By: Elliott Finesse Re: Top Creationist Lies Part 1: The head of the Creation Science Rese

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

Skeptic Tank!

By: Elliott Finesse Re: Top Creationist Lies Part 1: The head of the Creation Science Research Center falsifies his college degrees. Dr. Kelly Segraves, Director of the CSRC (Creation Science Research Center), listed himself as M.A. and D.Sc. on the 1975 CSRC letterhead. After having it called into question, Segraves dropped the D.Sc. in 1981 and now lists "D.R.E." in its place. Segraves has claimed that his D.Sc. is honorary from "Christian University", yet a computer search indicated that the only university with that name is located in Jakarta, Indonesia. Segraves claims to have received his M.A. from Sequoia University in 1972 but there is no such place. The closest name match is a Sequoia College in California, which only offers two year associate degrees and has no record of any student named Kelly Segraves. Note that "D.R.E." is a doctorate of religious education and does not qualify as a scientific degree. Top Creationist Lies pt2 The following letter, dated July 5, 1984, was sent to H. M. Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, by John W. Patterson (Ames, IA) and Robert J. Schadewald (Fridley, MN). To our knowledge, there has been no reply. Dear Dr. Morris: As long time creationist-watchers, we try to keep up with trends in creationism. We have become aware of what might be a new ICR doctrine, and we're seeking confirmation. The story actually begins more than two years ago. In the spring of 1982, Duane Gish appeared on a PBS television program about creationism and evolution. During the program, biochemist Russell Doolittle spoke at length about the marked similarity of human proteins to the corresponding chimpanzee proteins, giving several specific example. In reply, Gish said the following: If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to the chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find* that man is more closely relate to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee. We have been trying for two years to get Gish to document these assertions. He has repeatedly insisted that the proteins he* spoke of exist and promised to send references. We have seen some spectacular display of tap-dancing, but no documentation. (Gish did cite a remark by radiochronologist Garniss Curtis, but Curtis was apparently talking about something else.) Since neither Gish nor anyone else can provide the sequences of the chicken and bullfrog proteins Gish claims are closer to human proteins than the corresponding chimpanzee proteins, we concluded that Gish lied on national television. We stated and documented this conclusion in a letter published in _Origins Research_ (copy enclosed). At the recent 1984 National Bible-Science Conference in Cleveland, we again approached Gish and asked for references. Except for the irrelevant reference to Garniss Curtis's statement, he had none. After nearly two years of promising to provide references, he reversed himself and said he would NOT provide them. Furthermore, he argued that is not his responsibility to provide them. Asked whose responsibility it is, Gish claimed it is up to Garniss Curtis and us! We have long been conscious of the numerous substantial differences between creationism and science, but this is new to us. Scientists (and science writers) take full responsibility for their public statements. Gish apparently rejects this responsibility. Was he speaking for himself in this matter, or is this doctrine of non-responsibility an official ICR policy? If so, we suggest that ICR speakers should level with the public and preface their presentations with the following disclaimer: "I am not responsible for the truth or accuracy of any statement I make." Top Creationist Lies pt3 John Morris (an officer and a "full professor of geology" at the Institute for Creation Research) believes humans and dinosaurs once coexisted, and that dragons were in fact dinosaurs. During a debate on the television show "AM Indiana" Morris stated that "Alexander the Great has a very sober history of an encounter with a dragon, and most of the historians of the day list dragons as if they were real." Unfortunately for Morris, no writings of Alexander have survived. The historians Plutarch and Arrian quote from alleged letters of Alexander, but the letters do not tell of any meeting with a dragon. Morris was then asked for details about the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks which, in his book "The Ark on Ararat", he had (falsely) claimed had been found near the top of Mt. Ararat, and were proof that this volcanic peak had once been under water. To his opponent's great astonishment, Morris denied that he had ever written such a thing: "I have never said that those fossils were on top of Mt. Ararat. Those fossils are IN SIGHT OF Mt. Ararat." I reported that in 1969 a glaciologist claimed he found a fossil layer about the 14,000-foot level. The fossil layers that I'VE studied are some ten miles away." Morris's denial was false. On pages 10 and 11 of "The Ark on Ararat" -- written by Morris and the preacher Tim LaHaye, and issued in 1976 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. -- we find: A great deal of evidence exists indicating that not only was Mt. Ararat once covered by water, but it even erupted while submerged under great depths of water. In common with many mountains around the world, Mt. Ararat exhibits fossil-bearing strata. Sedimentary rock (by definition laid down by flood [sic] waters) containing the fossilized remains of ocean creatures has been found as high as the snow line, approximately a 14,000-foot elevation. Furthermore, on the exposed northeastern face, layers of lava are intermingled with layers of sediments. When confronted with the passage, Morris replied that the discovery was the work of the creationist Clifford Burdick and had been described in the "Creation Research Society Quarterly." According to Morris, Burdick: "Conducted a rather extensive geologic survey over the space of several summers. He not only has written that he discovered fossil-bearing strata, on the west flank of Mt. Ararat, but he has told me so personally. . . . The discovery was included not only in Burdick's CRSQ articles, but also in the official report by the Archaeological Research Foundation to the Turkish Government, resulting from their expeditions in the 1960's." However, no where in Burdick's article: "Ararat -- the Mother of Mountains," (which had appeared not in the "Creation Research Society Quarterly" but in the Society's "1967 Annual") did the author claim that there were fossiliferous, sedimentary layers on Mt. Ararat. He simply gave a list of fossils found in 1845, by one H. Abich, in sedimentary rocks that were at least ten miles from Ararat. By: Elliott Finesse Re: Creation Science Sez: "The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology". -- Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1972), p.9 "The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is the actual historical truth, _regardless of any scientific or chronologic problems thereby entailed._" Ibid p.82 "The main trouble with [Biblical] catastrophist theories is that there is no way of subjecting them to empirical test....There seems to be no restraint on imagination or speculation when catastrophism is espoused, and this is one reason why it has been in such poor repute for over a hundred years ... We cannot verify it experimentally, of course, any more than any of the various other theories of catastrophism [e.g. Velikovsky], but we do not need experimental verification; God has recorded it in His word, and that should be sufficient." -- Henry M. Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (Nutley, N.J.: Craig Press, 1970), p.30 ------------- The minisymposium on variable constants published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) 26(4), 27(1,2,3) is an illuminating example of doing creation science. Byl (1990) (CRSQ) 27(2):68-71 Sept. points out that there are a half dozen or so mutually exclusive explanations as to how we can observe stars and galaxies that are more than ten thousand light years away. In such a situation, "conventional" scientist would try to test all the proposed explanations, attempting to discover which one ( if any ) is "correct." Byl feels this approach is dangerous: "Caution must be taken to avoid falling into a trap of justifying faith in the Bible on this basis of our ability to provide 'scientific explanations' of Biblical events. Better six sketches of possibilities than one detailed theory upon which to much trust is placed." Yeah, careful! You don't want to get shot down by someone with Satanic, godless facts! --- TIMM 1.0.2 - The Ideal Mac Mailreader. * Origin: Hayward, CA//510-786-6560//28800 (1:215/130)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank