Please read this page, especially if you are a believer in creation science. You need to know that creation science threatens to destroy your faith and the faith of those you love.
In re-reading a response I had written to an email a few years ago, I found that it was a fairly comprehensive summation of my position and so would serve as a good introduction to my site. Since most of the emails I have received in response to this site attack me for things I didn't write and for positions that I clearly do not hold, I believe that such an introduction would be a good thing to offer.
Therefore, I have converted it to HTML and have posted it here. Please read it before you flame me for something I don't advocate.
I am currently in the process of doing a complete rewrite of this page. To view the pre-beta version, please click here (the rest of the site will also be available through this link).
A Few Sample Quotes:
Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974 [1985 2nd ed.], p. 255:
"There seems to be no possible way to avoid the conclusion that if the Bible and Christianity are true at all, the geologic ages must be rejected altogether."
Two unnamed contemporaries of Darwin quoted in Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Second printing, 1917, p. 71-72:
"If the Darwinian theory is true, Genesis is a lie, the whole framework of the book of life falls to pieces, and the revelation of God to man, as we Christians know it, is a delusion and a snare."
"If this hypothesis be true, then is the Bible an unbearable fiction; ... than have Christians for nearly two thousand years been duped by a monstrous lie. ... Darwin requires us to disbelieve the authoritative word of the Creator."
John Morris, What is the Purpose of Creation Ministry, in Institute for Creation Research Back to Genesis Report No. 78, June 1995:
"If evolution is true, then the Bible is not true."
Steve Smith, http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/ssmith.htm:
"There is a very real danger in these pronouncements [above]. When one bases their faith upon the rise or fall of a scientific theory, they are on real "sinking sand." When I left for college, I believed these sorts of either/or statements - many people do. If I had learned the facts of geology or biology or physics or astronomy or anthropology or geochronology or ... under the teaching of someone other than a godly professor, the crisis to my faith would have been much more severe. I feel it is very unlikely that I would be a Christian today. I would probably be a bitter agnostic and not because of science but because my Christianity set me up to fail."I suppose that is why this Creation/Evolution issue is so important to me. I know that I sometimes talk about this topic so much that others get tired of hearing it. I know my wife does and I'm sure that my pastor does too. But when one has a close call with spiritual death, it becomes a critical issue. Every year, I see young Christians go away to college with the idea that science, in one form or another, is some sort of Satanic conspiracy. Sooner or later they end up struggling with their faith in the light of new knowledge. Some will survive because their faith is strong enough to overcome any evidence - many do not. I have met some bitter people who left the church because they believe that their religion "lied to them". I hate seeing this when I believe that it is so unnecessary. We as Christians need to be real clear about what is important to our faith and what is not."
John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, in newsgroup message to Glenn R. Morton, quoted in "The Effect of Scientific Error in Christian Apologetics" at http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/whocares.htm:
"Any faith that cannot live in the world as it is, is defective, and not to be considered by a rational thinker, on pain of self-contradiction."
Gregg Wilkerson, co-founder of Students for Origins Research and former young-earth creationist, at the 1990 International Conference on Creationism:
"Creationism by and large attracts few to the gospel, but it turns many away."
Even though I and others often get lax in our terminology, I do draw a distinction between creationism and "creation science":
In 1969, I observed the rise of the "Jesus Freak" movement up close as a kind of "fellow traveller" when a good friend converted. I heard them claim to have scientific evidence supporting Noah's Flood and a young earth, but dismissed those claims out-of-hand. When I heard those same claims again in 1981, I finally decided to have a look at that evidence for myself. I very quickly discovered that their evidence simply did not exist and that their claims were pure bunk. I became involved in the Creation/Evolution issue and was actively involved in the on-line discussions in CompuServe's Religion Forum and Science Forum from the mid-80's to 1991, when I was diverted by more pressing issues. Even though I am no longer actively involved, I try to keep current with what is happening.
My experiences with creation/evolution shaped my opinion of creation science and of its effects.
Basically, the only reason that the entire Creation/Evolution issue exists at all is because a small segment of the Christian community believes that science is attacking their religion and that they need to respond to that perceived threat by attacking science itself. As a major part of their attack -- and defense --, they have created "creation science," a collection of innumerable "evidences" (a term peculiar to Christian apologetics, of which "creation science" is a part) of the existence of scientific evidence which contradicts the findings of science and which supports the literal truth of the Bible.
Along with those "evidences", creation science offers a battle plan for striking back at science:
In reality, creation science makes no attempt to offer scientific evidence in support of creation. Creation science does not attempt to convince scientists, but rather targets the non-scientist public almost exclusively; they do not want to present scientific evidence to the scientific community, rather they only want to appear to the public as having scientific evidence. Their attempts to change academic curricula do not target the colleges and universities, but rather the secondary school grades. Creationist spokesmen and debaters will do almost anything possible to avoid having to present any evidence in support of creation or their "creation model" and will even go so far as to avoid even presenting their "model" and refusing to discuss it if their opponent presents it.
Instead, creation science consists almost entirely of attempts to disprove or discredit evolution and other sciences. They advocate their "Two Model Approach", which is built on a false either/or dichotomy through which they believe that they can "prove" the "creation model" solely and simply by disproving the "evolution model", without even having to ever present the "creation model." Creation science has been described as a book of two chapters: Chapter One is titled "Evolution" and Chapter Two is "Everything that is Wrong with Chapter One." All that creation science consists of are anti-evolution and anti-science claims. Then it turns out that those claims are based almost entirely on misunderstandings, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and even a few fabrications. Needless to say, most of these claims are contrary-to-fact.
Most in the "creationist army" out there blindly parrot their leaders' claims and either don't know enough science to evaluate those claims or are religiously motivated to avoid evaluating those claims. However, some of those leaders themselves do know enough science to be able to know what they are doing to the truth. We could speculate about what is going on in their minds and how they could possibly reconcile the questionable ethics of their actions with their religion, but that would be beyond our scope.
What does need to be noted is that they obviously believe that evolution and an old earth are irreconcilible with their religion. They carry this theme so far so as to proclaim that if it should turn out that evolution or an old earth are true, then their religion must be false [see my quotes page]. This line of reasoning leads directly to what I had once half-jokingly called the "Dark Side of the Farce", but which I now recognize as a grave and mortal threat to the faith of those who believe in creation science.
In the meantime, their followers continue to push creation science, often saying that they are motivated by the desire to protect the faith of their children. Ironically, they are themselves sowing the seeds for the destruction of their children's faith. Creation science teaches both contrary-to-fact statements about the physical world and it teaches that those contrary-to-fact statements must be true or else Christianity is false. After having been taught creation science, when those children grow up and learn the truth, they will realize that their parents and religion had lied to them. At that point, they have little choice but to obey their other religious lessons and abandon their faith, just as they had been taught to do. Even if they had not explicitly been taught to abandon their faith, an often cited reason given by atheists for turning to atheism is the realization that their religion had lied to them. As Steve Smith said above, they would abandon their faith "not because of science but because [their] Christianity set [them] up to fail."
Another major detrimental effect of creation science derives from its use as a tool for proselytizing. I have seen many creation/evolution discussions suddenly turn into attempts to convert the "evolutionist" (a classic case was when the creationist's only response to me was Pascal's Wager dressed up as a car-insurance analogy, a form of "after-life insurance"). Orange County creation science activist Bill Morgan had been proselytized through creation science and has announced his dedication to teaching and conducting street proselytizing through creation science. Even the ICR's "public school edition" materials have been found to contain repeated attempts to proselytize the students by presenting a creation science claim followed by an either-or argument and then urging the student to choose between the only two choices: evolution (which they had just "demonstrated" to be false) and the Creator.
Here, creation science delivers a double whammy. First, those converted through creation science will be set up from the start to abandon their new faith once they discover that they had been duped into converting. Second, creation science drives many away from even considering converting to Christianity. I have read several testimonials from people who reject Christianity because they see it as requiring them to "leave their brains at the door." I, for one, could not ever consider converting to a religion that required me to believe something that I know for a fact is false and contrary-to-fact; that is why I left Christianity in the first place. When Ray Baird used ICR "public school edition" materials in his fifth-grade classroom in Livermore, Calif., some of his students took the lessons seriously and chose to become atheists, because they found creationism so ridiculous that if religion required them to believe it, then they didn't want anything to do with religion. Fifth-grade school children having been turned into atheists by creation science! Does the ICR offer special rates on millstones? (Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2)
In many places, the word "creationism" is used to refer to "creation science." Despite inconsistencies of word choice in these pages, I am criticizing "creation science", not creationism per se. I do not oppose creationism per se, but rather the sham that is "creation science."
I started studying the Creation/Evolution issue in 1981. From the mid-80's to 1991, I was actively involved in the on-line discussions in CompuServe's Religion Forum and Science Forum. A good part of what I've linked to this page are from those discussions.
For an explanation of how I had arrived at my current position in the creation/evolution issue, you would want to read why I oppose creation science. It was written about ten years ago and so does not include my more recent discoveries of how creation science destroys faith.
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is an excellent source for information about "creation science" and creationist activity, including local attempts to inject creationism into the classroom or remove evolution. Having grown out of the communications network of the various US states' and Canadian provinces' "Committees of Correspondence" in the early 1980's, the NCSE is widely recognized as the leading organization of its kind.
A web-site that is an excellent source of information of specific "creation science" claims and why they are wrong is the Talk.Origins Archive, which is somehow connected -- I don't know precisely how -- with the talk.origins newsgroup. Just about everything that there is on the subject can be found there, including a list of messages. Includes a search engine.
First uploaded on 1997 June 26.
E-Mail Address: dwise1@aol.com.