|
|
|
Textbook Attacks Scientific Creation
Erroneous Accusations Against Creationists
By A.T. Ross
The introductory college philosophy text The Big Questions: A Short Introduction to
Philosophy makes several unsubstantiated, illogical, ad hominem
attacks against the creationist movement. Unfortunately, these
accusations are often used by critics and opponents of creationism as
attempts to discredit the growing movement, and as a result, the
general public will assimilate these grievous misrepresentations into
their opinions. As a result, therefore, it is necessary to correct
these statements.
For the sake of comprehensibility and brevity no detailed analysis will
be made here, but rather this general overview will include an
extensive references list (which can be found at the end of this paper)
for further study by those interested parties.
Argument 1: It is a conflict
between science and religion
This is one of the first tactics employed by those trying to discredit
creation. They try to make the debate out to be between the facts of
science and the beliefs of religion. This is patently false, for a
number of different reasons.
Firstly, creationists do not disagree with a single observation of
science. They do disagree
with evolutionary and naturalistic interpretations of those
observations. Many people confuse the data, or observations, with the
interpretations, or conclusions, derived from those observations. Most
people are surprised at how tenuous and ill established the General
Theory of Evolution is (Sarfati 1997, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2002a; Perloff
1999, 2002; Coopedge 1973; Taylor 1984; Rushdoony 1968; Batten 2002).
Argument 2: Equivocation of Terms
Solomon, author of The Big Questions
unfortunately commits the academic sin of equivocation, or applying more than
one meaning to one word. It is bitterly ironic that it commits these in
a chapter on truth, no less, and despite it’s own recommendation not to
in its “Appendix III” on common informal logic fallacies.
The book states:
“Science has been highly
successful in predicting nature and in giving us the ability to invent
instruments to alter nature to our will. One might question whether
science has allowed us to understand nature better than ancient
religious or Renaissance artists, but one can hardly question the
success of science in predicting how hitherto-unknown chemicals will
react, or in putting a man on the moon” (pg. 178-179).
The book is correct. Does this relate to goo-to-you evolution? No. But
Solomon would like you to think it does. He equivocates operational science, or the
observation and repetition of experiment in the present, and origins, or historical science,
which uses guess-work (no matter how educated) to make inferences to
the unrepeatable and unobservable past, and the principle of causality
(everything that has a beginning has a cause, everything that has a
beginning has an end, etc) (Sarfati 1998). However, the only reliable
way to know about the past is through historical, or eyewitness,
evidence (See 'What
is True Science'). One reliable eyewitness account will overturn
any circumstantial evidence, no matter how convincing, because without
some sort of historical evidence to substantiate its claims, science
has only circumstantial evidence. Unfortunately for evolutionary
theory, the historical evidence jives perfectly with the Biblical
account (Cooper 1995; Gascoigne 2002).
Solomon equivocates these two different areas of science, operational and origins science. Evolution has
nothing to do with putting men on the moon, and it was a creationist
(Werner Von Braun) who was behind the Apollo mission in the first place
(Lamont, 1995), and it was the creationist Robert Boyle who developed
the study of chemistry (Doolan, 1990). In fact, the people who were
responsible for the development of every major branch of science were
all creationists (See 'Creation
Scientists').
Argument 3: Facts are Neutral
Solomon tries to imply that because facts themselves are neutral that
scientists conclusions are as well. This would be correct, all things
being equal. Yet this idea, however ideal, is incorrect. It is, in
fact, beyond human ability. Everyone has bias. Therefore the debate is
not over whether or not one or the other position is biased, but which
bias is the best bias with which to be biased.
For example:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its
constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its
extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific
community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior
commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a materialist
explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are
forced by our a priori adherence
to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how
counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine
Foot in the door” (Lewontin, 1997, emphasis his).
“Evolution [is] a theory
universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent
evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special
creation, is clearly incredible” (Watson, 1929)
To demonstrate, let us examine three different scientists. One is an
atheist, one is agnostic, and one is a creationist.
An atheist is one who does not believe in god. Therefore, when our
atheistic scientist goes out into the field, can he ever conclude to
have found evidence of god, or evidence that would point to a
supernatural designer? No, because then he would no longer be an
atheist.
An agnostic is one who says that we cannot know if there is a god or
not. When our agnostic scientist goes out into the field, can he ever
conclude to have found evidence of a designer? No, because then he
would know and would no longer be an agnostic.
A creationist is one who believes there is a god. When our creation
scientist goes out into the field, can he ever conclude that there is
no evidence of a designer? No, because then he would no longer believe
in a designer.
Once we understand this, we can understand that everyone (and there are
no exceptions) has a series of unprovable assumptions, known as
presuppositions. Often times these come so naturally to us as we
developed them from birth that many people do not even know that they
have them. Nevertheless, we all have them; they are the foundation upon
which all thoughts are constructed and without them a person could not
communicate or hold intelligent discussion with others. This foundation
has been called one’s axioms, or worldview framework through which all
people interpret facts and statements.
Argument 4: Science is Truth
Solomon spends much space trying to establish that science is truth.
Unfortunately for him, his position is built on air and misconceptions.
He has not had the pleasure of speaking with WSCC’s own Dr. Dean
Hirschi (of which this present author is an alumni) in the science
department, who is right in telling his students that science is
neither a quest for truth or absolutes.
The nature of science is always tentative due to the limitations of its
process. Science is the observation and repetition of experimentation
in the present. It cannot address the past in the same way. In fact, as
Dr. Hirschi points out, science does not determine truth, because
science can only adhere to what works today. And there is no guarantee
that scientists won’t discover that the world works in a far stranger
and different way tomorrow. For example, the idea that a big rock would
fall faster than a little rock was taught to students for two thousand
years—until it was proven to be false. Many people were told that
Piltdown man was a missing link—that was taught for 40 years—until it
was proven to be a fraud. Textbooks in many schools around the world
teach that human embryos go through the embryonic stages of our
evolutionary ancestors, and yet it was proven to be a hoax 140 odd some
years ago (Grigg, 1998)!
Argument 5: Creationists Use Bad
Science
Solomon states:
“...creationists have sometimes
argued some appallingly bad science in trying to refute the
evolutionists...” (pg. 179).
What are we to make of such unsubstantiated and bald assertions? If
Solomon knows of some bad arguments used by creationists, he should
document them instead of making us take his word for it.
Unsurprisingly, most skeptics use this tactic, as if hoping the mere
repetition of the words will convince people, despite legitimate
responses by creationists (Gish 1993). The creationists are never given
equal time to respond and so have put together several websites which
answer these allegations (see the Links
section).
Argument 6: Creation and Evolution
Compatible?
Solomon states:
“...[creationists] have not
always been willing to see how the two antagonistic views might be put
together. One could interpret evolution as God’s means of creation; one
can evoke God as the explanation of how the whole process got started” (pg.
179).
This is often another typical claim by skeptics, and it is also false.
First, it begs the question, because in order for God to use evolution,
evolution has to work, and it doesn’t.
Evolutionists cannot account for genetic information (Gitt 1995;
Spetner 1997; Wilder-Smith, 1981). They cannot account for the
irreducible complexity of life at the molecular level (Behe 1995;
Denton, 1985). The fossils do not help them (Gish, 1995). Nor are their
any viable missing links (Lubenow 1992; Cuozzo 1998).
As Dr. Jonathan Sarfati says:
“The only way to assert that
evolution and “religion” are compatible is to regard “religion” as
having nothing to do with the real world, and being just subjective. A
God who “created” by evolution is, for all practical purposes,
indistinguishable from no God at all” (Sarfati, 1999).
Besides which, the old canard that evolution and “religion” are
compatible is false anyway—if we are discussing the God of the Bible
and Christianity. It has been demonstrated that God didn’t use
evolution (Gitt 1993; Sarfati 2004), and it is no longer possible for
anyone to claim that the Hebrew can be made to say long ages (Sarfati,
2004; MacArthur 2001).
Argument 7: Creationism will
Destroy Science
Solomon states:
“Whatever the plausibility of
creationism as a scientific hypothesis, it must be understood that the
thrust behind creationism is not scientific curiosity; it is an attempt
to stop science and its exclusive claim to truth from encroaching on
territory where it has no business—the domain of religion” (pg.
179).
Here Solomon contradicts himself, because if creationism has scientific
plausibility then it certainly isn’t trying to stop science! However,
the implication that Solomon’s vacuous claim holds is that creationism
is trying to stop science and therefore by definition has no plausible
scientifically.
One is tempted to wonder which of 10,000 Ph.D holding scientists who
associate themselves with scientific creationism have no “scientific
curiosity” and participate in “an attempt to stop science.” Indeed, one
must also wonder why then many creationists have actually published
technical papers in secularly peer-reviewed scientific journals (Ross,
2004).
Once again, Solomon equivocates his terms. Evolution is not the same as
science, as we discussed above.
Take this statement by evolutionist Colin Patterson:
“Is the theory of evolution by
natural selection proved? After so many pages of fact and argument,
some may be disconcerted by a negative answer, and to read that
certainty can no more be found in science than in any other way of
thought ... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has
occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of
species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and
unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is
therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events
are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and
so not subject to test....evolutionary biologists can make no
predictions about the future evolution of any particular species, and
they cannot explain past evolution, but only produce interpretations,
or stories, about it” (Patterson 1978).
Argument 8: Creationism is Not
Science
Solomon states:
“[I]t [Creationism] is not, and
should not claim to be, a scientific theory. (If the existence of
fossils doesn’t undermine it, what could?) Indeed, given the importance
of the first point, why would creationism prefer to compete as bad
science...?” (pg. 179-180)
The implication of Solomon's statement "if the existence of fossils
doesn't undermine it, what could?" is that somehow fossils contradict a
young, created earth. How far from the truth! Firstly, the scientific
theory of creation predicts the existence of fossils as deposited
during the year-long global flood of Noah and subsequent
disasters of sufficient magnitude and proper conditions to preserve
fossils, and indeed, the evidence helps creation, and denies evoluion,
as Solomon would know, had he done his research before writing faulty
information into a college text.
What on earth makes creationism any less scientific than evolutionism?
Creationists do not seek to prove miracles or the existence of God
through science, they merely look for evidence of those occurrences.
Evolution certainly cannot claim anything less, given that life arising
by chance and random accidents applies as miraculous, given the
scientific law of biogenesis (life only comes from life). (Coopedge,
1973) Creationists do not apply the miraculous, merely look for
evidence that the miraculous occurred in the past. They do not apply
the “God did it,” argument to science, but use age-old techniques which
evolutionists use as well to determine if the history recorded in the
Bible is correct.
They come up with detailed scientific models for various events and
phenomena (Oard 1990, 1997; Vardiman 1996; Frair 2000; Morris and
Whitcomb 1961; Froede 1998; Woodmorappe 1993), they make predictions
(Brown 2001), they have devised mechanisms for the global flood
(Baumgardener 1994, 1994a; Brown 2001), and conduct legitimate research
(Woodmorappe 1996; Vardiman (Ph.D), Baumgardener (Ph.D), Snelling,
Chaffin (Ph.D) 2000; Cuozzo 1998). They have a state-recognized
graduate school in California, and publish highly technical
peer-reviewed scientific journals such as the Technical Journal and Creation Research Society Quarterly,
and hold international scientific conferences every four years with
many other conferences throughout the year to meet and present
research. Many are tenured faculty at state and private colleges, many
are published authors, and work with state-of-the-art equipment, such
as Dr. John Baumgardener, and work on top secret government research,
such as Dr. Russell Humphreys.
Conclusion
This has been a brief look at Solomon’s claims in his textbook and
demonstrated their falsity. Perhaps next time he will substantiate some
of them.
References
D. Batten (Ph.D), “U.S.
News and World Report joins in the evolution onslaught,”
M. Behe (Ph.D), Darwin’s Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, The Free Press, NY
J. Baumgardener (Ph.D), “Computer Modeling of Large-Scale Tectonics
Associated with the Genesis Flood,” 1994, Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.
--“Runaway
Subduction and the Genesis Flood,” 1994a, same information
W. Brown (Ph.D), In the Beginning,
1st Ed 1980, 7th Updated Ed. 2001, Center for Scientific Creation
J. Coopedge (Ph.D), Evolution:
Possible or Impossible? Genes, Protiens, and the Laws of Chance,
1973, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI
B. Cooper (Ph.D), After the Flood, New Wine Press, 1995
J. Cuozzo (Ph.D), Buried Alive: The
Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man, Master Books, Green
Forest, AR
M. Denton (Ph.D), Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis, 1985, Burnet Books, London
R. Doolan,
“Robert Boyle (1627-1691),” Creation
Magazine, 12(1):22-23,
1990
W. Frair (Ph.D), “Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms,” Creation Research Society Quarterly
(peer-reviewed), 2000
C. Froede (Ph.D), Field Studies in
Catastrophic Geology, 1998, Creation Research Society Books,
M. Gascoigne (Ph.D), Forgotten
History of the Western World from the Earliest Origins, Anno
Mundi Books, Camberly, United Kingdom
D. Gish (Ph.D), Evolution: The
Fossils STILL Say No, 1995, ICR, El Cajon, CA
W. Gitt (Ph.D), In the Beginning was
Information, CLV, 1995
--Did God Use Evolution?, 1993, CLV
R. Grigg, “Embryonic Fraud Rediscovered,” Creation Magazine, 20(2):49-51
A. Lamont, 21 Scientists who
Believed the Bible, 1995, Australia, Creation Science
Foundation, pg. 242-251
R. Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, Jan. 9, 1997,
pg. 31
M. Lubenow, Bones of Contention,
1992
J. MacArthur, The Battle for the
Beginning, 2001, W Publishing Group
H. Morris and J. Whitcomb, The
Genesis Flood, 1961, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co,
Phillipsburg, NJ
M. Oard (Ph.D), An Ice Age Caused by
the Genesis Flood, 1990, ICR, El Cajon, CA
--Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine
Landslides?, 1997, Creation Research Society Books
C. Patterson, Evolution,
1978, Butler and Tanner Ltd, Frome and London, UK
J. Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard,
1999, Refuge Books, Arlington, MA
--The Case Against Darwin, 2002,
Refuge Books, Burlington, MA
J. Rushdoony, The Mythology of
Science, 1968, Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA
J. Sarfati (Ph.D), Refuting Evolution,
1999, Master Books, Green Forest, AR
--Refuting Evolution 2, 2002, Master
Books, Green Forest, AR
--“Refutation of
Boyce Rensberger's anti-creationist Washington Post
article,” 1997,
--“Who’s
really pushing ‘bad science’?”, 2000
--“15
Ways
to Refute Materialistic Bigotry: A Response to Scientific American,”
2002a
--“If God
Created the Universe, Then Who Created God?,” TJ, 12(1):20-22, 1998
--Refuting Compromise, 2004, Master
Books, Green Forest, AR
L. Spetner (Ph.D), Not by Chance!,
1997, The Judaica Press, Brooklyn, NY
I.Taylor, In the Minds of Men,
1984, 3rd Ed. 1991, TFE Publishing,
Minneapolis, MN
L. Vardiman (Ph.D), Sea-Flood
Sediments and the Age of the Earth, 1996,
ICR, El Cajon, CA
--Vardiman,
Baumgardener, Snelling, Chaffin, et al, Radioisotopes and the Age of
the Earth, 2000, ICR, El Cajon, CA
D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation,” Nature,
124:233, 1929
A.E. Wilder-Smith (Ph.D), The Natual
Sciences Know Nothing of
Evolution, 1981, The Word for Today, Costa Mesa, CA
J. Woodmorappe (M.A. Geo, Ph.D Bio), Studies
in Flood Geology, 1993,
ICR, El Cajon, CA
|
