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
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
"At least forty major volumes and many hundreds of articles have been
written against creationism just in the past two decades, and more are
"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
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 talk.origins 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
"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
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
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
"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.
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
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
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-
"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
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
4. T. Beardsley, Nature 322:677 (Cited in chapter five; also on
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.)
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
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
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.)
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.)
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
Gish does not indicate what any of these "numerous factual"
errors are, nor does he indicate how Prof. Nelkin's book was
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,
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
5 Attack and Counterattack: The Fossil Record
6 Attack and Counterattack: The Science of Thermodynamics
7 Kitcher Abuses Science
8 Eldredge and His Monkey Business
9 Science Confronts Evolutionists
10 Out of Their Own Mouths
Acts & Facts (1991) "International Creation Conference in
Korea," Acts & Facts 20(10):1-2.
-- (1993a) "ICR Ministry Reaches Every Continent," Acts &
-- (1993b) "Creation Exhibition at Expo-93," Acts & Facts
Dalrymple, G. Brent (1991) The Age of the Earth. Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Eldredge, Niles (1982) The Monkey Business. N.Y.: Washington
Frye, Ronald Mushat (1983) Is God a Creationist? N.Y.:
Gish, Duane T. (1993) Creation Scientists Answer Their
Critics. El Cajon, Calif.: Institute for Creation
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
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.:
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.:
Toumey, Christopher P. (1993) "Orthodoxy and Originality in
Creationist Thought," Creation/Evolution No. 32,
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