People often misconstrue creationism 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. Creationism 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.
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. This is not to say that religious motivations and inspiration by themselves constitute valid criticisms of the two books or the creationist theory. The theory of gravity, for example, would be just as scientific as it is now regardless of what motives were behind it and regardless of how or why it originated. This is because inspiration and motivations are irrelevant, even when they are religious. Because religion is irrelevant, it can be inappropriately introduced in “scientific” writings. As noted in my review of Scientific Creationism, SC says (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. In contrast, WICS made no inept religious intervention like SC. Parker especially did an excellent job of not referring to religious principles when describing and making the case for creation science.
In the first edition, WICS included two parts: one by Parker and one by Morris, respectively. In the second addition, another part by Morris was added called “Evolution: Science or Faith?” and was inserted right before Parker’s section. In my opinion, WICS was better of without the first section by Morris. Throughout both of Morris’ sections, he makes the solution to the creation-evolution controversy seem more conclusive than it really is. The effect is especially multiplied in the part I. This can be seen on page one, where Morris claims that there is absolutely no evidence that evolution can explain better than creation. Originally religion was not to be discussed in the book (a sentence on p. 297 indicates this, which was mistakenly not removed in the second edition), but Morris decided to do so anyway in part I (pp. 17-26). The purpose of the discussion was to show that evolution was more religious than creationism. The most inept religious intrusion in the book was perhaps made here (p. 21) when he speaks of the “true God of creation,” but it is possible that the purpose of the sentence was merely to contrast evolutionary and creationist religions.
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). Parker displays the most rational approach I have seen for a creationist biologist who is affiliated with ICR. A notable example is explaining the “order” of the fossils, which has often been explained by their theory of catastrophism. However, creationists have often maintained that catastrophism and creationism are related, but separate issues. Parker has fairly successfully conformed to this position when he explains the fossil sequence in terms of creation. To support the ecological zonation theory (the idea that fossils exist in their order because they lived in different places), cites the existence of misplaced fossils (p. 165), paraconformities (p. 167), and polystratic fossils (p. 168) and claims these things can be better explained by creation science. Another key feature is his attention to scientific detail. His arguments were more sophisticated and came closer to looking at technical detail. It is easy to fit a theory in with the data if the data are vague and overgeneralized. It usually becomes more difficult to fit the theory with specific data, especially since the details make it more likely for the theory to become less plausible. Even if his arguments aren’t good enough, they are clearly more scientific than those contained in SC.
Part III, authored by Morris, is called “The Physical Sciences.” Although I do not believe this section is as good as Parker’s, it does contain some genuine science. The best improvement here was the discussion on the laws of thermodynamics. It has been presented in a clearer and more rational manner than SC. The strong point in arguing that the universe is not an isolated system is the law of thermodynamics, so it is an especially big improvement in the scientific case for cosmological creationism. As with SC, the most scientific theories were ranked in this order: cosmological creationism, biological creationism, catastrophism, and the young-earth theory. Morris did emphasize that the age of the earth and flood geology were separate issues apart from creationism, but he said they were related issues and discussed them nonetheless. Catastrophism and the young-earth theory were still the least defensible, but some improvements were made in both areas.
Here are some more examples of relatively minor flaws I found, 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). Even so, what mainly prevented me from giving the book five stars is the scientifically least defensible claims by Morris in catastrophism and the idea of the earth theory being relatively young.
In sum, WICS is a fairly good book on the contemporary 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 serious scientific consideration by the open-minded individual.
