The sentences below were taken from the book entitled The Controversy — Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1984), written by creationary scientist Donald E. Chittick, Ph.D. (physical chemistry). I recommend that you read Dr. Chittick's book. Whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, you will find much food for thought and reflection in this interesting book.
In the quoted sentences below I have purposely put the adjectives [creationary] and evolutionary in bold letters to highlight the symmetrical wording that I am encouraging speakers and writers to use. I urge all fair-minded people to add the adjective creationary to their own active core vocabulary and to begin to use it alongside the parallel adjective evolutionary in their speech and writing. If many evolutionary and creationary writers consider the adjective evolutionary to be an indispensable word in their active vocabulary, then (following the same logic) the corresponding morphologically parallel adjective creationary ought to be equally indispensable, especially in the context of the evolution-creation debate.
Dustjacket (inside front cover)
Using the biblical assumption that the Creator did indeed act, Chittick shows that [creationary] science is a credible alternative to evolutionary theory. (from the dustjacket, inside front cover - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Introduction (p. 11)
Also examples will be given to illustrate how scientific data interpreted within a [creationary] framework provide satisfying answers. (p. 12 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
However, a detailed treatment of [creationary] science is not my purpose here. (p. 12 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Our purpose there is not to provide an exhaustive or detailed explanation of data from a [creationary] point of view, but simply to demonstrate how data can be interpreted from that viewpoint. (p. 12 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Chapter 1 — Roots of Modern Science (p. 15)
"If we ask why scientists rejected [creation] in the 19th century in favor of evolution, then part of the answer must be that they rejected [super-naturalistic] explanations of phenomena that appeared to be susceptible to naturalistic explanations, and to that extent adoption of evolutionary theory accompanied a decline in the strength of religious belief.[..."] (p. 18 - I replaced the words "super-natural" and "creationism" with the words "super-naturalistic" and "creation" to make the wording more symmetrical. The adjectives "super-natural" and "natural" could also have been used for equally symmetrical wording.)
Instead, he actively tried to fight the [creationary] view and those who held it. (p. 19 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
["...] In the case of the theory of evolution, the concept of an instantaneously created world was replaced by that of a slowly evolving world, with man being part of the evolutionary stream." (p. 21)
Chapter 2 — Fact, Faith, and Logic: An Organized Approach (p. 23)
Jastrow is not the only evolutionary scientist who feels this way. (p. 29)
One should also note that since Dr. Jastrow does not accept the [creationary] view, he also defines evolution as "the scientific view." (p. 20) (p. 29 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
In a discussion on the origin of life the well-known scientist George Wald, an evolutionary biologist, makes an interesting observation about present day biologists. (p. 31)
For example, after an article derogatory toward the [creationary] position appeared as an editorial in a science magazine, a subsequent editorial made the following observation. (p. 32 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Chapter 2 — Notes (p. 36)
13. Ibid. pp. 779-780. Ralph E. Ancil, "The Limits of Human Thought and the [Creationary] Model" [ Creation Research Society Quarterly (June 1983): 30-39 (p. 36 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Chapter 3 — Evidence and Experts (p. 37)
In discussing principles of reconstructing evolutionary history, one scientist, an evolutionist comments, "How can history be scientific if we cannot directly observe a past process: (i) If we can observe present processes at work, then we should accumulate and extrapolate their results to render the past." (p. 49)
One scientist making a bitter attack against creation and [creationary] scientists writes, "Evolution is a fact as much as the idea that the earth is shaped like a ball." (p. 51 -I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
We have mentioned that although science began from a [creationary] base, a change in philosophy occurred. (p. 57 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Those attacking creation would frequently give a bad or incorrect representation of the [creationary] explanation and then label it unscientific. (p. 58 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
For example, in what appears to be a slam at the [creationary] explanation, one science textbook explains, ["] A theory that is not fruitful is a "bad" theory because it does not lead to further knowledge. ["...] (p. 58 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
[Creationary] science was now labeled religion and naturalistic science was simply called science. (p. 59 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
We cannot go back and observe the [creationary] events. (p. 59 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Chapter 3 — Notes (p. 37)
6. Stephen Jay Gould, "Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory," Science, 23 April 1982, 386 (p. 60)
7. Charles A. Clough and Louis E. Fredriks, "[Creationary] Science: A Challenge from Professor Young," [Creation Research Society Quarterly (June 1978): 49 (p. 60 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
Chapter 4 — Evidence vs. Evolution (p. 61)
["...] It's a philosophical or logical mistake, he says, "to look to those evolutionary scientific cosmologies that involve the concept of a beginning of the universe as support for a sophisticated traditional doctrine of creation." (p. 62)
Some Christians have wondered whether the big bang might be the [creationary] event described in Genesis. (p.62 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Actual observation of evolutionary change was therefore not possible. (p. 64)
Stephen Gould, a strong proponent of evolution and strongly [anticreationary], observes this:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record exists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.".)
(pp. 64, 65 - I replaced "anticreationist" with "anticreationary".)
Genetics poses an additional problem for the evolutionary hypothesis. (p. 67)
One evolutionary writer, while recognizing the problem of the origin of the genetic code, makes the following comment:
Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution?
(p. 67)
[...] A [creationary] scientist uses the term in a sense different from that of an evolutionary scientist.) (p. 68 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Jastrow continues by explaining that not only is there no concrete evidence to support the hypothesis of the evolutionary origin of life, but none will likely ever be found. (p. 69)
In the evolutionary belief system, life arose so long ago that any evidence of its origin would probably have been erased even if it did exist at one time. (p. 69)
Thus an evolutionist must invent additional postulates to explain the lack of evidence for the evolutionary origin of first life. (p. 69)
The evolutionary hypothesis for the origin of life is without observational evidence for its support in either the fossil record or from the biology laboratory. (p. 69)
If life arose by an evolutionary process, it must have subsequently developed by stages. (p. 69)
Evolutionary hypothesis is not only not supported by evidence; it is actually contrary to the evidence. (p. 70)
Although many people today hold to an evolutionary philosophical framework and study science in that context, in my opinion it provides an inferior and limited view of reality. (p. 71)
[Creationary] science does offer a fully acceptable and satisfying alternative. (p. 71 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
[Creationary] science begins with wholly biblical presuppositions and interprets data from all of reality, including science, within that framework. (p. 71 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Chapter 5 — Source of Conflict: The Bible on Science (p. 73)
In other words, to have a miracle, nature must be interfered with by some outside agency, and evolutionary uniformitarianism will not accept this. (p. 79)
A second principle of evolutionary uniformitarianism is that rates and processes occurring in the present have remained the same throughout history and can therefore be used to extrapolate into the far distant past. (p. 79)
Not only the creating, but also the upholding of the world belongs to God alone; that is to say, Jahveh is not a deistic supreme being who, after the [creationary] act, leaves everything to the innate laws of nature, and He does not withdraw, like a platonic demiurge, into 'the way of being that belongs solely to Him'.
(p. 81 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
As mentioned earlier, the autonomous world view in our present culture is termed the evolutionary world view or the "scientific" world view. (p. 83)
Notice the dogmatism of this statement on the evolutionary view of the origin of life. (p. 85)
No design or purpose is allowed in the evolutionary view. (p. 85)
Interestingly, however, design and purpose seem to be so apparent when considering living things that many evolutionary biologists simply cannot resist using these terms. (p. - 85)
Design and purpose, however, have no place in evolutionary thinking (p. - 85)
The term is therefore semantically quite incorrect but, far more important, it is philosophically grossly misleading, as it implies that a process has occurred which is the very antithesis of the evolutionary concept of chance and necessity.
(pp. 85,86)
Those who elect the evolutionary framework do so not because the facts of science require this, but because this is the philosophic thought-structure they desire. (p. - 88)
After being trapped in evolutionary theory, turning to creation can be a very exciting and rewarding experience. (p. 89)
Chapter 6 — Truth and Consequences (p. 91)
Although none of the presidents of the "best schools" in the United States would admit that evolution was being taught in their classrooms, the Presbyterian Observer, when challenged in 1880 by the Popular Science Monthly, could find only one American naturalist who would publicly repudiate evolutionary theory.
(p. - 92)
But common to all the various theistic evolutionary views is the assertion that the creation account in Genesis is not to be taken in any literal or historic sense. (p. - 94)
My formal education, however, all through public grade school and high school, then into a private four-year college, and finally four years of graduate training ending with the Ph.D., was within the evolutionary framework. (p. 95)
I became very sensitive and defensive when encountering those who were theologically more conservative and who held to a direct [creationary] view. (p. 96 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
The evolutionary world view puts tremendous pressure on a student interested in science. (p. 97)
He soon realizes, however, that there is a conflict between the evolutionary world view posing as science and the [creationary] world view. (p. 97 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Statements to that effect are common in the scientific literature, as illustrated by the following: "The American Association for the Advancement of Science, meeting in Washington, D. C., on January 4 [1982], passed a resolution declaring that '[creationary] science has no scientific validity' and poses 'a real and present threat to the integrity of education.' " (pp. 97,98 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
At one time, for example, evolutionary scientists supposed the universe to be a steady state universe. (p. 99)
Not all of the students agreed with the [creationary] approach, but many of them expressed interest in further study. (p. 100 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Scientifically, evolution could not be God's means of creation, simply because the evolutionary process, mutation and selection, don't create.
(p. 101)
Results of the survey showed that science faculty members in those schools took a theistic evolutionary position regarding creation and evolution. (p. 103)
He now holds to a theistic evolutionary view. (p. 108)
Many scholars have noted the relationship between acceptance of an evolutionary world view and the general decline in morality throughout our culture. (pp. 111, 112)
Time and time again I have observed the excitement and interest that is kindled in science when young people are given [creationary] answers to some of the big questions facing science today. (p. 116 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
The [creationary] approach is tremendously motivating for the study of science, just as it was in the early days when modern science began. (p. 116 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
A young person using the [creationary] approach can view each of the many, many individual data pieces of science as pieces that need to be fitted together to come up with an overall complete picture. (p. 116 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Chapter 6 — Notes (p. 117)
11. J. Willits Lane, "Letters: [Creationary] discussion continues," Physics Today, 8 October 1982, 103 (p. 117 - I replaced "creationism" with "creationary".)Chapter 7 — Theology and Science (p. 119)
What is needed in a Christian theology of science is not only an exposure of the weaknesses of evolution, valid as that might be, but also the replacement of the evolutionary world view with one that is much more satisfying, both for interpreting the scientific evidence and the spiritual and social dimensions of man as well. (p. 120)
The conflict is rather between two entirely different and antithetical philosophies of science: science in a biblical [creationary] world view in which nature is not autonomous but dependent moment by moment on God, and science in an evolutionary world view in which nature is autonomous and independent of God. (p. 122 - I added the adjective "creationary".)
They would argue that modern science was not a result of the [creationary] world view put forth by attention to the Bible, but was only accidentally associated with it. (p. 131 - I added the adjective "creationary".)
During the time I was considering theistic evolution as a way to "harmonize" the Bible and science, the serious accusations hurled at the [creationary] scientists both by atheistic evolutionists as well as those within the church who were theistic evolutionists did not escape my notice. (p.133 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
We must cut through the fog and get down to the real question: Is the [creationary] position true or not? (p. 133 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
True, these scientists seemed to be numerically in the minority, but that in itself did not make the [creationary] position untrue. (p. 134 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
I found the [creationary] position, beginning with presuppositions suggested by the Bible itself, gave conclusions that were in agreement with reality. (p. 134 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
The [creationary] position seemed to me to have the ring of truth. (p. 134 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
The [creationary] position began from an absolute reference point, the truth of God's Word. (p. 134 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Beginning with that doctrine, [creationary] science can put the Christian back on the offfensive again in defending and presenting his faith. (p. 137 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Even non-Christian thinkers and philosophers most radically committed to an evolutionary philosophy are forced to admit that mind has an existence independent of matter. (p. 141)
In the [creationary] view, man's mind and the material universe both flow from the same source, the mind of God. (pp 141, 142 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Unlike [creationary] science, evolutionary science cannot explain ultimate origins, a fact begrudgingly admitted by evolutionists. (p. 144 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Even if one adopts the evolutionary world view of infinite regression of cause and effect, he finally reaches the point at which it is not possible to regress any further. (p. 144)
Thus, even using naturalistic or evolutionary assumptions, one is brought to an origin for the universe. (p. 144)
Evolutionary science uses the bias that nature is autonomous; it assumes the laws of nature are independent. (p. 145)
Evolutionary science is thus hampered by a limited view of reality. (p. 145)
Evolutionary science (science studied within an evolutionary philosophy) is often equated with science itself. (p. 145)
When science is equated with evolutionary science, it is not only wrong but causes a great deal of confusion. (p. 145)
It is a grave mistake to equate science with evolutionary science because science can also be [creationary] science. (p. 145 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
[Creationary] Science (p. 145 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
[Creationary] science is science carried on within a different philosophical framework. (p. 145 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
[Creationary] science takes a broader view and is capable of giving big answers to big questions. (p. 145 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
However, science carried on within an evolutionary framework can only give limited answers since it only admits to a limited reality. (p. 145)
Evolutionary science thus has a severe built-in limitation. (p. 145)
That philosophical framework can be evolutionary, which begins by assuming that the material universe is autonomous and follows an infinite regression of cause and effect. (p.146)
Chapter 9 — God, Creation, and Man (p. 147)
As we discussed earlier, this view, theistic evolution, sees only natural processes and no miracles involved after the original formation of matter and energy; it comes from the idea that nature is autonomous and is an evolutionary view. (pp. 153, 154)
In the biblical [creationary] view, however, miracle was clearly involved subsequent to the original creation of matter and energy. (p. 154 - I added the adjective "creationary" to this sentence.)
Topics which occur again and again in [creationary] and evolutionary discussions include the age of the earth, dating methods, and the length of the days of creation ("Were the days of creation long periods of time? Were they figurative or literal days?"). (p. 156 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Although [evolutionary] and [creationary] literature frequently discuss length of time for earth history, there has been little discussion about the nature of time or its philosophical foundations. (p. 156 - I replaced the noun/adjectives "evolutionist" and "creationist" with the adjectives "evolutionary" and "creationary" in this sentence. The symmetrical use of the words "evolutionist" and "creationist" in this sentence is also quite acceptable.)
Evolutionary science, of course, has no answer. (p. 160)
[Creationary] science, on the other hand, can accept such an event. (p. 160 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
In [creationary] science, all events are the moment-by-moment outworking of the will of God. (p. 160 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
If we as Christians choose evolutionary presuppositions, and if direct creation is the actual case, then we will draw wrong conclusions about the material universe and about the nature of time. (p. 161)
The [creationary] explanation, allowing for the moment by moment outworking of the will of God, is a more scientific explanation because it describes reality as it is. (p. 161 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
The origin of life by evolutionary processes was also not observed, but evolutionists term such an origin as scientific. (p. 162)
Part of the data [creationary] science considers are the words God has given to us. (p. 162 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Evolutionary science ignores or refuses to consider as evidence what God has said. (p. 162)
[Creationary] science is not closed to that evidence. (p. 162 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Biblically, then, the [creationary] model begins with creation ex nihilo. (p. 164 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Evolutionary science will not accept this conclusion because it refuses to accept God's Word as data and assumes instead an infinite regression of natural causes and effects. (p. 165)
The attack came from evolutionary presuppositions and not from scientific data. (p. 167)
Some of the strongest proponents of the evolutionary world view have been honest enough to admit this situation. (p. 172)
Secular sociologists and psychologists using the evolutionary model of man have erected elaborate rationalizations for criminal behavior. (p. 173)
An individual in the evolutionary view is not morally responsible for his actions because his actions stem from the natural chemical and physical laws in nature. (p. 173)
Much of the present-day treatment of criminals and their behavior is based on the evolutionary world view. (p. 173)
Later he became a Christian and adopted a biblical [creationary] world view. (p. 177 - I added the adjective "creationary" to this sentence.)
Chapter 9 — Notes (p. 179)
10. Clough and Fredricks, "[Creationary] Science, " 47 (p. 179 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Chapter 10 — The Early Earth (p. 181)
In challenging the evolutionary world view, it is not enough to point out fallacies and errors in evolution (and there are many of them). (p. 181)
In the pages that follow, we will outline a [creationary] approach to origins and earth history in answer to the question, "If evolution is not true, what do we put in its place?" (p. 182 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
The Bible itself serves as a primary reference source for the assumptions and historical data used for constructing a biblical [creationary] interpretation of origins and earth history. (p. 182 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
In these pages we will not do more than outline a few key features of the [creationary] approach. (p. 182 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Because the Bible gives only a broad outline and limited details of origins and earth history, [creationary] scientists and individuals who have studied scientific data will sometimes differ on details. (p. 182 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
The Christian need not be ashamed of the [creationary] position from a scholarly point of view. (p. 183 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
A [creationary] scientist is free to make assumptions in line with the broad biblical outline. (p. 183 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Those who take the evolutionary approach to earth history also make assumptions within the broad outline of their original premise that nature is autonomous. (p. 183)
A [creationary] scientist uses this approach as freely as does the evolutionary scientist. (p. 184 - I replaced "creation" and "evolution" with "creationary" and "evolutionary". The original wording used by Dr. Chittick was symmetrical (i.e., he used the adjectival noun "creation" with the corresponding adjectival noun "evolution", instead of using "creation" or "creationist" with the adjective "evolutionary". Careful, knowledgeable, and unbiased writers will try to use symmetrical wording wherever possible instead of asymmetrical wording.)
This means that in attempts to reconstruct history, one [creationary] scientist may not agree in all details with another [creationary] scientist. (p. 184 - I twice replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
What is agreed on, however, is the world view of the [creationary] approach as well as those points specifically stated by the biblical record. (p. 184 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
I do this in order to counter the argument of the evolutionists that a [creationary] approach cannot be used because it is in disagreement with facts. (p. 184 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
The [creationary] approach is in agreement with the facts and I shall illustrate this as our discussion continues. (p. 184 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
There are six major veils that make it difficult to reconstruct earth history from a [creationary] viewpoint. (p. 185 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
A fourth curtain making it difficult to reconstruct earth history from a [creationary] point of view is cultural conditioning. (p. 186 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
We live in a culture which is antagonistic to the [creationary] viewpoint, and this conditions our thinking. (p. 186 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
I have yet to see in major communication media a [creationary] interpretation given to the discovery of a new fossil skull or bone. (p. 186 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Newspapers and other media consistently provide an evolutionary interpretation of such data. (p. 186)
Earth history at museums is pictured as evolutionary. (p. 186)
I have yet to visit a public museum where a [creationary] interpretation was ever given to any of the data. (p. 186 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Furthermore, [creationary] views are held in near total contempt at most academic institutions. (p. 186 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
In high schools and universities, the [creationary] position, if it is even mentioned, is usually discussed in derogatory terms. (pp. 186, 187 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
A good many ideas suggested by the autonomous world view and its attendant evolutionary claims have to be overruled and one's thinking restructured to consider the [creationary] point of view; one must almost rethink everything he has learned in modern culture. (p. 187 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
Our culture, steeped as it is in evolutionary thinking, has conditioned us to think of early man as primitive. (p. 187)
Those who have held to the evolutionary view of man are continually being "surprised" by the discoveries of ancient artifacts which indicate early man's high level of sophistication. (p. 187)
The American [creationary] movement is not new. (p. 189)
Social science textbooks were also rewritten to push the evolutionary world view. (p. 189 - I replaced "evolutionist's" with "evolutionary". Of course, my rewording of the sentence changes the meaning when compared to the "evolutionist/evolutionistic world view" or the "evolutionist's world view" .)
The [creationary] position leads to moral absolutes; people are responsible to their Creator for their moral behavior. (p. 189 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
The type of cultural conditioning received by students has put tremendous pressure on them to accept an evolutionary world view. (p. 190)
More and more young scientists are interested in searching out the [creationary] explanation for origins and earth history. (p. 191 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
Some excellent [creationary] research is also being accomplished by these young people even at the graduate level. (p. 191 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
In deciphering earth history within a [creationary] framework, we know the overall view, but we must still fit together individual pieces according to the picture on the box. (p. 191 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
This tentativeness is not unique to the [creationary] viewpoint. (p. 192 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
However, the [creationary] viewpoint actually gives the scientist a head start because he already knows the true broad outline of earth history. (p. 192 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
Many scientists, both ancient and modern, have worked at reconstructing earth history from a [creationary] point of view. (p. 192 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
The [creationary] framework provides a viable tool for interpreting data from science and also for making predictions of new research areas. (p. 192 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
A [creationary] approach will solve some of the major problem areas associated with paleoscience. (p. 192 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Normal Process vs. [Creationary] Activity (p. 196 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
Soils were likely created as part of the [creationary] fiats. (p. 196 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
It is wrong to insist on using process assumptions where [fiat] [creationary] assumptions apply. (p. 196 - I added the word "fiat" and replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
A careful study of the Bible seems to show that one of the principle differences between events associated with normal processes and those associated with [fiat] [creationary] activity has to do with time factors. (p. 196 - I added the word "fiat" and replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
Normal processes, whether geological or other, occur during the passage of time, whereas [fiat] [creationary] events do not. (p. 196 - I added the word "fiat" and replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Thus, if we use process assumptions for [creationary] conditions or events, we will draw wrong conclusions about time. (p. 196 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
From a human point of view, perhaps God willed the present universe to be responsive to both normal process and [creationary] activity. (p. 196 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
Subsequent to the original creation week, [creationary] conditions or events (miracles) would call man's attention to the existence of God. (pp. 196, 197 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
Intelligence is behind all events in the universe, whether they are normal events associated with God's usual way of working or whether they are [creationary] or miraculous events, His unusual way of working. (p. 197 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
However, when he encounters [creationary] situations or events, their unusualness draws attention to the fact that the natural world is dependent. (p. 197 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
[Creationary] activity had occurred. (p. 198 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
Adam had the experience, in fact, of entering the "room" before and after [creationary] activity had taken place. (p. 198 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
[Creationary] activity and situations thus bypass normal process, which involves time. (p. 198 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
[Creationary] activities do not involve time. (p. 198 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
On the early earth, process was involved subsequent to the initial [creationary] events. (p. 198 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
Miracles as [Creationary] Events (p. 198 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
It is difficult for modern man to step out of his normal, process-operating world and imagine or understand what it was like for [creationary] events to be happening. (p. 199 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
Because [creationary] situations and events are not normally part of our experience—at least not events of the magnitude of creation week—we have a natural reluctance to accept those events as real or historical. (p. 199 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
All events depend on God and His will, and He can will [creationary] events or situations to occur as easily as He can will normal processes. (p. 199 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
[Creationary] situations and events are not associated with passage of time. (p. 199 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
We do have some hints of what it must have been like to observe [creationary] activity, however. (p. 199 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
As we look at the life of Jesus and his acts, we get a picture, although on a much smaller scale, of what [creationary] activity was like. (p. 199 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
Let's take a look at two such events associated with [creationary] activity. (p. 199 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary". (p. 199 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
This was a [creationary] act. (p. 199 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
However, in this [creationary] situation with Jesus time was not involved. (p. 200 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
[Creationary] activity does not include time processes. (p. 200 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
We see from examples such as these that there is a difference between [fiat] [creationary] events and process events. (p. 200 - I added the word "fiat" and replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
Clearly one cannot use process logic to describe [fiat] [creationary] events without arriving at errors in timing. (p. 200 - I added the word "fiat" and replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
A second point to be noted is that one cannot predict when a [creationary] event will occur by using process reasoning. (p. 200 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
They were not expecting the [creationary] activity because they were accustomed to think in terms of process, as we all are. (p. 200 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
There is no way to predict from routine process activity when a [creationary] event will occur. (p. 200 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
They can only be used when we have a clear indication that [creationary] activity did not occur. (p. 200 - I replaced "creative" with "creationary".)
Chapter 11 — The Flood and Earth History (p. 207)
This is one of many examples of evolutionary thinking hindering the process of science. (p. 214)
This information could perhaps have been obtained much earlier if it had not been for the hindering effect of evolutionary thinking. (p. 214)
One of the puzzles generated by evolutionary theory is what happened to the dinosaurs. (p. 222)
Chapter 12 — Age of the Earth (p. 227)
No wonder Darwin called Kelvin "an odious spectre"—he had thrown all of evolutionary theory into question.(p. 228)
The discovery of radioactivity in 1896 by Henry Bequerel was the basis for evolutionary physicists' later attempted refutation of Kelvin's work. (p. 229)
It is interesting to note that Darwin held firmly to his evolutionary views in spite of contrary evidence. (p. 229)
In discussing this point, one evolutionary writer notes that a number of major changes in thinking had to occur before Darwinism could be accepted. (p. 230)
With appropriate evolutionary assumptions, it was possible to use data from radioactivity to calculate an age very much greater than that given by Kevin's calculation. (p. 231)
Using certain assumptions, the phenomenon of radioactivity was used in an attempt to establish an evolutionary time scale for earth history. (p. 232)
In fact, there is a pattern in the literature on radiodating that whenever a sample does not agree with the expected evolutionary age, it is assumed that geophysical processes have somehow adjusted the isotope ratios. (p. 239)
However, if we admit that isotope ratios are not a time index, we eliminate radioactivity as a clock; we eliminate one of the main supports used for estimating evolutionary time. (pp. 239, 240)
Evolutionary assumptions with their attendant need of long periods of time do not agree with actual scientific data. (p. 240)
Excuses must repeatedly be formulated to explain why actual evidence does not agree with that expected from evolutionary assumptions. (p. 240)
Outside the area of radioactivity, a growing body of new scientific information also indicates that evolutionary assumptions have led to greatly exaggerated ages for events in earth history. (p. 240)
If rates for processes actually determined by experiments in the laboratory are much faster than the rates supposed by using evolutionary assumptions, this would have great bearing on the interpretation of earth history. (p. 241)
It has caused evolutionary thinking to make the highly questionable assumption that isotope ratios are a time index. (p. 243)
Wrong assumptions about rate processes associated with earth history in geochemical events such as petrification or erosion are also directly traceable to evolutionary assumptions. (p. 243)
[Creationary] organizations have recently been formed in Latin America, Asia, and other areas of the globe. (p. 246 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Why this sudden rise of interest in [creationary] science? (p. 246 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Chapter 13 — A Christian Response (p. 249)
The student, when asked a question from an evolutionary point of view, can answer, "According to the theory of evolution...." (p. 256)
In taking the biblical [creationary] world view, which disagrees diametrically with the evolutionary world view, one should always remember that our disagreement is not with the facts but with the interpretation of the facts. (p. 267 - I added the adjective "creationary".)
In our day we are seeing a rise of interest in creation and in a scientific interpretation of data from the [creationary] point of view. (p. 268 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
Select Bibliography
Ancil, Ralph E. "The Limits of Human Thought and the [Creationary] Model." Creation Research Society Quarterly (June 1983): 30-39. (p. 274 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
[Creationary] illustrations 138, 161 (p. 276 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
[Creationary] interpretation in media (p. 276 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
[Creationary] research, 191, 192 (p. 276 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
[Creationary] science, 71 (p. 276 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
[Creationary] activity and time factors, 196-97 (p. 277 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Science, [creationary], 145-46 (p. 279 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Science, evolutionary, 115, 145-46 (p. 279)
Last Modified: 23 Feb 2002
Page Started: Aug 2001