The following is a pagebypage critique of Gish's book I started working on during the summ

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

Skeptic Tank!

The following is a page-by-page critique of Gish's book I started working on during the summer but have never completed: Gish Replies to His Critics--Sort Of By Jim Lippard Duane T. Gish, Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, 1993, El Cajon, Calif.: Institute for Creation Research. Duane Gish's most recent book is quite a disappointment. In 451 pages it manages to evade or ignore the most serious criticisms which have been brought against creationism and creationists (against Gish himself in particular) while engaging in distortion and ad hominem. What follows is an examination of Gish's rhetoric and arguments. It is by no means exhaustive--to be exhaustive would require at least as many pages as Gish's book itself, as well as more expertise than I can bring to bear on its content. Foreword (by Henry Morris) p. iv: "There are now thousands of scientists who are creationists, and they come from every field of science." The Creation Research Society has approximately 600 voting members, according to Gish (p. 195). (Numbers (1992, p. 233) reports that there were 200 voting members in 1966 (60 with Ph.Ds) and 412 voting members in 1973.) These are the members of the organization who possess at least a master's degree in a scientific field. The minimal number of scientists required to make Morris' statement true is 2,000, or 1,400 more than the number of scientists who are members of the CRS--in other words, that the scientists in the CRS make up 30% or less of the total number of "scientists who are creationists." One alleged source of a large number of scientists who are creationists is Korea. The August 1993 issue of the ICR's Acts & Facts (1993a) stated that "Probably the most active creationist organization in the world is in Korea, with over a thousand scientists actively promoting creationism there (see Acts & Facts for October 1991)." The same claim has been made publicly on several occasions by Henry Morris (e.g., on the ICR's "Science, Scripture, & Salvation" radio program in July 1993 and in a public lecture in the Washington, D.C. area on July 20, 1993). But examining the referenced October 1991 Acts & Facts article not only fails to support this claim, it contradicts it! This article, which describes an international creation conference held to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Korean Association for Creation Science (KACR), says that the organization "today consists of hundreds of creationist science professors from prestigious universities around Korea." Where does the "over a thousand" figure come from? From an estimate of the conference's attendance: "Over 1,000 attended, perhaps most of them university students from around Korea." If "perhaps most" of the attendees were students, then it stands to reason that the number of "creationist science professors" was 500 or fewer. This is confirmed by the host of the aforementioned "Science, Scripture, & Salvation" radio program, who stated that the number of Korean creation scientists was around 300. If none of these 300 Korean creation scientists are members of the CRS, that brings the total number of creation scientists to 900, leaving 1,100 more necessary to make Morris's statement true. Who are they? "Many of them, like myself, once believed in evolution, but are now convinced, on the basis of abundant scientific evidence, that creationism is a far more credible model of origins than evolution." Henry Morris was born in 1918 (according to the Library of Congress data on the inside front cover of his book, Scientific Creationism). According to Ronald Numbers (1992, p. 193), Morris "had never given much thought to the question of origins, though as a youth he had drifted unthinkingly into evolutionism and religious indifference. A thorough study of the Bible convinced him of its absolute truth and prompted him to reevaluate his belief in evolution. After an intense period of soul-searching, he concluded that creation had taken place in six literal days, because the Bible clearly said so and 'God doesn't lie.'" This took place prior to his marriage in 1940, and apparently after his graduation from the Rice Institute in 1939 with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. After his marriage, he began teaching Sunday school classes and had joined the Gideons to aid in the distribution of Bibles. In 1942 his contact with preacher Irwin A. Moon gave him his first exposure to flood geology and the vapor canopy theory. In 1946, he wrote That You Might Believe, which he believed to be the first book "published since the Scopes trial in which a scientist from a secular university advocated recent special creation and a worldwide flood" (quoted in Numbers 1992, p. 194). By the summer of 1953, Morris was giving a presentation defending flood geology at the annual convention of the American Scientific Affiliation, where he met John C. Whitcomb. The evidence is that Morris never believed in evolution on the basis of his study of the subject, and that his conversion to creationism was a religious one which took place when he was no older than 22 years of age. p. v: "But the creation scientists do have their critics! These critics are very vocal, often very angry and sarcastic. It is not easy for a scientist to be a creationist when the scientific and educational establishments, even including many scientists and educators who profess Christianity, regularly oppose and mock them. Their persistence in spite of this opposition speaks volumes in terms of their strong convictions about the strength of the evidence." Morris's choice of words ("many ... who profess Christianity") suggests that he thinks no true Christian believes in evolution. "Thus to Gould, man is an accident, and to Asimov, God is a joke! (One cannot avoid wondering if Asimov is still laughing.)" Morris suggests, as the ICR's Back to Genesis (Ham, 1992, p. c) did, that Asimov is burning in hell. (The latter went so far as to claim that Asimov now believes creationism is true.) "At least forty major volumes and many hundreds of articles have been written against creationism just in the past two decades, and more are coming! "Creation scientists do have their critics! It is not possible for us even to read--let alone answer--all of their books and articles." It isn't possible to read forty books and a few hundred articles in a twenty-year period? This is an exceedingly lame excuse for the serious omissions in Gish's book. Gish devotes chapters of response to Philip Kitcher (1983), Niles Eldredge (1982), and Laurie R. Godfrey (1983). He quotes from various other anti-creationist books and articles, but in many cases in a rather odd way. For example, his only reference to Chris McGowan's In the Beginning... (1984), a book which is primarily about the fossil record and which strongly criticizes Gish's Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, is in his chapter on thermodynamics (p. 163). Gish makes no attempt to respond to McGowan's criticisms regarding the fossil record. He cites only a single critique published in Creation/Evolution, ignoring countless others which directly address the issues his book discusses (specific examples will be given below). At one point, Gish goes so far as to quote twice from an article by Kenneth Miller without citing it in footnotes (the only place in the book I have found him to do this). He promises that "In a critique later in this book, we will return to a discussion of Miller's attempt to provide answers" (p. 89), but never does. Not the slightest mention is made of Arthur N. Strahler's Science and Earth History (1987), the most exhaustive critique of creationism published to date. Nor does Gish offer any defense of the central tenets of young-earth creationism: a young earth and flood geology. pp. v-vi: "However, their arguments do tend to center on a few major themes. It sometimes seems they are merely copying each other. Anti- creationism seems to have become a profitable mini-career, easier than doing real scientific research on origins--especially when the latter usually turns out in favor of creation!" If anti-creationist arguments center on a few major themes, it is only because the creationist arguments they are responding to do so. And one wonders why Gish's book manages to miss so many of them. As for profit in combating creationism--I know of no one who has a "profitable mini- career" in combating creationism. My own "mini-career" in combating creationism (four articles in Creation/Evolution, several in The Arizona Skeptic, a book review in Skeptic, and regular participation in Usenet's electronic forum) has resulted in a net financial loss--none of them have paid anything at all. If you compare the budgets of the Institute for Creation Research (one of many creationist organizations) and the National Center for Science Education (the only anti-creationist organization), you'll find that the former is in the millions of dollars per year, while the latter is around a couple hundred thousand a year. p. vi: "At any rate, these major criticisms do need to be answered, and no one is better qualified to do this than Duane Gish, the author of this book. 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. And (at least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences) he always wins! "Although he is an excellent speaker, his victories are not because of his debating skills (he never took a course in debating) but because of the evidence. His opponents cannot produce scientific evidence for evolution for the simple reason that there isn't any!" There have been a number of clear defeats for Gish, including his debate with Philip Kitcher in 1985, his debate with Kenneth Saladin in 1988, and his debate with Frank Zindler in 1990. Gish never mentions the latter two of these in his book, and mentions the first only to criticize a slide of mammal-to-reptile transitional forms which Kitcher obtained from Kenneth Miller. I have viewed transcripts or videotapes of five of his debates, including these three. Of those five, I would say that Gish clearly won only one of them (his debate with Russell Doolittle in 1981). Gish is not a particularly good speaker, and there is little variation in his presentations. This consistency was used to great effect by Saladin, who prepared his initial rebuttal in advance, with slides, based on the creationism presentation in his earlier (1984) debate with Gish. As for evidence, Henry Morris is simply uttering a falsehood. He goes on to contradict himself: "Since the debates are normally framed as strictly scientific debates, the evolutionists are at a disadvantage. The best scientific evidence they can offer is a couple of questionable transitional forms, certain morphological or molecular resemblances which they misinterpret as relationships, and minor mutational changes within basic kinds. ... "Most of the anti-creationist books and articles take essentially the same approach. That is, they are anti-creationist more than pro- evolutionist. Most of them repeat the same anti-creationist polemics that others have used, making the same unwarranted assertions, again and again." This is a textbook case of projection, coming from a defender of a nonexistent theory who continues to reissue his book Scientific Creationism with the same refuted arguments for a young earth and flood geology. What is the scientific evidence for creation, as opposed to evidence against evolution, Dr. Morris? "His arguments are easily followed, clear, and very convincing." Two out of three ain't bad. Easily followed, clear, and clearly flawed. p. vii: "In this book, however, he has tried to concentrate on defending the fact of creation rather than the date of creation. These are two separate issues as far as the scientific evidence is concerned. He correctly emphasizes that, regardless of when creation took place, the evidence that it did take place is very powerful. The recent date of creation also can be convincingly demonstrated scientifically, but that would require another book." Unfortunately, that is a book which will never be written. (Its old-age counterpart, on the other hand, has been written--G. Brent Dalrymple's 1991 book, The Age of the Earth.) "Finally, I would like to comment concerning Dr. Gish himself. I have known him not only as a creationist colleague, but as a personal friend for 30 years. He is a man of high integrity, sincere compassion, consistent good humor and deep dedication to truth. 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." It is difficult for anyone who has examined Gish's writings to avoid coming to the opposite conclusion: as I will show, he regularly engages in distortion and evasion, as well as numerous ad hominems of his own. Introduction pp. ix-x: "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 creation 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. As part of their campaign to mute the creation scientists, they poured forth an avalanche of journal articles and books attacking creation scientists and creation science. For the most part, these attacks have been vicious, with creation scientists being accused of all sorts of perfidy, distortion, dishonesty, and poor science. Evolution theory and evolutionists have suffered severely as a result of exposure by creation scientists, and it shows." Publication of journal articles and books criticizing creationism is no more an attempt "to mute the creation scientists" than the creationists' own publications are an attempt to "mute" evolution. The vast majority of critics of creationism are attempting to correct erroneous statements by creationists, not to silence them. As for the charges made by critics of creationism, if the shoe fits.... 1 Creation Scientists Challenge the Dogma of Evolution p. 12: "Having gained a considerable propaganda victory from the Scopes Trial, evolutionists became very smug ..." p. 13: "...evolutionists were extremely confident. Never in the history of science had a notion gripped its practitioners so firmly. The dogma of evolution reigned supreme. "The voices of scientific reason were not altogether silent during these years, of course. Henry Morris ... 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. Few of these voices were heard, however, and they were almost entirely ignored by the establishment." p. 16: "Two other events challenged the arrogant smugness of evolutionists and let them know a war was on." p. 19: "Evolutionists have reacted vigorously, even viciously, to these threats to their monopolistic control of science and education. They apparently are determined to use whatever means they feel are necessary to blunt and eventually to destroy the efforts of creation scientists to make known the empty rhetoric that makes up evolutionary stories and the nature of the scientific evidence that supports creation." "One tactic commonly employed by evolutionists is to viciously attack the intellectual honesty and scientific integrity of creation scientists. Creation 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." In this chapter, Gish presents a highly biased and inflammatory history of the twentieth century creationism. Those who support evolution are "arrogant," "smug," "vicious," and completely in the grip of dogma, while creationists are "the voices of scientific reason," taking part in a "renaissance," and promoting an "open, free, and thorough scientific challenge to evolutionary theory." pp. 17-18: "Literally thousands of scientists throughout the world are professing creationists, while the number of those who accept creation but choose to keep silent for fear of loss of position or promotion cannot be estimated, although it must be considerable." The "thousands of scientists" claim is repeated, again without support. If it is legitimate for Gish to appeal here to scientists who accept creation but choose to remain silent, it is also legitimate for critics of creationism to appeal to the multitudes of churchgoers who reject creationism (Frye 1983; Toumey 1993). pp. 18-19: "More than anything, evolutionists fear an open, free, and thorough scientific challenge to evolutionary theory in the public schools. 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 creation scientists. With their tight control of scientific journals and with the humanistic materialist philosophy that dominates the mass media, they feel secure in those areas." Gish suggests that creationists are being censored by scientific journals, but the only studies of creationist submissions to scientific journals found that they haven't even been trying (Scott and Cole 1985; Lewin 1985; also see Numbers 1992, pp. 92-94). Creationists have been challenged to produce their evidence--if they are being unfairly rejected by scientific journals, they should have the rejection slips to prove it--but have failed to do so. Gish also states that the media is dominated by "the humanistic materialist philosophy," without any evidence. While it is clear that the media is not usually favorable to fundamentalist Christianity (with some notable exceptions such as CBS's atrocious "Ancient Secrets of the Bible" and related pseudo-documentaries), it is hardly a purveyor of atheism, humanism, or materialism (in the philosophical sense). On the contrary, such views get even less media coverage than fundamentalist Christianity. (See Kinsley 1993.) 2 Evolutionists Mount a Counterattack p. 21: "Educators became alarmed by the effects on students of the lectures, seminars, and debates involving creation scientists, as evidenced by the essays and classroom questions and challenges supporting creation. Especially disturbing to evolutionists were the many appearances by creation scientists on TV and radio, the numerous books and other literature pouring forth from creation scientists, particularly from those on the staff of the Institute for Creation Research, and the equal emphasis laws passed by overwhelming majorities in the state legislatures in Arkansas and Louisiana, and similar efforts in other states. Evolutionists began to organize their forces for a counterattack. The opening salvo was a Manifesto issued by the American Humanist Association in 1977. The AHA is the leading atheist organization in the U.S." pp. 22-23: "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 creation scientists and to help and advise evolutionists in their anti- creationist cause. "It was also about this time that a quarterly journal began publication, the sole purpose of which was to defend evolution theory and to attack creation science in general, and to attempt to personally discredit creation scientists. The journal, Creation/Evolution, was founded by and is still edited by Fred Edwords, a philosopher who was then president of the San Diego Humanist Society and is now an Administrator of the American Humanist Association. Edwords has aspired to leadership in the anti-creationist crusade and has debated the author on several occasions, as well as other creation scientists." This chapter of the book is an extremely biased history of the reaction to twentieth-century creationism, emphasizing the alleged atheism and anti-Christian nature of critics of creationism. Gish ignores the Christian critics of creationism such as the American Scientific Affiliation (P.O. Box 668, Ipswich, MA 01938-9980), the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute (P.O. Box 423, Hatfield, PA 19440-0423), and Hugh Ross's Reasons to Believe Institute (P.O. Box 5978, Pasadena, CA 91117). Gish's information about Creation/Evolution is out-of- date. Since 1991--two years before Gish's book came out-- Creation/Evolution has been edited by anthropologist John Cole and published by the National Center for Science Education, which obtained ownership of the journal from the American Humanist Association. This is hardly the only out- of-date information in Gish's book--it appears that Gish has done virtually no research of the scientific literature since 1985, when he revised Evolution: The Fossils Say No! into Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record. The most recent references in the book are two 1993 references (to Natural History and The Humanist) in Morris's foreword and a 1992 reference (to the Omaha, Nebraska Sunday World-Herald) in Gish's last chapter (a collection of quotations from non- creationists criticizing various aspects of evolution). The next most recent reference is a listing for Wendell R. Bird's 1989 The Origin of the Species Revisited on p. 443 of Gish's bibliography; no reference to that book appears in the main text. The following is a summary of the citations in Gish's end-of-chapter reference lists (excluding the appendices). (A similar summary for Strahler's (1987) bibliography is included for comparison.) Gish (1993) Strahler (1987) pre-1950: 11 (3%) pre-1950: 48 (7%) 1950-1959: 20 (5%) 1950-1959: 32 (4%) 1960-1969: 63 (15%) 1960-1969: 86 (12%) 1970-1979: 122 (29%) 1970-1979: 227 (31%) 1980-1985: 177 (41%) 1980-1987: 328 (45%) post-1985: 26 (6%) no date: 9 (2%) no date: 1 (0.1 %) total: 428 total: 722 Of the post-1985 references which appear in the main text of Gish's book, nine come from Gish's last chapter, a collection of quotations from various "evolutionists"--most of which are criticisms of particular aspects of Darwinism or theories of abiogenesis rather than of evolution per se. The remaining 17 are: 1986 1. D.R. Brooks and E.O. Wiley, Evolution as Entropy, 2nd edition, Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. Gish's previous reference is to Roger Lewin's 1982 review of the first edition in the journal Science, and it is apparent that Gish has not read the book. (Cited in chapter three. No references to this book appear in chapter six on thermodynamics, where it would be most appropriate. Gish quotes them to the effect that natural selection is not the major force in macroevolution.) 2. Kenneth Hsu, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 56(5):729-730. (Cited in chapter three; Gish quotes Hsu criticizing Darwinism and its alleged neglect of the fossil record.) 3. S. Weisburd, Science News, August 16, 1986, p. 103. (Cited in chapter five; an article about Protoavis which Gish cites as evidence against Archaeopteryx being a reptile-to-bird transitional form.) 4. T. Beardsley, Nature 322:677 (Cited in chapter five; also on Protoavis.) 5-7. Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, N.Y.: Bantam. (Gish cites this three times; twice in chapter six and once in chapter seven.) 8. Christian Schwabe, Trends in Biochemical Sciences (July). (Cited in chapter nine; no volume or page numbers are given. Schwabe argues for multiple origins of life on earth.) 9. Roger Lewin, Science 234:1500. (Cited in chapter nine; about problems of taxonomy.) 10. Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History 95:27 (October). (Cited in chapter nine; according to Gish it speculates that there may be a directive force in DNA.) 1987 11. Roger Lewin, Science 236:1061. (Cited in chapter five; regarding the OH62 hominid discovered by Donald Johanson, which Gish claims is an "out-of-order" fossil.) 12. Donald C. Johanson et al., Nature 327:205. (Cited in chapter five; also about OH62.) 13. Stephen Jay Gould, Discover (January), p. 64. (Cited in chapter five; regarding Gish's dispute with Gould about what Richard Goldschmidt said.) 14. A.E. Wilder-Smith, The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory: Information Sources and Structures, TWFT Publishers, Costa Mesa, Calif. (Cited in chapter six; a creationist work.) 15. S¿ren L¿vtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, N.Y.: Croom Helm. (Cited in chapter nine; a criticism of Darwinism of which no details are discussed by Gish.) 1988 16. Hannes Alfven, American Scientist 76(3):251. (Cited in chapter eight; Alfven is simply quoted saying that his papers are rarely accepted by leading U.S. science journals.) 1989 17. J.D. Kallmeyer, The Christian Connection (December). (Cited in chapter six; reprints a 1982 article by John W. Patterson criticizing creationist thermodynamics arguments.) So what has Gish been doing for the last eight years? Apparently not doing research for this book. 45% of Strahler's references are to sources published in the eight years immediately preceding his book's publication, compared to only 6% of Gish's. pp. 24-25: "The first book published against creation science, Science Textbook Controversies and the Politics of Equal Time, was authored by Dorothy Nelkin. ... Unfortunately, her book contained numerous factual errors, and failed to give a fair appraisal of ICR and of creation science." Gish does not indicate what any of these "numerous factual" errors are, nor does he indicate how Prof. Nelkin's book was unfair. p. 25: "It would be nearly impossible to critique every critical book written by evolutionists against creation science, or to answer in great detail each of their arguments." A comparison of Gish's book to Arthur Strahler's (1987) book demonstrates the disingenuousness of this statement. Somehow Strahler managed to respond to a much larger set of arguments and publications in a book only slightly longer than Gish's (552 pages, as compared to Gish's 451 pages--though Strahler's pages are much larger and much denser with type), citing a wide variety of creationist literature (including periodicals such as the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Ex Nihilo, and Impact). Gish, on the other hand, manages to ignore most of the content of anti-creationist works, even though there is a significantly smaller number of them. 3 Creation, Evolution, Science, and Religion p. 28: "Before we examine the scientific status of creation and evolution, let us consider the religious nature of evolution. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a French priest whose real faith was evolution, stated that ..." p. 29: "A pamphlet from the Humanist Society explains that ..." " Later, it quotes the late British biologist, atheist, and evolutionist, Sir Julian Huxley, who stated that ..." "We thus see that humanism is a non-theistic religion, with evolution as one of its fundamental dogmas." "Richard Lewontin, a Marxist atheist who is a professor of biology at Harvard University, has said that ..." Gish continues to present evolution as inherently atheistic and anti-Christian. He also appears to be arguing that it is religious because humanism is a religion and evolution is a tenet of humanism. This is faulty reasoning: assuming that humanism is a religion, the mere fact that it endorses belief in evolution does not make evolution religious. Various humanist documents have also endorsed such things as public education and civil rights, but that doesn't make those things religious either. pp. 35-36: Gish's Popper discussion brings up the New Scientist article, as usual, but ignores Popper's Dialectica article and Sonleitner's C/E article, despite the fact that Saladin specifically brought it up in his 1988 debate (see p. 76 of the transcript). Note also the footnote re Popper in Zindler and Zindler (1990, p. 5). (Darwinism, or natural selection, or evolution?) Also see Strahler on this subject. p. 37: re: Birch and Ehrlich, see Zindler and Zindler (1990, pp. 4-5). p. 62: Gish cites Brooks and Wiley, but ignores them when it comes to thermodynamics. 4 Scientific Integrity p. 89: Gish quotes Miller, but does not cite the reference. He promises to "return to a discussion of Miller's attempt to provide answers," but never does. Boule quotation: Ritchie, Response to Deception, maybe Gish's letter to me, Zindler and Zindler (1990, p. 24) (this latter has Gish saying "I deleted because I quoted a secondary source...") 5 Attack and Counterattack: The Fossil Record bleah 6 Attack and Counterattack: The Science of Thermodynamics bleah 7 Kitcher Abuses Science bleah 8 Eldredge and His Monkey Business bleah 9 Science Confronts Evolutionists bleah 10 Out of Their Own Mouths bleah References Acts & Facts (1991) "International Creation Conference in Korea," Acts & Facts 20(10):1-2. -- (1993a) "ICR Ministry Reaches Every Continent," Acts & Facts 22(8):2. -- (1993b) "Creation Exhibition at Expo-93," Acts & Facts 22(9):1-2. Dalrymple, G. Brent (1991) The Age of the Earth. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Eldredge, Niles (1982) The Monkey Business. N.Y.: Washington Square Press. Frye, Ronald Mushat (1983) Is God a Creationist? N.Y.: Scribner's. Gish, Duane T. (1993) Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics. El Cajon, Calif.: Institute for Creation Research. Godfrey, Laurie R., editor (1983) Scientists Confront Creationism. N.Y.: W.W. Norton and Co. Ham, Ken (1992) "Asimov Meets His Creator," Back to Genesis No. 42 (June):a-c. Kinsley, Michael (1993) "TRB from Washington: Martyr Complex," The New Republic 209(11, #4104, September 13):4. Lewin, Roger (1985) "Evidence for Scientific Creationism?" Science 228(17 May):837. Kitcher, Philip (1983) Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. McGowan, Chris (1984) In the Beginning...: A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists Are Wrong. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. Montagu, Ashley, editor (1984) Science and Creationism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Morris, Henry M. (1985) Scientific Creationism. 2nd edition. El Cajon, Calif.: Master Books. Numbers, Ronald L. (1992) The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf. Saladin, Kenneth S. (1988) Evolution vs. Creationism: The Saladin-Gish Debate II. Transcript of May 10, 1988 debate at Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. Available from the National Center for Science Education. 91pp. Scott, Eugenie C. and Cole, Henry P. (1985) "The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation 'Science,'" Quarterly Review of Biology 60(March):21-30. Strahler, Arthur N. (1987) Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. Toumey, Christopher P. (1993) "Orthodoxy and Originality in Creationist Thought," Creation/Evolution No. 32, 13(1):32-41. Zindler, Ann and Zindler, Frank (1990) Is Creationism Science? A Debate Between Duane Gish & Frank Zindler. Transcript of January 11, 1990 debate on WTVN 610-AM radio, Columbus, Ohio. Available from the National Center for Science Education. 39pp. Jim Lippard Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank