Author: Brett Vickers ( Title: Creation Research Society Creed Is cre

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

=============================================================================== Author: Brett Vickers ( Title: Creation Research Society Creed =============================================================================== Is creationism science? It has been debated many times before on (and in the courts), but just so there is no confusion, I think the question should be addressed once again. The Creation Research Society, established to promote and fund "scientific" creation research, has a journal called the Creation Research Society Quarterly. It is the one of the only journals (that I know of) where creationists are able or have even tried to publish their work. On its board of directors are prominent creationists such as Duane Gish, Henry and John Morris, Thomas Barnes, and Harold Slusher. The society and journal require that all members ascribe to the following statement of belief. Statement of Belief: Members of the Creation Research Society, which include research scientists representing various fields of successful scientific accomplishment, are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history, and thus to a concept of dynamic special creation (as opposed to evolution), both of the universe and the earth with its complexity of living forms. We propose to re-evaluate science from this viewpoint, and since 1964 have published a quarterly of research articles in this field. In 1970 the Society published a textbook, _Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity_, through Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506. Subsequently a Teachers' Guide and both Teachers' and Students' Laboratory Manuals have been published by Zondervan Publishing House. All members of the Society subscribe to the following statement of belief: 1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. 2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds. 3. The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect. 4. We are an organization of Christian men of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Saviour for all mankind. Therefore, salv- ation can only come through accepting Jesus Christ as our Saviour. Note first of all that members are required to have a "statement of belief." To my knowledge, no major scientific journal in any discipline requires its submissions be accompanied by a statement of belief. Such a practice is clearly anathema to the practice of science. The scientific method, as it is usually described, is a method in which a hypothesis is put forward, evidence is gathered to test the hypothesis, and the hypothesis is modified or discarded if the evidence disagrees with it. If continuous trials and evidence support the hypothesis, it may become accepted by the community of scientists as a viable theory. The statement of belief above requires members to begin with a viable theory -- no, a fixed-in-stone conclusion (theories can be modified or thrown out) -- and perform the evidence gathering afterwards. By the same token, creationists ascribing to such statements of belief are not allowed to alter their "theories" or "conclusions" if evidence should contradict them. The creationists have turned the scientific method on its head for the most part, and have decided to ignore the parts they did not invert. Surprisingly, these creationists do not discard the scientific method surreptitiously; they are extremely blunt about the fact that they have no respect or need for the practice of science as it has existed for the past several hundreds of years. The first line of the second paragraph reads, "We propose to re-evaluate science." The ultimate goal of "creation scientists" is not to have creationism accepted as science; it is to have science accepted as creationism. They would like to "re-evaluate" science, since creationism does not and cannot play by its rules. Do not ever let a creationist tell you he or she is doing science; remind him or her of how it is cavalierly tossed aside by the top proponents of creationism. Points 1 through 3 of the statement of belief further reinforce the non-scientific standing of creationism as it is accepted by the CRS, ICR, Gish, Morris, et al. These points require creationists to accept a conclusion without scientific evidence and to discard any evidence which might oppose such a conclusion. They are also heavily inspired by religion and theology (if that is not obvious). Science and religion are like apples and oranges; science does not attempt to explain super- or para-natural phenomena, while religion does. Likewise, religion does not attempt to explain natural or physical phenomena, while science does. The creation scientists would like to muddy the waters and have the supernatural explain the natural. Science will not tolerate this. Point 4 makes the religious thrust of scientific creationism extremely obvious, if points 1 through 3 did not. No one does a better job than the creationists at explaining why creationism should not be considered science. So, the answer to the title question is a resounding no.


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank