Author: Brett Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu) Title: Creation Research Society Creed The Cr

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

Skeptic Tank!

=============================================================================== Author: Brett Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu) Title: Creation Research Society Creed =============================================================================== The Creation Research Society, established to promote and fund "scientific" creation research, has a journal called the Creation Research Society Quarterly. It is 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 adhere 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 journal in any scientific discipline requires its submissions be accompanied by a statement of belief. Such a practice is clearly anathema to the practice of science. As science is typically practiced, 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. On the other hand, statements of belief require adherents 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. Persons ascribing to such statements of belief are not supposed (or allowed) to alter their "theories" or "conclusions" if evidence should contradict them. By adopting a statement of belief, the creationists have turned the practice of science on its head. Surprisingly, these creationists do not attack accepted practices of science 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 last few centuries. 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 their results do not and cannot possibly match the results good science is garnering. Points 1 through 3 of the statement further reinforce the poor scientific standing of creationism as it is expounded by the CRS, ICR, Gish, Morris, et al. These points require creationist to accept a preordained conclusion without any scientific evidence and to disregard any evidence that might oppose such a conclusion. Note that religion and theology play a central role in these points. The creation scientists would like to muddy the waters by intermingling science and theology. 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 good science. I believe that creeds such as these breed poor science. One need only study the quality of the results that creationists produce to see that creationists have a long way to go before they reach the acceptance of mainstream scientists. Unfortunately for the creationists, the dishonest means by which they either advance their arguments or attempt to discredit opposing arguments will not advance them very far along that path. Creationism will remain poor science until its adherents give up constraining creeds like this one.

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank