WHO ARE THE CREATION "SCIENTISTS"?

There are a large variety of people who claim the mantle "creation scientists". Almost all of them come from the fundamentalist Protestant wing of Christianity, although a few belong to such denominations as theRoman Catholic Church. One thing they all share in common is a belief in an inerrant Bible, one that is literally correct in all its original writings on all subjects, including its description of the Creation, Adam and Eve, and Noah's Flood.

As in any political and religious movement, there are several schools of creationist thought, separated by doctrinal differences in their interpretations of the Bible. (According to one source, there were in 1984 no less than 22 national creationist organizations in the United States, and at least 54 state and local organizations.)

The "day-age" faction of creationism argues that the "days" referred to in Genesis are really symbolic of enormous stretches of time, and not 24-hour days. Perhaps the best-known of the "day- age" groups today are the Jehovah's Witnesses. Another school of thought is that of the "gap" theorists, who argue that there is an unmentioned lapse of time between the first and second verses of Genesis, and that the six-day creation event did not happen until after a long period of time had already passed. Many of the televangelists are "gap" theorists. Finally, there are the "strict" creationists, who assert that creation happened as described in Genesis, and that the universe and all life was created within six days, several thousand years ago. The first two schools, the "day- age" and the "gap", accept the geological evidence of a very ancient earth (but not the evidence of evolution), and are usually referred to collectively as the "old earth creationists". The strict creationists, however, assert that the entire universe is just 6,000 to 10,000 years old, and they are referred to as "young-earth creationists".

There is also another trend of thought, the "theistic evolutionists", who argue that evolution is simply the method which God used to create life, and that there is no conflict between science and the Bible. Nearly all mainstream religious denominations (as well as most scientists) are supporters of theistic evolution. Although they could be considered "creationist", since they do assert that the universe was made by God, theistic evolutionists are viewed by the fundamentalists as "the enemy" who is doing the work of Satan. It would be more proper to view the fundamentalist creationists as "anti-evolutionists", since the one thing that unites them all is the belief that evolutionary theory is contrary to the tenets of Christianity. Since, on this matter, the theistic evolutionists are on the "wrong" side, they are not accepted as "creationists" by the fundamentalists.

It is the young-earth creationists who dominate the creation "science" movement and who head all of the major creationist organizations, and it is the viewpoints of the young-earthers which most often find their way into the various anti-evolution or "balanced treatment" policies which they seek. The Arkansas Balanced Treatment Act, for instance, defines "creation science" in terms of young-earth creationism:

" 'Creation-science' includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing, (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism, (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals, (4) Separate ancestry for men and apes, (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a world- wide flood, and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds." (Arkansas Legislature Act 590, 1981)

Young-earth creationism (which later became "scientific creationism") can essentially be traced back to one man, George McCready Price, a fundamentalist Seventh Day Adventist who accepted the literal truth of the Bible as a matter of course. In 1923, Price published a book called The New Geology, in which he argued that all of the geological features we see today were the result of Noah's Flood, and not the slow geological processes described by scientists. The "geological column", Price asserted, was nothing more than the deep sediments deposited by the Flood, while all of the various fossils were merely the dead bodies of organisms that had drowned in the Deluge. Conventional geology, Price asserted, was a fraud, fostered upon an unsuspecting public by scientists who were doing the work of the Devil: "Some of the tricky methods used by the Great Deceiver to befuddle the people of the last days". (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 137) Price's ideas became known as "Flood geology".

While geologists dismissed Price as a crank and ridiculed The New Geology as being riddled with error and distortion, the book caused a sensation among religious fundamentalists, who cited it as the first book to use science to show that the Bible is literally correct. Price (who was not a geologist) was even cited during the Scopes trial as a scientific expert. For a time, he traveled to England, where a disciple of his, Douglas Dewar, enthusiastically echoed his mentor, saying bluntly, "The Bible cannot contain false statements, and so if its statements undoubtedly conflict with the views of geologists, these latter are wrong." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 146) Much of Price's "flood geology" can be found, nearly intact, in the writings of modern creationists.

In 1935, Price helped to form the Religion and Science Association, the first nationwide "creationist" organization. The RSA had as its acknowledged purpose that of using scientific data to support the Bible. Shortly after it was formed, however, the RSA was torn by an internal feud between those who accepted Price's Flood geology and those who rejected it. One of RSA's founding members, the Lutheran theologian Theodore Graebner (an old-earth creationist who taught biology in several fundamentalist universities) flatly declared that Flood geology had no supporting evidence: "In spite of all that I have read about the Flood theory to account for stratification, erosion and fossils, I cannot view the mountains without losing all faith in that solution of the problem." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 112) By 1937, the Religion and Science Association had collapsed under the weight of this feuding.

Shortly after the death of the RSA, the Price supporters formed their own organization, the Deluge Geology Society, with the specific purpose of supporting the theories of Flood geology. Price was a co-founder and the most illumined member. Another co-founder was fellow Seventh Day Adventist Harold W. Clarke, who had also been a founding member of the RSA while teaching biology at an Adventist college in California. Another person who joined the DGS was a grad student from the University of Minnesota named Henry Morris, whose name will crop up very often in later creationist history.

To prevent the kind of internecine fighting that destroyed the RSA, the Deluge Geology Society only admitted committed Flood geologists as members. Despite this precaution, however, internal feuding broke out anyway, over the question of the age of the solar system. The old-earthers argued that the scientific evidence which indicated a very old solar system did not conflict with Genesis, a position which the young-earthers found heretical. The organization collapsed in 1948.

During this time, a new creationist organization appeared, one which became much more influential than the oft-ignored DGS. This was the American Scientific Affiliation, which was formed in 1941 to explain how science supported the Bible. Unlike the RSA and DGS, which were more concerned with theology than science, the ASA required all of its members to have legitimate scientific credentials. It also required all members to sign an oath of membership, swearing:

This tactic of limiting membership to scientists who already agreed to the literal truth of Genesis would later be repeated. In effect, by using scientific knowledge as an apologetic for Biblical truth, the ASA became the first "creation science" organization.

Although the ASA had no connections to the Deluge Geology Society when it was formed, it was quickly approached by the DGS, which wanted to publish a joint anti-evolution periodical. The ASA leadership, distrustful of the "strong Seventh-Day Adventist flavor" of the Deluge Society (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 161), turned them down.

In the end, however, it was the ASA's insistence on a semblance of scientific respectability which proved to be its undoing. Once again, Flood geology was at the center of the dispute. Dr. J. Laurence Kulp, a chemist and geologist, flatly rejected Flood geology and pointed out that it was demonstrably untrue, and to insist upon it as Biblically-inspired would make a laughingstock out of creationism. "This unscientific theory of Flood geology," Kulp wrote, "has done and will do considerable harm to the strong propagation of the Gospel among educated people." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 167) Kulp was soon joined by biologist J. Frank Cassell, who presented a paper to the ASA in 1951 bluntly stating, "Evolution has been defined as 'the gradual or sudden change in animals and plants through successive generations' . . . Such changes are demonstrable. Therefore, evolution is a fact." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 174-175) Cassell argued that ASA's entire attitude on evolution had to change if it was to maintain any scientific respectability, and urged ASA to adopt an attitude of theistic evolution. (This effort was partially successful. Today, the ASA takes no official position on the question of creation "science", and most of its members are theistic evolutionists--although the group did publish a booklet entitled Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy, which defended old-earth creationism.)

The young earthers defended their "science" against the attacks of Kulp and Cassell. During the 1953 ASA annual convention, Henry Morris presented a paper entitled "The Biblical Evidence for a Recent Creation and Universal Deluge". Morris, a staunch Biblical literalist and young-earth creationist, had deliberately chosen to major in hydraulic engineering and minor in geology, so he could study the effects that flood waters would have on the earth. In 1946, the year he entered grad school at the University of Minnesota, he published a pamphlet called "That You Might Believe", which defended Flood geology. Morris joined the Deluge Geology Society while still a grad student.

At the 1953 ASA convention, Morris first met John C. Whitcomb, Jr., a theologian with an interest in Flood geology and young-earth creationism. In 1957, Whitcomb finished a ThD dissertation entitled "The Genesis Flood", which presented a detailed defense of the historicity and geological affects of Noah's Flood. Shortly afterwards, he decided to publish the thesis as a book, but thought it would have more impact if a geologist wrote the sections dealing with Flood geology. Whitcomb approached several creationist geologists for help in the book, but was turned down by all of them, who rejected Flood geology for various reasons. Finally, he approached hydraulic engineer Henry Morris, who, after some initial hesitation, agreed to co-author the book. The Genesis Flood was financed by a number of religious fundamentalists (including Rouas J. Rushdooney, who would go on to begin the Christian "Reconstructionist" movement). The book was published in February 1961.

For geologists, The Genesis Flood was a yawn, merely an updated re-hash of McCready Price's New Geology. The book also received criticism from the old-earth creationists, who argued that the very idea of a global Flood was not supported by any of the geological evidence. In response, Whitcomb and Morris answered simply that Genesis said there had been a global Flood, therefore there must have been one: "The real issue is not the correctness of the interpretation of various details of the geological data, but simply what God has revealed in His Word concerning these matters." (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. xxvii) To the ASA Journal, which was vocal in its criticism of the book, Morris wrote, "The real crux of the matter is 'What saith Scripture?' " (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 208)

The Southern Baptist Church where Morris taught apparently disagreed, and Morris left over theological differences concerning the Flood. Shortly afterwards, Morris formed his own College Baptist Church, and one of his guest pastors was Jerry Falwell, a then-obscure minister in nearby Lynchburg, Virginia. Since then, Falwell and Morris have remained silent partners-- Falwell's Moral Majority Inc. has given financial support to Morris's creationist institutions, and Falwell has plugged Morris's creationist books to his large television audience.

The dispute within the American Scientific Affiliation over Flood geology soon convinced the young-earthers that the ASA was getting "soft on evolution". In late 1961, the plant breeder Walter Lammerts, who had long been affiliated with creationist organizations, joined with Henry Morris and Duane Gish to form an "anti-evolution caucus" within the ASA. Lammerts was an extremist even for a creationist--unlike most young-earthers, who accepted a limited form of evolution within "created kinds", Lammerts rejected even this and asserted that no speciation of any sort was possible. Gish, a Regular Baptist and a fundamentalist, had joined the ASA in the late 1950's, after getting his PhD in bio- chemistry from Berkeley. He worked as a protein researcher for the Upjohn Company. Together, the three formed a breakaway creationist organization called the Creation Research Committee in 1963. The Committee later changed its name to the Creation Research Society, the name it still bears today.

The CRS was the first national group to be headed by Henry Morris, the "Father of Modern Creationism", and it quickly came to reflect the views of its leader. The purpose of the CRS, it declares, is "to publish research evidence supporting the thesis that the material universe, including plants, animals and man are the result of direct creative acts by a personal God." (Creation Research Society, Articles of Incorporation, Lansing, Michigan, cited in Nelkin, 1982, p. 78) Morris had by this time decided that scientific data could be used as an effective tool for bringing people to Christ, and he began to point to his Flood geology model as an "alternative science", one that proved the literal correctness of the Bible. He also began to explore the possibility of using the state legislatures to have "Balanced Treatment" acts passed, mandating equal treatment of "evolution science" and "creation science" in biology classrooms.

To help legitimize this viewpoint, CRS maintained the old ASA tactic of admitting only credentialed scientists as members. And, in an effort to avoid the faction-fighting and ideological bickering that had marked the earlier creationist organizations, CRS also adopted a long, detailed oath which all members had to swear, which bound them firmly to a literal interpretation of Genesis, a young-earth outlook, and acceptance of the Flood geology model:

"By avoiding any mention of the Bible, or Christ as the Creator, we may be able to gain an equal time in some schools. But the cost would seem to be exceedingly high, for absolute certainty is lost and the spiritual impact that only the living and powerful Word of God can give is blunted." (Whitcomb, Grace Theological Journal, 1983, cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 246)

Lammerts, meanwhile, continued to attack Morris's new "creation science" on purely evidentiary grounds. One of Morris's favorite new arguments was that evolution was made physically impossible by one of the most basic laws of physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which, Morris contended, stated that a system could never move from a state of disorganization to a state of higher organization. Since, Morris asserted, evolutionists postulated that change did indeed move from a low state of organization (simple one-celled organisms) to a higher state of organization (vertebrate terrestrial animals), the very basis of evolutionary theory violated the Second Law. Lammerts rejected this argument (and Morris's argument is indeed based on a complete mis-statement of the Second Law), arguing that it was "confounded thermodynamics junk". (Numbers, 1992, p. 235) British creationist A.E. Wilder-Smith also declared that Morris apparently doesn't "know a thing about thermodynamics" (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 408)

In 1978, Walter Lang, the editor of the creationist Bible Science Newsletter, echoed the sentiments of many creationists who felt that scientific justification for creation was unnecessary and detracted from the spiritual message: "Only about five percent of evolutionists-turned-creationists did so on the basis of the overwhelming evidence for creation in the world of nature." (Lang, Bible Science Newsletter, June 1978, cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 233) Indeed, Lammerts, Gish and Morris had all been committed creationists before they had gained any scientific experience.

Morris, however, was completely committed to his strategy of using "creation science" to win a place for Genesis in American science classrooms, and took steps to present creationism as a scientific, not a religious, outlook. "Thus," Morris explained, "creationism is on the way back, this time not primarily as a religious belief, but as an alternative scientific explanation of the world in which we live." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, p. 16) Morris's book Scientific Creationism was intended to be the definitive book on the science of creationism, suitable for use in public school biology courses.

In 1970, Morris and Christian fundamentalist preacher Tim LaHaye (of the Moral Majority Inc), working with the Scott Memorial Baptist Church, raised money and set up the Christian Heritage College in San Diego, an unaccredited Bible college. In its 1981 academic catalogue, the College offers several courses in science, all taught, it says, in a "consistently creationist and Biblical framework". As for evolutionary theory, the catalogue states, "Biblical criteria require its rejection as possible truth." (1981-1982 General Catalogue, Christian Heritage College, p. 10, cited in LaFollette, 1983, p. 107) Morris himself was teaching a course in "creation science" at the College.

Working with fellow creationists Kelly and Nell Segraves, who had helped establish a local chapter of the Bible Science Association--a hardline creationist organization--Morris helped establish the Creation Science Research Center, for the specific purpose of producing "creation science" materials which could be used in public classrooms once the creationists succeeded in having creation "science" put into the schools. Morris also founded the Institute for Creation Research as a scientific laboratory for the Christian Heritage College, with the avowed purpose of attempting to scientifically "prove" the literal validity of Genesis.

Shortly afterwards, however, a power struggle broke out in the CSRC between Morris and the Segraves. The Segraves wrested control of the Center, and promptly disaffiliated it from the Christian Heritage College and from the ICR. The CSRC and CRS still exist, but the brightest star in the creationist movement since 1970 has been Morris and the Institute for Creation Research.

ICR remained affiliated with the Christian Heritage College until the early 1980's, when it became expedient for the creationists to downplay ICR's religious connections and attempt to paint its Bible science research as a purely secular, scientific institution. ICR today attempts to maintain the fiction that it is a scientific institute with no religious affiliations, but most ICR staffers, including Henry Morris and Duane Gish, are still adjunct professors at the Christian Heritage College. The ICR carries out no field research in any of the life sciences, and, despite its claim to be purely scientific, it maintains its tax-exempt status with the IRS on the grounds that it is a religious institution carrying out "non-scientific research".

A number of smaller creationist organizations also exist. The old Geoscience Research Institute is still active. It is based at Loma Linda University, a Seventh-Day Adventist college. For the most part, GRI avoids legislative or political work, and focuses instead on providing creationist reference materials to biology and geology teachers. GRI adheres to old-earth creationism.

Another small organization which gets some press occasionally is the Creation Evidences Museum near Glen Rose, Texas. The Museum is run by the Rev Carl Baugh, who has a PhD in anthropology from the College of Advanced Education, an unaccredited Bible college on the grounds of the Sherwood Park Baptist Church. The primary attractions of the Museum are the so-called "man tracks" from nearby Dinosaur Valley State Park, along the Paluxy River. According to the creationists, the state park contains dinosaur tracks alongside those of modern humans, proving that the two lived together. Baugh has also claimed to have found a fossil human tooth buried among the dinosaur bones. Ever since his major claims (including the footprints and the "human tooth") have been debunked, Baugh is viewed as somewhat of an oddball by the major creationist groups.

Another active creationist organization is the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, who adhere to an old-earth interpretation of creationism. The FTE produced a proposed creationist biology textbook, Of Pandas and People, which has not been approved by any state education boards but occasionally turns up in local school districts. Although FTE claims it is a scientific group, on the tax exemption forms it files with the IRS, it states that the organization's purpose is "proclaiming, publishing and preaching . . . the Christian gospel and understanding of the Bible" (cited in Eve and Harrold, 1991, p. 131)

Perhaps some mention should be made of the fringe creationist groups which even the ICR and CSRC acknowledge are a bit loony. The best known of these has to be the Flat Earth Society, which argues on both scientific and religious grounds that the earth is really flat, and that geological and astronomic data, if properly interpreted, prove this to be true. (The Flat Earthers were recently featured in a television special aired by the Discovery Channel cable network.) Another fringe group is the Tychonian Society, which, unlike the Flat Earth Society, accepts that the earth is round, but which argues, on scientific and religious grounds, that the earth is at the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it.

One of the most recent of the creationist groups is the Center for Creation Research, which was founded in 1988 as part of the Moral Majority Inc.'s Liberty University. Falwell and Moral Majority have long had close ties to ICR and other creationists--Henry Morris himself was awarded an honorary doctorate from Liberty University in 1989. The Center for Creation Research, which proudly declared that it has the largest creation museum in the world, was directed by former ICR staff member Dr. Lane Lester. It has since been closed for lack of funding.

The CCR's influence came directly through its ties with Liberty University. All Liberty students must take a semester-long class in creationist biology, entitled "A History of Life". In addition, the university's Biology Education Program heavily emphasizes a creationist view--and this program is accredited by the state of Virginia to train teachers. This means that, in a few years, teachers who have been trained in creation "science" will be eligible for teaching jobs in Virginia and elsewhere--an accomplishment that no other creationist organization has been able to match. (The ICR also has a "graduate school" for students, but it is not accredited to train teachers.)

For the moment, however, the ICR is the shining star of the creationist movement, and is responsible for most of the creationist literature that is available today (ICR also produces creationist films in conjunction with Films for Christ). The ICR makes a lot of self-congratulatory noise about its "scientific credentials". Members of the ICR, it proudly declares, are required to have an advanced degree in at least one of the sciences. They usually fail to mention, however, that, like the CRS, all of its members must sign an oath affirming their belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis and their acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. (Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and any other non-fundamentalist creationists are not allowed membership in the ICR unless they renounce those beliefs and sign the ICR's oath of Biblical infallibility.)

One of the ICR's favorite pamphlets is entitled "Twenty-One Scientists Who Believe in Creation", which lists a number of holders of doctorates and masters degrees in various scientific disciplines who assert the literal correctness of Genesis. Of the 21 listed by ICR, though, only a tiny number hold a degree in any of the life sciences. Three of the 21 hold doctorates in education, two are theologians, five are engineers. The remainder include a physicist, a chemist, a psycho-linguist, and a "food scientist".

Some creation "scientists", however, have been less luminary in their academic achievements, and some have been downright dishonest. Of those claiming to have degrees in biology or geology (areas which are relevant in assessing the scientific evidence for the evolution model), at least some seem to have degrees that are at best questionable and are at worst deliberate distortions or frauds. "Dr." Harold Slusher, one of the co-founders of the CRS, got a doctorate degree in geophysics from something called the Columbia Pacific University in California. Mr. Slusher was forced by the CRS itself to drop the "Dr." title from his name when it was discovered that this "university" is nothing more than a non- accredited correspondence school, the kind that advertise on the back of matchbooks. (Numbers, 1992, p. 288) Similarly, "Dr." Clifford Burdick of the Creation Research Society flunked out of two separate programs before obtaining a doctorate in geology from the "Arizona University of Physical Sciences", which consists solely of a post office box at a non-accredited diploma mill. (Numbers, 1992, pp. 262-263)

The creationist movement also does not like to talk about the scientists who leave after being given the opportunity to do real field research. In 1957, the Geoscience Research Institute was formed in order to search for evidence of Noah's Flood in the geological record. The project fell apart when both of the creationists involved with the project, P. Edgar Hare and Richard Ritland, completed their field research with the conclusion that fossils were much older than allowed under the creationist assertions, and that no geological or paleontological evidence of any sort could be found to indicate the occurrence of a world-wide flood. (Numbers, 1992, pp 291-293) Hare concluded, "We have been taught for years that almost everything in the geological record is the result of the Flood. I've seen enough in the field to realize that quite substantial portions of the geologic record are not the direct result of the Flood. We have also been led to believe . . . that the evidence for the extreme age of the earth is extremely tenuous and really not worthy of any credence at all. I have tried to make a rather careful study of this evidence over the past several years, and I feel that the evidence is not ambiguous but that it is just as clear as the evidence that the earth is round." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 294) Ritland, for his part, pointed out that Morris's book The Genesis Flood contained "flagrant errors which the uninitiated person is scarcely able to detect". (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 294) Ritland concluded that further attempts to justify Flood geology would "only bring embarrassment and discredit to the cause of God". (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 293)

A few years later, creationist biologists Carl Krekeler and William Bloom, who taught creationist biology at the Lutheran Church's Valparaiso University in Indiana, left after concluding that a literal interpretation of Genesis was not supported by any of the available scientific evidence. Krekeler concluded, "The documentation, not only of changes within a lineage such as horses, but of transitions between the classes of vertebrates-- particularly the details of the transition between reptiles and mammals--forced me to abandon thinking of evolution as occurring only within 'kinds'. " (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 302) Krekeler also criticized the creationist movement for the "dozens of places where half-truths are spoken, where quotations supporting the authors' views are taken from the context of books representing contrary views, and where there is misrepresentation." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 303) The two became theistic evolutionists, and later wrote a biology textbook which accepted evolutionary theory.

Perhaps as a result of these defections, the creationist movement no longer finances or carries out any field research of any sort. Its sole method of "scientific research" consists of combing through the published works of evolutionary mechanism theorists to look for quotations which can be pulled out of context and used to bolster creationist beliefs.

Undoubtedly, there are scientists with legitimate degrees from legitimate universities who do believe in creationism and the literal truth of Genesis, just as there are scientists with legitimate degrees from legitimate universities who believe in ESP, flying saucers, ghosts, Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. Even the Flat Earth Society has its contingent of scientific members. The mere fact that a number of scientists happen to profess one belief or another is no indication that this belief is valid. Validity in science is decided by the evidence and data, not by a popularity contest or a vote. Despite 25 years of effort, none of the ICR's scientists has yet come forward with any conclusive (or even credible) evidence which refutes the evolutionary model of biological development.

Not all of the creationists are scientists. One of the creationist witnesses at the Arkansas trial was Dr. Norman Geisler, a fundamentalist theologian at the Dallas Theological Seminary. During his pre-trial deposition, Geisler was asked if he believed in a real Devil. Yes, he replied, he did, and cited some Biblical verses as confirmation. The conversation then went:

"Q. Are there, sir, any other evidences for that belief besides certain passages of Scripture?

GEISLER: Oh, yes. I have known personally at least 12 persons who were clearly possessed by the Devil. And then there are the UFOs.

GEISLER: Well, you see, they represent the Devil's major, in fact, final attack on the earth.

Q. Oh. And sir, may I ask how you know, as you seem to know, that there are UFOs?

GEISLER: I read it in the Readers Digest." (Trial Transcript, US District Court, McLean v Arizona, 1981, cited in Gilkey, 1985, p. 76)

At trial, Geisler testified under oath (apparently with a straight face) that flying saucers were "Satanic manifestations for the purposes of deception". (Trial transcript, US District Court, McLean v Arkansas, 1981, cited in Gilkey, 1985, p. 77, LaFollette, 1983, p. 114 and Nelkin, 1982, p. 142)

Geisler also testified that the Arkansas creationism bill did not introduce religion into the schools for the simple reason that God is not a religious concept. "It is possible," Geisler intoned, "to believe that God exists without necessarily believing in God." In support of this idea, Geisler argued that the Devil acknowledged the existence of God but did not worship Him, and therefore treated God as a non-religious concept. (Trial transcript, McLean v Arkansas, 1981, cited in Berra, 1990, p. 134) Judge Overton rather politely concluded that Geisler's notion "is contrary to common understanding". (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)

OK, Vade, take offense, but my post was not directed at you particularly or even primarily. But since you brought it up, let me give you my short version:

Yes, there does appear to be a succession, somewhat loose perhaps. But succession has not been established scientifically; i.e. there has been no credible mechanism that is supported by the evidence. There have been lots of lies, lots of lies, perpetrated by the so-called scientists -- Haeckel and on and on. Mutation is a wholly destructive non-starter. "Chance" is a howler. No mechanism, Vade, just fruit flies that are bred in the lab into monsters but then revert quickly to the norm when subsequently left to their own devices, Galapagos bird beaks that enlarge with unusual dryness, then revert to the norm with a return to climate normality.

You post a link to Talk.Origins. That site is one big lie. I have parsed their stuff before and its all rhetoric and misrepresentation.

Abiogenesis is taught as fact, yet is is none such, it is a gleam in the eye of hopeful atheists.

I do not attack you, Vade, but the Evolutionist case has simply not been made. Yes, I agree that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. But you know that I am not a literal Biblical Creationist. And I agree life has increased in its complexity over geological time. And I agree that the same amino acid bases comprise the genetic alphabet for all life.

Now this does not in any way establish that life came from non-life of its own magical accord or that one species evolved into another or that the Universe is comprised solely of material, and most emphatically the latter. Vade, the biologists don't know but they are not honest about it. They have conferences where they engage in an activity they call "tree-building". The physicists do not hold conferences where they engage in "formula-building" in any sense similar to the biologists.

It's about evidence, Vade. Show me. I've been lied to for a very long time.

exult in the incredible majesty of your all-knowingness and the absolute Newtonian predictability of the Cosmos

The actions of the universe are not ultimately predictable; its laws are...as is its fate.

And I do exult in the incredible majesty of the universe, every day. In fact, it's my career to do so.

And tomorrow? Your smartness flickers, draws away to a dull glow, and winks out, cast upon a foamy river of mindlessness wending its purposeless way to an ocean of heat death.

Would you wish it to be otherwise? So would I. Tough shit to the both of us.

In the end, none of it mattered, Physicist. Your dear wife, your wonderful children--the joy they brought you with their smiles and hugs. It was all a cruel Darwinian joke, but no one was left alive to appreciate the punchline.

Ultimately, that's correct. But in the nearer term, my children, my works and my words will outlive me. I love my children--and yours, for that matter--and for their sake I make the world a better place. The ways in which I influence the world are the only afterlife that will be permitted to me, or to anyone...but for any sane, rational and moral person, that's more than enough.

My what a rhetorical answer! Ending with (drumroll!) a call for evidence? What's in the post you're "rebutting?" And what evidence have you ever posted?

Come on, Vade. What is the mechanism of evolution? You know that the way science works is that the scientist begins with an hypothesis (God knows where THAT comes from) and is then expected to support it with evidence. 100+ years and we're still waiting for the Darwinian evidence, Gould's Punk Eek rhetoric notwithstanding. Why should we wait? Why hasn't Darwin been sent back to the drawing board? Why will no one discuss Gertrude Himmelfarb's absolute decimation of Darwin in 1959? Well, the answer is that there is an ulterior agenda at work.

Now I believe that you are sincere in your belief in Evolution. I also believe that your wishing it to be so plays a strong part in that belief. This is as opposed to the nasty anti-Christian stuff that comes from others here.

Christians, where are you? Stop citing scripture! Learn how to fight! Darwinism falls of its own weight! That's the Darwinists' dirty little secret, and it's why they keep attacking "Creationism" instead of defending nominally scientific Darwinism.

What is the mechanism of evolution? You know that the way science works is that the scientist begins with an hypothesis (God knows where THAT comes from) and is then expected to support it with evidence. 100+ years and we're still waiting for the Darwinian evidence, Gould's Punk Eek rhetoric notwithstanding . . . Why hasn't Darwin been sent back to the drawing board?

What are you talking about? Darwin published in 1859, when knowledge in so many areas was lacking and potential falsifications of his theory were everywhere. Those potential falsifications have never shown up.

Punctuated Equilibrium is a scientific theory, not rhetoric. "Rhetoric" is a good description of your handwaving when presented with evidence.

Take your dismissal of the 200+ species cataloged in the TalkOrigins vertebrate transitionals article. You pretend they're all gone--Poof!-- when you say this:

You post a link to Talk.Origins. That site is one big lie. I have parsed their stuff before and its all rhetoric and misrepresentation.

Let's examine that trick in detail. Is everything all gone? What happens if I go to that site and pick a fossil we don't usually talk about on these threads?

We don't talk much about sirenians, so I follow the links for "Sirenians (dugongs & manatees)" and find

Prorastomus (mid-Eocene) -- A very primitive sirenian with an extremely primitive dental formula (including the ancient fifth premolar that all other mammals lost in the Cretaceous! Could this mean sirenians split off from all other mammals very early on?) The skull is somewhat condylarth-like. Had distinctive sirenian ribs. Not enough of the rest of the skeleton was found to know how aquatic it was.

Are they making this up? If they aren't, can I find where they made something up about it?

Stick the name in Yahoo! For sure, there's a real fossil species out there.

No conflicts here.

This page in Portugese on Sirenians and Pinnipeds--you may want to use AltaVista--commits to Prorastomus being a land animal but otherwise has no conflicts.

The creationist answer to sirenian transition plays on the ambiguous adaptation of Prorastomus, going the opposite way from that Portugese site. Prora is "A sirenian!" "Just a sirenian!" Note that so far the only hard conflict is with a site called "Genesis Mission." Gee! Who'd a thunk it?

How Manatees Evolved plows the middle ground.

Paleontological evidence as well as recent biochemical evidence, reveal that Sirenians, together with the Proboscideans (elephants), Hyracoidea (hyraxes) and Tubulidentata (aardvarks) represent four living orders of mammals that are sometimes lumped together as "subungulates", which derived from a primitive ungulate ancestral stock.
The mammals in these four orders all lack a clavicle, and have nails or hooves instead of claws. Sirenian evolution is not fully understood. They likely originated in Eurasia and/or Africa, but spread into tropical South America by the middle Eocene (45-50 mya). The sirenians reached a peak of diversity during the Oligocene and Miocene epochs (55 mya). The earliest animal with a manateelike appearance (Potamosiren) dates from the Miocene epoch (13-16 mya). Early fossil record begins with early Eocene genus Prorastomus, structurally close to the common ancestor, already adapted to at least a partially aquatic lifestyle "Sirenians have a long history, first appearing on earth some 50 mya, and their family tree has included denizens of cold as well as warm waters.

I could go on, but it's clear that TalkOrigins has invented nothing and distorted nothing on Prorasmus, candidly presenting where the evidence is ambiguous about the adaptation of the animal.

You claim above to have refuted the site and, by interpolation, that article, as "one big lie." Well, the whole article can't be a lie or the Prorasmus material would have been incorrect. I challenge you to demonstrate anywhere by the method I have shown that the article is "one big lie" or even truth interspersed with a few little lies. So far as I can tell it's a good-faith catalog of the fossil record for vertebrate evolutionary transition: warts, gaps, and all.

So who presents evidence and who does rhetorical hand-wave dismissals? Am I going to see something like this again on some future thread?

Well, Yeh, I keep asking the Materialist True Believers to splain to me by what infinite magic came the laws of physics and to point to that vast array of transitional forms and all I get is rhetoric. When I call rhetoric by its name, they get nasty.

This is staring to look a bit like projection on your part.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.