Scientists Confront Creationism

Rating:
Summary: Brass-Tacks Refutations of Creationism Aping Science
Review: "They [the 'scientific' creationists] pretend that biblical literalism is the logical alternative to evolution. They mold the 'facts' of science according to their needs. They distort the meanings of 'fact' and 'theory.' Cloaked in scientific jargon but uninformed by the scientific developments of the past one hundred fifty years, the arguments of the scientific creationists demand a response." --Laurie R. Godfrey, Preface, Scientists Confront Creationism

The editor of this collection of 15 essays, Laurie R. Godfrey, also contributed the essay, "Scientific Creationism: The Art of Distortion," in a similar book, Science and Creationism (New York: Oxford UP, 1984), that was edited by Ashley Montagu. Godfrey is a professor of anthropology at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. She received her Ph.D. from Harvard University. The relatively successful lobbying of creationists compelled the generation of books of this kind.

In Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), for example, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional Arkansas' 1928 statute making the teaching of evolution unlawful. Thus, the eventual failure of creationists to censor evolution from public schools via legislation resulted in efforts to mandate "equal time" in science curricula for creationism. However, District Court of Arkansas Judge Overton, in a well-written ruling, struck down as unconstitutional an "equal time" law in McLean v. Arkansas (1982). The Supreme Court also struck down a Louisiana "equal-time" law in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), four years after the publication of this book. In addition to activism via litigation and legislation, creationists specialize in knocking down straw-man versions of science.

Dr. Steven D. Schafersman's essay, "Fossils, Stratigraphy, and Evolution: Consideration of a Creationist Argument," refutes a creationist allegation that geologists engage in the fallacy of circular reasoning. Creationists assert "that geologists use fossils to date rocks and rocks to date fossils and that this is circular reasoning because it assumes the truth of evolution (by using a fossil sequence of simple to complex to date rocks) while it purports to provide evidence for the existence of evolution (by using the rock sequence thus constructed to demonstrate an evolutionary sequence of simple to complex organisms through time)."

However, the fossil sequences (biostratigraphy) are completely independent of any evolutionary presumption. Biostratigraphy is determined from three laws that are entirely independent of the theory of evolution. These three laws are (1) "sedimentary strata are initially deposited horizontally," (2) "younger undisturbed strata invariably overlie older undisturbed strata," and (3) "fossils in the strata will always occur in the same sequence, regardless of geographic location." Thus, fossil sequences derive from the rocks; not the rock strata from imposed fossil sequences derived from an evolutionary presumption. Geologic thrusting and overturning of strata account for the relatively few out-of-order fossil sequences. The sequence of undisturbed strata is consistent and reliable. Thus, index fossils "help determine the age of a given rock formation, but only by correlation from a type section of rock that is first defined to be a certain age, so no attribute of theirs, including evolution, is necessary to date a rock." In addition, radiometric rock dating is independent of biostratigraphy. Agreement between the two independent methods corroborates both, and both are independent of evolution. Thus, contrary to creationists' claims, the fallacy of circular thinking grounded in presumed evolutionary theory is no part of geology as a whole because evolution has nothing to do with dating rocks or fossils!

The other 14 excellent essays in this book deal with other aspects of creationism history and nonsense. Having an index, a list of the contributors with their credentials, and helpful introductory paragraphs to the essays in the table of contents also enhances the utility of this book.

Rating:
Summary: Brass-Tacks Refutations of Creationism Aping Science
Review: "They [the 'scientific' creationists] pretend that biblical literalism is the logical alternative to evolution. They mold the 'facts' of science according to their needs. They distort the meanings of 'fact' and 'theory.' Cloaked in scientific jargon but uninformed by the scientific developments of the past one hundred fifty years, the arguments of the scientific creationists demand a response." --Laurie R. Godfrey, Preface, Scientists Confront Creationism

The editor of this collection of 15 essays, Laurie R. Godfrey, also contributed the essay, "Scientific Creationism: The Art of Distortion," in a similar book, Science and Creationism (New York: Oxford UP, 1984), that was edited by Ashley Montagu. Godfrey is a professor of anthropology at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. She received her Ph.D. from Harvard University. The relatively successful lobbying of creationists compelled the generation of books of this kind.

In Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), for example, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional Arkansas' 1928 statute making the teaching of evolution unlawful. Thus, the eventual failure of creationists to censor evolution from public schools via legislation resulted in efforts to mandate "equal time" in science curricula for creationism. However, District Court of Arkansas Judge Overton, in a well-written ruling, struck down as unconstitutional an "equal time" law in McLean v. Arkansas (1982). The Supreme Court also struck down a Louisiana "equal-time" law in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), four years after the publication of this book. In addition to activism via litigation and legislation, creationists specialize in knocking down straw-man versions of science.

Dr. Steven D. Schafersman's essay, "Fossils, Stratigraphy, and Evolution: Consideration of a Creationist Argument," refutes a creationist allegation that geologists engage in the fallacy of circular reasoning. Creationists assert "that geologists use fossils to date rocks and rocks to date fossils and that this is circular reasoning because it assumes the truth of evolution (by using a fossil sequence of simple to complex to date rocks) while it purports to provide evidence for the existence of evolution (by using the rock sequence thus constructed to demonstrate an evolutionary sequence of simple to complex organisms through time)."

However, the fossil sequences (biostratigraphy) are completely independent of any evolutionary presumption. Biostratigraphy is determined from three laws that are entirely independent of the theory of evolution. These three laws are (1) "sedimentary strata are initially deposited horizontally," (2) "younger undisturbed strata invariably overlie older undisturbed strata," and (3) "fossils in the strata will always occur in the same sequence, regardless of geographic location." Thus, fossil sequences derive from the rocks; not the rock strata from imposed fossil sequences derived from an evolutionary presumption. Geologic thrusting and overturning of strata account for the relatively few out-of-order fossil sequences. The sequence of undisturbed strata is consistent and reliable. Thus, index fossils "help determine the age of a given rock formation, but only by correlation from a type section of rock that is first defined to be a certain age, so no attribute of theirs, including evolution, is necessary to date a rock." In addition, radiometric rock dating is independent of biostratigraphy. Agreement between the two independent methods corroborates both, and both are independent of evolution. Thus, contrary to creationists' claims, the fallacy of circular thinking grounded in presumed evolutionary theory is no part of geology as a whole because evolution has nothing to do with dating rocks or fossils!

The other 14 excellent essays in this book deal with other aspects of creationism history and nonsense. Having an index, a list of the contributors with their credentials, and helpful introductory paragraphs to the essays in the table of contents also enhances the utility of this book.

Rating:
Summary: Nothing But Fallacies
Review: I first encountered this book in college. I was just finishing up a logic class and was working on an assignment to present two sides of an argument. I figured this book would help me greatly in my chosen topic, creation vs. evolution. Was I ever disappointed.

I read chapter after chapter, impressed by the qualifications but not by the content. Every author used the fallacies I'd been studying in class & presented very little in the way of solid evidence or arguments. Some were even laughable in their leaps of logic.

Even the title is fallacious if you think about it. There are respected scientists who are creationists.

Creation vs. evolution is a serious subject that deserves careful evaluation. Unfortunately, this isn't the book to do it. Look elsewhere to find what evolutionists say to creationists' arguments.

Rating:
Summary: Misleading antitheistic propaganda, and dated too.
Review: I have the book edited by Godfrey in my University days and wasn't impressed. And this is often regarded as one of the best anti-creationist books around. Note that many other anti-creationist books like Strahler's rely heavily on Godfrey in many places. But they have to be pretty desperate if Godfrey's is the best they have.

As a Ph.D. chemist, I was incensed at the arrant pseudoscientific nonsense presented by one contributor to pretend that life could have evolved from non-living chemicals.

For example, in trying to explain how the exclusively 'left-handed' amino acids in living organisms could arise by chance, he claimed: 'From the start of their [Transfer RNA synthetases'] existence, they probably bound only L-amino acids.' This is just hand-waving -- he never explains how such complicated enzymes could have functioned unless they were themselves exclusively left-handed, or how they would operate before RNA was composed of homochiral ribose.

Money would be better spent on Dr Duane Gish's 450 page book _Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics_ (Available from Amazon), which includes a 116-page chapter 'Science confronts evolutionists', responding specifically to the Godfrey book.

Rating:
Summary: Utterly Convincing
Review: I read this book almost 20 years ago now and found it utterly convincing. You will quickly notice that the arguments against this book won't come from a scientific viewpoint but from a religious one. As with the reviewer here who describes the book as "full of logical errors", yet can't produce a single example and insists that "there are creationist scientists", the arguments are based on ignorance. Actually I doubt most of the critics got more than a few pages into the book. They no doubt would find the abolutely overwhelming mass of evidence from virtually every branch of science inconvenient and uncomfortable.

For open minded folks though wondering why virtually every practicing scientist today accepts the basic theory of evolution (all life evolved from simpler life forms), in spite of the fact that it seems to defy common sense, it would be difficult to find a better book. Certainly its arguments leave no room for doubt.
The book does not disprove God or a creator, however its clear that honest seekers wishing to tie the origins of life to a human understanding of God will conclude that what is taught by today's Christian fundamentalists is absurd nonsense.

