A Theory of Biblical Creation

trueorigins.com ^ | 2000 | Timothy Wallace

[DannyTN]

Home | Feedback | Links | Books

A Theory of Creation

A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists

© 2000 Timothy Wallace.  All Rights Reserved.  [Last Modified:  14 October 2002]

A popular practice among many proponents of evolutionism—including the “regulars” at the Talk.Origins newsgroup—is to claim that “no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,”^[1] without which they find it “impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.”  They then hasten to confirm this by “evaluating” the idea of creation—without objectivity!  Such an approach to the topic of origins shall be shown below to be unreasonable, prejudiced, less-than-honest, and (therefore) not particularly scientific.

Feigned(?) Ignorance

A classic example of evolutionist pretending may be found at the “Talk.Origins Archive,” an evolutionist website professing to “explore” origins, yet advocating only evolutionary perspectives.  There, a “welcome” document suggests to prospective participants in the evolution/creation debate, that to “really impress the regulars” they should “come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation,” which is then described as “the Holy Grail of the origins debate”—since (it is claimed) “no one’s ever seen it.”^[2]  Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community^[3] the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty.

Many arguments advanced in support of evolutionary beliefs do indeed suggest that willful ignorance is indeed widespread among adherents of evolutionism.  Their criticisms are often focused on simplistic caricatures instead of authentic creation science concepts.  Such “straw man” caricatures are easily felled by little more than sophomoric derision, giving evolutionists (and many an unwitting observer) the deceptive impression that the creation model has been effectively undone.  These same caricatures (and their Quixotic “challengers”) persist in peppering the landscape of debate, despite an abundance of informative explanations and clarifications, patiently and repeatedly proffered by a growing number of individual creationists and several creationary organizations.

Many of evolution’s proponents have thus been exposed to accurate and empirically relevant descriptions of the creation paradigm, yet they continue to limit their response to dismantling a caricature.  They either pretend not be unaware of anything better than the arsenal of “straw men” they parade before the public eye, or they willfully ignore what the other side is saying.  Neither tactic is representative of sound scholarship, reasonable scientific debate, or ethical standards worthy of admiration.  Ironically (perhaps as a diversionary tactic?), some of them publish or cite web pages supposedly documenting “dishonesty” among leading creationists.

What is a Scientific Theory?

Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is.  As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined.  This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation).  Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.

The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:

theo·ry n.  a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.

Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:

sci·ence n.   1 the state or fact of knowledge   2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached.  This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:

nat·u·ral·ism n. philos.   the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance

Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is.  The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism.  It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God.  While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God.  “Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason, “the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.”  Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.

It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world.  This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it.  There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy:  The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists.  [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and “natural law” emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]

Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in general—or God in particular—opens “science” up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions.  But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of God—the only threat is to a “science” strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism.  The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of “science” to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the“ scientific community.”  [It’s no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the “scientific community” exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalism—the only religious framework they’re willing to tolerate!]

The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like “There is no such thing as creation science!” or “If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!”  What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists!  A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.

So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a “scientific theory” must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirement—and a double standard:

The Evolutionary Double Standard
Characteristic	Creation Hypothesis	Evolution Hypothesis
Primary approach to scientific methodology	Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.	Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
Predominant religious/philosophical belief system	Biblical Christianity	Humanistic Naturalism
Primary means of demonstrating system’s positive empirical support	Citation of empirical data	Citation of empirical data
Primary means of criticizing counterpart system	Citation of empirical data	A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences

Table 1.  Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science.

The Talk.Origins Archive “Welcome FAQ” also ascribes the following set of (reasonable) requirements to a genuinely scientific theory:

“A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory.”

These traits do loosely constitute a popular norm in defining scientific theories.  As shall be seen below, an analysis of both the creation and evolution models reveals that the two theories conform with comparable integrity to such demands, when adequate information and analysis are allowed into the picture.  But in typically dismissive style, the FAQ declares that:

“such statements as ‘God created the heavens and the earth...’ are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.”

What the Talk.Origins authors have failed to tell their readers is that there is much more to the creation science model than simply declaring “God created the heavens and the earth,” including much that is both as falsifiable and predictive (if not more so) as the evolutionary model.

What then is the Theory of Creation?

Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm.  To help illustrate its key points vis-à-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison.  This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time.

Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
Phenomenon/Condition	Creation Hypothesis	Evolution Hypothesis
Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]	As with all man’s endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past	Man’s scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm man’s autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	No
Empirically Falsified?	No	No
Predominant approach to the Bible[5]	The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data	The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	No
Empirically Falsified?	No	No
Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]	God Created...	Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes
Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]	Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection	Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
Empirically Falsifiable?	Yes	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes
Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]	Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation	Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
Empirically Falsifiable?	Yes	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes
Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]	Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms	Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	No
Empirically Falsified?	No	No
Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]	Global Flood & aftermath	Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	No
Empirically Falsified?	No	No
The Ice Age[11]	Post-Flood climate compensation	Unknown
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	No
Empirically Falsified?	No	No
Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]	Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation	Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information
Empirically Falsifiable?	Yes	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes
Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]	General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected	Strict pattern of million-year depositions from “simple” to “complex”; variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic
Empirically Falsifiable?	Yes	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes
Erratic “Ages” given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]	Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood	Selective and dogmatic use of supportive “ages” & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators
Empirically Falsifiable?	Yes	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes

Table 2.  The so-called “non-existent” creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart.

Where is the Theory of Creation documented?

Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence “theory of creation” [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions].  Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons:  Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives.

While a simplistic “sound bite” approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same.  So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical “second opinion” bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken.

Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected “science” texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it.  This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms.  [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.]

Books
Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins.  All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists.  The list begins with general and/or early overviews and moves toward somewhat more specialized and/or recent offerings.

Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism [0-89052-003-2] (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985) Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? [0-89051-081-4] (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987) Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny [0-87123-356-8] (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968) Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory [9992139676] (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987) Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood [0-87552-338-2] (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) Roth, Ariel A., Origins—Linking Science and Scripture [0-8280-1328-4] (Hagarstown , MD: Review and Herals Publishing Association, 1998) Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology [0-932766-54-4] (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993) Woodmorappe, John, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study [0-932766-41-2] (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996) Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods [0-932766-57-9] (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999) Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book [0-949906-23-9] (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999) Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution [089051258-2] (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)

A slightly more descriptive list appears at http://trueorigin.org/books.asp, while two much more extensive bibliographies are http://trueorigin.org/booklist.asp and http://trueorigin.org/imp-269a.asp.

Many of these books can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis—the last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis.

Journals
The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community.  Each is published on a quarterly basis and managed by an editorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists.  Very few of evolution’s most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications.  The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured “creationism” therefore comes as no surprise.

The Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html

The Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (CENTJ)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/Technical.asp

The Question of “How?”

Some advocates of evolutionism have also assumed a right to reject the creationary paradigm because it does not explain in detail exactly how (in scientific terms comprehensible to the mind of man) the Creator performed the act of creation.  The argument goes something like: “It’s not a valid theory unless you can explain exactly how the so-called act of creation took place!”  But the speaker has failed to recognize at least two things as he seeks to impose this demand:

• The very nature of the creationary paradigm precludes man, as a created being, from any right or entitlement to exhaustive knowledge of the Creator’s ways or means.  It is an act of arrogance for the creature to claim entitlement from the Creator for more information than the Creator has chosen to reveal (as if he had the capability to comprehend it in the first place).  The creationist thus can and will claim to “know” no more about the act of creation than what the Creator has chosen to reveal.

• By demanding a “how” explanation, the evolutionist has invoked a double standard, since the evolutionary hypothesis ultimately fails to produce an empirically substantiated explanation as to “how” everything “happened” all by itself, with no apparent cause or purpose.  Unable to explain exactly “how” matter and energy appeared where previously there was nothing, and unable to explain exactly “how” genetic information appeared in massive amounts where previously there was none, the evolutionist is scarcely entitled to demand to know “how” it was done by the Creator.

Demanding the right to know “how” the omniscient, omnipotent Creator has done something is a rather self-important and presumptuous posture to be assumed by a creature incapable of suggesting exactly “how” the thing might have happen all by itself via any other means.

Conclusion

By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the “theory of creation” not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart.  It has predictive value, is internally consistent, is no less falsifiable than evolution, and consistently explains at least as many phenomena allegedly “explained” by evolution.

The vocal proponents of evolution have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in this kind of straightforward clarity or information.  They object to its presentation, excuse themselves from paying much attention to it, then return to hacking up their favorite “straw-man” caricatures and congratulating each other on a job well done.  (Don’t let this happen to you!)

Vocal proponents of evolutionism such as are found at Talk.Origins have employed willful ignorance and arbitrary double-standards to question the scientific legitimacy of the creation science model.  They then go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for using such unscientific—if not outright deceptive—tactics to disparage their worst nightmare:  the truth.

Timothy Wallace            

---

Notes

[1] The Talk.Origins Archive “Welcome FAQ” (as of 25 April 2000), apparently authored by Andy Peters, Onar Aam, Jim Acker, Wesley Elsberry, Mark Isaak, Bill Jefferys, Jim Loats, Thomas Marlowe, Paul Neubacher, Tero Sand, Thomas Scharle, Paul Schinder, Chris Stassen, Brett Vickers, and Kurt vonRoeschlaub. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[2] ibid. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[3] Two extensive online book lists are A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography by Henry M. Morris and Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography by Eric Blievernicht.  Periodicals include the peer-reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, and the popular-level Creation Ex Nihilo Magazine. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[4] Such fundamental assumptions are strictly religious/philosophical in both models, and therefore incapable of empirical falsification. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[5] Although much external evidence (e.g., ancient records and archaeological research) points to the accuracy of the Bible (as properly understood), this evidence does not necessarily render the reliability of the Bible an empirically falsifiable postulate—particularly to the mind and will predisposed to resist the moral implications inherent in the Bible’s message.  Some links for serious inquirers might be The Textual Reliability of the New Testament.   [RETURN TO TEXT]

[6] The creationary postulate that the ultimate Primal Cause of time, space, and matter/energy was the Creator-God of the Bible is not empirically falsifiable, although evidence does point to a beginning of time, space, and matter/energy.  The evolutionary postulate that time, space, and matter/energy are either self-created or eternal in nature is empirically falsified, in that empirical evidence (i.e., the principle of entropy) points to a beginning of time, space, and matter/energy, and no unequivocal empirical evidence exists that time, space, and/or matter/energy can spontaneously exist via natural processes where none existed previously.  Serious inquirers might be interested in reading Sarfati’s “If God Created the Universe, then Who Created God?,” “How to Think About God,” by Mortimer J. Adler (New York, 1980: Macmillan).  (Adler was a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, Chairman of the Board of Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Dir of the Institute of Philosophical Research, and Honorary Trustee of the Aspen Institute for Hamanistic Studies.  A self-described pagan, he nevertheless formulated a rationalistic argument for the existence of God “either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of reasons for that conclusion over reasons against it.”  His argument hinges on causation.     [RETURN TO TEXT]

[7] The creationary postulate that complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems are potentially inherent and complete in original populations as created and manifested over time through genetic variation and natural selection would be falsified by the demonstration that natural processes alone are unequivocally capable of producing these phenomena, were such a demonstration possible.  The evolutionary postulate that complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems have increased over time, starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, on the other hand, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data indicating that natural processes alone are unequivocally incapable of producing these phenomena. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[8] The creationary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information were inherent and complete in the original populations as created, and that the sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation would be falsified by the demonstration of an unequivocal, empirically verifiable increase in new genetic information over time.  The evolutionary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information have increased over time starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data pointing only to a net decrease in available genetic code, and the emergence of no unequivocally new genetic information.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[9] It has not been demonstrated empirically and unequivocally that similarities, ranging from genetic to morphological, between various organisms are either indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar/identical structures and information sequences for similar functions in different organisms, or that they are residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors.  Falsification for either interpretation therefore remains impossible.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[10] The creationary postulate that the fossil record, comprised of billions of organisms quickly buried in sedimentary rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, is a product of the biblical global Flood and its immediate aftermath has not been falsified.  The evolutionary postulate that the same fossil record is a product of millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial likewise has not been falsified per se, though no empirically observed similar uniformitarian process can be demonstrated to support the claim.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[11] If the Ice Age could be shown unequivocally to conflict with the creationary paradigm, it would serve as a form of falsification.  But the Ice Age is essentially predictable in the aftermath of a high-energy catastrophic Flood as postulated in the creation model, whereas the evolutionary model offers no firm and unambiguous explanation for the Ice Age.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[12] The Entropy Law, as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, finds no disagreement with the creation model, which points to a space/time/matter beginning, followed closely by constant degradation—otherwise creation could be easily falsified via a demonstration that it violates the Entropy Law.  The evolution model, on the other hand, requires a mechanism-free and consistent increase in order, complexity, and new genetic information, which amounts to an outright contradiction to the Entropy Law.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[13] The loose and distinctly variable stratigraphic sequence in the fossil record, with its many exceptions, presents a pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations, which fits the creation/flood model well, whereas a highly consistent and strictly uniform record would only serve to falsify it.  The evolution model calls for a fairly strict and uniform stratigraphic sequence, but ends up with many problematic and unpredicted (i.e., “out-of-order”) anomalies which essentially falsify it.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[14] This aspect of the creation model would easily be falsified if uniformitarian “dating” methods unanimously and consistently agreed on any one age of the earth contradicting the biblical creation estimate.  Instead, they vary wildly, spanning a range from little or no apparent age to “billions” of years, strongly suggesting that they are unreliable as a rule, and that the various processes measured to produce them are likely residual effects of the high-energy, catastrophic processes and conditions of the flood.  The evolutionary model seeks confirmation in carefully selected samples of carefully selected methods of uniformitarian “dating” but is falsified by the remaining—and equally legitimate—“dates” obtained from the many other processes available for determining unformitarian “dates.”  [RETURN TO TEXT]

---

Bibliography

Austin, Steven A., Grand Canyon -- Monument to Catastrophe (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1994). 

Behe, Michael J., Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996).

Bergman, Jerry, The Criterion (Richfield, MN: Onesimus Publishing, 1984).

Bergman, Jerry and George Howe, Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional (St. Joseph, MO: Creation Research Society Books, 1990). 

Cooper, Bill, After the Flood (Chichester, England: New Wine Press, 1995). 

Denton, Michael J., Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986; originally published in England in 1985). 

Gange, Robert, Origins and Destiny (Dallas: Word, 1986). 

Gentry, R. V., Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville, TN: Earth Science Associates, 1986).

Gish, Duane T., Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).

Gish, Duane T., Dinosaurs by Design (El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1992).

Gish, Duane T., Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995; an enlargement of Dr. Gish's The Challenge of the Fossil Record, and before it, Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!). 

Ham, Ken, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Wieland, The Answers Book (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1991). 

Ham, Ken, The Lie: Evolution (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1987). 

Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994). 

Johnson, Phillip E., Darwin on Trial (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991).

Johnson, Phillip E., Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997).

Johnson, Phillip E., Reason in the Balance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995). 

Lammerts, Walter E., ed., Why Not Creation? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970). 

Lubenow, Marvin, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992). 

Morris, Henry M., The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984). 

Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism 2d ed. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985).

Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? Rev. ed. (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987).

Morris, John D., The Young Earth (Colorado Springs, CO: Master Books, 1994). 

Oard, Michael, An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990). 

Schaeffer, Francis, No Final Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975). 

Slusher, Harold, S. and Stephen J. Robertson, The Age of the Solar System (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1982).

Slusher, Harold S., Origin of the Universe (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1980).

Spetner, Lee, Not By Chance! (New York: Judaica Press, 1996). 

Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Dallas: Lewis & Stanley, 1992; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1984).

Thompson, Bert, Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1995). 

Vardiman, Larry, Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).

Vardiman, Larry, Sea-Floor Sediment and the Age of the Earth (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964). 

Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man's Origin, Man's Destiny (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968). 

Williams, Emmett L., ed., Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Norcross, GA: Creation Research Society Books, 1981).

Wieland, Carl, Stones and Bones: Powerful Evidence Against Evolution (Acacia Ridge, Australia: Creation Science Foundation, 1994). 

Woodmorappe, John, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).

Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).

---

Home | Feedback | Links | Books | Back to Top

This site has received over

visits since November 1997

© TrueOrigin Archive.  All Rights Reserved.
 

powered by Lone Star Web Works
 

[DannyTN]

...The next non-supernaturalistic claim is "Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection". They claim that this could be falsified by showing that naturalistic processes could bring about organisms. Except that this isn't true. Just because you can show that a process is physically possible does not mean that it did happen. Showing that the organisms that we see today could have come about through natural processes would not falsify the statement that they were created as-is. Thus, their claim of falsifiability, in this instance, is inaccurate. They are wrong.

I agree with you that it's not falsifiable in that sense. But in that case, neither is Evolution falsifiable. It may be impossible to prove no natural process could ever bring about the life forms as we see them today. No matter how statiscally improbable it looks, there will always be an evolutionist saying there must be some other natural process we haven't considered.

Next, "Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation". This is falsifiable, as they explain in their footnote. Except that they haven't defined what they really mean by "genetic information" (which is what the statement references), and in fact I've never really had a creationist adequately define "information" with respect to genetics (and someone feel free to fill me in on this). So, it's a falsifiable claim, once creationists get their terminology in order.

I agree that information needs definition. I have a concept of what it means, sort of a subroutine or functional program within DNA with the functionality for an organ or body part to work, but nailing it down to a concise definition might be hard. And that one was just off the top of my head.

Next, "Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms". This is not a hypothesis statement, this is an assumption. They've already proposed a "Creator" without having even come up with a complete theory. This is called assuming the conclusion, and moreover no justification is given for the assumption of exactly what is the "Creator's perogative". It is not valid within a scientific theory.

I think it's a valid hypothesis statement. And it is reflected in nature when two organisms develop similar functions despite being in separate "evolutionary trees". The problem I have with this statement is what if God tweaked the code, so it's different. How many ways can you write a for loop in a program? So not being identical wouldn't falsify the theory.

Moving on, and skipping their admitted non-falsifiable statements and also their blatant lie regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which they just threw in to claim that evolution theory would violate it, a typical creationst dishonest statement

I dissagree that that is a blatant lie. I'm not crazy about using the term "Second Law of Thermodynamics", but there is evidence that the mutations create a negative load on species. That the order that is decays and doesn't increase. That we are deevolving not evolving.

we come to "General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected". Now this, this is the first real prediction that they have made. I honestly cannot find fault with this statement (in speaking of its validity as a scientific hypothesis/theory, not in the truth value of the statement itself). Of course, since this is thus far the only really valid scientific statement (the second once the creationists pushing this "theory" define "genetic information" in a satisfactory way), it's a rather flimsy argument.

The next, and final statement, addressing errors in dating methods, is "Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood" again claims falsifiablity, but again isn't. The explanation for falsifying it is "if uniformitarian “dating” methods unanimously and consistently agreed on any one age of the earth contradicting the biblical creation estimate.". Except that they've not yet shown that multiple dating methods could all give the same erroneous date for the same material under specific conditions. Thus, the statement is actually non-falsifiable, or at least they haven't provided a falsification criteria that is actually valid.

I'm not crazy about that one either. But I think they could have expanded it and broken it into several more. There are many hypothesis about the flood that could be elaborated. But then the flood wasn't really the theory being discussed. The radiometric dating does need to be discussed, but the flood is far from the only possible explanation for bad radiometric dates.

Now finally, what really bothers me, is that the above are just -- as admitted in the article -- components of a creationist paradigm.

Get over it. It bothers us just as much that evolution components are the components of an anti-scriptural naturalistic and often (not always) atheistic paradigm.

They may form the basis of "creation theory", but the actual "theory" itself is never definitively stated.

Wouldn't that be pretty obvious? The theory is that God created the animals by kind in accordance with the Genesis record and that creation has been under either stasis or slow decay every since with some speciation within kind.

Moreover, only two statements could potentially be falsified, and the two of them together do not lead to any inherent conclusions. Even accepting all of the statements that do not appeal to supernatural constructs as part of the "theory", I cannot derive any conclusions from them, much less "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth".

The conclusions are the individual hypotheses. The design can still be investigated. Similarities and differences and functionalities and mutations can all be investigated. There is little difference in what can be studied or concluded under Creation Theory than under Evolution Theory.

With the Theory of Evolution, a series of testable, falsifiable statements based upon observations of the natural universe were put together to come up with the coherent explanation that biodiversity on earth is the result of mutation and natural selection starting with a common ancestor (or common ancestors) that became more and more diverse as populations were isolated in radically different environments where different genetic traits created different survival advantages. Whether or not you agree that it is true, it's still a series of statement that logically flow to a conclusion. Not so with "creation theory". At best, it's an attempt to show that evolution is impossible and that one or two things in the world might possibly coincide with how some people think the Bible described some events in the past. You can't get a coherent conclusion from that.

I agree it has logical flow to a conclusion. But I see a similar logical flow with Creation. There may not be as much flow since the kinds all started at creation instead of having an interconnectedness from common ancestry. But there is connectedness through common design. But creation makes statements about where we are headed (decay) just as evolution does. It's just in the opposite direction.

[Michael81Dus]

Oh, of course. So it wasn´t the Church who burned Kopernikus for claiming that the earth is a globe? It wasn´t the church who banned Galileos scripts and forced him into isolation until his death? No, surely it must have been evolutionists. Man, do you really believe the crap you write here?

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

[HankReardon]

Because if there is no God, I, being man, am the most ultimate being. You are also. How could one dispute this?

[tfecw]

well there is a difference between saying that "I am the most ultimate being" with the connotation that I personally. And Human beings being the ultimate being as a race presumably since they are at the top of the food chain.

So there is a difference, You tried to paint me as an atheist ego maniac which I am not.

Some people actually believe that there is no ultimate being in any shape or form. Some could science could be an ultimate being.

your faulty logic of if: statement Then: some random assumption doesn't fly with me and is easily disputed. Need proof, "I don't believe I'm an ultimate being". There you go. Disputed.

[DannyTN]

"So it wasn´t the Church who burned Kopernikus for claiming that the earth is a globe? It wasn´t the church who banned Galileos scripts and forced him into isolation until his death? "

No, the church didn't burn Copernicus. And the church's dispute with him wasn't over the shape of the earth either it was whether the sun revolved round the earth or the earth around the sun. For the most part the church ignored Copernicus as he didn't have a lot of followers.

Copernicus and church

Even atheist don't claim the church burned Copernicus. Atheists on Copernicus

The Roman Catholic church did ban his work in 1616, but that was during a period that the Roman Catholic church leadership had become very corrupt.

And while Galileo did have a run in with the Roman Catholics over the same issue. He wasn't exactly kept in isolation.

From the Roman Catholic Advent site..."Under the sentence of imprisonment Galileo remained till his death in 1642. It is, however, untrue to speak of him as in any proper sense a "prisoner". As his Protestant biographer, von Gebler, tells us, "One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one that Galileo spent altogether twenty-two days in the buildings of the Holy Office (i.e. the Inquisition), and even then not in a prison cell with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition." For the rest, he was allowed to use as his places of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and usually luxurious. It is wholly untrue that he was -- as is constantly stated -- either tortured or blinded by his persecutors -- though in 1637, five years before his death, he became totally blind -- or that he was refused burial in consecrated ground. On the contrary, although the pope (Urban VIII) did not allow a monument to be erected over his tomb, he sent his special blessing to the dying man, who was interred not only in consecrated ground, but within the church of Santa Croce at Florence. "

Galileo believed scripture to be inerrant and that the Roman Catholic leaderships had wrongly interpreted a verse. And they had. They took a verse that described the sun's motion around the earth relative to a viewpoint on earth and assumed that it meant the sun must travel around the earth relative to any point in the universe. They were wrong. The whole point of the verse cited was that Man didn't know how God accomplished these things. Galileo

[Dataman]

Any bets this is a gross oversimplification of human understanding throughout history?

See post 117

[free_european]

It is good we have such an esteemed expert as you who can easily tell what is figurative poetry in the Bible and what must be taken seriously.

[Dataman]

It is good we have such an esteemed expert as you who can easily tell what is figurative poetry in the Bible and what must be taken seriously.

It isn't just my opinion. The source you cite is admittedly liberal, though not all contributors are. It is a favorite of Unitarians and other such "progressive" groups because it generally reflects their bias.

One thing is certain, though: Critics of biblical literature tend to think they get to decide what is literal and figurative based on no historical context, an English translation, and a 19th Century Tubingen weltanshauung.

[free_european]

No? Then offer a source for your views.

[Dataman]

Here's a good place to start

[free_european]

Not exactly scholarly either it it?

[Dataman]

It was basic hermeneutics. I don't know what level of education you've had nor what field of study. The only clue is that you use the HC Bible Dict.

How about Dr. Rhodes?

Dr. Geisler is excellent as well

[HankReardon]

Do you believe there is a being superior to you?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You can logically and scientifically dispute the account's validity, but it what it actually says is that man is living now in the 6th day.

I'm not attempting to dispute the Genesis account. My position is that Genesis is not a science textbook. It is a book of wisdom that was inspired by God to explain to people at that time how they came to be. You can't talk about DNA to people who don't about cells or chromosomes. Considering how much we don't know now, this doesn't seem unreasonable.

This was completely appropriate for 1200 BC. To try to use it now as a literal description of creation leaves a number of gaps. It's just too incomplete as a technical or scientific description.

It's not unusual for Christians who work in the sciences to look at their work as inspired by God. This is after all, God's creation. It may be that some time in the future, the new knowledge will be considered inspired and recorded in another revision of Genesis.

I think there's a reason that Jesus spoke in parables and that he said in John 5:39-40;

You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.