1951 so the quote is still accurate of the state of plant evolution today. Also the critic claims Morris never refers to Lucy. Either he doesn't have the 1985 edition or again needs help in reading comprehension. Page 173 mentions Lucy and demonstrates she was nothing more than a knuckle-walking ape.

Please don't let any of the negative reviews from the evolutionist's detract you from picking up this excellent book. Those that aren't Christians hate the light of creation (John 3:20) because the god of this world has blinded them from the truth(2 Cor. 4:4).

Rating:
Summary: Read the book.....
Review: Wow...can't believe these negative reviews. These folks have obvious bias toward a lie called evolution. One critic claims you must have college level biology to understand evolution. I have college level biology, physics, chemistry, organic chemistry, calculus, etc. and creationism is truth to me. As a former atheist, I sought to disprove God. I only proved his existence (IMO). There is so much overwhelming evidence that one could write a book. Check out some sites such as www.answersingenesis.org or www.drdino.com. THere are probably better sources. I have some excellent books at home, but don't recall the titles. A super video which gives archaeological proof of the Exodus is called The Exodus Revealed. It should be available here or Ebay. Divers have found horse bones, hooves, human bones, chariot wheels, etc. in a stretch of the Gulf of Aquaba (one arm of Red Sea). Too much other info in video to cover (photos of probable real Mt.Sinai (with black burned top) and split rock of Horeb, altar, and so much more). Note too that the word dinosaur was not coined until 1841. Prior to this, they were called dragons. Where do you think the legends came from? Dr.Hovind (www.drdino.com) has more info on this (including past legends of dinosaurs and info about rare modern sightings). Marco Polo stated that the emperor of China raised "dragons" to pull chariots in parades. I read recently about a pterodactyl skull that was discovered with soft tissue still present inside the skull.

I agree with a previous reviewer. If you are blinded to the truth, it is because God has chosen to blind you in your arrogance. I was once disobedient and arrogant. He is slowly opening my eyes and teaching me Truth. Pray to God for conviction and that the Holy Spirit will do a work in you. I have witnessed supernatural things in the last few years that I can't explain from a scientific point of view. There is something spiritual or "inter-dimensional" out there. I feel that this "spiritual" world will soon collide with our physical world. I would not want to be on God's bad side when this occurs. There is a verse and I paraphrase "Only a fool says in his heart There is no God".