Rating:
Summary: Do I *have* to read more of this book?
Review: I was excited to find this book, in the hopes that it might give me some reason to continue in my beliefs of evolution. I was hoping that an objective look by scientists would give reasonable reasons to support the theory that everyone believes. But, page after page, article after article is filled with people trying to prove what they believe. Instead of looking at things objectively, the contributors to this book unveil their assumptions and their beliefs- regardless of what evidence they might find.

Contributors and authors insult and degrade the scientists who interpret the evidence differently. Is such an attitude necessary? (on EITHER side?)

I'm interested in finding someone who is willing to look at the evidence *before* they say, "Well, we know creation is a bunch of crap, so let's find out what REALLY happened."

I'm disheartened at reading this book, because it makes dialogue on this issue seem all the more difficult to achieve.

Rating:
Summary: A bit heavy in technical talk, but a good reading
Review: I've tried to take as much of an unbiased stance in the creation or evolution argument, and reading this book did draw out alot of problems that are found in creationist circles. I find it unfortunate that so many creationist arguments appear well-founded when in reality there is often a much larger picture many creationists do not see. This book does a good job in showing more of the picture, albeit it is not a perfect book and it is a little technical (but what do you expect when trying to learn scientific findings or terminology?) Of particular interest is the chapter by George Abell concerning problems with common creationist arguments for a Young Earth, as well as the chapter 'Creationism and Gaps in the Fossil Record' by Laurie Godfrey. Anyone who is TRULY interested in learning more about the two sides debate should read this with an open mind. It does not have all the answers you'll ever want but has compelling arguments from which one can learn a lot.

Rating:
Summary: Creationism didn't stand a chance
Review: Laurie Godfrey has compiled essays by some of the biggest names in evolution and science in the world today: Stephen J. Gould, C. Loring Brace, Russel Doolittle, Stephen Brush, Frederick Edwords and David Raup just to name a few. Some readers may only recognise the first name in the list, however be assured that the others are not only top scientists in their respective fields but also have experience in debating and refuting creationsts.

As other reviewers have noted, some of the articles in this volume get quite technical. Nonetheless, readers are treated to a feast of information that annihalates some of the most common creationist arguments. This book was written in 1984, around the time of great creationist upheaval. It served its purposes quite well, however readers should be aware that much has changed in the creationist arsenal and it may be wise to examine some of the latest offerings debunking creationist claptrap i.e. _Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism_. Having said this, the current book should still be considered as an authoritative book when dealing with the Creation-Evolution phenomenon.

Rating:
Summary: Darwinists, NOT scientists confront creationism
Review: There are many problems with this book, the first of which is the title. The book argues that scientists confront creationism however, this is not only deceiving but flat out wrong. The title implies that all scientists reject creationism, this simply isn't true. Thousands of scientists across the globe accept creationism.

There are many misconceptions that devalue any real purpose this book could have. However, there are some good points in the book. Problems with radioactive dating are admitted to some extent. However there is no mention of the unprovable assumptions that must be made. There is no sure way to know that the decay rates have remained constant throughout time, or that the rates haven't been dramatically increased throughout time.

The creationist view of the geological record is examined. The writers scoff at the notion that creationists argue that the geological column was built upon the assumption of evolution. Evolutionists, like some reviewers here, often point out that the geological record was formed be for Darwin wrote his book. They fail to understand, however, that evolution was accepted WELL BEFORE Darwin!! Darwin may be known as the father of evolution, but that doesnt mean Darwin founded evolution. Heck, even Dariwn's OWN grandfather believed in evolution, yet evolutionists seem to forget when they think about the geologcial column! I wonder why evolutionists have such a hard time understanding history? Could it be because of their own preconceived ideas about history?

The chapter on the statiscal improbability of evolution is a complete joke! No probabilties are examined as to whether or not darwinism could have occured. Moreover the evolutionists show their ignorance for the subject of statistics. A recent book by Lee Spetner puts their ignorance of statisics to shame. If you want to understand why mathematics argues AGAINIST darwinism, check out Spetner's work, Not By Chance.

This book implies that creationists are not scientists and that evolutionists are scientists. This is the biggest error of the book. Neither creationism nor evolutionism are scientific theories, they are instead historical theories. It is sad to see not only this propaganda about creation being unscientific and evolution scientific being spread twenty some years ago, however, it is even worse to see this myth being carried on today. This book gives an unblanced view of what creationism is. There are much better books out their to read.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent source for understanding and rebutting creationism
Review: This book does an excellent job of giving the reader an understanding of the creationist's arguments, methods, and goals. It exposes the fallacies of the creationist position, reducing it to an ancient myth with no scientific basis. The book contains point-by-point rebuttals to the most famous of creationist's claims against evolution. The book is technical in some chapters, but generally easy to comprehend. It definitely belongs on the bookshelf of anyone who recognizes the risk of including a myth in science classrooms