There are many evolutionists who evaluate scientific data objectively, even in relation to the controversial subject of origins, and are, therefore, willing to allow both models of origins (creation and evolution) to compete freely in the marketplace of ideas.
There are many others who are not merely evolutionists but are anti-creationists, dedicated at all costs to discrediting the creation movement. Unfortunately such attempts often include a very careless handling of facts.
In this article, we have listed a number of these false charges, with brief answers to them.
(1) CHARGE: "The anti-evolutionists have been successful, (William G. Mayer) explains, because they now use a Madison Avenue approach and employ full-time staff while there is not one scientist who is funded to devote full-time to espousing evolutionary theory." (Science News, Jan. 10, 198 1, p. 19)
FACT: There is to our knowledge no one who devotes full time to espousing creationism. The ICR has a staff of ten part-time scientists, each of whom has many other duties besides speaking on creation. On the other hand, large numbers of scientists on university faculties spend far more time on evolutionist research and teaching than anything creationists can afford. Creationism is anything but "well-funded" as Mayer charges, having no access to government funding as Dr. Mayer did, when his B.S.C.S. organization expended almost $20,000,000 of federal funds in developing its evolution-based biology textbook series.
(2) CHARGE: "The creationist model does not have the same kind of scientific validity as the theory of evolution. This is not to say that it cannot be a true account of the origin of life. It could be." (Today's Education, Apr-May 1981, p. 58G)
FACT: The evolutionist's definition of "scientific" is "mechanistic" or "naturalistic," but this is misleading. Science means knowledge, and the essence of the scientific method is observation and repeatability.
Evolution is not "scientific" since macro-evolution is neither observable nor repeatable. Evolutionists admit creation may be "true," so it is appropriate—indeed essential—to include it in the educational process if teachers sincerely desire their students to search for truth, as they claim.
(3) CHARGE: " … creationists tend to be masters of the partial quote." (Next, Mar.-Apr. 1981, p. 68)
FACT: The author cited two alleged out-of-context quotations by creationists, one by Dr. Gary Parker supposedly intimating that Dr. Stephen Gould was "championing creationism," the other by this writer supposedly claiming that two evolutionary geologists had agreed that the strata of the great Lewis "overthrust" were all flat and undisturbed. The fact is that we are always careful not to quote out of context. Such quotations have to be brief, for reasons of space, and so cannot give the full scope of the author's thoughts on the subject, but they do not misrepresent their nature and significance. Out of the many thousands of such references that are included in our writings, critics have to search diligently to find even a handful that they can interpret as misleading. Even in the two that were cited, a careful reading of the full context in each case will demonstrate that the reporter was himself guilty of distortion. Dr. Parker made it quite clear that Dr. Gould is a committed evolutionist (in spite of his arguments against certain Darwinian tenets). In the Lewis overthrust discussion, there was ample mention of the physical evidences of disturbances, and the quote (actually appearing only in a minor footnote) certainly did not affect the evidence developed in the particular section against "overthrust" explanation. In no way did it misrepresent the beliefs of the authors quoted.
(4) CHARGE: "(Creationists) have shown a certain genius for couching their arguments in scientific terms ... But their viewpoint remains dogmatically fundamentalist and profoundly anti-scientific." (The Sciences, Apr. 1981, p. 18)
FACT: Whether or not the scientific creation model is compatible with the Biblical record is irrelevant to the question of whether the actual scientific data fit the model. Most creationist scientists do believe that the tenets of Biblical creationism are compatible with the tenets of scientific creationism, but it is only the latter that we believe should be taught in the public schools. The fact that the scientific model of creation can be used to support Christian theism is parallel to the fact that the scientific model of evolution can be used to support Marxist atheism or Religious Humanism or Theological Liberalism. All this is irrelevant to the fact that creation and evolution can both be discussed and compared simply as scientific models.
(5) CHARGE: "If the world view of fundamental Christians is presented as science, why not that of the Hindus or the Buddhists?" (American School Board Journal, Mar. 1980, p. 32
FACT: There are only two world views, evolution and creation. Each of these has many variants. Hinduism and Buddhism are variants of the typical evolutionary world view, beginning as they do with an eternally self-existing universe (the same is true of Confucianism, Taoism, and all the other ancient pagan pantheistic religions).
Creationists do not want the Biblical record of creationism taught in the public schools, but only the general creation model as a viable scientific alternative to the general evolution model.
(6) CHARGE: "The creationist movement boasts a number of adherents who have been trained in science. Significantly, few are biologists. Creationists have done almost no original research." (Time, Mar. 16, 1981, p. 81)
FACT: There are thousands of well-qualified creationist scientists today, a large percentage of whom are in the life sciences. Over half of the present and past members of the Board of Directors of the Creation for Research Society, for example, are in biological fields. In addition, of the 29 scientists associated directly with ICR (including the ten staff members, plus trustees, advisory board members, and regional representatives), 17 are in the life sciences. At least 15 scientists in these two groups have regular Ph.D's in Biology from leading universities, and the others all have terminal degrees in closely related fields (biochemistry, medicine, etc.). As far as research is concerned. the ICR staff may be typical. These ten scientists (H. Morris, Gish, Bliss, Barnes, Slusher, Parker, Cumming, J. Morris, Austin, and Rybka) have published at least 150 research papers and ten books in their own scientific fields—all in standard scientific refereed journals or through secular book publishers—in addition to hundreds of creationist articles and perhaps 50 books in creationism and related fields.
(7) CHARGE: "The basic premise, the basic dogma, is the existence of a divine creator. What they espouse as academic freedom to teach creationism is the academic Freedom to teach the flatness of the earth." Discover, Oct. 1980 p. 94.
FACT: No creationist scientist teaches a flat earth nor, for that matter, is such a notion taught in the Bible. The "dogma" of the existence of a divine creator is not one bit more "dogmatic" than the evolutionist's assumption of "no creator" and of the preexistence of matter as the source of this marvelous universe and its infinite array of complex systems.
(8) CHARGE: "ICR is apparently well-funded. This money is used to advance their cause through lobbying and publication. They lobby at all levels of government, and have attempted to introduce a bill in the U.S. Congress to obtain money, time, and space equal to that awarded to concepts involving evolution." (Geotimes, Jan. 1981, p. 12)
FACT: The Institute for Creation Research is not well-funded. ICR has five major divisions with many functions and activities, and a current full-time equivalent staff of at least 20 persons. This large and complex operation is financed on a very modest budget of $650,000—which is considerably less than the financing available to many university departments of biology, for example. ICR never has initiated or lobbied for any creation lawsuit or legislation, believing that education and persuasion are more appropriate and effective than compulsion. ICR staff members occasionally serve as expert consultants or witnesses in such situations, but these actions are wholly initiated and financed by local groups of concerned citizens.
(9) CHARGE: "The Institute stood to make $2 million a year in textbook sales, with a contract renewal option, if HB 690 were enacted. To achieve its ends, it distributes a kit to creationist lobbies with a sample resolution drafted by 'Dr.' Henry Morris, who cautions users not to reveal its source." (The Humanist, May/June 1980, P. 59)
FACT: The above statement was in reference to the creation bill currently stymied in the Georgia legislature due to such distortions as this. ICR's sample resolution (not "creation bill") was prepared in response to many requests from local groups, in order to help keep such actions focused on science and education rather than religion and social issues. The suggestion that those who might adapt the resolution for their own uses should try to keep ICR out of the picture was simply to emphasize that it was the local groups of citizens, not ICR, who were the sponsors. As far as profits from potential book sales are concerned, this may well be the reason behind much of the opposition to bringing creationist literature into the schools. Evolutionist writers and publishers have for many years reaped tremendous profits from their monopolistic control over school-adopted book sales. Such publishers, in the past, have refused even to examine creationist (or two-model) textbook manuscripts. Accordingly, some of us had to pool our own very limited resources in order to get ICR books published. Rather than being profitable, however, this operation has been at a significant loss to all its investors, each of the six years it has been in existence. If, perchance, school boards actually should begin to specify a two-model approach in their schools and begin to look for appropriate textbooks, one can be certain that the big publishers would finally begin to publish such books themselves. We would have no objection to this, of course; they have the resources to do it and, if they treat the subject properly, we will cooperate in every way we can to help them.
In all their polemics, the anti-creationists invariably avoid discussing the actual scientific evidence for macro-evolution. If there were any such evidence, they could easily settle the whole conflict, merely by presenting the evidence! Instead they seem compelled to resort to bombast ridicule, defamation, intimidation, and distortion. Surely that great body of working scientists, largely uninvolved so far in the creation/evolution conflict will soon begin to see that a two-model approach to all scientific study is salutary and will persuade their more emotional brethren to open their minds to potential truth wherever it might be found.
*Dr. Henry M. Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. 1981. The Anti-Creationist. Acts & Facts. 10 (7).