Henry M. Morris and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) present a summary of arguments for what they call “scientific creationism” (which, contrary to what some might believe, makes no explicit references to scripture).
Although I consider the book to be something of an embarassment to the creationist movement, it does contain some legitiamte scientific evidences in its various fields. Supporting cosmological creationism, Morris discusses the laws of thermodynamics as applied to the origins of the universe (pp. 25-26). The evidence supporting biological creationism is less impressive compared to that supporting cosmological creationism, but it does have its merits. Examples of which include creationism predicting gaps in the fossil record (pp. 78-79, though I do not entirely agree with Morris on what the “evolution model” predicts) and the DNA-enzyme relationship (pp. 47-48). The scientific legitimacy of catastrophism as presented in the book ranks a little bit below biological creationism. The least-defensible “scientific” view is its arguments for a young earth, though I do not believe it is entirely without rational support in the book.
Although the book tried to distinguish between “Biblical creationism” (creationism based on the Bible) and “scientific creationism” (creationism based on science and not 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 creationists are uneducated religious fanatics, and the belief 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. Although I do not consider the book to be pure pseudoscience; creationists, ICR, and even Morris himself have presented significantly better, more legitimately scientifc cases for creationism (such as “What is Creation Science?” by Morris and Gary E. Parker) since the first edition of the book was published in 1974. The arguments presented in SC are often strained, overgeneralized, and not very scientific. The only reason I did not give this book less than two stars is because it had strong evidence supporting cosmological creationism. Although the book may have some collective value, it is certainly not the best of what creation scientists have to offer.
