the tip of the iceberg

quote:

---

How to Evaluate Young-Earth Creationist Literature

​

These are my personal opinions as a geologist and a Christian. As a Christian in the sciences, I have read many articles and books written by young-earth creationists (those Christians who believe in a divinely-created Earth in six 24-hour days some 6,000 years ago) and have been deeply disturbed by what I perceive to be extremely poor-quality (and sometimes outright deceptive) arguments presented by fellow Christians. Creationist material, while sometimes masquerading as science, often fails to meet even the most basic requirements of scientific literature. The following are some questions to keep in mind when evaluating books or articles written by young-earth creationists...

​

• Who wrote it and what are their credentials?
  ​
  I have a pamphlet called Creation or Evolution? written by a fellow named Winkie Pratney. The tract is published by Last Days Ministries in Lindale, Texas and Pratney is described as a well-known evangelist, author, festival and conference speaker. No scientific credentials are given even though Pratney considers most of modern biology, geology, and astronomy to be in error. One wonders why anyone should believe his claims since he presents no evidence of having studied science. To put it another way, who is a better judge of the validity of modern science, the people who hold Ph.D. degrees in the relevant fields or a "well-known evangelist" who presents no evidence of even understanding the basics of what he criticizes? Some young-earth creationists have also been known to flaunt questionable credentials.
  ​
• Where are you reading it?
  ​
  Are you reading a paper in a scientific journal, an article in a popular magazine, a book, or a pamphlet? It makes a difference. Papers in scientific journals are peer-reviewed before publication by other scientists in an attempt to weed out bad science (some journals have very stringent publication guidelines and often reject papers showing evidence of poor research). There are, however, no such guidelines for the many books and pamphlets criticizing evolution. If you want to learn about what scientists are saying about evolution, even if you don't believe in it, you have to read the scientific literature. It's not enough to only read a few popular books from the Institute for Creation Research or the Creation Research Society.
  ​
• Are statements backed up by references?
  ​
  Consider the following statement from the Institute for Creation Research's Impact series entitled "No. 137 - Ten Misconceptions About the Geologic Column" by Steven A. Austin (1984):

  ​

  Hundreds of locations are known where the order of the systems identified by geologists does not match the order of the geologic column. Strata systems are believed in some places to be inverted, repeated, or
  inserted where they do not belong. Overturning, overthrust faulting, or landsliding are frequently maintained as disrupting the order. In some locations such structural changes can be supported by physical evidence, while elsewhere physical evidence for the disruption may be lacking and special pleading may be required using fossils or radiometric dating.

  ​

  Austin made several sweeping statements here but there are no references given and there is no further elaboration. This makes it very difficult to investigate the claims in order to assess their validity. If Austin, who has a Ph.D. in geology, wishes to be taken seriously, he should identify at least some of the "Hundreds of locations" and his statements should be supported by references to the scientific literature. Scientists tend to be skeptical of unsupported claims.
  ​
• How old are the references?
  ​
  Science changes. Creationists have been known to list references which are now useless because they've become outdated due to more recent experiments, discoveries, or improvements in technology. For example, Henry Morris in his book Scientific Creationism (1974) wrote:

  ​

  It is known that there is essentially a constant rate of cosmic dust particles entering the earth's atmosphere from space and then gradually settling to the earth's surface. The best measurements of this influx have been made by Hans Pettersson who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year. This amounts to 14 x 10^19 pounds in 5 billion years. If we assume the density of compacted dust is, say, 140 pounds per cubic foot, this corresponds to a volume of 10^18 cubic feet. Since the earth has a surface area of approximately 5.5 x 10^15 square feet this seems to mean that there should have accumulated during the 5-billion-year age of the earth, a layer of meteoric dust approximately 182 feet thick all over the world!

  ​

  If true, this certainly seems damaging to the idea of an old earth. Let's examine it more closely. The reference Morris is referring to is a Scientific American article published in 1959 by Hans Pettersson entitled "Cosmic spherules and meteoric dust." Pettersson measured dust particles in the atmosphere on top of some mountains in Hawaii in order to estimate their rate of influx from outer space. The problem, which Pettersson was well aware of, was that such measurements have high error bars because of terrestrial contamination. Later measurements, made from orbiting satellites, found that the rate of influx was actually orders of magnitude less than that estimated by Pettersson. Morris apparently ignored this more recent data (it was available to him in 1974 if he only looked) in favor of older, out-of-date information.
  ​
• Are references given to the primary literature?
  ​
  The book The Truth: God or Evolution by Marshall and Sandra Hall (1974) includes references in their bibliography to articles in Reader's Digest, Time, Saturday Review, Life, Columbia Encyclopedia, Miami Herald, Scientific American, and U.S. News & World Report. These are all fine publications but they're not the type of publications one cites to defend a scientific argument.
  ​
• Would it be worthwhile to check the references?
  ​
  If claims are made which sound suprising or unusual, they should be investigated. Examine the following quotation from Evolution, The Fossils Say No by Duane T. Gish (1978):

  ​

  What do we find in rocks older than the Cambrian? Not a single, indisputable, multicellular fossil has ever been found in Precambrian rocks! Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction that the evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian fauna, if they ever existed, have never been found.

  ​

  Is this true? It would seem that paleontologists would have a lot of explaining to do if multicellular life suddenly and spontaneously arose at the beginning of the Cambrian Period. Consider the following two papers published ten years earlier than Gish's book:

  ​

  • Anderson, M. M. & Misra, S. B. 1968. Fossils found in the Pre-Cambrian Conception Group of South-eastern Newfoundland. Nature 220,681-681.
    ​
  • Glaessner, M. F. & Ward, M. 1966. The late Precambrian fossils from Ediacara, South Australia. Paleontology 9, 599-628.

  ​

  Anderson and Misra's paper, published in the prestigious journal Nature, discusses the discovery of metazoan fossils in the late Precambrian rocks of Newfoundland. Glaessner and Ward's paper, published in a leading journal of paleontology, discusses late Precambrian invertebrate fossils (several phyla) from the famous Ediacara locality in Australia (the fossils from which are featured in virtually all paleontology textbooks).

  ​

  These are only two of many examples from well-known scientific journals that Gish should have consulted in performing research for the book. His statement is completely false and reflects either outright dishonesty or extremely sloppy research. It's certainly not good science.

​

Summary

​

In science, skepticism is a virtue. If the claims of young-earth creationists are true, virtually all of modern science is grossly in error. If you want to overturn all of science, you had better have extremely compelling evidence. I have found, in my own personal experience, that when many creationist claims are critically examined they completely fall apart.

---