Duane T. Gish's (modified) sentences

The sentences below were taken from the book entitled Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, written by German-American creationary scientist Duane Tolbert Gish [Gisch], Ph.D. In this book he answers the criticisms and attacks of his evolutionary opponents. This book is written from a creationary point of view by a Christian young-earth creationist. Duane Gish is a theistic creationary creationist [German/Deutsch: kreationärer Kreationist, Norwegian/Norsk: kreasjonær kreasjonist], not a theistic evolutionary creationist [evolutionärer Kreationist, evolusjonær kreasjonist] or a creationary evolutionist [kreationärer Evolutionist, kreasjonær evolusjonist] or an atheistic evolutionary evolutionist [evolutionärer Evolutionist, evolusjonær evolusjonist].

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 adopt and consistently use when discussing the issue of creation/evolution. 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. The adjective creationary ought to be used each and every time the issue of creation/evolution is covered. If it is true that 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.

I have noticed that Duane Gish and many other [young-earth] creationists quite often try to "balance the wording" by using expressions like "evolution theory" versus "creation theory" and "evolution science" versus "creation science" instead of using the words "evolutionary theory" versus "creationary theory" and "evolutionary science" versus "creationary science". He and others are going in the wrong direction. They ought to be adding "-ary" to the attributive noun "creation" (as used in the above expressions) to form the genuine adjective "creationary" rather than removing the "-ary" from the genuine adjective "evolutionary".

English language:

creation/evolution (nouns/attributive nouns)
creational/evolutional (adjectives)
creationary/evolutionary (adjectives)

creationism/evolutionism (nouns/attributive nouns)
creationist/evolutionist (nouns/attributive nouns)
creationistic/evolutionistic (adjectives)

German language:

Kreation (Schöpfung)/Evolution (Entwicklung) (Substantive)
kreational/kreationell/evolutional/evolutionell (Adjektive)
kreationär/evolutionär (Adjektive)

Kreationismus/Evolutionismus (Substantive)
Kreationist/Evolutionist (Substantive)
kreationistisch/evolutionistisch (Adjektive)

Norwegian language:

kreasjon (skapelse)/evolusjon (utvikling) (substantiver)
kreasjonell/evolusjonell (adjektiver)
kreationær/evolusjonær (adjektiver)

kreasjonisme/evolusjonisme (substantiver)
kreasjonist/evolusjonist (substantiver)
kreasjonistisk/evolusjonistisk (adjektiver)

French language:

création/évolution (substantifs)
créationnel/évolutionnel (adjectifs)
créationnaire/évolutionnaire (adjectifs)

créationnisme/évolutionnisme (substantifs)
créationniste/évolutionniste (substantifs)
créationniste/évolutionniste (adjectifs [substantifs adjectivaux])

Forword (The foreword was written by Henry Madison Morris.)

Furthermore, there are well over a hundred other [creationary] organizations, each with at least some scientists in their memberships. There are probably 25 other nations outside the United States with similar [creationary] organizations. (p. iv - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

[Of course, in changing the wording from "creationist organizations" to "creationary organizations", the focus shifts from something like "organizations promoting creationism" or "organizations of or for creationists" to something like "organizations promoting creation" or "creation-based organizations" or "organizations accepting creation [and rejecting evolution]". The words "creationist" and "creationary" are not synonymous. (The words "creationist", "creationistic", and "creationism" are closely related words.) The words "creation" and "creationism" are also not synonymous. The adjectives "creational/creationary" and "evolutional/evolutionary" are true synonyms because they derive directly from the nouns "creation" and "evolution" respectively.]

But these [creationary] scientists do have their critics. (p. v - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Both of these very eminent, widely read scientists have published bitter diatribes against creation and [creationary] scientists. (p. v - Henry M. Morris is referring to Jewish-American agnostic Stephen Jay Gould (who was also a Marxist) and Russian-Jewish-American atheist Isaac Asimov.)

[Creationary] scientists do have their critics! (p. v - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Since he joined ICR in 1971 he has participated in almost 300 formal creation/evolution debates, usually held on university campuses and opposing faculty evolutionary scientists, or—once in a while—an evolutionary philosopher or even an evolutionary theologian. (p. vi - How many creationary scientists, creationary philosophers, and creationary theologians can you list?)

Most of the [anti-creationary] books and articles take essentially the same approach. That is, they are [anti-creationary] more than [pro-evolutionary]. Most of them repeat the same [anti-creationary] polemics that others have used, making the same unwarranted accusations, again and again. (p. vi - I changed the "adjectival words" (attributive nouns) "anti-creationist" and "pro-evolutionist" to the genuine adjectives "anti-creationary" and "pro-evolutionary".)

Consequently, Dr. Gish has concentrated on only a few of the more influential of the [anti-creationary] books, showing conclusively that the criticisms are completely invalid. (p. vi - I changed "anti-creationist" to "anti-creationary".)

[Google search (including newsgroups) for 2006.05.06—"antievolutionary book" (about 6; 2); "anti-evolutionary book" (about 25; 1); "antievolutionary books" (about 4; 1); "anti-evolutionary books" (about 25; 7); "antievolutionist book" (about 3; 0); "anti-evolutionist book" (about 5; 3); "antievolutionist books" (about 2; 0); "anti-evolutionist books" (about 13; 0); "antievolution book" (about 40; 6); "anti-evolution book" (about 190; 125); "antievolution books" (about 80; 4); "anti-evolution books" (about 200; 57); "anticreationary book" (about 4; 0); "anti-creationary book" (about 5; 1); "anticreationary books" (2; 0); "anti-creationary books" (2; 0); "anticreationist book" (about 87; 2); "anti-creationist book" (about 173; 27); "anticreationist books" (about 68; 4); "anti-creationist books" (about 153; 37); "anticreation book" (1; 0); "anti-creation book" (about 30; 8); "anticreation books" (1; 0); "anti-creation books" (about 56; 9)]

The latter is the main theme of the book, of course, and I would strongly urge anyone who has been influenced by one of the [anti-creationary] books to read this book carefully before he decides to go along with the evolutionary world view. (p. vii - I changed the attributive noun "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjective "anti-creationary".)

I have known him not only as a [creationary] colleague, but as personal friend for 30 years. (p. vii - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary". cf. "creationist colleague", "evolutionist colleague", "creationary colleague", "evolutionary colleague")

He is also a man of courage, having served with distinction as an officer in the South Pacific during World War II, and he is not the least bit intimidated by the ad hominem arguments of his evolutionary opponents, as so many evangelicals seem to be. (p. vii - cf. "evolutionist opponents", "creationist opponents", "evolutionary opponents", "evolutionary opponents".)

Introduction

By the turn of the century, [evolutionary] theory was being taught dogmatically in most major universities throughout the world. (p. ix - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

[evolution theory/evolutionary theory and creation theory/creationary theory—When nouns like "evolution" or "creation" modify other nouns (in this case "theory") they are called attributive nouns. It is true that attributive nouns function like adjectives, but they do not have the form or structure of an adjective. The words evolutionary and creationary are genuine adjectives that derive from the nouns evolution and creation. I am trying to encourage creationists (and evolutionists) to use the genuine adjective "creationary" when they modify various nouns, e.g., "creationary perspective", "creationary viewpoint", "creationary worldview", "creationary astronomy", "creationary biology", "creationary genetics", "creationary hypothoses", "creationary evidence", "creationary textbooks", etc.]

[cf. English, German, Norwegian, French: creationary theory/evolutionary theory - theory of creation/theory of evolution - creation theory/evolution theory; kreationäre Theorie/evolutionäre Theorie - Kreationstheorie/Evolutionstheorie [creation-'s-theory/evolution-'s-theory]- Schöpfungstheorie/Entwicklungstheorie [creation-'s-theory/development-'s-theory]; kreasjonær teori/evolusjonær teori - kreasjonsteori/evolusjonsteori [creation-'s-theory/evolution-'s-theory]- skapelsesteori/utviklingsteori [creation-'s-theory/development-'s-theory]; théorie créationnaire/théorie évolutionnaire - théorie de la création/théorie de l'évolution [theory of (the) creation/theory of (the) evolution]]

Through the agency of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study and a multi-million-dollar grant from the National Science Foundation, evolutionists produced three high-school biology books with evolutionary theory as their fundamental thesis, and obtained adoption of these books in the majority of high schools in the U.S. (p. ix)

These events served to galvanize [creationary] scientists into action. (p. ix - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Beginning with the publication of The Genesis Flood, by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris in 1961, the organization of the [Creationary] Research Society, the Bible-Science Association, and the Institute for [Creationary] Research, in 1963, 1964, and 1972, respectively, as well as many other [creationary]-science organizations throughout the world, the [creationary] scientists fought back. (p. ix - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

In response to the highly effective lectures, seminars, and debates (almost always won by creationists, according to evolutionists), and the many books and publications produced by [creationary] scientists, evolutionists finally awakened and reacted vigorously to this challenge to their dogmatic control of the scientific and educational establishments and domination of public thinking. (p. ix - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

As part of their campaign to mute the [creationary] scientists, they poured forth an avalanche of journal articles and books attacking [creationary] scientists and [creationary] science. (p. ix - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

For the most part, these attacks have been vicious, with [creationary] scientists being accused of all sorts of perfidy, distortion, dishonesty, and poor science. (p. ix - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

[Evolutionary] science and evolutionists have suffered severely as a result of exposure by [creationary] scientists, and it shows. (pp. ix- x - I changed "evolution" and "creation" to "evolutionary" and "creationary".)

The main strategies and arguments of evolutionists are analyzed, [creationary] arguments are defended, and charges by evolutionists that [creationary] scientists have used distortion, dishonesty, misquotes, quotes out of context, and poor science are refuted. (p. x - I changed the attributive nouns "creationist" and "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

[cf. "Creationist arguments" are "arguments of a creationist"/"arguments of creationists"/"arguments for creationism". The focus is on the "creationist" or "creationists" or on "creationism".]

[cf. ("evolutionist/evolutionistic argument", "creationist/creationistic argument"; "evolutionistisches Argument", "kreationistisches Argument"; "evolutionist/evolutionistic arguments", "creationist/creationistic arguments"; "evolutionistische Argumente", "kreationistische Argumente") ("Creationary arguments" are "arguments for creation"/"arguments in favor of creation"/"creation-based arguments"/"arguments based on [the concept or theory of ] creation". The focus is on "creation".)]

1 [Creationary] Scientists Challenge the Dogma of Evolution

(p. 11 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Thus, while it is easy enought for a [creationary] scientist to publish the results of his research in a narrow technical field, or even to criticize a particular evolutionary mechanism or phylogeny, most attempts to publish an article which challenged the validity of evolutionary theory itself or to suggest that creation is a preferable or even a credible alternative to evolution simply became futile. (p. 12 - I changed "creation scientist" to "creationary scientist".)

In fact, Simpson, America's premier evolutionary paleontologist during those years, strongly maintained that the same evolutionary forces involved in the production of variations within species, if extrapolated over vast time spans, were sufficient to explain all of evolution. (p. 12)

Evolutionists, however, were concerned about the fact that most high school biology textbooks used in the United States devoted limited space to evolutionary theory. (pp. 12-13)

All emphasized evolutionary theory throughout. (p. 13 - "All" here refers to the three Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) high-school biology textbooks.)

Henry Morris, in one of his classics, The History of Modern Creationism, has described the efforts of creationists during the past 50 years to expose the fallacies and weaknesses in evolutionary theory and to describe the admirable way in which the evidence related to origins can be correlated and explained by creation. (p. 13)

In 1966, the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia hosted a symposium in which six mathematicians challenged the neo-Darwinian mechanism before a group of evolutionary biologists. (p. 14)

[Evolutionary] theory poured forth unchallenged on television, over radio, in the daily press, and in popular magazines, such as the National Geographic, Reader's Digest, Life, and newspaper weeklies. (p. 15 - I changed "evolution" to "evolutionary".)

The book was a direct assault on the entire evolutionary concept of the origin and history of the earth and of living things. (p. 15 - The "book", here, refers to the book, The Genesis Flood.)

Although publication of The Genesis Flood may not have attracted much attention in secular circles, it did have considerable impact in Christian circles, even thought its main themes, the support for the Genesis Flood and the attack on [evolutionary] theory, were rejected by most of the science faculty at such Christian colleges as Calvin College and Wheaton College. (p.15 - I changed "evolution" to "evolutionary".)

During the latter part of the sixties, [creationary] scientists became more and more active, lecturing mainly to church groups but also in some secular schools and colleges. (p. 16 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

During these years, evolutionists chose to ignore the efforts of [creationary] scientists, since they felt that the threat to their monopolistic control of the scientific and educational establishments was non-existent. (p. 16 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

One event that caught their attention and galvanized them into action was the efforts of creationists before the Board of Education of the State of California in 1972 to institute the teaching of the scientific evidence for creation along with [evolutionary] theory in public schools. (p. 16 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

This effort met with very little success, but these activities did serve to alert evolutionists and the public in general to the burgeoning activities of [creationary] scientists. (p. 16 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Included as a division of the college was a [creationary] science research center. (p. 16 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Soon after the founding of the Institute for [Creationary] Research (or ICR, as it is popularly known), Dr. Morris and the author began to challenge the evolutionary establishment directly as they presented [creationary] science lectures on major university campuses throughout the United States, Canada, and many other countries. (p. 17 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

As others joined the staff, they too carried the challenge against [evolutionary] theory to high school and college campuses. (p. 17 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

Soon the notion was conceived of conducting debates between [creationary] scientists and [evolutionary] scientists on university campuses, in city auditoriums, schools, and churches. (p. 17 - I changed the attributive nouns "creation" and "evolution" to the genuine adjectives "evolutionary" and "evolutionary".)

The [creationary] scientists , feeling confident that the scientific evidence was solidly on their side, readily accepted invitations to participate in these debates. (p. 17 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

While the Institute for [Creationary] Research is recognized as the leading [creationary] science organization in the world, many other [creationary] science organizations now exist in the U.S. and other countries. (p. 17 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

In his book, The History of Modern Creationism, Dr. Morris lists 76 national, state, and local [creationary] organizations in the U.S. and 33 [creationary] organizations in other countries. (p. 17 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the adjective "creationary".) (cf. creationistic = kreationistisch (genuine adjectives/echte Adjektive) and creationist = Kreationist (genuine nouns-substantives/echte Substantive))

[Creationary] efforts are not limited to Christians, but include the efforts of Jewish and Moslem scientists as well. (p. 17 - I changed "creationist" to "creationary".)

There is also a very considerable number of scientists who, while not accepting creation as an alternative, nevertheless are severely critical of modern [evolutionary] theory. (p. 18)

Other events which drew great interest from both creationists and evolutionists from all around the world were the legal battles that erupted in the states of Arkansas and Louisiana over laws passed by the legislatures of those two states requiring balanced treatment of [creationary] science and [evolutionary] science in the public schools. (p. 18 - I changed the attributive nouns "creation" and "evolution" to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "evolutionray".)

More than anything, evolutionists fear an open, free, and thorough scientific challenge to evolutionary theory in the public schools. (p. 18)

They have learned from their experiences in debates and other open exchanges that evolutionary theory comes off second best when faced with a scientific challenge from well-informed [creationary] scientists. (p. 18 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

They apparently are determined to use whatever means they feel are necessary to blunt and eventually to destroy the efforts of [creationary] scientists to make known the empty rhetoric that makes up evolutionary stories and the nature of the scientific evidence that supports creation. (p. 19 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

During the past ten years or so, over 30 books have been published attacking creationists and [creationary] science, and a blizzard of articles have appeared in scientific and quasi-scientific journals attacking creationists. (p. 19 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

In fact, today almost every issue of these journals either contains an [anti-creationary] article or contains an article which includes an attack against, or a reference to, creationists or [creationary] science. (p. 19 - I changed the attributive nouns "anti-creationist" and "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

One thing is certain—creationists and their scientific arguments are no longer being ignored by the evolutionary establishment. (p. 19)

One tactic commonly employed by evolutionists is to viciously attack the intellectual honesty and scientific integrity of [creationary] scientists. (p. 19 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

[Creationary] scientists are not only accused of lacking scientific objectivity, but they are accused of misquoting, quoting out of context, distorting science, and telling outright lies. (p. 19 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

References

12. Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business. A Scientist Looks at Creation [-ism], Washington Square Press, New York, 1982, p. 17. (p. 20 - I changed "Creationism" to "Creation". cf. "Evolutionism", "Creationism", "Evolution", "Creation")

2 Evolutionists Mount a Counterattack

Educators became alarmed by the effects on students of the lectures, seminars, and debates involving [creationary] scientists, as evidenced by the essays and classroom questions and challenges supporting creation. (p. 21 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Especially disturbing to evolutionists were the many appearances by [creationary] scientists on TV and radio, the numerous books and other literature pouring forth from [creationary] scientists, particularly from those on the staff of the Institute for [Creationary] Research, and the equal emphasis laws passed by overwhelming majorities in the state legislatures in Arkansas and Louisiana, and similar efforts in other states. (p. 21 - I changed "creation" to "creationary". [ICR could have been called the "Institute for Creationary Research".])

It was signed by 102 leading humanistic evolutionary scientists and was published in The Humanist, the AHA publication, and was distributed to educational authorities throughout the U.S. (p. 22)

His rebuttal was weak and boring, and was more damaging than helpful to the [evolutionary] cause. (p. 22 - I changed the attributive noun "evolutionist" to genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

Dr. Joan Creager, the editor who succeeded Dr. Carter, made it clear that under her editorship, no further [creationary articles] were to be published except those that were critical. (p. 22 - I changed "articles about creation" to "creationary articles".)

In about 1980, Dr. Wayne Moyer, then the executive secretary of the NABT and now on the staff of Norman Lear's so-called "People for the American Way," an ultra-liberal organization that wars against the precepts of Biblical Christianity, began circulating a newsletter specifically dedicated to fighting the efforts of [creationary] scientists and to help and advise evolutionists in their [anti-creationary] cause. (pp. 22-23 - I changed the attributive nouns "creation" and "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "anti-creationary".)

It was also about this time that a quarterly journal began publication, the sole purpose of which was to defend [evolutionary] theory and to attack [creationary] science in general, and to attempt to personally discredit [creationary] scientists. (p. 23 - I changed the attributive nouns "creation" and "creation" to the genuine adjectives "evolutionary" and "creationary".)

Edwords has aspired to leadership in the [anti-creationary] crusade and has debated the author on several occasions, as well as other [creationary] scientists. (p.23 - I changed the attributive nouns "anti-creationist" and "creation" to the genuine adjectives "anti-creationary" and "creationary".)

This journal contains some articles that make a serious attempt to defend evolution against [creationary] arguments, as well as many that seek to vilify individual [creationary] scientists by attacking their scientific objectivity and personal objectivity. (p. 23 - ["This journal" = the journal, Creation/Evolution] I changed "creationist" and "creation" to "creationary".)

In fact, so many of the arguments presented in the journal are so shallow in scientific and intellectual content, and personal attacks on individual [creatonary] scientists are so frequent and intemperate, it is difficult for creationists to take the journal seriously. (p.23 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Awbrey and Thwaites have carried on a personal [anti-creationary] crusade, engaging [creationary] scientists in debate on a number of occasions, and teaching a creation/evolution course at San Diego State University. (p. 23 - I changed "anti-creationist" and "creation" to "creationary". It is true, the crusade was probably both "anti-creationist" (i.e., "against creationists") and "anti-creationary" (i.e., "against creation").)

Apparently feeling confident that they could prevail against [creationary] scientists on an equal-time basis, Awbrey and Thwaites invited scientists from the ICR staff to participate in the class, offering them half of the 26 lectures and even permitting them to prepare the test questions for their portion of the lectures. (pp. 23-24 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Also in about 1980, another important effort against [creationary] scientists was launched. (p. 24 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

The members of each local committee are dedicated to the fight against creationists, and the committees function by monitoring the activities of creationists, analyzing [creationary] arguments, preparing countermeasures, devising strategy, and exchanging advice and ideas. (p. 24 - ["the committees" = "Committees of Correspondence".] I changed "creationist" to "creationary".)

[Creationary] scientists soon began to hear the same arguments and see some of the same slides as they debated evolutionists around the country. (p. 24)

For a more complete history of these and others organized efforts against [creationary science and [creationary] scientists, consult The History of Modern Creationism, by Henry Morris (cited in Chapter 1). (p. 24 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

[Das Adjektiv "kreationär" [(1) kreationär/(2) kreationäre/(3) kreationärem/(4) kreationären/(5) kreationärer/(6) kreationäres] ist morphologisch ein echtes Adjektiv".]

The first book published against [creationary] science, Science Textbook Controversies and the Politics of Equal Time, was authored by Dorothy Nelkin, Professor of Sociology at Cornell University, in 1977. (pp. 24-25 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Unfortunately, her book contained numerous factual errors, and failed to give a fair appraisal of ICR and of [creationary] science. (p. 25 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

It would be nearly impossible to critique every critical book written by evolutionists against [creationary] science, or to answer in great detail each of their arguments. (p. 25 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

The reader should then be in a position to decide for himself whether [creationary] scientists have assembled a reasonably convincing case or whether their arguments are nothing more than pseudo-science rooted in religious ideas. (p. 25 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

3 Creation, Evolution, Science, and Religion

One of the most frequent criticisms hurled against [creationary] science by evolutionists, especially in the context of public education, is that it is religion, not science. (p. 27 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

(D. B. Wilson writes:)

After listening to [creationary] speakers, reading [creationary] writings, and talking with [creationary] students, we could see that [creation] was nothing more than a particular version of fundamentalist Christianity having no valid scientific content.

[cf. (Hans-Friedrich Tamke rewrote:) After listening to [evolutionist] speakers, reading [evolutionist] writings, and talking with [evolutionist] students, we could see that [evolutionism] was nothing more than a particular version of [modernist] Christianity having no valid scientific content. -

(D B. Wilson originally wrote:)

After listening to creationist speakers, reading creationist writings, and talking with creationist students, we could see that creationism was nothing more than a particular version of fundamentalist Christianity having no valid scientific content.]

(Gish quotes D. J. Futuyma.)

[Creationary] theories rest not on evidence that can withstand the skeptical mind, but on wishful thinking and the Bible, the voice of authority which is the only source of [creationary] belief.

[Creationary] scientists hasten to point out that they have no fight with science. In fact, it is precisely the facts of science that convince them that creation is far more credible, scientifically, than is evolution. The battle is with the evolutionary philsophy and faith, not science. (p. 30 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Of course, Bozarth would also agree with Julian Huxley when he stated that "In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural." (p. 30)

Huxley declared that:

...the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era.

Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, is an evolutionist who, while not converting to creation, has expressed serious doubts about some aspects of [evolutionary] theory which we will discuss later. (p. 31 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

(Gish quotes Patterson in the following sentence:)

Just as pre-Darwinian [creationary] biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian [evolutionary] biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity od Darwin.

The evolutionary fundamentalists among the ranks of its supporters demand unbending allegiance to its tenets. (p. 31)

Theories about origins, whether [creationary] or [evolutionary] theories, are of necessity basically very different from empirical scientific theories. (p. 32 - I changed the attribultive nouns "creation" and "evolution" to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "evolutionary".)

[Evolutionary] theories do attempt to employ processes still acting today to explain how evolution may have occurred, but the time spans required to see if such ideas are correct involve tens of thousands of years, even millions of years, so no test of the theories is possible. (p. 33 - I changed "evolution" to "evolutionary".)

The ultimate question in the two conflicting theories on origins—creation and evolution—is: How did the universe and its living inhabitants come into existence? (p. 33 - cf. theory of creation/theory of evolution - creationary theory/evolutionary theory; creationist theory/evolutionist theory - creationistic theory/evolutionistic theory; creationism/evolutionism)

First, let us consider creation. Many, and probably the majority, of [creationary] scientists believe that it is very likely that the earth and the cosmos are quite young. (p. 33 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".) (cf. young-earth creationary/old-earth creationary theories)

Would that constitute a falsification of [creationary] theory? (p. 33 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

[Creationary] theories would merely be realigned so that all such theories would incorporate long time intervals between the [creationary] acts of God. (p. 33 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" and the genuine adjective "creative" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

To modern-day [creationary] scientists, therefore, it seems very likely, if not certain, that dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals have been derived from a single basic created kind through a natural, though limited, sorting out of genetic factors that were all part of the gene pool of the original created "dog" kind. (p. 34 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

These and similar events demonstrate that [creationary] scientists do not dogmatically cling to outmoded hypotheses and that [creationary] theory is a dynamic theory, with subsidiary hypotheses subject to test, being held tentatively by [creationary] scientists. (p. 34 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Although it is easy enough to conceive of observations that might falsify, or at least cast into doubt, one or more of the subsidiary hypotheses which are derived from the general [creationary] model, yet it seems difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of an observation or an experiment that could ultimately falsify the general concept of special creation. (pp. 34-35 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

The non-falsifiability of the general theory of creation, that is, the notion that the ultimate origin of the universe and of its living inhabitants can be ascribed solely to a mechanistic, naturalistic, evolutionary process has been asserted by evolutionists and well as by creationists. (p. 35)

In the above statement, Popper was referring to Darwinian evolutionary theory, but in his later letter his remarks referred only to the theory of natural selection. (p. 35)

On that same occasion, Marcel Schützenberger, then Professor of Mathematics, University of Paris, with reference to evolutionary explanations, said:

A science consists also of a selection of questions or problems and of a general framework within which it can be decided if a question has been answered or not.

They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.

What Ehrlich and Birch seem to be saying is that [evolutionary] theory has become so plastic that it no longer makes any difference what the data may be, there will be some way to fit the data into the theory. (p. 37 - I changed "evolution" to "evolutionary".)

Evolutionists, in their stance before the lay public and the courts, often pretend that it is only ignorant and misguided creationists who are challenging the scientific status of evolutionary theory. When one reads the scientific literature and the philosophy of science literature, however, one finds that these evolutionists, when discussing challenges to the scientific status of [evolutionary] theory, do not even mention creationists! (p. 37 - I only changed "evolution" to "evolutionary" in the second sentence.)

Thus Douglas Futuyma, in his [anti-creationary] book, states that:

Two major kinds of argument about evolutionary theory occur within scientific circles. There are philosophical arguments about whether or not evolutionary theory qualifies as a scientific theory, and substantive arguments about the details of the theory and their adequacy to explain observed phenomena....

(pp. 37-38 - I changed "anti-creationist" to "anti-creationary". This is only part of the quote in Gish's book.)

Please not that Futuyma states that the challenge to the scientific status of evolutionary theory comes from within "scientific circles." This is a term that evolutionists reserve only for fellow evolutionists. (p. 38)

Ayala, of course, does not agree with those philosophers of science who challenge the scientific status of evolutionary theory, but he, as we shall see shortly, unwittingly revealed the fact that evolutionary theory, because it is so constructed that it explains everything and anything, no matter what the data are, does not qualify as a scientific theory. (p. 38)

On the next page of his chapter, Ayala states:

Natural selection can account for the different patterns, rates, and outcomes of evolutionary processes. Adaptive radiations in some cases, as well as lack of phyletic diversifications in others, rapid and slow rates in evolutionary change, profuse and limited genetic variation in populations; these and many other alternative occurrences can all be explained by postutlating the existence of appropriate environmental challenges.

(p. 39)

In other words, it makes no difference what the data turn out to be, one can imagine an evolutionary scenario to account for the data. (p. 39)

Thus, the theory of natural selection can be used to explain anything and everything:

1. Adaptive radiations which produce numerous and widely diverse evolutionary products; or little or no adaptive radiations, producing practically no phyletic diversification
2. Rapid rates in evolutionary change or slow rates in evolutionary change
3. Profuse genetic variations, or limited genetic variations
4. Many other alternative occurrences by postulating the existence of appropriate environmental challenges.

(p. 39)

In other words, the "explanatory" power of natural selection in evolutionary theory to account for what we see in the fossil record and among living creatures today is limited only by the powers of human imagination. (p. 40)

(Gish quotes Marjorie Grene in the following.)

... To such biologists—such as A. M. Dalcq of Brussels, O. Schindewolf of Tubingen, or A. Vandel of Toulouse—there appear in fact to be two divergent directions in the evolutionary story. .... For this, such dissenters feel, is the major evolutionary theme: great new inventions, new ideas of living, which arise with startling suddenness, proliferate in a variety of directions, yet persist with fundamental constancy—as in Darwinian terms they would have no reason in the world to do. ...

(pp. 40-41 - These two sentences containing the genuine adjective "evolutionary" are a small part of a much longer quotation from Marjorie Gene made by Duane Gish.)

If modern neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory leaves unasked these vital questions, one thing is certain—it provides no answers to those questions, and therefore is not about origins at all but is simply a lot of story telling about matters irrelevant to the basic question: How could and how did the living creatures on this earth come into existence? (p. 41)

(Gish quotes from David Hull's review in Science of the book Dimensions of Darwinism, edited by Marjorie Grene.)

The problem with explaining the structure of organisms in terms of past adaptations is that neither available evidence nor current theories of evolutionary mechanisms constrain such explanations very much. Indefinitely many alternative stories seem equally plausible.

(p. 41)

[cf. "Mikrokreation", "Makrokreation", "kreationärer Mechanismus", "kreationäre Mechanismen", "Mikroevolution", "Makroevolution", "evolutionärer Mechanismus", "evolutionäre Mechanismen", "mikrokreasjon", "makrokreasjon", "kreasjonær mekanisme", "kreasjonære mekanismer, "mikroevolusjon" "makroevolusjon", "evolusjonær mekanisme", "evolusjonære mekanismer"]

This is what the late Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the main architects of the neo-Darwinian mechanism, had to say about that:

These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. ...

(p. 43 - This sentence is only a part of the quotation.)

Note that Dobzhansky is bitter with [creationary] scientists because they demand the applicability of the experimental method to evolutionary theory, which he admits is an impossibility. Yet it is precisely because of the impossibility of applying the experimental method to creation that Dobzhansky and most of his [evolutionary] colleagues demand the exclusion of [creationary] explanations in science and in the science classrooms. Evolutionists employ a double standard with reference to the teaching of [creationary] science and [evolutionary] science. (p. 42 - I changed the attributive nouns "creation" (thrice) and "evolutionist" (once)/"evolution" (once) to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "evolutionary" in the sentences above.)

"Transformed cladists" are those taxonomists who, although they may be evolutionists, do not employ evolutionary theory in their practice of classifying organisms into species, genera, etc. Their classification system is based on similarities, particularly morphological characteristics that are unique and restrictive, rather than on assumed evolutionary ancestors or history. Colin Patterson, whom we have referred to earlier in this chapter, is one of these. (p. 42 - Who were our creationary ancestors? Wer waren unsere kreationären Vorfahren? Hvem var våre kreasjonære forfedre?)

Secondly, if the theoretical framework of evolutionary theory has very little impact on the progress of work in biological research and actually in some respects retards the progress in science, the oft-repeated statement that [evolutionary] theory is the great unifying concept of biology or that, as Matthews put it, "evolution is the backbone of biology," is not only without foundation but is objectively false. (p. 43)

In support of Patterson, one can readily cite several instances in which evolutionary theory has retarded progress in science. (p. 43)

This theory, sometimes referred to in the past as the "biogenetic law," is the notion that, for example, as the human embryo develops it recapitulates its evolutionary history by starting out as a single cell, then later resembling a fish, then a tadpole, later a reptile, then an ape, and finally a human. Research in embryology would have been more fruitful and thus would have made more rapid progress if it had been realized then, as it is now, that each embryo, plant or animal, is doing only what it must do to develop from a single, fertilized cell into an adult organism without any influence of a supposed evolutionary ancestry. (pp. 43-44)

For many years research on the true importance and function of such organs and structures as the pineal gland, the tonsils, and the appendix were neglected because, according to evolutionists, these were useless vestiges left over from our evolutionary history. The number of unnecessary and even harmful tonsillectomies and appendectomies that have been performed because of evolutionary teachings is probably in the millions. (p. 44)

One also wonders at the cost, in countless thousands of man-hours of research, of devising evolutionary phylogenies which not only serve no practical purpose but all of which are eventually discarded. In fact, the only sure thing that can be said about any evolutionary phylogeny or hypothetical evolutionary history is that it is certain to be discarded by future generations of evolutionists. Derek Ager, a professor of geology at the university of Swansea, Wales, and a vigorous anti-creationist, declared that:

It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea to Carruther's Raphrentis delanouei, have now been "debunked". Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.

(p. 44)

Ager is abandoning gradualistic evolutionary theories for a jerky mode, involving, at least in part, catastrophic geological events. (p. 44)

He was the main witness on the philosophy of science for the [evolutionary] side in the trial held in Judge William Overton's Federal courtroom in Little Rock, Arkansas, in which Overton ruled that Act 590 of the Arkansas legislature, mandating equal treatment for [creationary] science and [evolutionary] science, was unconstitutional. (p. 45 - "He" refers to Michael Ruse. I changed the attributive nouns "evolutionist"/"evolution" and "creation" to the genuine adjectives "evolutionary" and "creationary".)

Not only has the decision not been challenged by most of those in the "scientific community" (the community of evolutionists), but evolutionists have gleefully and incessantly trumpeted Overton's decision wherever the subject of [creationary] science is mentioned or discussed. (p. 45 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Ruse has published a spirited defense of evolutionary theory in general and of neo-Darwinism in particular. (p. 46)

In his book, beginning on p. 131, Ruse has a section describing the objections to Darwinian evolutionary theory (or more particularly, neo-Darwininism) under the heading, "Darwinism as Metaphysics." As one reads this section it becomes clear that almost all of the critics are evolutionists, or at least not creationists. Extensive quotes will be taken from this section in order to document these challenges to the scientific status of evolutionary theory. (p. 46)

(Gish quotes Ruse at length. Here I only give the sentence in which the adjective "evolutionary" is used.)

... It is claimed that Darwinism evolutionary theory—the critics usually lump together indifferently both past and present versions—is no genuine scientific theory at all. ...

(p. 46, Ruse's italics)

... But then moving on to biology, coming up against Darwinism, they feel compelled to make the same judgment: Darwinian evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable. ...

(p. 48 - These italicized words are from a quote from Karl Popper that Michael Ruse makes, which are in turn quoted by Duane Gish.)

... The critics think they know the source of all the trouble. Darwinism is no genuine scientific theory because it rests on a bogus mechanism: natural selection. Far from being an empirically testable, putative cause of evolutionary change, natural selection is no scientific claim at all: it is a vacuous tautology. ...

(p. 50 - Ruse's italics)

... No wonder all the subareas of evolutionary thought come apart on close inspection. ...

(p. 50 - Gish is still quoting Ruse.)

To [creationary] scientists, what Ruse seems to be recommending and to have done is to establish proper criteria for science in general and scientific theories in particular and then to apply these criteria strictly, relative to creation. When it comes to applying these same criteria to the scientific status of evolutionary theory, however, Ruse insists that we avoid a too literal or too narrow reading of the rules. That way evolution gets in and creation is left out. (p. 51 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

[The adjectives "creationary" and "evolutionary" are structurally parallel and ought to be used alongside each other in the same contexts. The same is true for words like "creation/evolution", "creationism/evolutionism", and "creationists/evolutionists". If one says or writes, "creationism versus evolution", or "evolutionism versus creation", one is making a category mistake. If one says or writes, "creation versus evolution", or "evolutionism versus creationism", one is not making a category mistake. Many evolutionists try to avoid using the words "evolutionist" and "evolutionism" because they are trying to use "politically correct" language and they are also using the "science/religion" definitional card against their creationary opponents, claiming that "creation" is exclusively "religion" and "evolution" is exclusively "science". (Unfortunately for them, reality is considerably more complex.) These "evolutionists" prefer to be called "proponents of evolution" or "defenders of evolution", but not "believers in evolution", or horror of horrors, "believers in evolutionism". In many cases, proponents of evolution will go to great lengths to use the word "evolution" and (mostly) avoid using "evolutionist" and "evolutionism" (i.e., an "ideology" or "set of interconnecting beliefs, with the concept of 'evolution' at its core") for themselves and their views because these words end in "ist" and "ism". They don't object to the word "antievolutionism". These same people call the advocates of creation (who are "opponents of evolution") "creationists" and their "beliefs" as "creationist beliefs" or simply "creationism" (i.e., an "ideology" or "set of beliefs, with the concept of 'creation' at its core").]

Ruse first defends Darwinism by attacking the importance of the application of the criterion of falsifiability, which he wishes to weaken, even to eliminate, when judging Darwinian evolutionary theory. (p. 51)

Ruse wishes to accept all the evidence that can be interpreted as supporting Darwinian evolutionary theory while ignoring or rationalizing all contradictory evidence. (p. 52)

Next, Ruse wishes to blunt the criticism of the failure of Darwinian evolutionary theory to predict the future course of evolutionary processes. (p. 52)

Later, Ruse admits that it is difficult to know which adaptations, if any, were responsible for the origin of the huge "sail" on the back of Dimetrodon or for the extinction of dinosaurs, stating: "Now, let me admit quite candidly that at this point in evolutionary theorizing one does get an element of speculation." He then seeks to protect evolutionary theory from this weakness by claiming that "from our evolutionary studies of the present, we have unequivocal, testable, empirical evidence about the importance of adaptation." (pp. 52-53)

Again, this is hardly more than a statement of the obvious and was in fact employed by pre-Darwinian creationists and by Darwin's [creationary] contemporaries to explain why variants from the norm of a species would be eliminated, thus preserving the species against change. (p. 54 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Tom Bethell, a writer who has a degree in philosophy from Oxford University, published an article in Harper's Magazine in 1976, entitled "Darwin's Mistake," which was given wide attention in evolutionary circles. (p. 55)

Macbeth's book was one of the earlier and best of the books critical of evolutionary theory of recent times. (p. 56 - Noncreationist Norman Macbeth was critical of paleo-Darwinism.)

So much for the tentative nature of [evolutionary] theory, so loudly trumpeted by evolutionists as one of the necessary characteristics of true science! (p. 56 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

Macbeth found this statement "staggering," but it hardly raised an eyebrow in evolutionry circles. (p. 56 - i.e., the tautologous definition of natural selection)

Fisher applied mathematical formulae to his theories and from this emerged what has come to be known as population genetics. This development was happily welcomed by evolutonary biologists, because it seemed to provide a more sure scientific undergirding for their theory. (p. 57)

Here we find another confirmation of the severe limitations to Darwinian theory that affirm once more, as [creationary] scientists have always maintained and as Marjorie Grene has so aptly stated, that Darwinian theory doesn't even attempt to explain the really significant events in origins. (p. 57)

According to Dobzhansky, the evolutionary process is "blind, mechanical, automatic, impersonal." (p. 57)

Stephen Jay Gould, a professor at Harvard University teaching geology, biology, and the history of science, is a prolific writer and one of the chief spokesmen for evolutionary theory in the U.S. and, of course, a tireless anti-creationist. (p. 59)

Stanley maintained that:

Gradual evolutionary change by natural selection operates so slowly within established species that it cannot account for the major features of evolution.

(p. 59 - "Stanley" = Steven M. Stanley)

He believes that evolution has occurred by abrupt, random production of new species, a notion originally propounded by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, and now growing increasingly popular in evolutionary circles. (pp. 59-60 - "He" refers to Steven Stanley)

He asserts that:

If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed as the process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution.

(p. 60 - "He" refers to Stanley)

Grassé, an evolutionist, refuses to be forced to make a choice between randomness and the supernatural but believes that there must be some unknown inner natural laws that direct evolutionry processes, a notion that is vigorously denied by most evolutionists, and by creationists, of course. (p. 61 - Pierre-Paul Grassé)

What is really significant about this evaluation of the status of evolutionary theory by this agnostic evolutionist is that most of what he is saying is almost precisely what has long been asserted by [creationary] scientists. (p. 61 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Of these two, concerning the efficacy of mutations and natural selection, [creationary] scientists are very pleased to have Grassé on their side. (p. 61 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Furthermore, their arguments for doing so sound startlingly similar to arguments of [creationary] scientists from Darwin's time down to the present. [Creationary] scientists understandably, are beginning to smell victory. (p. 62)

Thus Glenister and Witzke, in their chapter in an [anti-creationary] book, state:

The fossil record affords an opportunity to choose between evolutionary and [creationary] models for the origin of the earth and its life forms.

(p. 63 - I changed the attributive nouns "anti-creationist" and "creationist" to the genuine adjectives "anti-creationary" and "creationary".)

Futuyma, in his [anti-creationary] book, declares that:

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.

(pp. 63-64 - I changed "anti-creationist" to "creationary".)

It is precisely the argument of [creationary] scientists that the fossil record provides decisive evidence that all basic types of plants and animals have appeared fully formed on this planet. (p. 64 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

It could be said with equal force that modern evolutionary theory, in whatever guise it is found, is the dominating social philosophy of the 20th century, a dogmatic ideology. (p. 64)

We can easily see that regardless of whether or not creation and evolution are metaphysical concepts, whether or not creation and evolution fulfill the criteria of a scientific theory, or whether or not natural selection is a tautology, the fossil record does afford an opportunity to choose between the [creationary] and [evolutionary] models. (p. 65 - I changed the attributive nouns "creation" and "evolution" to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "evolutionary".)

Evolutionists have made the charge that [creationary] theory is solely a religious concept, and have made this charge along with the claim that evolutionary theory is pure, unadulterated science, the centerpiece in their political campaign to keep the scientific evidence for creation out of science textbooks and out of biology classes. This is sheer hypocrisy and is designed to avoid a scientific challenge by [creationary] scientists to their precious theory of evolution. Enough slips through the cracks, from time to time, however, to reveal the true nature of the relationships of theories on origins. Richard D. Alexander, a professor of zoology at the University of Michigan, in his chapter in an [anti-creationary] book, says, "Evolution is an explanatory theory about hitory." (p. 65 - I changed the attributive nouns "creation" and "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "anti-creationary".)

In his note of praise for Ernst Mayr on the occasion of the award of the Balzan prize to Mayr, Gould stated:

... Evolutionary biology is a quintessential historical discipline.

(pp. 65-66 - Gish quoted Stephen Jay Gould at length. I only used the sentence where Gould used the adjective evolutionary.)

There you have it. Evolution is an explanatory theory about history, "a quintessential historical discipline," included within a set of disciplines often subject to ridicule because they do not follow the pathway of "hard science"—eschewing prediction while seeking to explain what has already happened. Is not the same true of creation? Do not [creationary] scientists seek to explain what has already happened? Is not creation an explanatory theory about history, often subject to ridicule because it does not follow the pathway of "hard science"? Indeed, just as L. Harrison Matthews stated, creation and evolution are exactly parallel. (p. 66 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

"Wait!" the evolutionist cries. "Creation requires a creator, and the creator by definition must be external to and independent of the natural universe, and thus by nature, supernatural. Science deals only with natural phenomena, excluding supernatural intervention. [Evolutionary] theory bases its premises on natural laws and natural processes still operating in the universe today. Therefore, evolutionary theory is admissible in biology textbooks and classrooms, but [creationary] theory must be excluded. (p. 66 - I changed the attributive nouns "evolution" and "creation" to the genuine adjectives "evolutionary" and "creationary".)

Creationists agree totally with evolutionists that the supernatural must be excluded from the empirical sciences, the "hard sciences." [Creationary] scientists perform their scientific experiments in exactly the same way evolutionists perform their experiments. [Creationary] scientists assume that what they see happening today happened yesterday and will happen in the future. This is the only way a scientist can operate. No [creationary] scientist undertakes an experiment with the expectation that God must perform a miracle for the experiment to succeed. Science is about the real world out there; a world that functions according to natural laws and processes. (p. 66 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

References

1. L. R. Godfrey, in Scientists Confront Creation [-ism], L. R. Godfrey, Ed., W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983, p. xiii. (p. 67 - I changed "Creationism" to "Creation". cf. "Evolutionism", "Creationism", "Evolution", "Creation")

35. Larry Laudan, in Creation [-ism], Science and the Law: The Arkansas Case, M. C. La Follette, Ed., The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1983, p. 166. (p. 68 - I changed "Creationism" to "Creation".)

66. R. D. Alexander, in Evolution versus Creation [-ism]: The Public School Controversy, J. P. Zetterberg, Ed., Oryx Press, Phoenix, 1983, p. 91. (p. 70 - I changed "Creationism" to "Creation".)

4 Scientific Integrity

Intense rivalries, generating great personal animosity, such as that between O. C. Marsh and E. D. Cope in the late 19th century, and sharp controversies in science, even within the evolutionary camp, such as that created by Richard Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" attack on neo-Darwinism, which earned for Goldschmidt ridicule and the role of an outcast, have punctuated the history of science from time to time. The attacks by evolutionists against [creationary] science and [creationary] scientists, however, have been especially vicious and slanderous. [Creationary] scientists have been accused of distorting science, quoting out of context, misquoting, and outright lying. These vicious, ad hominem attacks on [creationary] scientists are actually counterproductive. Many whom they seek to convince by such attacks sense that these tactics reveal the fact that evolutionists, in doing so, are acknowledging that their scientific case is weak and that their attacks on the personal integrity of the [creationary] scientists constitute a smoke screen behind which they seek to conceal the fallacies and weaknesses in [evolutionary] theory. (pp.71-72 - I changed the attributive nouns "evolution" and "creation" to the genuine adjectives "evolutionary" and "creationary".)(p. 71)

Richard C. Lewontin states:

The recent massive attack by fundamentalist Christians on the teaching of evolution in the schools has left scientists indignant and somewhat bewildered. [Creationary] arguments have seemed to them a compound of ignorance and malevolence, and, indeed, there has been both confusion and dishonesty in the [creationary] attack.

(p. 72 - I changed the attributive nouns "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary". Richard C. Lewontin is a Jewish-American evolutionary biologist, geneticist, and Marxist.)

Alice B. Kehoe draws on a characterization of American patriotism by Robert Hewett to illustrate her view of [creationary] scientists.

(p. 72 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

In other words, according to Kehoe, the [creationary] scientists are willing to stoop to most any device, dishonest, unlawful, or otherwise, to further what they consider their high calling. (p. 72 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

David B. Wilson, in his Introduction to a 1983 [anti-creationary] book which he edited, with reference to creationists' arguments against evolution, states:

Underlying these areas of disagreement is the view of scientists that creationists frequently distort scientific theories, purposely misleading their audiences.

(p. 73 - I changed the attributive noun "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjective "anti-creationary".)

It may be noted here that a very common ploy of anti-creationists is to refer to evolutionists as "scientists", while [creationary] scientists are referred to merely as "creationists." This is designed to convey the notion that all scientists are evolutionists, while creationists are non-scientists. (p. 73 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Futuyma, in his [anti-creationary] book, charges that:

To analyze [creationary] literature is to scale a fortress of facts and quotations taken from the evolutionary literature, distorted and quoted out of context, haphazardly glued into a defense around their faith.

(p. 73 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary". cf. "evolutionist literature", "creationist literature")

Henry Morris is one of the chief theoreticians among creationists who have offered the catastrophic view of [creationary] geology versus the uniformitarian view of evolutionary geology. In all of his many writings on the subject, of which The Genesis Flood (which he coauthored with John Whitcomb) is the chief, and in the writings of many other [creationary] geologists, such as Steven Austin, Harold Coffin, and Clifford Burdick, I have yet to see anything that could be characterized as mud slinging at their theoretical opponents, but calling those scientists who disagree with your interpretation of geological data "liars" is certainly mud slinging at its worst! (p. 75 - I added the adjective "creationary" to the first sentence and changed "creation geologists" to "creationary geologists" in the second sentence. cf. "creationary geologist/creationary geologists" and "evolutionary geologist/evolutionary geologists")

As the reader may have noted, one of the frequent charges made against [creationary] scientists is that they quote evolutionists out of context. Whether the scientist is a creationist or an evolutionist, research in the field and in the laboratory frequently turns up evidence that is contradictory to predictions based on [evolutionary] theory. Sometimes this evidence finds its way into the scientific literature, although evolutionists, in their fear of [creationary] scientists, are becoming more and more cautious about what they publish, as will be documented later. [Creationary] scientists quite reasonably believe that information, whether published by evolutionists or creationists, belong to everybody. In fact, [creationary] scientists feel that facts published by evolutionists are especially valuable, because it cannot be charged by evolutionists that these data were produced by individuals biased against evolution. Evolutionists, on the other hand, somehow feel that it is unfair and even unscrupulous for creationists to utilize facts published by evolutionists that are damaging to evolutionary theory, or that support creation. Furthermore, often unable to refute the logic of the arguments of [creationary] scientists based on facts derived from publications of evolutionists, evolutionists attempt to discredit the arguments by claiming that the [creationary] scientists have quoted out of context. (pp. 74-75 - I changed the attributive nouns "creation" and "evolution" (which function like adjectives) to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "evolutionary".)

Two examples from Philip Kitcher's [anti-creationary] book will help to illustrate this point. In Kitcher's attempt to discredit my refutation of the fossil record of horses as an example of evolutionary transitional forms, Kitcher charges:

At this point a new tactic emerges. Instead of offering a detailed argument, Gish simply appeals to authority. His sources are various. The maverick evolutionary theorist Richard Goldschmidt is quoted out of context.

(p. 75 - I changed the attributive noun "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjective "anti-creationary".)

This attack was based mainly on the evidence provided by the fossil record, the evidence so powerfully employed by [creationary] scientists, namely that the gaps between the major categories, phyla, classes, orders, and families, are systematic and almost always large, demonstrating beyond doubt that each basic type of plant and animal has appeared on this earth fully formed from the start. [Creationary] scientists point out that this is powerful positive evidence for creation. (p. 75 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

In his major work, The Material Basis of Evolution, Goldschmidt states:

I need only to quote Schindewolf (1936), the most progressive investigator known to me. He shows by examples from fossil material that the major evolutionary advances must have taken place in single large steps. . . . He shows that the many missing links in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they have never existed: "The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg."

(p. 76 - I corrected the misspelling "Schindewolfe" to "Schindewolf". Otto Heinrich Schindewolf was a German paleontologist and an evolutionary saltationist. Richard Benedict Goldschmidt (Richard Baruch-Benedikt Goldschmidt) was a German-Jewish-American geneticist.)

I might point out further, that when [creationary] scientists quote evolutionary authorities effectively, they are accused of "appealing to authority." But then, what better source for our facts than what even evolutionists consider to be authoritative? We would certainly not help our credibility by spewing out ex cathedra statements or telling "Just So" stories, as is so common in evolutionary literature. (pp. 76-77 - I changed "creation" to "creationary". cf. "creationary authorities" and "evolutonary authorities"; "creationary literature" and "evolutionary literature")

Raup states that:

... The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky, and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. ....

(p. 78 - Gish quotes Raup at length. I only wrote down the sentence in which the genuine adjective "evolutionary" was used.)

One can make no more nor less of Raup's statement, but it does lend considerable encouragement, intended or not, to the [creationary] interpretation of the fossil record. (p. 79 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

[cf. the parallel and genuine English and German adjectives: "creationary/kreationär" and "evolutionary/evolutionär" as well as "creationistic/kreationistisch" and "evolutionistic/evolutionistisch"]

Rensberger says:

Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists. Although the debate has been under way for several years, it reached a crescendo last month, as some 150 scientists, specializing in evolutionary studies, met for four days in Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History to thrash out a variety of new hypotheses that are challenging older ideas. ...

(p. 79 - Duane Gish quotes Boyce Rensberger at length on this and the following page. cf. "creationary study/creationary studies" and "evolutionary study/evolutionary studies")

Laurie R. Godfrey states that:

Duane Gish (1978) prepared the major [creationary] account of the fossil record for public-school use. The book is provocatively called Evolution? The Fossils Say No! ...

(p. 80 - Gish quotes Ms Godfrey at length where she claims that his paleontological data are "misleading, incomplete, full of half-truths and outright falsehoods". I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

In fact, Gould frequently makes similar statements without a shred of actual documentation from [creationary] literature. (p. 81 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Furthermore, I included the portion of Corner's statement, "Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution . . ." so as to not delete any portion of his statement, the deletion of which would weaken his evolutionary position. (pp.81-82 - cf. "creationary position/creationary positions" and "evolutionary position/evolutionary positions")

Here we find that Hughes states:

The evolutionary origin of the now dominant land-plant group, the angiosperms, has puzzled scientists since the middle of the nineteenth centure. . . .

As evolutionary studies in fossil animals became relatively well documented, three interdependent 'escape' hypotheses were developed to explain, in the plant kingdom, the continuing failure to deal with the angiosperm 'mystery'. ...

(p. 85 - cf. "creationary origin/creationary origins" and "evolutionary origin/evolutionary origins")

I must admit that I am a bit shy of such evolutionary faith. (p. 85 - cf. "creationary faith" and "evolutionary faith")

Kenneth Miller is a professor of biology at Brown University. He has assumed the role of one of the chief [evolutionary] debaters. He has debated Henry Morris, me, and perhaps other [creationary] scientists on a number of occasions. He has adopted the tactic of what I am told is called "spread debating." That is, the tactic of speaking very rapidly and producing so much material that it is impossible for his [creationary] opponent to answer all of his arguments. This is designed, of course, to leave the audience with the impression that the opponent simply had no answers to these arguments. Another favorite tactic of Miller's is to create ridiculous caricatures of several of the [creationary] scientists' theories and then to poke fun at them. (p. 88 - I changed "evolutionist debaters" and "creationist opponent" to "evolutionary debaters" and "creationary opponent". I also changed "creation scientists/creation scientists'" to "creationary scientists/creationary scientists'". Kenneth Miller is an American Roman Catholic evolutionist. His Roman Catholicism and non-atheistic evolutionism compels him to believe that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man. Miller is also compelled to believe that Jesus the Messiah, the Virgin Mary, and all Jesus' human ancestors were genealogical descendants of apes [i.e., various extinct ape species]. Of course, when you enter the creationary box or the evolutionary box, you are then compelled to accept or reject certain positions. Your philosophy, theology, and science are all affected.)

Of the approximately 470 pages of text, only about 60 pages were devoted to material from [creationary] scientists. Included in the [evolutionary] material was an article by Miller (pp. 249-262) which he had originally published in the Winter 1982 issue of the [evolutionary] organ, Creation/Evolution. The article bears the title "Answers to the Standard [Creationary] Arguments." This is a poor choice of a title, for his book does not provide answers to the standard arguments of [creationary] scientists, but his article is an attempted refutation of the arguments I advanced in a nationally televised debate I had with Russell Doolittle, a professor of biochemistry at the University of California at San Diego. (pp.88-89 - Changes I made were: "creation scientists" to "creationary scientists", "evolutionist material" to "evolutionary material", "evolutionist organ" to "evolutionary organ", "creationist arguments" to "creationary arguments", "creation scientists" to "creationary scientists".)

The debate went rather poorly for the [evolutionary] side. (p. 89 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary". There are two sides in the creation-evolution debate: the creationary side and the evolutionary side.)

(Gish quotes Miller.)

... Because his performance was so widely viewed, the points he made have become the [creationary] arguments most familiar to millions of television viewers. ...

(p. 89 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary". cf. "creationism (adjective), creationist (noun), creationistic (adjective)" and "creation (noun), creationary (adjective)")

The omission of the word "special" from Corner's original term "special creation" actually weakens the statement from the [creationary] perspective, since the simple term "creation" is taken to mean various things, even theistic evolution, while the term "special creation" is restricted (as Miller actually concedes in his statement) to the concept of creation I was supporting. (p. 90 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

The audience at the University of Minnesota was hoodwinked by the use of false and misleading data, but the credibility of evolutionary protagonists has suffered seriously, as a result. (p. 93 - One can also talk or write about creationary protagonists or a creationary protagonist.)

He used two examples: four-winged flies and Ancon sheep. He maintained that each of these examples lend support to Goldschmidt's suggestion that sudden large evolutionary changes. caused by macromutations, can give rise to abrupt, large evolutionary advances. (p. 93)

The suggestion, by Miller, that the four-winged fly and the Ancon sheep represent evolutionary advances was simply a deceptive ploy. (p. 93)

Stephen Jay Gould, in his article on four-winged flies and similar mutants, says:

We must avoid, I believe, the tempting but painfully naive idea that they represent the long-sought "hopeful monsters" that might validate extreme saltationist views of major evolutionary transitions in single steps. . . .

(p. 94 - cf. "creationary transition/creationary transitions", "microcreationary transition/microcreationary transitions", "macrocreationary transition/macrocreationary transitions")

This abnormal condition would, of course, result in their rapid extinction in a natural environment and could never be considered an evolutionary advance. (p. 94)

Doolittle is Professor of Biochemistry at the University of California at San Diego, and is well known in evolutionary circles for his work on protein homologies. (p. 94 - Biochemist Duane Gish is well known in creationary circles for his participation in hundreds of creation-evolution debates.)

One case was in a publication by [evolutionary] geologist Preston Cloud, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the other was in a publication by, of all people, John A. Moore! (p. 96 - I changed the attributive noun "evolutionist" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary". What's the difference between a "creationary geologist" and a "creationist geologist"? The first is a specialist or expert in "creationary geology" (i.e., a subfield within geology). The second is a "geologist who is also a creationist (a nonevolutionist)" and may or may not be also a "creationary geologist". It's also possible for a "creationist geologist" to be an expert in "evolutionary geology" (i.e., a subfield within geology) and then in a sense he could be an "evolutionary geologist" and yet reject many or most evolutionary claims.)

After describing the problems evolutionists have with the hemoglobins, Parker say:

... In his concluding diagram, Dickerson slips in a wiggly line for rapid evolution, and that brings the whole thing back in line again with his evolutionary assumptions. But notice that his protein data, the facts that he observed, did not help him at all with his evolutionary idea.

(p. 98 - cf. "creationary assumption/creationary assumptions", "evolutionary assumption/evolutionary assumptions", "creationary idea/creationary ideas", "evolutionary idea/evolutionary ideas".)

As Dickerson and Geis point out, on the basis of the usual evolutionary assumption that amino acid differences can be used to date times of divergence, one would arrive at the conclusion shown in Figure 1. (p. 99)

What this really demonstrates is that amino acid sequence similarities or differences do not reveal the degree of relatedness in an evolutionary sense. Evolutionists attempt to explain away the contradictions these data pose for evolutionary theory by makng the ad hoc assumption that for some unknown reason, amino acid substitutions occurred much more rapidly in the various mammalian lactalbumins than in the mammalian lysozymes. (pp. 100-101 - cf. "creationary sense" and "evolutionary sense")

In any case, evolutionists should spend more time straightening up their own house, instead of hurling accusations against [creationary] scientists. (p. 101 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Awbrey and Thwaites subsequently, however, did utilize the common [evolutionary] ploy of ignoring the challenge and grasping for a flaw, even minor, in the creationist's argument. (p. 101 - I changed "evolutionist" to "evolutionary". The "evolutionary ploy" in this case could be a shorthand way of saying "the ploy used to defend evolution". If the focus is on the evolutionists themselves and their tactics, then "evolutionist ploy" could mean simply the "ploy used by evolutionists" or the "ploy of evolutionists". cf. "creationary ploy/creationary ploys", "evolutionary ploy/evolutionary ploys", "creationist ploy/creationist ploys", "evolutionist ploy/evolutionist ploys".)

Dr. Kofahl, in an article entitled "The Bombardier Beetle Shoots Back," which he published in the [evolutionary] journal Creation/Evolution, in response to the critical article by Weber, accepted responsibility for the slip in the story. (p. 103 - I changed the attributive noun "evolutionist" to the genuine adjective "evoluionary".)

In spite of this explanation, published in 1981 in the major [anti-creationary] journal, evolutionists have continued to bring up the story, implying that I have persisted in using a flawed case, even after having been made aware of the problem. As recently as my debate with Grover Krantz at Wahshington State Universiy on March 3, 1987, an [evolutionary] professor from the University of Idaho brought up this subject during the question/answer period. (p. 103 - I changed the attributive nouns "anti-creationist" and "evolutionist" to the genuine adjectives "anti-creationary" and "evolutionary".)

[Creationary] scientists reject this notion as more than scientifically untenable; it is simply preposterous, a fairy tale! But once again, evolutionists have resorted to an ad hominem attack on a [creationary] scientist in order to obscure their failure to explain fatal flaws in evolutionary theory. (p. 104 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Their investigation of scientific creationists, however, involved a single interview with a single [creationary] scientist, Dr. Richard B. Bliss, Director of Curriculum Development for the Institute for [Creationary] Research. (p. 105 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

For example, they describe the ICR library as a "small library overflowing with [creationary] tests." At that time the ICR library was indeed small, but it certainly wasn't overflowing with [creationary] texts. In fact, [evolutionary] texts in the ICR library vastly outnumber [creationary] texts, and this has always been true. The ratio is certainly as high as 50 to 1. (pp. 105-106 - I changed the attributive nouns "creationist" and "evolutionist" to the genuine adjectives "creaitonary" and "evolutionary".)

It seems clear that it is Conway and Siegelman who wish to expunge all critical thinking from public education and to institutionalize evolution and secular humanism as dogma in public schools, rather than to employ the two-model approach advocated by Bliss and other [creationary] scientists. (p. 107 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

In all of the thousands of lectures and debates involving creationary scientists, and in the many hundreds of articles and books published by [creationary] scientists, it is possible, of course, that a few errors, a few misquotes, and some misunderstanding of [evolutionary] literature may have crept in. [Creationary] scientists are, after all, fallible, and prone to mistakes in the same manner as are evolutionists. (p. 107 - I changed the attributive nouns "creation" and "evolutionist" to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "evolutionary".)

It is unfair, unethical, and demeaning to science as a profession for evolutionists to incessantly charge [creationary] scientists with quoting out of context, misquoting, distorting science, and telling outright falsehoods. (p. 107 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

References

2. R. C. Lewontin, in Scientists Confront Creation [-ism], L. R. Godfrey, Ed., W. W. Norton & Co., New York, 1983, p. xxiii. (p. 107 - I changed "Creationism)" to "Creation". cf. "Evolutionism", "Creationism", "Evolution", "Creation")

8. Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business. A Scientist Looks at Creation [-ism], Washington Square Press, New York, 1982, p. 112. (p. 108 - I changed "Creationism" to "Creation". cf. "A Scientist Looks At Evolution [-ism]", "A Rabbi/Priest/Pastor/Mullah/Shaman Looks at Evolution [ism]")

22. Evolution Versus Creation [-ism]: The Public Education Controversy, J. P. Zetterberg, Ed., Oryx University Press, Phoenix, 1983. (I changed "Creationism" to "Creation". cf. "Evolution Verus Creation", "Evolutionism Versus Creation", "Evolution Versus Creationism", "Evolutionism Versus Creationism")

29. H. M. Morris and Gary Parker, What Is Creationary Science? Master Book Pub., San Diego, 1982, pp. 24, 25. (I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

5 Attack and Counterattack: The Fossil Record

The fossil record comes down heavily on the [creationary] side. As a matter of fact, there is no contest! Creation wins hands down! (p. 112 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

These facts have been documented by [creationary] scientists and by [non-creationary] anti-Darwinists. (p. 112 - I changed the attributive nouns "creation" and "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Present-day geologists recognize the fact that our museums are so loaded down with fossils, that this attempt to circumvent the difficulties the fossil record poses for [evolutionary] theory is no longer valid. (p. 113 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the true adjective "evolutionary".)

Suffice it to say at this point that all of the evidence within those three categories can readily be interpreted within a [creationary] framework, and if, on the other hand, that is the strongest evidence that can be cited as support for evolution, then the case for evolution is, indeed, appallingly weak. (p. 114 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

As recorded in an earlier chapter, Glenister and Witzke have said that:

The fossil record affords an opportunity to choose between evolutionary and [creationary] models for the origin of the earth and its life forms.

(p. 114 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

It is believed that all of the Ediacaran creatures became extinct without leaving any evolutionary offstring. (p. 116)

It is extremely interesting to observe how evolutionists deal with this tremendous contradiction to evolutionary theory. The attempt by Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, to explain away this problem is not only interesting but even amusing. In his [anti-creationary] book, following his discussion of the Ediacaran Fauna (now invalidated by the later revelations of Seilacher), Eldredge says:

Then there was something of an explosion. Beginning about six hundred million years ago, and continuing for about ten to fifteen million years, the earliest known representatives of the major kinds of animals still populating today's seas made a rather abrupt appearance. ...

(p. 116 - I changed the attributive noun "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary". Gish quotes Eldredge at length.)

If, on the evolutionary time scale, oxygen was abundant by two billion years ago, and the Cambrian explosion did not occur until 600 million years ago (a difference of 1.4 billion years), it seems obvious that the sudden appearance of all these complex invertebrates had nothing to do with the oxygen content of the atmosphere. (p. 117 - cf. "young-earth creationary time scale", "old-earth creationary time scale", and "[old-earth] evolutionary time scale")

Thus, just before the advent of the Cambrian, for some reason or other, there was an evolutionary burst—a great variety of complex multi-cellular organisms, many with hard parts, suddenly evolved. (p. 117 - cf "creationary burst/creationary bursts" and "evolutionary burst/evolutionary bursts")

Thus, evolutionists, like Eldredge, Simpson, and others, are attempting to snatch away from [creationary] scientists what these scientists consider to be one of the best evidences for creation, that is, the absence of transitional forms, and use it as support for an evolutionary scenario. (p. 118 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

[Thus, evolutionists, are attempting to snatch away from creationary paleontologists what these scientists consider to be one of the best kinds of evidence for creation, that is, the absence of transitional forms, and use it as support for an evolutionary scenario. cf. "creationary scenario/creationary scenarios", "evolutionary scenario/evolutionary scenarios", "kreationäres Szenario/kreationäre Szenarien", "evolutionäres Szenario/"evolutionäre Szenarien", "kreasjonært scenario/kreasjonære scenarier", "evolusjonært scenario/evolusjonære scenarier"]

As a matter of fact, evolutionists argue that the reason we have never witnessed any really significant evolutionary changes in all of human observation is because evolution moves so slowly. (p. 118)

Whatever they were, the evolutionary predecessors of the Cambrian animals had to be complex. (pp. 118-119)

Eldredge admits that "The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery." But [creationary] scientists say, what greater evidence for creation could the rocks give, than this abrupt appearance of a great variety of complex creatures without a trace of ancestors? Thus we see, right from the beginning, on the basis of an evolutionary scenario, the evidence is directly contradictory to predictions based on evolution but is remarkably in accord with predictions based on creation. (p. 120 - The evidence is directly contradictory to evolutionary predictions but is remarkably in accord with creationary predictions.)

There is, in fact, a systematic deficiency of transitional forms between the hight categories, just as predicted by the [creationary] model. (p. 120 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Laurie Godfrey, a professor of anthropology at the University of Massachusetts and one of the leading anti-creationists, in her chapter, "Creationism and Gaps in the Fossil Record," in the [anti-creationary] book she edited, all but ignores the largest gap of all—that between single-celled organisms and the complex Cambrian invertebrates. (p. 121 - I changed the attributive noun "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjective "anti-creationary".)

In the first place, that is plenty of time to leave fossils, equal to the entire span of the Pliocene and Pleistocene Epochs combined on the evolutionary time scale. (p. 122)

We thus see that Valentine provides absolutely no help towards resolving this great dilemma for evolutionary theory. In fact, he makes crystal clear that paleontologists have failed to find evolutionary ancestors for a single one of the complex Cambrian invertebrates, and that, in fact, this is true not only of every one of the phyla but also of the classes as well. (p. 122)

Kitcher, in his [anti-creationary] book, devotes 15 pages (pp. 106-120) in an attempt to refute [creationary] arguments based on the fossil record, particularly the material found in the 1979 edition of my book, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! In this section of his book, Kitcher discusses in detail the [creationary] critique of the alleged transitions between fish and amphibians, reptiles and mammals, and reptiles and birds. He does not, however, say one single word about the intractable mystery that the Cambrian "explosion" poses for evolutionary theory. In fact, the word "Cambrian" is not to be found anywhere in his book. (p. 122 - I changed the attributive noun "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjective "anti-creationary" and also changed the plural possessive noun "creationists'" to the adjective "creationary".)

Futuyma, in his [anti-creationary] book, devotes a single short paragraph to the problem. (p. 123 - I changed the attributive noun "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

In the essentially [anti-creationary] book Evolution Versus Creation: The Public Education Controversy (22 chapters are by anti-creationists and four by creationists), only two of the anti-creationists even mention the Cambrian explosion of complex invertebrates. (p. 123 - I changed the attributive noun "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjective "anti-cretionary". I also changed the noun "creationism" with the "-ism" suffix to the noun "creation" without the "-ism" suffix. cf. "Evolution Versus Creation", "Evolutionism Versus Creationism", "Evolutionism Versus Creation", "Evolution Versus Creationism")

He says:

In the [creationary] scientist-joke cartoon-strip, "Have your been brainwashed?" D. T. Gish states that billions of highly complex animals—trilobites, brachiopods, corals, worms, jellyfish, etc.—just suddenly appear in the geological record at the base of the Cambrian. ...

(p. 124 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary". "He" refers to Preston Cloud. This one sentence is taken from a longer quotation.)

Furthermore, he resorts to ridicule in calling the pamphlet a "[creationary] scientist-joke cartoon-strip." The pamphlet is serious in tone throughout, and is illustrated conservatively, definitely not in cartoon style. (pp. 124-125 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" (used by Preston Cloud) to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

My reading of Cloud's publications was careful and thorough, not careless, as Cloud alleges, In Evolution? The Fossils Say No!, I stated:

As recently as 1978, Preston Cloud, an evolutionary geologist, expressed his conviction that there are as yet no records of unequivocal Metazoa (multicellular forms of life) in undoubted Precambrian rocks.

(p. 125)

Finally, as we have stated earlier, it makes no difference whether the Cambrian invertebrates did actually all appear at the same time or whether they appeared sequentially in evolutionary reconstructions, for wherever or whenever they appeared, they were complete at the very first, and no transitional forms have ever been found. This is not only contradictory to evolutionary theory, it is also absolutely incompatible with the theory. (pp. 125-126)

Glenister and Witzke, in their chapter in the [anti-creationary] book edited by D. B. Wilson, have a section entitled, "Precambrian." (p. 126 - I changed the attributive noun "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjective "anti-creationary".)

One of the absolute requirements of evolutionary theory is continuity—there can be no break in the sequence of living things from the origin of life up to the appearance of man. The history of life in the evolutionary view must be a continuum, yet right here at the start we have one of the most immense breaks in the history of life that one could imagine. This break establishes beyond doubt that evolution has not occurred. This evidence is powerful, positive, irrefutable evidence of the fact of creation. Further discussion of the fossil record is actually unnecessary. Why beat a dead horse? (pp. 126-127)

I thoroughly searched a number of the most prominent [anti-creationary] books and could find no mention whatsoever concerning the origin of fishes. (p. 128 - I changed the attributive noun "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjective "anti-creationary".)

It is too embarrassing to evolutionary theory even to discuss in their [anti-creationary] polemics (p. 129 - I changed the attributive noun "anti-creation" to the genuine adjective "anti-creationary".)

Evolutionists have employed clever tactics in their debates with creationists, both on platforms before live audiences and in their [anti-creationary] publications. In public debates, they rarely respond to the [creationary] challenges concerning the immense gaps between microorganisms and complex invertebrates and between complex invertebrates and fishes, and, as mentioned above, in their publications, they either simply ignore these problems or offer stories which even they must realize lack credibility. (p. 129 - I changed the attributive noun "anti-creationist" and the plural possessive (genitive) noun "creationists'" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

It is rarely brought up by evolutionists in public debate, and almost fails to appear at all in the more prominent [anti-creationary] books. (p. 129 - I changed the attributive noun "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Bearing in mind that when an evolutionist uses such terms as "sudden," "abrupt," or "rapid," with reference to evolutionary transitions, he is usually inferring that no transitional forms have been found, it is interesting to read the story of horse "evolution" as told by Birdsell. (p. 130)

He indicates here that there is an evolutionary line leading from the five-toed condylarth Phenacodus through Eohippus [Hyracotherium] to Miohippus to Parahippus to Pliohippus, and, finally, to the modern horse Equus. He also states, "In South America, the 'pseudo-horses,' Diadiaphorus and Thoatherium, underwent a parallel evolutionary change," and Figure 17 includes lines leading from Phenacodus to the three-toed Diadiaphorus to the one-toed Thoatherium. This is, however, totally erroneous, even if one accepts the theory of evolution. (pp. 130-131 - "He" refers back to Douglas Futuyma. I corrected the misspelled *Diadiophorus to correctly spelled Diadiaphorus.)

Diadiaphorus has reduced side toes, while a third form, Macrauchenia, is a fully three-toed form. Macrauchenia, however, is the last form to appear, according to the evolutionary time scale, occurring in Pliocene rocks. (p. 131)

That different kinds of "horses" existed in the past that are now extinct is a fact for all to see, but the notion that these creatures had evolved from a common ancestor is fictional—part of the evolutionary myth. (p. 132)

In most of the [anti-creationary] books will be found extensive sections on Archaeopteryx, the mammal-like reptiles, and human origins. (p. 132 - I changed the attributive noun "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Therefore, rather than devoting space here to a point-by-point refutation of the claims by evolutionists concerning these alleged transitional forms, the reader is referred to the discussions found in the [creationary] books and the [non-creationary] anti-Darwinist books referred to early in this chapter. (p. 132 - I changed the attributive nouns "creationist" and "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "anti-creationary". The word "anti-Darwinist" is also an attributive noun, however "anti-Darwinistic" is the genuine adjective.)

It might be noted here that every recent investigation of important structures in Archaeopteryx has shown them to be bird-like rather than reptile-like, Furthermore, a very recent find of fossil birds in Texas has greatly strengthened the case for the [creationary] side. (p. 132 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary". See "Protoavis texensis")

Another very recent find that has produced results opposite to that which should be expected on the basis of [evolutionary] theory is the discovery of a fossil of Homo habilis. (p. 133 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

Just as it was the case with Chatterjee's fossil bird, so it is with OH62—evolutionists' expectations have been frustrated, and support for the contentions of [creationary] scientists is strengthened. (p. 134 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary". The words "evolutionists' expectations" could also be changed to "evolutionary expectations" for a change in emphasis.)

Thus, avowed evolutionist Derek Ager, British geologist and vigorous anti-creationist, states:

It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea to Carruther's Raphrentis delanouei, have now been "debunked". Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.

(pp. 135-136)

The fossil record is powerful, positive evidence for creationary theory, and every new discovery strengthens the case for creation and exposes additional difficulties for evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is, of course, dead, as long as the two huge gaps between single-celled organisms and the complex invertebrates and between complex invertebrates and fishes continue to exist. (p. 135 - I changed "creation" to "creationary theory" to contrast it with "evolutionary theory".)

Stephen Jay Gould, in the [anti-creationary] article he published in 1981, states that:

Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but are abundant between large groups.

(p. 135)

In an article he co-authored with Niles Eldredge and published in 1977, Gould and Eldredge state:

At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the 'official' position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments: there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).

(p. 136)

In this article, after recalling the "official rebuke and derision" poured out on Goldschmidt by his fellow evolutionists because of his "hopeful monster" mechanism, Gould says:

I do, however, predict that during the next decade Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology.

(p. 138)

I then quoted one of Gould's final statements, in which he said:

Indeed, if we do not invoke discontinuous change by small alteration in rates of development, I do not see how most major evolutionary transitions can be accomplished at all. ...

(p. 140 - This sentence is from a longer quotation.)

(Almost all science journals and quasi-science journals refuse to publish articles by scientists which question the "fact" of evolution, or which suggest the credibility of creation, then these same evolutionists turn around and criticize [creationary] scientists for not publishing their articles in standard journals!) In my letter to the Editor, along with other comments, I wrote:

"... He shows by examples from fossil material that the major evolutionary advances must have taken place in single large steps. . . . He shows that the many missing links in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they have never existed: "The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.'" By Gould's own testimony, then, Goldschmidt, Gould's hero of the next decade, should be laughed off the intellectual stage.

(p. 141 - I changed attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Gould felt constrained to reply, via his own Letter to the Editor. In this letter, Gould accused me of displaying:

. . . that charming mixture of selective misquotation and plain old-fashioned ignorance for which he, as intellectual leader of the [creationary] movement, is so widely and justly acclaimed.

(p. 141 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine noun "creationary".)

Let me hasten to say, regardless of what attributes this virulent anti-creationist wishes to hang on me, I am not the "intellectual leader of the [creationary] movement." The [creationary] movement has many outstanding scientists in its leadership, both here in the United States and in many countries around the world. (p. 141 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Gould goes on to day:

... He has consistently interpreted Goldschmidt's idea—that new groups of organisms arise perfectly and fully formed in a single grand evolutionary burp—as a blind flaitling born of despair. ...

(p. 142 - This sentence is taken from a longer quotation.)

Did Goldschmidt not say that the major evolutionary advances must have taken place in single large steps? (p. 143)

No mention here of a "metaphor"! Eldredge, a close collaborator with Gould in their punctuated equilibria theorizing, states:

Schindewolf interpreted the gaps in the fossil record as evidence of the sudden appearance of new groups of animals and plants. Not a creationist, Schindewolf believed all forms of life to be interrelated, but felt that the fossil record implied a saltational mode—literally, sudden jumps from one basic type (called a Bauplan, or fundamental architectural design—conceptually if tangentially related to [creationary] "basic kinds").

(p. 143 - I changed the possessive noun "creationists'" to the genuine adjective "creationary". I also corrected the spelling of Otto Heinrich Schindewolf's last name. (The German family name "Schindewolf" is spelled without a final "e".))

Eldredge writes that Schindewolf believed the fossil record implied sudden jumps from one basic type, and eqated this with the [creationary] basic kinds (conceptually, if tangentially!). (p. 144 - I changed the possessive noun "creationists'" to the genuine noun "creationary". I corrected the spelling of the name Schindewolf (Schindewolfe with the final "e" is incorrect.))

Referring to E. O. Wilson, a Harvard professor who, althought a humanistic evolutionist, finds his views on sociobiology bitterly opposed by Marxists, the author says:

... Wilson, for example, has accused his colleague Stephen Gould, an outspoken critic of sociobiology, of "destroying the whole countryside to kill a few guerillas. . . . He's willing to denigrate his own field of evolutionary biology in order to downgrade the enemy, human sociobiology, which is a small but important branch of evolutionary biology. When Darwin conflicts with Marx, Darwin goes."

(p. 145)

If, as Wilson claims, Gould is willing to destroy the whole countryside "to kill a few guerillas," to denigrate even his own cherished field of evolutionary biology, and to sacrifice his precious Darwin at the altar of Marx, woe be unto scientific creationists, for they would be especially bitterly despised by Gould and his fellow Marxists. (p. 146)

The God of creation was anathema to Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Furthermore, if Science for the People is seen "as a danger to the freedom of inquiry and objectivity" by ordinary evolutionary scientists, surely [creationary] scientists should not expect Gould and his fellow Marxists, who now occupy so many key professorships and leading positions in scientific and academic establishments, to display the slightest degree of freedom of inquiry and scientific objectivity towards creationists. (p. 146 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

References

24. L. R. Godfrey in Scientists Confront Creation [-ism], L. R. Godfrey, Ed., W. W. Norton & Co., New York, 1983, p. 198. (I changed "Creationism" to "Creation". cf. "Scientists Confront Evolution", "Scientists Confront Evolutionism")

30. Fred Edwords, in Evolution versus Creation [-ism]: The Public Education Controversy, J. P. Zetterberg, Ed., Oryx Press, Phoenix, 1983, pp. 361-385. (I changed "Creationism" to "Creation". cf. "Creation versus Evolution", "Creation versus Evolutionism", "Creationism versus Evolutionism")

59. S. M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable, Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1981, p.135. (p. 149 - cf. "The New Creationary Timetable")

The science of thermodynamics is critical to the question of origins and has thus been one of the main battlegrounds where the intellectual war between [creationary] scientists and evolutionists has been waged. [Creationary] scientists maintain that the science of thermodynamics, more particularly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (henceforth referred to as the Second Law) is the Achilles heel of all naturalistic, mechanistic evolutionary theories on origins. (p. 151 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Let us consider, first of all, what is postulated to have taken place during the evolutionary process from the cosmic egg to the human brain. (p. 153 - cf. "creationary process/creationary processes", "evolutionary process/evolutionary processes", "kreationärer Prozess/kreationäre Prozesse","evolutionärer Prozess/evolutionäre Prozesse", "kreasjonær prosess/kreasjonære prosesser" "evolusjonær prosess/evolusjonære prosesser")

In order to see clearly the contradictions of evolutionary theory imposed by the science of thermodynamics, the nature of the supposed evolutionary process needs to be emphasized.
Gamov put it this way:

". . . the problem of scientific cosmogony can be formulated as an attempt to reconstruct the evolutionary process which led from simplicity of the early days of creation to the present immense complexity of the universe around us."

(p. 156 - The above is taken from a longer quote.)

Similarly, Victor Weisskopf informs us:

This evolutionary history of the world, from the "big bang" to the present universe, is a series of gradual steps from the simple to the complicated, from the unordered to the organized, from the formless gas of elementary particles to the morphic atoms and molecules, and further to the still more structured liquids and solids, and finally to the sophisticated living organisms.

(p. 156)

Thus, it is seen that evolutionary theory requires an enormous increase in complexity, organization, and information (the amount of information required to describe or define a homogeneous universe of hydrogen and helium gases is vastly less than that required to describe a universe containing 100 billion galaxies, each containing 100 billion stars, a complex solar system, including millions of incredibly complex living organisms here on planet earth, or that required to describe even a single bacterium). (p. 157)

Notice further that everything is included—the whole of reality—stars, galaxies, the solar system, the beginnings of life, all plants, animals, and man, including our consciousness, our ability to remember the past, cope with the present, and plan for the future—even our faith in God—is nothing more than the product of an evolutionary process. The process is totally naturalistic and mechanistic, due solely to properties inherent in matter. (p. 157)

On the basis of [creationary theory], predictions concerning the inherent tendency of matter would be just the opposite of that predicted on the basis of evolutionary theory. (p. 158 - I changed "creation" to "creationary theory" to make the wording parallel to "evolutionary theory".) (p. 158)

Thus, on the basis of evolutionary theory, the prediction is for matter to possess an all-pervasive tendency to increase in order and complexity. On the basis of [creationary theory], on the other hand, it would be predicted that matter would have a universal tendency to degenerate, to decay, to become more random, less complex. (p. 158 - I changed "creation" to "creationary theory" to make the wording parallel.) (p. 158)

If that is what the Second Law is all about, it does indeed appear that evolutionary theory is in trouble. Everything in the universe, at every level, has a tendency to run down, to deteriorate, to decay—there are no exceptions (it is even being suggested today by some physicists that protons decay). (p. 160)

[Creationary] scientists reject this notion as unscientific and irrational, and point out that since the universe could not have created itself naturally, it had to be created supernaturally. (p. 161 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Professor A. E. Wilder-Smith a [creationary] scientist holding three earned doctorates from European universities, has emphasized this vital point in all of his writings (p. 162 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Evolutionists, realizing the extremely damaging effect that the evidence against evolution based on the Second Law has had on their precious theory, have counterattacked vigorously and in some instances, viciously, against [creationary] scientists and their arguments based on the Second Law. They portray [creationary] scientists as confused, ignorant, incompetent, and at the worst, downright dishonest in their use of Second-Law arguments against evolution. As will be seen, however, [creationary] scientists are not confused, ignorant, incompetent, or dishonest in their treatment of these data. On the other hand, in most instances, arguments advanced by evolutionists have been extremely simplistic, irrelevant, and totally unconvincing. In the most important details, evolutionists have skirted the real issues, and have often attempted to avoid the evidence advanced by [creationary] scientists through vicious personal attacks, which demonstrate that they realize their arguments are weak or non-exist. (p. 162 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Almost without exception, evolutionists advance the "open-system" argument against the contradiction the Second Law generates versus evolutionary theory. With reference to the Second Law arguments of [creationary] scientists, evolutionist Warren Dophin asserts: ... (p. 162 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

And so it goes, on and on. Evolutionists believe that just throwing out the terms "open systems" and "closed systems" demolishes the arguments against evolution by [creationary] scientists. They even attempt to propagate the nonsense that [creationary] scientists do not take into account the matter of open and closed systems and are even completely ignorant of the matter of considering differences between open and closed systems. This is what Warren Dolphin was arguing when, as noted above, he began his statement on the Second Law with "What they [[creationary] scientists] completely overlook. . . ." (pp. 163-164 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Evolutionists maintain that for evolutionary processes to succeed, to proceed from disorder to order, from simple to complex; from molecules to man, all that is needed is for the system to be an open system and the existence of an adequate flow of energy into the system from the outside. [Creationary] scientists maintain that these are necessary conditions but not sufficient conditions for the evolutionary process to avoid the consequences of the Second Law. Furthermore, when the literature of evolutionists who consider, in depth, the relationship of evolution and the Second Law is carefully searched, it is discovered that they agree with [creationary] scientists that more is required than simply having an open system and a flow-through of energy. This is true, as will be seen, in the case of John Patterson, a virulent anti-creationist who accuses [creationary] scientists of gross errors., incompetence, and dishonesty in their case against evolution based on the Second Law. Ultimately, the disagreement rests on whether the additional conditions required are available to the evolutionary process anywhere in the earth-sun system. (p. 164 - I changed "creation" to "creationary". I corrected the misspelled word "virilent" to "virulent".)

[Creationary] scientists and [evolutionary scientists] all agree that, as far as natural processes are concerned, the universe is an isolated system—no energy is flowing into the natural universe from the outside now, and certainly evolutionists believe the universe has always been an isolated system during its entire history, from the beginning of its origin to the present day. (pp. 164-165 - I changed "creation" to "creationary". I changed "evolutionists" to "evolutionary scientists" so that it parallels "creationary scientists".)

Isaac Asimov, on the other hand, chooses to meet head on the problem that an evolutionary origin of the universe encounters with the Second Law. (p. 165)

Evolutionary scenarios for the origin of the universe are scientifically untenable, and such scenarios survive simply because the authors and supporters of these scenarios refuse to believe any explanation that does not involve a totally mechanistic, naturalistic, non-theistic explanation. (p. 168)

One argument often encountered is that if what [creationary] scientists claim is true about evolution and the Second Law, then, using the same kind of reasoning, it would be impossible for a fertilized egg to develop into the adult animal. (p. 168)

(In his quote of a [creationary] scientist, Futuyma is quoting Henry Morris's Scientific Creationism, 1st Ed., p. 40). (p. 169 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Of course, no [creationary] scientist believes that the conversion of a fertilized egg into an adult creature in any way violates the Second Law. The conversion of a fertilized egg into an adult has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. (p. 169 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

The statement quoted above from Futuyma also includes another simplistic and totally false argument against [creationary] scientists and their case against evolution based on the Second Law. He says: ". . . disordered water molecules form ordered ice crystals in our refrigerators." This reference to crystallization as refutation of the argument against evolution based on the Second Law is one frequently encountered by [creationary] scientists. A variation of that argument, which also involves crytallization of water, is the argument based on snowflakes used by Patterson. He says:

... To be sure, scientists do not completely understand the genesis of snowflakes or the evolutionary process, but a declaration that either is "impossible" does not follow the second law of thermodynamics.

No, of course [creationary] scientists do not argue that since the entropy principle (the Second Law) is a universal law, snowflake formation is impossible. (p. 170 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Evolutionist Wicken is admitting here exactly what Wilder-Smith and other [creationary] scientists have long argued: Information (even a high information content) must be introduced from the outside to construct or originate complex, organized systems, in contrast to that required to form mere ordered systems, such as crystals, where a simple algorithm based on internal forces yield repetitive structures. (pp. 171-172 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

As will be seen later, Ilya Prigogine, the Belgian scientist who won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work in thermodynamics, is the man Patterson believes will lead evolutionists out of the trap that thermodynamics has laid for evolutionary theory. Patterson should read all that Prigogine has to say about thermodynamics and evolution. If he did, he would learn that crystallization in no way contradicts the arguments of [creationary] scientists based on the Second Law. (p. 172 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary". Ilya Prigogine was a Russian-born Jewish-Belgian evolutionist. He was awarded the 1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.)

According to evolutionary theory, hydrogen spontaneously condensed from a highly dispersed state at a very low temperature to form stars, highly concentrated gaseous structures with internal temperatures of millions of degrees. (p. 174)

The microbe-to-man evolutionary process resulted from the unplanned, spontaneous generation of all the information required to specify every living organism on the earth (and all extinct organisms), including man with his three-pound human brain with 12 billion brain cells and 120 trillion connections. (p. 175)

The earth-sun system is an open system—energy flows freely from the sun to the earth's surface, and the energy from the sun is more than adequate to fuel the evolutionary process. (p. 175)

As earlier stated, [creationary] scientists point out that an open system and an adequate outside source of energy are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the complexity, structure, and organization of a system to increase. (p. 175 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Although most evolutionists declare simplistically that all that is required for progressive evolutionary changes to take place is an open system and a flow-through of energy, some agree with creationists that more is required. (p. 177)

They believe that life arose on this planet by some mechanistic evolutionary process by the simple expenditure of energy from the sun. (p. 178)

In the first place, he just simplistically denies that there is a problem, giving the same answer so often heard from the [evolutionary] camp—an appeal to open systems. (p. 179 - I changed the attributive noun "evolutionist" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary". cf. "the creationary camp/the camp that favors creation", "the evolutionary camp/the camp that favors evolution", "the creationist camp/the camp of creationists/the camp that favors creationism", "the evolutionist camp/the camp of evolutionists/the camp that favors evolutionism")

As an evolutionist, he can't quite bring himself to admit, without reservation, that the energy conversion or mobilization system had to be there at the beginning, because he knows such an admission would be fatal to evolutionary theory. (p. 180)

[Creationary] scientists point out that there is absolutely no doubt that such a mechanism had to exist from the very beginning—no biological system is capable of harnessing energy of any kind without such a mechanism, whether it be radiant energy from the sun, heat energy, or energy derivable from organic compounds. (p. 180 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

John W. Patterson, mentioned earlier, is one who pours out vituperation of all kinds against [creationary] scientists, accusing them of being not only ignorant and incompetent but also downright dishonest in their treatment of evolution and the Second Law. He has recommended that [creationary] scientists be dismissed from university positions, that research grants be denied [creationary] scientists, and that, if possible, earned Ph.D's should be taken away from [creationary] scientists. His charges of blatant dishonesty and incompetence on the part of [creationary] scientists have been published in [anti-creationary] books, in the Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science, and in The American Atheist. (p. 180 - I have changed the attributive nouns "creation" and "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "anti-creationary".)

Patterson begins by accusing [creationary] scientists of using "completely fallacious and deceptive" arguments against evolution based on the Second Law. (p. 181 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

[Creationary] scientists have no quarrel with the facts contained in the preceding sentence. (p. 181 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

He then describes the formation of snowflakes, and, as described earlier in this chapter, he implies that this process weighs against the [creationary] scientists' arguments based on the Second Law. (p. 181 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

It was not produced spontaneously by an evolutionary process! Furthermore, the pumping up of the water and the uphill processes in living organisms require, even as Patterson admits, a coupling to downhill processes, just as [creationary] scientists have repeatedly pointed out. (p. 183 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

In his discussion here, Patterson is not giving us any explanation of how these complex devices arose in the first place, and that is what [evolutionary] theory is supposed to explain. (p. 181 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

If Patterson were able to explain how ram pumps and batteries could spontaneously create themselves and spontaneously coordinate themselves into the systems they are serving, then perhaps he would have a start on explaining the spontaneous evolutionary origin of life. (p. 184)

Patterson finally gets to the basic part of the whole discussion of evolution and the Second Law, and in doing so, he admits precisely what [creationary] scientists have insisted from the beginning: that the central problem is the origin of the required organization by a spontaneous evolutionary process that is energized by nothing more than raw, uncontrolled energy. (p. 184 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Patterson has finally admitted what the real problem is all about, precisely the problem [creationary] scientists have pointed out from the very start. (p. 185 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Patterson pours contempt on [creationary] scientists for their interpretation of the evidence related to evolution and the Second Law; yet, step by step, he concedes point after point: For an organism to draw energy from its surroundings it must possess and maintain a highly complex internal organization; uphill processes involving a decrease of entropy must be coupled to downhill processes which result in an increase of entropy; and the origin of the required internal organization must be explained. (p. 185 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

One of the most formidable problems to overcome, relative to a mechanistic, evolutionary origin of life, is to explain how the vast reduction in entropy required for the production of the precise sequences necessary for biologically active protein, DNA, and RNA molecules could be accomplished in spite of the Second Law, which tells us that the tendency is always towards randomness. (pp. 190-191)

[cf. "a creationary origin/the creationary origin", "an evolutionary origin/the evolutionary origin", "ein kreationärer Ursprung/der kreationäre Ursprung/eine kreationäre Herkunft/die kreationäre Herkunft/eine kreationäre Abstammung/die kreationäre Abstammung", "ein evolutionärer Ursprung/der evolutionäre Ursprung/eine evolutionäre Herkunft/die evolutionäre Herkunft/eine evolutionäre Abstammung/die evolutionäre Abstammung", "en kreasjonær opprinnelse/den kreasjonære opprinnelsen/et kreasjonært opphav/det kreasjonære opphavet", "en evolusjonær opprinnelse/den evolusjonære opprinnelsen/et evolusjonært opphav/det evolusjonære opphavet"]

We have seen that Patterson, the self-proclaimed expert on thermodynamics, has charged [creationary] scientists with ignorance, incompetence, and even dishonesty, in their treatment of evolution and the Second Law. Where is the incompetence, ignorance, and dishonesty in the treatment of this subject by Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen? (p. 192 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary". "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories" by Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen)

If Patterson had his way, this would be declared a nonproblem, and all mention of it would be banished from the scientific literature and textbooks, and [creationary] scientists, who persist in describing the problem, would be banished from universities, government laboratories, and any other position under government control, and exiled to a scientific Siberia of some kind after their Ph.D.'s had been stripped from them. (pp. 192-193 I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Patterson has vilified [creationary] scientists, slandering them in all of his publications as incompetents and liars. (p. 193 - I changed "creation" to "creationary". I corrected the misspelled word "villified" to the correctly spelled word "vilified".)

The science of thermodynamics is indeed the Achilles Heel that destroys evolutionary theory. It was stated that four conditions must be satisfied for complex organizations to arise within a system or for relatively simple systems to increase in complexity. In the hypothetical evolutionary origin of the universe none of these conditions are satisfied—the universe is not an open system (in the evolutionists' view), there is no flow-through of energy from the outside, there are no energy conversion systems, and there is no coding or control system to direct the system to produce low entropy highly organized systems, such as stars, galaxies, and solar systems. (p. 194)

One of the charges that Patterson has made against [creationary] scientists is that their organizations are dominated by engineers, perhaps competent in their narrow engineering specialties, but obviously scientifically ignorant and incompetent otherwise. Patterson's allegations are unfounded on both counts. The Creation [Research] Society, the largest membership society of [creationary] scientists, has 600 voting members who hold postgraduate degrees in the sciences. Engineers make up a relatively small proportion of members of the [Creation] Research Society. Biologists make up the largest category of membership. (pp. 194-195 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

The allegations appeared in his paper published in the Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science and in the [anti-creationary] book, Evolution Versus Creation, pp. 155-157. (p. 199 - I changed the attributive noun "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjective "anti-creationary". I changed "the Iowa Academy of Sciences" to "the Iowa Academy of Science". I changed "Evolution Versus Creationism" to "Evolution Versus Creation". cf. "Evolutionism Versus Creation" and "Evolutionism Versus Creationism".)

The following are excerpts from a letter dated December 26, 1989, that I received from Dr. Boylan in response:

... In his article "An Engineer Looks at the [Creationary] Movement" he states....

His purpose, unfortunately, is to discredit anyone who holds the [creationary] position.

[pp.202-204 - Gish quotes Boylan at length (parts of three pages). I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".]

Patterson's objective in all of this is to discredit his Dean of Engineering, a [creationary] scientist who published a paper pointing out contradictions between evolutionary theory and thermodynamics. (p. 204 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

No—the only motive behind Patterson's campaign of vicious charges against Dean Boylan is the fact that Dr. Boylan is a [creationary] scientist—an unforgivable sin in Patterson's eyes. (p. 205 - I change "creation" to "creationary".)

In many cases, evolutionists have simply brushed aside the challenges of [creationary] scientists to evolution based on thermodynamics, by resorting to tactics similar to those employed by Patterson—charging [creationary] scientists with incompetence, and suggesting absurd examples of apparent circumventions of the Second Law by evolution, such as tornadoes, crystallization, ram pumps, batteries, and fertilized eggs developing into adult animals, and employing the old closed-system, open-system argument. (p. 205 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

References

16. See for example A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory: Information Sources and Structures, TWFT Publishers, Costa Mesa, Ca 1987. (p. 206 - Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith was a British Christian creationist [Christian British creationist/young-earth creationist]. A. E. Wilder-Smith was an organic chemist.)

22. Isaac Asimov, in Science and Creation [-ism], Ashley Montagu, Ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984. pp. 187, 188. (p. 207 - I changed "Creationism to "Creation". Isaac Asimov was a Russian-born Jewish-American evolutionist and atheist. Asimov was a biochemist and science-fiction writer. Ashley Montagu (original name: Israel Ehrenberg) was an English-born Jewish-American evolutionist and humanist. Montagu was an anthropologist.)

24. J. W. Patterson, in Scientists Confront Creation [-ism] L. R. Godfrey, Ed., W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983, p. 105. (p. 207 - I changed "Creationism to "Creation".)

C. B. Thaxton, W. L. Bradley, and R. L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp.119-120. This is the finest critique of origin-of-life theories by [creationary] scientists. ... (p. 207 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

38. J. W. Patterson, in Evolution Versus Creation [-ism]: The Public Education Controversy, J. P. Zetterberg, Ed., Oryx Press, 1983, pp.150-161. (p. 208 - I changed "Creationism to "Creation". cf. "Creation Versus Evolution", "Creation Versus Evolutionism", "Evolutionism Versus Creation", "Creationism Versus Evolutionism")

7 Kitcher Abuses Science

Philip Kitcher was Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Vermont when his book, Abusing Science - The Case Against Creation [-ism] was published in 1982. (p. 209 - I changed "Creationism to "Creation". cf. "Abusing Science - The Case Against Evolutionism", "Abusing Science - The Case Against Evolution")

It is a virulent attack on [creationary] science and [creationary] scientists by this philosopher and is one of the most widely read books of this kind. (p.209 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Beginning on the first page of this book, Kitcher employs the favorite tactic of evolutionists—laying down a smoke screen of religion in order to obscure the science of [creationary] science. (p. 209 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

As mentioned earlier in this book, there are many scientists who are neither Christians nor who believe in a literal reading of Genesis, but who nevertheless reject evolutionary theory in favor of some form of creation. (p. 210)

His dismissal of creation is as sharp as his embrace of evolutionary dogma is unrestrained. Thus Kitcher asserts, "Creation does not merit scientific discussion" (p. 171), although his book is largely devoted to a scientific discussion of creation. (p. 210 - I changed the phrase "Creationism [with the "ism"] does not merit scientific discussion" to the phrase "Creation [without the "ism"] does not merit scientific discussion". cf. "Evolutionism does not merit scientific discussion", "Evolution does not merit scientific discussion".)

Secondly, it may be asked, who has decided that evolutionary theory is the best-supported account of the origin and development of life? Why, evolutionists, of course! (p. 211)

[cf. Secondly, it may be asked, who has decided that creationary theory is the best-supported account of the origin and development of life? Why, creationists, of course!]

It is this clique of favored individuals who must see to it that students are properly indoctrinated in "true science" (evolutionary science). (p. 211)

[cf. It is this clique of favored individuals who must see to it that students are properly indoctrinated in "true science" (creationary science).]

Fortunately, for the sake of good science and academic freedom, more and more scientists today are breaking free from the intellectual shackles that evolutionism has imposed on their thinking and are willing to consider creation, or at least to entertain [anti-evolutionary] ideas. (p. 211 - I substituted "evolutionism" for "Darwinism" in this sentence. I changed the attributive noun "anti-evolution" to the genuine adjective "anti-evolutionary".)

[cf. Fortunately, for the sake of good science and academic freedom, more and more scientists today are breaking free from the intellectual shackles that creationism has imposed on their thinking and are willing to consider evolution, or at least to entertain [anti-creationary] ideas.]

The beauty, the strength of evolutionary theory, according to Kitcher, is that it employs problem-solving strategies via a particular style of historical narratives. Thus he states:

The heart of Darwinian evolutionary theory is a family of problem-solving strategies related by their common employment of a particular style of historical narrative. ...

(p. 211)

He believes that since evolutionists can construct historical narratives about supposed evolutionary processes, they have employed problem-solving strategies. (p. 212)

Certainly evolutionary literature is full of historical narratives, most of which have now been discredited and discarded. As noted in an earlier chapter, Derek Ager, arch anti-creationist, admitted that most of the evolutionary stories he had learned as a student have now been debunked, and Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum, has reminded us that all we have of the evolutionary phylogenetic trees are the tips of the branches. All else is story-telling of one kind or another, and that so-called evolutionary historical narratives are nothing more that empty rhetoric. Kitcher, as is true of most evolutionists, has deluded himself into believing that true science, at least as far as evolutionary theory is concerned, can be replaced by story telling. (p. 212)

He says:

A straightforward evolutionary story makes sense of what we observe. ...

(p. 213 - This sentence is taken from a much longer quotation.)

Kitcher's story, for example, doesn't even pretend to explain where tenrecs came from in the first place, and isn't that what evolutionary theory was invented for in the first place? (p. 213)

Not only does Kitcher's story fail to explain anything significantly related to evolutionary theory, but important details are obviously incorrect. He suggests that tenrecs rafted over to Madagascar in the late Mesozoic (about 75 million years ago on the evolutionary time scale) or early Cenozoic (65-70 million years ago). (p. 214)

Even assuming the standard evolutionary scenario, this story is clearly contradicted by the evidence. (p. 214)

Evolutionary theory has become so plastic that it can explain anything and everything, no matter what the data may be. (p. 215)

Perhaps it was fellow evolutionists like Kitcher that Richard Lewontin had in mind when he accused Darwinists of telling "Just So" stories when they try to explain how natural selection explains evolutionary novelties. In any case, Kitcher's historical narratives are nothing more than "Just So" stories and without any real scientific merit, although he devotes many pages of his book to extolling the powers of Darwinian problem-solving strategies and deriving what he calls evolutionary scenarios. (p. 216)

Kitcher supports, beautifully, the [creationary] scientists' claim that evolutionary theory has been constructed so that it can explain anything and everything, no matter what the data might be. (p. 216 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Kitcher asks, "What type of Darwinian history should we construct to descrive the evolutionary process?" What kind of "history," we may ask, is a story that is contrived for the sole purpose of supporting what the story teller believes could have happened according to his evolutionary notions? Evolutionary texts are the only books in which such a bizarre notion of history is employed. (p. 217)

Nevertheless, after discussing a few other matters in this chapter and making several claims for Darwinian evolutionary theory—some dubious and others clearly erroneous—Kitcher ends the chapter with a grandiose claim. He says (p. 81) that:

It is also remarkable for its fecundity. Indeed, evolutionary theory has spawned so many healthy new sciences that its actual reproductive success is truly spectacular.

(p. 218)

All really significant discoveries that have been made in science since Darwin would have been made even if evolutionary theory had never been conceived, and many would have been made sooner. Evolutionary theory has been a drag on real science. (p. 219)

As was made clear in an earlier chapter, [creationary] scientists are fully aware of all the restrictions that apply to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and all of the considerations that apply to energy transmission, storage, and utilization in any hypothetical evolutionary process. This is made clear, even by Kitcher, for he devotes about half a dozen pages to attempting to refute [creationary] scientists' arguments which do take into account the matter of open and closed systems. (p. 219 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Later, he states (p. 95) that:

Nobody alleged that having an open system is sufficient for decreased entropy. . . . Evolutionary theory contends that decreased entropy is possible in an open system, not that it must happen in any open system.

(p. 220)

Kitcher miserably flunks his attempt, if that is what it can be called, to refute [creationary] arguments based on the science of thermodynamics. (p. 221 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

One of the major arguments against the mechanistic, naturalistic evolutionary origin of the incredibly complex and precisely arranged systems found in living organisms is based on the mathematical improbability of the random processes involved in chemistry and physics producing such systems, even in the supposed five billion years of earth history. (p. 221)

An evolutionary origin of life, however, would be enormously less likely than that. (p. 223)

In a section (pp. 106-120) entitled "Fear of Fossils," Kitcher attempts to defend the theory of evolution against the charge of [creationary] scientists that the fossil record directly contradicts predictions based on evolutionary theory and offers remarkable support for creation. (p. 223 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

As detailed in an earlier chapter, even though many millions of fossil invertebrates are found in museum collections and billions are potentially available, all major invertebrate types—sponges, jellyfish, trilobites, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, sea lilies, clams, snails, etc.—appear fully formed right from the first, with no evolutionary ancestors preceding any of these forms, and no connecting forms between any of them. (p. 224)

Kitcher claims that recent discoveries of biochemical similarities among organisms represent "a striking new success for evolutionary theory" (p. 136).

Of course [creationary] scientists do not believe that the Creator was half-way through designing a bat when, oops, He suddenly realized that bats needed wings. Of course [creationary] scientists believe that the Creator created each kind of plant and animal, knowing from the start what the morphological, biochemical, and physiological needs would be. (p. 225 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

The [creationary] scientist might immediately remind Kitcher, first of all, that invocation of the words "natural selection," or a passing reference to the satisfaction of "need," when used in evolutionary theory, certainly explains nothing. (p. 226 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

It is Kitcher who is guilty of abusing science, not the [creationary] scientists. (p. 227 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

References

8 Eldredge and His Monkey Business

He has been a very active anti-creationist and is the author of the book, The Monkey Business. A Scientist Looks At Creation [ism]. (p. 229 - I changed "Creationism" to "Creation". cf. "The Monkey Business. A Scientist Looks At Evolutionism" and "The Monkey Business. A Scientist Looks At Evolution".)

[Creationary] scientists maintain that modern science does enhance Genesis 1 by providing powerful positive supporting physical evidence for creation. They are careful to separate [evolutionary] theory and philosophy from what should be called modern science, and they reject the notion that humanistic evolutionary thinking is a time-honored way of understanding ourselves and our world. (p. 230 - I changed the attributive nouns "creation" and "evolution" to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "evolutionary".)

How shameful of evolutionists to allow creationists to win these very important debates and reduce them to a "bewildered state of incoherence," all because of the "canny stage appearance" of their [creationary] opponents (whatever Eldredge means by that). (p. 231 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

This is done, Eldredge says, by the ploy of claiming that evolution and [creation] are comparable belief systems. (p. 231 - I changed "creationism" to "creation". cf. "evolutionism and creationism are comparable belief systems", "evolutionism and creation are comparable belief systems", and "evolution and creation are comparable belief systems")

In his initial chapter, Eldredge pours out all kinds of vituperation against [creationary] science. (p. 231 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

"There," Eldredge asserts, "the gloves are off." Indeed! And [creationary] scientists accept the challenge! (p. 231 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

No evolutionist will, however, venture to predict what evolutionary changes may occur in the future. Eldredge thus feels compelled to rescue evolutionary theory from this dilemma. (p. 232)

Before we discuss examples which, according to Eldredge, support predictions based on [evolutionary] theory, let us consider other important consequences of what Eldredge has just said. (p. 233 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

Thus, Eldredge claims, the prediction based on [evolutionary] theory has been abundantly confirmed. (p. 234 - I changed "evolution" to "evolutionary".)

How can one say that this was a prediction of evolutionary theory, when it was commonly known 100 years before Darwin burst upon the scene? (p. 234)

One wonders how intelligent people can be so blinded by their preconceived notions and religious beliefs to accept [evolutionary] theory is spite of a multitude of its failures. (p. 235 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

His main thesis is that the general sequence of life, preserved over a span of 3.5 billion years, conforms well with expectations based on evolutionary predictions. (p. 235)

[cf. "creationary prediction/creationary predictions", "evolutionary prediction/evolutionary predictions", "kreationäre Voraussage/kreationäre Voraussagen", "kreationäre Vorhersage/kreationäre Vorhersagen", "Kreationsvoraussage/Kreationsvoraussagen", "evolutionäre Voraussage/evolutionäre Voraussagen", "evolutionäre Vorhersage/evolutionäre Vorhersagen", "Evolutionsvoraussage/Evolutionsvoraussagen", "kreasjonær forutsigelse", "kreasjonære forutsigelser", "evolusjonær forutsigelse", "evolusjonære forutsigelser"]

Suffice it to say that in spite of all the squirming and squealing that Eldredge goes through trying to explain away this monstrous incompatibility with the theory of evolution, he must admit (p. 46), "The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery." (p. 236 - cf. "The Cambrian creationary explosion is still shrouded in mystery.")

The evolution of fish thus would be the most epochal of all evolutionary events and should be treated in great detail. Their origin should provide a fascinating evolutionary story. (p. 236)

Right where evolutionary changes should be the most obvious and well-documented is precisely where no such evidence is forthcoming. (p. 237)

These huge, unbridged gaps are far more than "fascinating intellectual challenges"—they are fatal to evolutionary theory. (p. 237)

On p. 80, Eldredge states:

. . . [creationary] science isn't science at all, nor have [creationary] scientists managed to come up with even a single intellecturally compelling, scientifically testable statement about the natural world.

(p. 238 - I changed "creation-science" [a hypheme or hyphenated compound noun] to "creationary science" [an adjective plus a noun].

[cf. "creationary science", "creation-science", "creation science", "evolutionary science", "evolution-science", "evolution science", "kreationäre Wissenschaft", "Kreationswissenschaft", "Schöpfungswissenschaft", "evolutionäre Wissenschaft", "Evolutionswissenschaft", "kreasjonær vitenskap", "kreasjonsvitenskap", "skapelsesvitenskap", "evolusjonær vitenskap", "evolusjonsvitenskap", "kreationær videnskab", "kreationsvidenskab", "skabelsesvidenskab", "evolutionær videnskab", "evolutionsvidenskab", "kreationär vetenskap", "kreationsvetenskap", "skapelsevetenskap", "evolutionär vetenskap", "evolutionsvetenskap"]

One of the statements about the natural world that creationsts have made is that both in the fossil record and among living organisms the [creationary] discontinuities between basically different types of living organisms, both plants and animals, would be systematic and almost always large. (I added the adjective "creationary" to this sentence. These particular "creationary discontinuities" are more accurately labelled "macrocreationary discontinuities". If organisms are genealogically related to each other, then they form a "microcreationary continuum".)

He makes the interesting admission (p. 52) that:

... This is because, as recently as a decade ago, there was something approaching unanimity in the evolutionary ranks.

(p. 238)

Ever since Darwin, hordes of scientists (zoologists, botanists, paleontologists, geneticists, embryologists, anatomists, physiologists, biochemists, and geologists) have devoted untold thousands of man-hours to testing Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, and other theories about possible evolutionary mechanisms, and yet they are really no closer to the truth today than Darwin was in 1859. (p. 239)

Today, the evidence for evolution based on comparative anatomy (homology), "vestigial" organs, and embryology is recognized as either essentially non-existent or contradictory to evolution; the fossil record is actually incompatible with evolution; artificial selection (breeding experiments) is either irrelevant or contradictory to [evolutionary] theory; biogeography and other related evidence can be equally well interpreted on the basis of either evolution or creation; the mechanism Darwin proposed has been discarded by practically every modern biologist, and the neo-Darwinian mechanism devised to replace it has been dubbed "effectively dead" by Stephen Jay Gould. (pp. 239-240 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary". I changed the word "evidences" (a plural noun) to "evidence" (a collective singular).)

Concerning evolutionary biology, Eldredge says (p. 82): "It makes predictions about what we should find in nature, and it is self-correcting. It never claims to have the final truth." Now, compare that to his statement found on p. 31: "Evolution is a fact as much as the idea that the earth is shaped like a ball." This latter statement is stated in terms of final truth just about as much as could be. (p. 240)

Eldredge and evolutionists of similar thinking consider themselves to be numbered among the intellectual elite, sole possessors of the truth, whose duty it is to protect innocent students and the lay public from error and to indoctrinate them in evolutionary truths. (p. 240)

Eldredge asserts (p. 83) that a relatively small number of [creationary] scientists have produced the vast bulk of the articles that have appeared in the [Creation] Research Society Quarterly. (p. 240 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Eldredge apparently meant that [creationary] scientists have not published articles in reputable scientific journals that frankly support creation and/or express doubts about the ultimate truth of evolution. (p. 241 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Alfven does not challenge [evolutionary] theory. (p. 241 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

If this Nobel Prize winner, who does not even challenge [evolutionary] theory, cannot get his papers published in reputable scientific journals, how would it be possible for an ordinary scientist to get an article published in one of those journals, an article that does challenge [evolutionary] theory? All pretense aside, evolutionists are absolutely determined that these journals bar access to [creationary] scientists. (p. 241 - I changed the attributive nouns "evolution" and "creation" to the (morphologically parallel) genuine adjectives "evolutionary" and "creationary".)

Immediately following Eldredge's quote, which included the above material, he says:

... But he then defines these subgroups of mammals as themselves constituting 'basic kinds'—which means they cannot have shared a common ancestor by [creationary principles] . ...

(p. 243 - I changed Eldredge's tendentious (biased) wording "creationist tenets" to the more neutral wording "creationary principles". A tenet is a doctrine, principle, belief, opinion, or dogma held as true (< Latin tenet he holds).)

He makes the utterly false charge concerning [creationary] scientists that ". . . at first they didn't realize that the law applies only to closed systems." [Creationary] scientists defy Eldredge to document that statement. Discussions of evolution and the Second Law by [creationary] scientists have always included the matter of open and closed systems. (p. 246 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

[Creationary] scientists deal with the problem of evolution and the Second Law in a rational, scientific, logical manner, but evolutionists reply only in a simplistic, irrational, and unscientific manner. (p. 246 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Eldredge's (and fellow evolutionists') simplistic answers to some of the most severe challenges to evolutionary theory may be seen in Eldredge's response to [creationary] arguments based on the design and purpose so obviously seen in nature, especially among living organisms. (p. 245 - I changed "creationists' arguments" to "creationary arguments".)

He says (p. 132) that:

... That the problem perhaps reflects more the poverty of human imagination that any real constraint on nature is an answer not congenial to the [creationary] line of thought.

(pp. 246-247 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Furthermore, evolutionary literature is littered with "Just So" stories. (p. 247)

There are a multitude of examples, from nature, which are vastly too intricate and complex, exhibiting such a wealth of evidence of deliberate design and planning by a super-intelligent Creator, that evolutionists simply cannot explain how an evolutionary process, based as it is ultimately on blind, random chance mutations, could ever have produced them. No, neither great leaps of faith based on nothing more than the power of human imagination, nor, when this fails, an appeal to excuses based on the poverty of the human imagination is acceptable to the [creationary] line of thought. (p. 247 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine noun "creationary".)

He argues forcefully against the notion that an evolutionary process based ultimately on chance mutations could produce the intricate, incredibly complex machinery found in living organisms. (p. 247 - "He" refers to Michael Denton.)

Eldredge concludes his book with a chapter on "Creation [-ism], Religion and Politics," in which he maintains that the creation/evolution controversy is solely a religious and political exercise—the creationists using political means to wage war against the inroads of secular humanism, viewing evolution as the cutting edge of this man-centered, non-theistic religion. (p. 249 - I changed "Creationism" to "Creation". cf. "Evolutionism, Religion and Politics", "Evolution, Religion and Politics".)

[Creationary] scientists say—"Welcome to the war. We are eager to join battle, for we have the truth on our side, and the consequences are as important as life (eternal life) and death." (p. 249 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

References

1. Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business. A Scientist Looks at Creation [-ism], Washington Square Press, New York, 1982. (p. 249 - I changed "Creationism" to "Creation". cf. "The Monkey Business. A Scientist Looks at Evolutionism", "The Monkey Business. A Scientist Looks at Evolution")

9 Science Confronts Evolutionists

Many books have been written during the last decade or so attacking creation and [creationary] scientists (see the bibliography in the back of this book). (p. 251 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

The book edited by Laurie Godfrey, Scientists Confront Creation [-ism], was one of the first of these latter books, and the authors of its 15 chapters include some of the most prominent American evolutionists, and all have been vigorous in their public opposition to the efforts of [creationary] scientists. (I changed "Creationism" to "Creation" and "creation" to "creationary". cf. "Scientists Confront Evolutionism" and "Scientists Confront Evolution".)

In her Preface, Godfrey states that "scientific creation [-ism] is not science; it is religion" (p. xiii). Later, she says, "They [scientific creationists] demand a response. Such is the task of Scientists Confront Creation [-ism] (p. xiv). (p. 251 - I changed "Creationism" to "Creation". cf. "scientific evolutionism is not science; it is religion", "scientific evolution is not science; it is religion")

Eldredge admitted, however, that in debates, the scientific creationists nearly always seem better informed than their evolutionary opponents. (pp. 251-252)

Lewontin is simply another one of those evolutionists who believes that the incessant repetition of "Evolution is a fact" will, in itself, suffice to convince many people that, indeed, evolutionary theory is true. (p. 252 - Richard Lewontin is an Jewish-American evolutionist and a Marxist. cf. "Creation is a fact" versus "Evolution is a fact")

As we have documented in this book, as [creationary] scientists have amply documented in many publications, and as non-creationist Michael Denton so conclusively and forcefully documents in his book, (and as other non-creationists have also demonstrated in their books), the record of both living organisms and the fossil record of the past prove beyond any reasonable doubt that these records are not records of an unbroken and continuous process, but are records of systematic discontinuities, with many gaps that are both immense and indisputable. (p. 252 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Lewontin accuses [creationary] scientists of honest confusion, of conscious attempts to confuse others, and of plunging deeply into dishonesty by taking statements of evolutionists out of context to make them say the opposite of what was intended. (p. 252 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Furthermore, to cite an isolated instance as being characteristic of [creationary] scientists in general, is itself, at least bordering on dishonesty. (p. 253 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Furthermore, while there are numerous [creationary] scientists today in southern states, a considerable majority of [creationary] scientists are Northerners. (p. 253 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creaitonary".)

He describes the success of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in securing a grant of several million dollars from the National Science Foundation, and using these funds to produce high school science texts which are dominated throughout by evolutionary theory. (p. 253)

First, let it be pointed out that [creationary] scientists positively affirm that the world of phenomena is a consequence of the regular operation of repeatable causes and their repeatable effects. (p. 255 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

When interpreting the operation of the universe and the operation of living organisms, [creationary] scientists perform their science in a purely scientific manner—in a more scientific manner than evolutionists, in fact, for their work is unencumbered with evolutionary myths. (p. 255 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

[cf. "creationary myth/creationary myths", "evolutionary myth/evolutionary myths", "kreationärer Mythos/kreationäre Mythen", "evolutionärer Mythos/evolutionäre Mythen", "Kreationsmythos/Kreationsmythen", "Schöpfungsmythos/Schöpfungsmythen", "Evolutionsmythos/Evolutionsmythen", "kreasjonær myte/kreasjonære Myter", "evolusjonær myte", "evolusjonære myter", "kreasjonsmyte/kreasjonsmyter", "skapelsesmyte/skapelsesmyter", "evolusjonsmyte/evolusjonsmyter"]

Furthermore, [creationary] scientists ask, can Lewontin or any other evolutionist apply the regular operation of repeatable causes and their repeatable effects to the Big Bang theory, to theories on the origin of life, or, in fact, to theories on the origin of any living thing? (p. 255 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

[Creationary] scientists agree with Eldredge when he proclaims that it is the consequences of origins we must look for. (p. 255 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

First, why would nonfundamentalists hold dogmatically to the [creationary] view of origins? (p. 258 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

[Creationary] scientists, on the other hand, do not seek to exclude the teaching about the theory of evolution from public schools. (p. 259 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

George Abell, in his chapter, "The Ages of the Earth and the Universe," and Stephen G. Brush, in his chapter, "Ghosts from the Nineteenth Century: [Creationary] Arguments for a Young Earth," deal with the problem of the age of the earth and of the universe. These chapters will not be critiqued in this book, nor will the arguments on this subject found in other [anticreationary] books and literature be reviewed here. The subject of the age of the earth and the cosmos is certainly a very important subject and is frequently discussed in books and articles by [creationary] scientists. (p. 260 - "Creationist arguments", "anticreationist books", and "creation scientists" were changed to "creationary arguments", "anticreationary books", and "creationary scientists". The words "creationist", "anticreationist", and "creation" are attributive nouns used to modify the head nouns in these sentences.)

Secondly, significant numbers of both conservative theologians and [creationary] scientists hold to an old age of the earth and long time intervals between the many acts of creation. (p. 260 - I changed "creation" to "creationary". There are old-earth creationary scientists and young-earth creationary scientists, both subgroups of creationary scientists accept the theory of creation and reject the theory of evolution.)

It is amazing how Doolittle brushes aside insuperable difficulties to a naturatistic, evolutionary origin of life. (p. 261)

The problem with Doolittle's assertion is that the more we learn about the living cell, the more incredibly complex it becomes and the further we are removed from any possible solution to its evolutionary origin. (p. 261)

In his opening paragraph, Doolittle does admit that [creationary] objections to evolutionary theories on the origin of life based on improbability are: ... (p. 262 - I changed "creationists' objections" to "creationary objections". cf. "creationists' objections", "evolutionists' objections", "creationist objections", "evolutionist objections", "creationary objections", "evolutionary objections" and "creationary theories", "evolutionary theories", "creationists' theories", "evolutionists' theories", "creationist theories", "evolutionist theories")

In this area of evolutionary speculation, Doolittle says, the evolutionist cannot resort to known facts, so he is forced to invent scenarios that can "explain" how these events may have taken place. (p. 263)

[cf "creationary speculation/creationary speculations", "evolutionary speculation/evolutionary speculations", "kreationäre Spekulation/kreationäre Spekulationen", "evolutionäre Spekulation/evolutionäre Spekulationen", "kreasjonær spekulasjon/kreasjonære spekulasjoner", "evolusjonær spekulasjon/evolusjonære spekulasjoner"]

Doolittle recounts several [creationary] arguments against an evolutionary origin of life based on the improbability of the chance formation of biologically active DNA or protein molecules. He then declares that the [creationary] claim that there could be no natural selection until there was reproduction is erroneous. (p. 263 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

We see, then, that according to his fellow evolutionists, it is Doolittle who is erroneous on this point, not [creationary] scientists. (pp. 263-264 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Since creationists have cited published articles by non-creationist Hubert Yockey as support for their claims that a naturalistic evolutionary origin of the proteins, DNA, and RNA molecules necessary for the origin of life is for all practical purposes impossible, Doolittle feels constrained to demolish Yockey, claiming that an article published by Yockey in the prestigious Journal of Theoretical Biology, and most often cited by creationists (I cited this article in my debate with Doolittle at Lynchburg, Virginia, October 13, 1981), is "shot through with errors." (p. 264)

Yockey used information theory coupled with conventional probability calculations to estimate whether or not DNA, RNA, and protein sequences necessary for the origin of life could have arisen by random evolutionary processes. (p. 264)

Doolittle airily dismisses all objections to a naturalistic, evolutionary origin of life. Sir Fred Hoyle has declared, on the other hand, that the probability of an evolutionary origin of life is equal to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard would assemble a Boeing 747. (p. 275 - Should a supernaturalistic, creationary origin of life be airily dismissed? Should a nonnaturalistic, creationary origin of life be airily dismissed?)

His chapter consists mainly of the standard textbook evolutionary explanation of the molecular similarities and differences found in plants and animals. (p. 275 - "His" refers back to Thomas H. Jukes.)

Furthermore, it is explained, if it is assumed that mutations have accrued at a regular rate in all creatures, the amino acid differences of homologous proteins, or the nucleotide differences of genes, can be used as a "molecular clock" to assign dates to those times that various animals diverged in their evolutionary history. (p. 278)

A variety of problems soon began to crop up with this notion of using differences in proteins and DNA (which codes for the proteins, and therefore differences in proteins should parallel the differences in the respective genes) to establisch evolutionary phylogenetic trees and to use as a molecular "clock." (p. 279)

Thus Vincent Demoulin has said:

... The main problem here is the reliability of evolutionary reconstructions based on sequence data. . . . The composite evolutionary tree . . . encompasses all the weaknesses of the individual trees.

(p. 279)

When cytochrome C's of purple nonsulphur photosynthetic bacteria were compared, the data was highly contradictory to evolutionary predictions. (p. 279)

This is widely accepted, in evolutionary circles, as proof that man's nearest cousin is the chimpanzee. (p. 281)

Of course, on all evolutionary phylogenetic trees, man and other mammals and birds are shown as direct descendants of reptiles, while reptiles are shown as the direct descendants of amphibians. This assigns the amphibians to a much more distant evolutionary place relative to mammals and birds than the reptiles, but the molecular data indicate just the opposite. (p. 281)

If amino acid sequence data, and the data based on DNA similarities and differences can truly be used to show evolutionary relationships and to construct an evolutionary phylogenetic tree, then many different phylogenetic trees should not emerge, but one single internally consistent phylogenetic tree should be derived that agrees with the phylogenetic tree based on morphological data. (p. 282)

Evolutionists Christian Schwabe and Gregory Warr, and non-creationist Michael Denton have made some of the most concerted attacks on the notion that amino acid sequence data can be used to construct evolutionary phylogenetic trees. (p. 282)

Thus, while Schwabe and Warr believe that the original forms of life evolved in the beginning, and each has undergone changes since then, these evolutionists, based on their data, agree with creationists that amino acid sequences of proteins and other molecular data cannot be used to construct an evolutionary phylogenetic tree. (pp. 282-283)

Schwabe and Warr feel forced into a position quite different from the popularly held theory of a branching evolutionary phylogenetic tree based on molecular data. (pp. 283-284)

Schwabe and Warr contrast the usual interpretation based on a branching phylogenetic evolutionary tree, using assumptions of molecular evolutionists, as shown in Figure 1, to their interpretation of these same data, as shown in Figure 2. (p. 284)

Figure 1. The standard monophyletic evolutionary tree. (p. 284)

If the monophyletic notion is abandoned, then one is forced to abandon the interpretation that similarities automatically imply relatedness due to descent from a common ancestor. Creationary scientists heartily agree with Schwabe and Warr on that point. (p. 285)

Based on molecular differences derived from proteins and DNA of living organisms, evolutionists draw up a molecular evolutioinary phylogenetic tree with hypothetical branching points. (p. 285)

Jukes, referring to the molecular evolutionist's interpretation of the amino acid sequences of the hemoglobins, also declared that there were no alternative explanations, when he said, "These data are important because they are only comprehensible within an evolutionary [branching tree] framework" (p. 119 of his chapter). Well, now, we have an alternative to that of molecular evolutionists (and very similar to that of [creationary] scientists), and it comes from two of their fellow evolutionists! (p. 286 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Although they had no intention or desire to do so, Schwabe and Warr's research and conclusions offer powerful support to the interpretation of molecular data by [creationary] scientists.

Denton, a molecular biologist and geneticist who earned his M.D. and Ph.D. degrees from British universities and who is now engaged in genetic research in Australia, says:

Where fossils had failed and morphological considerations were at best only ambiguous, perhaps this new field of comparative biochemistry might at last provide objective evidence of sequences and of the connecting links which had been so long sought by evolutionary biologists. ...

(pp. 286-287 - This is taken from a longer quote.)

We see here, as in the other examples, that there is no indication of the traditional evolutionary series, which in the latter case would be cyclostome—jawed fish—amphibian—reptile—bird and mammal. (p. 288)

Nothing could be further from the truth, and this evidence from comparative molecular biology, falsifying Zuckerkandl's prediction, is emphatic support for the fact that new knowledge, rather than strengthening evolutionary theory, widens the cracks in its facade. (p. 289)

Evolutionists must believe that the evolutionary molecular clock has ticked at a different rate for each family of proteins, and that means we must have hundreds of clocks all ticking at different rates. (p. 290)

In closing his chapter on this subject, Denton aptly states:

Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of diversity, the idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful, that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists.

(p. 293)

With this extensive critique of the notion of molecular [evolutionary] theory, and Denton's characterization of that idea as similar to medieval astrology, little further comment on Jukes' chapter on "Molecular Evidence for Evolution" need be given. (p. 293 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

It is greatly refreshing to read this chapter by Raup, for it is not an intemperate polemic against [creationary] science and [creationary] scientists as are so many other chapters in this book. (pp. 294-295 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

In sharp contrast to Gould's arrogant reference to [creationary] scientists as "yahoos" and to claims of Raup's fellow evolutionists that [creationary] science has no vestige of science and is nothing more that religion in disguise, Raup concedes that [creationary] scientists do use acceptable scientific methods (though sometimes poorly, in his opinion), and that the status and validity of creation is independent of the ideology or of the religious beliefs of [creationary] scientists. (p. 295 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

[Creationary] scientists agree with this statement. (p. 295 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Raup confirms the fact that [creationary] scientists do use scientific methods in their procedures and do put the theory of creation on the line in these tests. (p. 295 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

He says:

Several lists of "predictions" of the [creationary] model have been published (Gish 1978, pp. 50-51, for example). ... D'Armond attempts to argue that the deposits are simply the result of catastrophic flooding, and while I do not agree with his analysis or his conclusions, the study is clearly an attempt to use geologic data to support an aspect of the [creationary] model.

... Theoretically, a creationist such as D'Armond could conclude that the [creationary] model is not viable because of a lack of corroboration from geologic data. ...

(pp. 295-296 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

The main thesis of Raup's contribution to this book is, as he says, a criticism of the geological and paleontological arguments of [creationary] scientists, a thesis he approaches confidently. (pp. 296-297 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

[Creationary] scientists differ sharply with Raup on who is the winner on that point, and any reader of Raup's chapter should be able to discern that his arguments for evolution based on the fossil record are indeed exceedingly weak. (p. 297 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

First, as described above, he frankly admits the gravity of the problem that fossils pose for [evolutionary] theory. (p. 298 - I changed the attributive adjective "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".

[I have noticed that Duane Gish and many other [young-earth] creationists quite often try to "balance the wording" by using expressions like "evolution theory" versus "creation theory" and "evolution science" versus "creation science" instead of using the words "evolutionary theory" versus "creationary theory" and "evolutionary science" versus "creationary science". He and others are going in the wrong direction. They ought to be adding "-ary" to the attributive noun "creation" (as used in the above expressions) to form the genuine adjective "creationary" rather than removing the "-ary" from the genuine adjective "evolutionary".]

With specific reference to his example of Archaeopteryx, [creationary] scientists point out that these features are bird-like rather than reptile-like, and thus its status as a transitional form is becoming more and more dubious with the passage of time. (p. 298 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

As [creationary] scientists have pointed out, the scenario of "punctuated equilibrium" was imagined for the purpose of explaining the absence of transitional forms between species, not the absence of transitional forms between major types of plants and animals, such as families, orders, classes, and phyla. (p. 300 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Raup, of course, avoids all discussion of the insuperable barriers the huge gap between single-celled organisms and the complex invertebrates and the equally huge gap between these invertebrates and fishes pose for evolutionary theory. These are by far the most serious problems the fossil record provides for [evolutionary] theory. (p. 300 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

Raup concludes his discussion of the fossil record with the statement that:

With these considerations in mind, one must argue that the fossil record is compatible with the predictions of evolutionary theory.

(p. 300)

If the fossil record was incompatible with Darwin's theory in Darwin's time, and the situation hasn't changed much, then how can it now be argued that it has become compatible with evolutionary theory? As mentioned above, the only really new development since Darwin's time has been the invention of the notion of punctuated equilibrium, and as noted, even if true, this notion would provide no solution whatsoever for the problem the gaps between the highter categories pose for [evolutionary] theory. (p. 301 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

In this critique of the reasoning and conclusions of [creationary] geologists, Raup presents an accurate account of the position of these geologists. He then points out where he believes their conclusions to be faulty or out of date. Part of the blame, Raup maintains, is due to the dependence at times by [creationary geologists] on the conclusions of evolutionary geologists who were advancing faulty or out-of-date ideas. For example, Raup points out that [creationary geologists] strongly rely on the fact of catastrophism in geology, citing especially the possibility of a great worldwide flood to account for much of the great sedimentary rocks and vast fossil graveyards. At the same time, according to Raup, [creationary geologists] attribute to evolutionary geologists the doctrine of uniformitarianism, the notion that present processes, acting essentially at present rates over vast stretches of time, can account for most geological features without resort to catastrophic events. Raup ten points out, correctly, that the concept of uniformitarianism in geology is losing favor among present-day geologists. (pp. 301-302 - I changed "geologists who are creationists" to "creationary geologists" in the first sentence. I also changed "creationists" to "creationary geologists" in the other sentences so that there is a logical terminological parallel with "evolutionary geologists".)

Raup then acknowledges that part of the blame for misunderstanding falls on the evolutionary geologists. (p. 302)

The fact that, as Raup says, evolutionary geologists avoid the word "catastrophe," while generally accepting catastrophe as a "way of life," betrays their reluctance to embrace a concept long held by [creationary geologists] but dogmatically rejected by the evolutionary establishment. Furthermore, Raup is a bit out of date with his own reading, as far as [creationary] literature is concerned. Not only are most [creationary geologists] aware of this shift in thinking by evolutionary geologists, they delight in pointing out this shift to a position that is drawing ever nearer to their own. Evolutionary geologists, starting with James Hutton and Charles Lyell near the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, adamantly have excluded the possibility of worldwide catastrophes as contributing to geological features on the earth. (p. 303 - I changed "creationists" to "creationary geologists". I also changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary" in "creationary literatute".)

He does admit, however, that a surprising number of evolutionary geologists with specialties other than paleontology share the misconception, as pointed out by creationists, that the geological record reveals a series of organisms of gradually increasing complexity. Not only have creationists cited many statements in evolutionary geological literature to this effect, but creationists have been confronted frequently in their debates with the argument that fossils show gradually increasing complexity. (p. 304)

Now that he has made clear to creationists that this is a mistaken notion, he should work hard to root it out of evolutionary geology textbooks and the evolutionary geologic literature. (p. 304)

He completely fails to grasp the [creationary] concept of teaching two models of origins. He asserts that since there are several biological models of evolution, that is, that there are several alternative mechanisms of evolution, it is wrong for creationists to insist that there are only two models of origins—a [creationary] model and an [evolutionary] model. What Raup fails to understand is that while there are several possible sub-models within each model of origins, there are only two basic models of origins—a naturalistic, mechanistic non-theistic evolutionary model and a theistic, supernatural[ic] special-[creationary] model. Lamarckism, neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, the hopeful monster mechanism, and theistic evolution are all sub-models within the evolutionary model or paradigm, while progressive creation, the gap theory, recent creation, etc., are sub-models within the special [creationary] model. An evolutionist cannot claim he is teaching two models of origins if he is only offering his students alternative mechanisms of evolution. (p. 305 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the adjective "creationary" in "creationary concept". I also changed the attributive nouns "creation" and "evolution" to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "evolutionary" in the other sentences. The creationary concept of two origin theories or paradigms is described in creationary literature.)

One of his burning interests today is defending evolution and fighting [creation]. (p. 306 - I changed "creation science" to "creation" in the sentence above so that the terminology is parallel. "His" refers to Joel Cracraft. cf. One of his burning interests today is defending evolutionary theory and fighting creationary theory. One of his burning interests today is defending evolutionary science and fighting creationary science.)

Cracraft is extremely arrogant, heaping scorn and derision on [creationary] scientists and their science, accusing [creationary] scientists of misquoting, of quoting out of context, of employing distortions, of holding childish myths, of being religious zealots, of lacking in competence, of being extremists, of implying innuendos, and of being guilty of outright deception. Not only has Cracraft taken off his gloves to fight [creationary] scientists, he has also donned brass knuckles. No doubt many evolutionists applaud such vicious and unprincipled attacks on [creationary] scientists, but in doing so, Cracraft is guilty of many of the charges he levels against creationists. Furthermore, when evolutionists use such tactics, it is a tacit admission that their own case is weak and that [creationary] scientists are hitting where it hurts. (p. 306 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine noun "creationary".)

Cracraft's first blast at [creationary] scientists is their use of the terms "created kinds" or "basic kinds". He charges that [creationary] scientists are guilty of using "superficial and illiterate treatments" of the vast biological literature representing a substantial body of knowledge on the subject of systematics. (p. 306 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

One of the largest categories of [creationary] scientists, probably the largest, are those who hold advanced degrees in botany, zoology, genetics,and biology, all of whom would have had courses in taxonomy. (p. 306 - I changed "creation" to "creationary". cf. "creationary botany", "evolutionary botany", "creationary zoology", "evolutionary zoology", "creationary genetics", "evolutionary genetics", "creationary biology", "evolutionary biology")

While Cracraft is throwing stones at [creationary] scientists for using the term "kind" to refer to a created category or taxon, he and other evolutionists not infrequently use the term "kind". (p. 307 - I change "creation" to "creationary".)

Of course he is not using the term "like kinds" in a technical sense, but neither do [creationary] scientists use the terms "basic types" or "created kinds" in a technical sense. Thus, if a [creationary] scientist, through his study of genetics, natural breeding habits, and production of interspecific fertile offspring, became convinced that all creatures within the genus Canis (dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals) were all one created kind, he might use the term "dog kind" in a general sense, or he might use the correct taxonomic term Canis in a technical sense. (p. 307 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Drawing on studies by Wake, Lewin says:

... For many years evolutionary biologists have equated morphological similarity with close genetic relationship. This is clearly not necessarily the case.

(p. 309)

Taxonomy as a science began with the work of [creationary botanist] Linnaeus in the 18th century, and it would be difficult for the modern sciences of zoology and botany to function without it. (p. 309 - I added the words "creationary botanist" to this sentence.)

Evolutionists such as Eldredge and Cracraft are so determined to destroy the credibility of [creationary] scientists that they skim through their writings in a hasty and superficial manner and then report inaccuracies and confusion on the part of the [creationary] scientists, when it is their own thinking that is confused. (p. 311 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine noun "creationary".)

Cracraft further charges, (p. 165) in references to [creationary] scientists, that:

The depth of their scientific acumen is illustrated by a particularly elementary example: they seldom even refer to taxa by their scientific names, preferring instead to adopt scientifically imprecise names such as dog, cat, bat, horse, and so on.

This charge against [creationary] scientists is absurd, first, because [creationary] scientists do refer to organisms by their scientific names when referring to specific organisms rather than general categories (see for example my book Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, or my earlier book Evolution: The Fossils Say No! which Cracraft quotes above). (pp. 310-311 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Secondly, in referring to general types, evolutionists follow precisely the custom of [creationary] scientists in referring to them as dogs, cats, bats, birds, fish, etc. (p. 311 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Yet Cracraft condemns [creationary] scientists for referring to "horses" and the use of similar general terms. When [creationary] scientists refer to the individual creatures within this general group, of course they use proper scientific names, such as Merichippus, Hipparion, Pliohippus, Mesohippus, Equus, etc. Cracraft's charge is false, and merely an attempt to belittle [creationary] scientists for using a procedure commonly practiced by evolutionists themselves. (p. 311 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

On p. 170, Cracraft begins a section entitled "Biological Comparison: A Natural Hierarchy or Analogical Similarily?" He states:

... In preevolutionary [i.e., creationary] terms "natural" usually was interpreted to mean those groups assumed to be the product of a "[creationary] event" and that evidenced a "divine plan." After the rise of an evolutionary viewpoint, natural groups were those thought to have descended from a common ancestor. In both cases, some aspect of similarity was used to define the content of these natural groups.

(pp. 311-312 - I added "[i.e., creationary]" and changed "creation event" to "creationary event" to the first sentence.)

Later on (p. 172) Cracraft says:

To most comparative biologists, the concept of primitive and derived characters has evolutionary connotations, but it need not be interpreted in this way only.

Later, on the same page, Cracraft states:

Thus embryological transformations can yield hypotheses about taxic hierarchies—without demanding an assumption of evolution (this is not to say, however, that an evolutionary interpretation cannot be applied).

(p. 312)

On p. 172, Cracraft states:

The remainder of this section will discuss how creationists have viewed the problem of similarity and, most importantly, will argue that the hierarchical pattern produced by the shared similarities observed among organisms is predicted by a hypothesis of evolutionary descent with modification but not by an assumption of special creation.

(p. 312)

Cracraft then describes two predictions which he claims are [creationary] predictions. (p. 312 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

This is substantially correct, if modified to read "most morphological similarities" (the substitution of "most" for "all" is not a major point, since, in contrast, evolutionary theory is shot through and through with exceptions and "anomalies"), and if by parallel ways of life Cracraft means sharing similar needs. [Creationary] scientists believe it is obvious that teeth were designed for chewing, eyes for seeing, ears for hearing, grasping hands for grasping objects, noses for smelling, hair for protection and warmth, feet for walking, hearts for pumping blood, kidneys for filtration, lungs for breathing, hemoglobin for transporting oxygen and carbon dioxide, reproductive organs for reproduction, etc. Many creatures, including man, share these structures and organs in common because obviously they are required for their way of life. Here [creationary] scientists plead guilty. (pp. 312-313 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Cracraft's first "[creationary] prediction" is (p. 172): "The similarities observed among organisms cannot be shard so as to produce a hierarchical pattern of groups within groups." As noted earlier, Cracraft claims that:

The hierarchical pattern produced by the shared similarities observed among organisms is predicted by a hypothesis of evolutionary descent with modification, but not by an assumption of special creation.

(p. 313 - I changed "creationist" to "creationary".)

Here Cracraft makes his job easy. He creates a straw man by concocting a [creationary] prediction which no [creationary] scientist would support, and then proceeds to destroy the straw man. (p. 313 - I changed the attributive nouns "creationist" and "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

It was pointed out in Chapter 8 that the fact plants and animals can be arranged in hierarchical patterns or into sets of nested groups was recognized by Linnaeus and other taxonomists a hundred years before publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species, and therefore could not have been a prediction based on evolutionary theory, since Linnaeus and other pre-Darwin taxonomists were [creationary] taxonomists. (p. 314 - I changed "creationists" to "creationary taxonomists".)

Patterson thus affirms what was stated earlier, namely, that arranging organisms in a hierarchy of groups is also true of the Linnaean system of taxonomy, invented a hundred years before Darwin, and thus is not a prediction based on evolutionary theory, nor does it provide evidence for the theory. Furthermore, the assertions by both Cracraft and Eldredge that this hierarchical pattern would not be a prediction based on [creationary] theory is obviously false, since Linnaeus (as were other pre-Darwinian systematists) was a [creationary] systematist, and what he discovered in nature tended to confirm rather than question his convictions as a creationist. In his chapter, Cracraft repeatedly asserts that the existence of a natural hierarchy refutes the [creationary] world view. This is obviously false. (p. 314 - I changed "creationist" to "creationary systematist" and "creation world view" to "creationary world view".)

On p. 177, Cracraft asserts that ". . . systematic biology is the very cornerstone of evolutionary analysis. . . ."If by this Cracraft means to say also that the converse is true, that is, that modern systematics is somehow dependent upon or inextricably intertwined with evolutionary theory, this is also false, or at the very least, not necessarily true. Thus, Patterson states:

But as the theory of cladistics has developed, it has been realized that more and more of the evolutionary framework is inessential, and may be dropped. ... Platnick refers to the new theory as 'transformed cladistics' and the transformation is away from dependence on evolutionary theory. Indeed, Gareth Nelson, who is chiefly responsible for the transformation, put it like this in a letter to me this summer: "In a way, I think we are merely rediscovering pre-evolutionary systematics; or, if not rediscovering it, fleshing it out."

(p. 315)

Please not that Gareth Nelson states that in the new theory of systematics called transformed or pattern cladistics, they are rediscovering, or fleshing out, pre-evolutionary systematics. Pre-evolutionary systematics was, of course, [creationary] systematics, although this does not mean that transformed cladists are creationists. It does mean, however, that their systematics is completely divorced from evolutionary theory. (p. 315 - I changed "creationist" to "creationary systematics".)

And just what is this pre-evolutionary (in pre-evolutionary times, certainly [creationary]) systematics all about? It is about a simpler and more basic matter, the pattern in nature—groups, hierarchies, or nested sets of groups, and characters of groups, Patterson tells us. Remember Eldredge's and Cracraft's claims that hierarchies and nested sets of goups are "predictions" based on evolutionary theory but not [creationary] theory. Patterson, Platnick, Nelson, and their fellow transformed cladists obviously don't agree. Cracraft's "[Creationary] Prediction #1" thus is not a [creationary] prediction whatsoever. Furthermore, the existence of these hierarchies and sets of nested groups could be a genuine prediction based on [creationary] theory, since creation was widely accepted long before these hierarchies and sets of nested groups were recognized and placed in a formal system of classification by Linnaeus in the 18th century, but Darwinism did not appear on the scene until 100 years after the Linnaean system was devised. (p. 316 - I changed "creationist systematics", "creation theory", "creationist prediction", and "creation" to "creationary systematics", "creationary theory", "creationary prediction", and "creationary theory".)

He says,

The new cladists, on the other extreme, have explicitly argued against incorporating any particular models of the evolutionary process into cladistics (a seminal paper in this regard is Platnick, 1979). ... Genealogy smacks too much of evolution, and evolutionary hypothesizing is under too much fire. Put more positively, the new cladists believe that cladistics per se has no "necessary connection" with evolutionism (e.g., Nelson and Platnick, 1981; Patterson, 1981). What they mean by that is that no evolutionary suppositions are necessary to discover the sort of "pattern" that they hypothesize/assume is characteristic of the living world. Hence the name "pattern" cladists. ...

Later, Beatty asserts that:

But the neutrality of pattern cladism with respect to evolutionary theory is, I believe, a myth. I will not argue that it reflects or reinforces any particulary evolutionary theory—i.e., that it is positively theory laden. I will argue instead that it is theory antagonistic with respect to evolutionary theory. It is at odds with current evolutionary theorizing. And it undermines, and is undermined by, evolutionary theory for the same reasons that the traditional class concept of species is.

(p. 317)

In summary, the new transformed or pattern cladism is actually antagonistic to evolutionary theory, and to transformed cladists, groups are just collections of organisms, distinguished by the sorts of characters that allow the collections to be hierarchically ordered. No wonder evolutionary biologists despise transformed cladism! No wonder [creationary] scientists welcome transformed cladism as a breath of fresh air, a true science unencumbered by story-telling, the "problem solving strategies" of Philip Kitcher, and other mindless pap. Transformed cladism (if not the transformed cladists) is antagonistic to evolutionary theory and ascribes no evolutionary significance or theorizing to the hierarchies and sets of nested groups that result from the true science of systematics or taxonomy. Thus, the shallow thinking and bogus charges against [creationary] science derived from systematics by Cracraft stands exposed as a fraud. (pp. 317-318 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Cracraft descends into the depths of what Colin Patterson calls empty rhetoric, or what might less sympathetically be called mindless pap, in his evolutionary theorizing. Cracraft says (p. 176):

... But evolutionary change occurs not by "chance," if that word is taken to mean "at random," because the probability of evolutionary change in phenotype is not equal in all directions. ...

... In this way, then, much of evolutionary change can be viewed as being "directed" by developmental canalization, the exact direction being determined by a host of genetic and epigenetic factors.

Thus, unlike the simplistic characterization of evolution proposed by creationists (and unfortunately by some evolutionists) in which natural selection is envisioned as the primary, if not only, mechanism of directional change, modern evolutionary biologists are realizing that the magnitude and directionality of phenotypic change is primarily a problem of development genetics.

(pp. 318-319)

Furthermore, the primary, if not the sole source, of new variations required for evolutionary change is largely, if not totally, a random process. (p. 319)

The first stage of the evolutionary process, according to the neo-Darwinians, is the production of variations. (p. 319)

Thus, the first stage in the evolutionary process according to neo-Darwinians, the production of variations through mutation and the shuffling of existing stocks of genes during sexual reproduction, is largely a random process. The second stage of the evolutionary process according to this view of the evolutionary mechanism is adaptation via natural selection. (p. 320)

Everything in the evolutionary process must await the production of new variations produced by these random processes. (p. 320)

[Creationary] scientists, ever since Darwin, have pointed out that such a random process could never have produced millions of incredibly complex species now living or extinct in a few billion years (or in 500 billion years, for that matter). Many evolutionists have been troubled by these same considerations, although most evolutionary biologists, including Cracraft, have, in the past, simply glossed over the difficulties. (p. 321 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Some, as has Cracraft in his chapter here, and as has Stephen Jay Gould, who is postulating that a directive force may somehow be found in DNA, are suggesting that there exists certain evolutionary processes which "canalize" or "constrain" the development of organisms into a "narrow spectrum of possible alterations" so that "much of evolutionary change can be viewed as being 'directed' by developmental canalization," as Cracraft has put it. This is pure fiction, or empty rhetoric, more of the same kind of story-telling that fills so many volumes of evolutionary fiction published throughout the world. (p. 321)

Am I wrong in supposing that the evolutionary scenario he proposes on p. 176 is contradictory to the neo-Darwinian scenario he cites on p. 169? (p. 322)

But then, evolutionary theory is like a bowl of Jello—it is too slippery to get a hold on. Evolutionary theory has been made so plastic that one way or another, no matter what the data are, they can be made to fit. (p. 322)

In one breath, Cracraft can extol the neo-Darwinian mechanism as adequate to account for all evolutionary progress, and then later, he feels free to advance non-Darwinian notions to avoid fatal flaws in the neo-Darwinian mechanism. (p. 322)

This is a statement very commonly found in evolutionary literature. (p. 322)

Rather than making a calm and reasoned attempt to explain the fossil record versus evolutionary theory as Raup did, Cracraft, as is his custom, immediately descends into muckraking. He arrogantly asserts that [creationary] scientists have used misrepresentation and outright distortion in making the "batantly false claim that the fossil record supports the [creationary] world view." (p. 323 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Cracraft twists and distorts statements by [creationary] scientists and then accuses them of misquoting evolutionists. (p. 323 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

He cites a quotation I used in my book Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, taken from an article by Leigh Van Valen, which consists of a review of the 6th volume of Evolutionary Biology. (pp. 323-324)

A statement like this, from within evolutionary circles, certainly does lend support to the position of [creationary] scientists, and it is perfectly legitimate for [creationary] scientists to quote such statements taken form the evolutionary literature, which purportedly state facts derivable from the fossil record. (p. 324 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Furthermore, even if Van Valen did overstate their position, their position would still lend support to [creationary] scientists. (p. 324 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

But as we will see shortly, that is the term that has been similarly used by David Raup, one of Cracraft's esteemed evolutionary colleagues. (p. 325 - cf. "creationary colleague", "creationary colleagues", "evolutionary colleague")

He claims that I was attempting to equate "instantaneous creation" with the term "geologically instantaneous," used by evolutionary geologists to indicate events that appear to be instantaneous geologically, but may have transpired during tens of thousands of years, or possibly longer. (p. 325)

The statement from Simpson, which I quoted in my book immediately before my statement quoted by Cracraft, and critical to that statement, but which Cracraft deliberately chose to omit, reads as follows:

... The question is whether such major events take place instantaneously, by some process essentially unlike those involved in lesser or more gradual evolutionary change, or whether all of evolution, including these major changes, is explained by the same principles and processes throughout, their results being greater or less according to the time involved, the relative intensity of selection, and other material variables in any given situation. ...

(p. 325)

Thus, as I pointed out in my book, just as [creationary] scientists maintain that the higher categories—families, orders, classes, phyla—have appeared instantaneously, even some evolutionists are arguing the same (by as yet some unknown mechanism. of course). (p. 326 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

After these obvious distortions and false charges, what confidence can be placed in any of Cracraft's polemics against [creationary] scientists? (p. 327 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Of course, if such eminent paleontologists as Raup and Stanley can use that term in a standard text on paleontology, Cracraft has no business criticizing [creationary] scientists for using the same term. (Perhaps he would like to scold his seniors in evolutionary biology and paleontology for doing so.) (p. 327 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

He states that the predominant explanation which was accepted by many pre-evolutionary (evolutionists cannot bring themselves to frankly call pre-evolutionary biologists and other scientists "creationists," which almost all were) and post-evolutionary biologists as well was that of dispersalism. (pp. 327-328 - cf. "creationary biologists", "pre-creationary/precreationary biologists", "post-creationary/postcreationary biologists")

He claims that biogeography has been ignored by [creationary] scientists, since it offers such strong evidence for evolution. As a matter of fact, one of the earliest books marking the resurgence of the modern [creationary] science movement, the book by Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, has a section on animal distribution, or biogeography, as Cracraft acknowledges. (p. 328 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

How plastic, how fluid is this theory of evolution! No matter what the data may be, they can be accommodated in vastly different evolutionary mechanisms and earth history. (p. 328)

They felt smug in their explanations, while ridiculing the attempts of [creationary] scientists to fit the data into their views of earth history. (p. 328 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Here he merely reiterates some of his outrageous characterizations of [creationary] scientists. What really enrages evolutionists like Cracraft is the astounding success that [creationary] scientists have had in the last quarter century in challenging the dogma of evolution and winning so many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientists, students, and the lay public to their view of the origin and history of the universe and its living inhabitants. (p. 329 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

On p. 203, Godfrey asserts that the claims of [creationary] scientists that there are no intermediate forms between basic kinds, such as sharks and whales is nonsense. (p. 331 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

The transformed cladists arrange these creatures in the same way Godfrey is doing, but assert that there is no connection between this procedure and evolution, with Beatty declaring that their system of taxonomy is actually antagonistic to evolutionary theory. (p. 332)

In that article, Cloud provides no evidence for evolutionary ancestors for the Cambrian invertebrates, other than mentioning evidence for the discovery of fossil bacteria and algae (microscopic single-celled organisms) in pre-Cambrian rocks. (pp. 332-333)

Just as is the case with Cracraft, it is Godfrey, not the [creationary] scientists whom she accuses, who is guilty of distortions and falsehoods. (p. 333 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

As described in this chapter and elsewhere in this book, Godfrey viciously attacks [creationary] scientists, accusing them of various forms of perfidy, but she is the one who is guilty of careless, superficial treatment of both [creationary] and [evolutionary] literature, resulting in distortions and outright falsehoods. (p. 334 - I changed "creation scientists" to "creationary scientists". I also changed the attributive nouns used in the phrase "creationist and evolutionist literature" to the genuine adjectives used in the phrase "creationary and evolutionary literature".)

Steven D. Schafersman is the author of Chapter 12, "Fossils, Stratigraphy, and Evolution: Consideration of a [Creationary] Argument" (pp.219-244). (p. 334 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

He is a virulent anti-creationist and is very active in the campaign to silence [creationary] scientists and other critics of evolutionary theory. In order to know just where Schafersman is coming from, and why he is so vicious in his attacks on [creationary] scientists, one has only to read the conclusion to his chapter (p. 243). He says that he has descended from an ape-like creature, in fear and wonder at an uncaring universe, both at oneness with nature and alienation from nature, and is a participant in man's evolutionary journey, which has prepared him to face life and the universe with acceptance in the face of meaninglessness, and hope in the face of ignorance. (p. 334 - I changed "creation" to "creationary")

One has only to read Schafersman's chapter, however, to recognize the supreme arrogance of this man as he levels all sorts of reckless charges againist [creationary] scientists, particularly Dr. Henry Morris, president of the Institute for [Creationary] Research, whom Schafersman singles out because of Morris's comments on the way evolutionists handle the data on biostratigraphy. (p. 334 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Schafersman here, also, reveals a most significant fact concerning evolutionary theory and how it is viewed by evolutionists—a fact that provides a powerful tool for creationists in their attempt to obtain recognition of creation as an alternative to evolution. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma, in a statement quoted by Henry Morris (which will be discussed in more detail later), says, "For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. (p. 335)

One of the reasons most often cited by evolutionists for including evolutionary theory in science and excluding [creationary theory] is because it is obvious that it is impossible for us to ever know the process by which God created. Yet here we have Schafersman and Gould, the latter one of the chief spokesmen for evolutionary theory in the U.S., claiming it is not necessary to understand the process of evolution or to accept any particular theory about that process, in order to accept evolution. (pp. 335-336 - I changed "creation" to "creationary theory" in the first sentence. I also changed "spokesman" (singular) to "spokesmen" (plural). This is a correction.)

On p. 233, Schafersman says, with reference to the book, Scientific Creationism, by Henry Morris:

For example, it claims that the "[creationary] model" predicts the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the constancy of natural law, the existence of intelligence in man, gaps in the fossil record, and so forth. ...

(p. 336 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Furthermore, as described earlier in the discussion of Raup's chapter, Raup acknowledged that [creationary] scientists, based on their [creationary] model, have made legitimate predictions and have sought to confirm them. (pp. 336-337 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine attributive adjective "creationary".)

Thus, as will be recalled, Raup says (p. 150):

... Several lists of "predictions" of the [creationary] model have been published (Gish 1978, pp.50-51, for example). ...

(p. 337 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Schafersman is guided by his preconceived notions and anger at [creationary] scientists, while Raup's views are far more calm and reasoned. (p. 337 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

They, as does Schafersman, realize that in some of its most important aspects, the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionary theory, and thus they attempt to downgrade its importance. (p. 337)

In that statement, Morris says, "There is, therefore, really no way of proving scientifically any assumed evolutionary phylogeny, as far as the fossil record is concerned." (p. 339)

Nelson is one of the transformed cladists whom Beatty declared is undermining evolutionary theory, and whose approach to cladistics is actually antagonistic to evolutionary theory. (p. 340)

In the statement, Kitts says:

... For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. ... There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis.

(p. 341)

Although Kitts may have had considerable interest in the philosophy of science during the latter stage of his career, he is a professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma who received his Ph.D. in vertebrate paleontology under George Gaylord Simpson, one of the premier evolutionary paleontologists in the nation. (p. 341 - cf. "creationary paleontologist", "creationary palaeontologist", "creationary paleontologists", "creationary palaeontologists")

On p. 234. Schafersman notes that Morris cites Berry, "a well-known biostratigrapher, who apparently does believe that biostratigraphy is 'based on the evolutionary development of organisms.'" (p. 342)

On p. 241 he says, ". . . cladistic analysis today provides evidence that is superior to fossil evidence for documenting evolutionary relationships." (p. 342)

Furthermore, the transformed cladists strongly disagree that cladistic analysis should be used in attempts to establish evolutionary relationships. They wish to keep cladistics free of evolutionary theory. (p. 342)

But how many times have we [creationary] scientists been confronted by statements from scientists, professors, and laymen that if evolution is false, how can we account for the fact that oil companies employ thousands of geologists who are guided by evolution in their search for oil? At least now, when confronted with that statement, [creationary] scientists can quote Schafersman in their response. (pp. 342-343 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Schafersman might have made a useful contribution to the creation/evolution controversy if he had limited himself to a thorough and objective analysis of the [creationary] and [evolutionary] interpretations of biostratigraphy and had advanced a reasoned defense of his views on these subjects, rather than merely attacking the [creationary] scientists (mainly Henry Morris) in a vicious and distorted manner. Attacks of this nature may sound good when "preaching to the choir," but by the nature of their personal invective directed at the integrity of [creationary] scientists, these tirades lose credibility in the eyes of those honestly searching for the true explanation for origins. (p. 343 - I changed "creationist and evolutionist interpretations" to "creationary and evolutionary interpretations", changing the attributive nouns "creationist" and "evolutionist" to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "evolutionary". I also changed "creation scientists" (noun + noun) to "creationary scientists" (adjective + noun).)

Brace is professor of anthropology and Curator of Physical Anthropology at the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, and is the author of several books on human evolutionary theory. He is a bitter opponent of [creationary] science. He apparently accepts the neo-Darwinian view of evolution, for he says (p. 271), speaking of minor variations within the human population:

Biologists refer to changes of such a nature as "microevolution." Although the time through which microevolutionary changes are observed in not sufficient to produce the transformation in "kind," or "macroevolution," that creationists refuse to credit to the evolutionary process, all one needs is more time. As has been written, "macroevolution is nothing more but microevolution over longer time spans" (Alexander 1978, p. 101).

(p. 343 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Whether this is true or not, [creationary] scientists are scientifically trained; they can read, and they can understand what physical anthropologists have published about the available fossil evidence. (pp. 343-344 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

[Creationary] scientists are apt to give greater credibility to physical anthropologists, such as Charles Oxnard, who has tirelessly applied the best methods of anatomy to his analysis of fossil material, than to Donald Johanson and Tim White, who laid their fossil material out on a table for eye-ball examination, a process decried by Lord Zuckerman as the "myth of anatomy." (p. 344 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Brace's choice of [creationary] publications as his source of the latest thinking of creationists is indeed at times strange and highly questionable. (p. 344 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist", in the phrase "creationist publications", to the genuine adjective "creationary", in the phrase "creationary publications".)

On p. 246, Brace states:

... The important thing, in reality, in not the "correct" pigeonhole but the fact that they represent a condition intermediate between the two orders and suggest to us the kind of evolutionary changes by which primates could have diverged from the generalized mammalian stem.

This statement by Brace reveals that he is guilty of precisely the charge he makes against [creationary] scientists—a cavalier treatment of the subject based on secondary sources and without any firsthand familiarity with the original specimens. (pp. 345-346 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

What is inexcusable is for Brace to parrot old discredited notions, ideas which give credence to his evolutionary prejudices, while at the same time condemning [creationary] scientists for cavalier treatment of data and reliance on secondary sources. (p. 348 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Thus, it is Brace and his fellow evolutionists who warrant criticism for evolutionary scenarios that are outdated and obviously contradictory to known evidence. (p. 350)

This does reflect the consensus of evolutionary paleoanthropologists—that at least one branch of Australopithecus was in the line leading to man. (p. 350)

Last Modified: 20 October 2006
Page Started: 27 April 2006