With defeats in Idaho and Alabama, the FTE may have 3. Stephen Jay Gould, "The verdict on ," The New York decided that more effective strategy should concentrate Times Magazine, July 19(1987):32. 4. Tom Lindley, "Dispute over textbooks continues," The promotion of Pandas at the local level. Thomas27 reported Birmingham News, September 13, 1989; "Proposed texts not available for that a May 1990 FTE letter states "[Wie are finding that inspection, 0ctober 3; "Committee won't consider controversial biology the best approach to the local school system is through the text," 0ctober 3; Science textbook controversy continues, December 27; "Politics upstage science in state textbook hearing," January 9, 1990. biology teacher.... They are comfortable in making a decision 5. Nancy Bereckis, "Anti-evolutionists pin hope on new book," The to introduce a supplemental text with the review and approval Birmingham News/Birmingham Post Herald, January 6, 1990. of the school curriculum committee." In effect, FTE is planning 6. Steve Visser, "Biochemist at UA, Fellow Scientists Clash 0ver Evolution," The Birmingham News, January 7, 1990. to circumvent state-wide, formal review, a plan that can only 7. Lindley, 0ctober 3, 1989, op. cit. be effective in those states that do not require it for 8. Tom Lindley and Steve Visser, "School Book Mired in Science- supplemental science texts. Religion Mud," The Birmingham News, December 15, 1989. 9. Letter from A. Earl Potts, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Alabama Every science educator and parent ought to be aware of Baptist State Convention, January 4, 1990. this book because of its potential to mislead and misinform 10. John A. Thomas, The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, NCSE the student of biology and earth science. In one of the many Reports 10(4)1990: pp. 18-19. 11. Thomas, 1990, op. cit., p. 18. recent reviews of Pandas, Gerald Skoog characterized its 12. Thomas, 1990, op. cit., p. 18. agenda: "Clearly Pandas is being used as a vehicle to advance 13. Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. 0lsen, The sectarian tenets. This book has no potential to improve science Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, Inc. (copyright held by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics). education and student understanding of the natural world."28 14. Thomas, 1990, op. cit., p. 19. Those readers interested in following and opposing the 15. Dean H. Kenyon and Gary Steinman, Biochemical Predestination migration of Pandas across the United States should contact (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1969). 16. Kenyon and Steinman, op. cit., pp. 268, 269. the National Center for Science Education29 and volunteer 17. Davis, et al., 1989. op. cit., p. 58. their services with your state coordinator of the Committees 18. Letter from Jon Buell to Arthur C. Bartlett, Vice President and of Correspondence. Publisher, Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Inc., Boston, January 30, 1987. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. Acknowledgments 21. Ibid. 22. Betty McCollister (ed.) Voices for Evolution. (Berkeley: The National For their careful review and support of this work, I thank Delos Center for Science Education, Inc., 1989). McKown and Barbara Brande. 23. Letter from Jon Buell, to Friends of the Foundation [for Thought of the National Center and Ethics], March 1988. for Science Education provided prompt access to information helpful 24. Letter from Jon Buell, to Friends of the Foundation [for Thought in the Alabama campaign against Pandas. and Ethics], December 1988. 25. McCollister, op. cit., p. 122. 26. Letter from Jon Buell, to Friends of the Foundation [for Thought Notes and Ethics], December 1989. 27. Thomas, 1990, op. cit., p. 19. 1. Percival Davis, Dean H. Kenyon, and Charles B. Thaxton, Of Pandas 28. Gerald Skoog. "A View from the Past," Bookwatch Reviews and People (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1989). 2(11)1989: pp. 1-2. 2. Delos B. McKown, "Are American Education Reforms Doomed? 29. The National Center for Science Education, Inc., P.O. Box 9477, FREE INQUIRY 5(1)1984-1985: pp. 11-15. Berkeley, CA 94709. • Then A Miracle Occurs Victor Bernard

n 1967 I was astounded to hear on the evening news the creation-evolution controversy. In 1990, when I heard that that the Supreme Court would review the case of a there was to be an international conference on creationism Tennessee high school teacher convicted of violating the in Pittsburgh, where I live, I decided to attend and see what Butler Act by teaching the theory of evolution. How could creationism and creationists are like firsthand. a law growing out of the religious beliefs of the Dark Ages The Second International Conference on Creationism still exist in the last half of the twentieth century? Hadn't (ICC) was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, from July 29 the Scopes Trial settled this question once and for all? to August 4, at Duquesne University, and was sponsored by Obviously not, but why? The report sparked my interest in the Pittsburgh-based Fellowship (CSF). The purpose of the conference, as stated in CSF's promotional Victor Bernard is an electrical engineer whose interest in science literature, was to educate the public about the scientific merits dates from his membership in the Science Center of St. of Creationism, focusing on "... its viability as an historic Petersburg while growing up in Florida. He is currently the and scientific model of origins," and to promote "... the president of Pittsburgh Secular Humanists. disciplined development of the creation model of origins in every field of endeavor." The conference, clearly modeled after

Summer 1991 31 mainstream scientific conferences, was divided into three 2. Avoid false dualism. Arguments against evolution are tracks: technical, general, and public evening sessions. The not arguments for creationism. The best way to promote technical track consisted of a symposium presenting thirty Creationism is to advance a coherent theory of creation that refereed papers on various aspects of the creation model, with fully answers all the empirical data. time for limited rebuttal and the speaker's response. The 3. Avoid using value judgments to evaluate the truth. general track was aimed at the general public to provide entry Judgments about truth should not be dependent on what we or intermediate level presentations of the scientific evidence perceive to be the consequences of that truth. Evaluate creation for creationism, emphasizing the educational and legal aspects and evolutionary theories only on the basis of evidence and of creationism. The evening sessions consisted of talks given let the consequences fall where they may. by well-known televangelists like the Reverend D. James 4. Apply the principle of humility. In dealing with a subject Kennedy and the Reverend David Mainse and creationists outside your field of expertise, either be absolutely sure that such as Henry Morris and Duane Gish. These talks were free what you are saying is correct or remain silent. and open to the public. 5. Apply the principle of charity. Assume that your I attended the conference as the official press representative opponent is a sensible, fair-minded person. Always argue for FREE INQUIRY, making no secret of either my affiliation against the strongest case that can be made against your or my total skepticism about creationism. In spite of this I position. Always try to see your opponent's position in its was treated with courtesy and good humor by CSF members best light, if for no other reason than to avoid being made and other creationists attending the conference. I must confess to look silly because you misunderstood or misstated the that I was expecting to meet with much more open hostility argument. and intolerance than I found. 6. Avoid strawman arguments. Don't change your A few creationists have realized that, if creationism is ever opponent's words to make the argument easier to attack. Use to be taken seriously by the traditional scientific community, no false or outdated quotations. Do not deliberately creationists must begin to eliminate the worst pseudoscientific misinterpret your opponent. excesses of the past and convert their belief system into a 7. Avoid the ad hominem fallacy. You cannot attack an coherent model that honestly addresses the empirical evidence. idea by attacking the person holding that idea. Mainstream scientists would welcome the development of a 8. Avoid conspiracy theories. Although there is a coherent creation model since they can judge how well a model prejudicial attitude toward creationism, it is not a result of fits the data only if they have a model to work with. a massive conspiracy or of an inability to hear creationists' This attempt to improve the image of creationism was arguments. It is wrong to assume that all people who reject exemplified by a group of creationists who exhibit the creationism and who don't think it is a science are being sneaky intellectual integrity that is mandatory if there is to be and deceitful. meaningful dialogue between mainstream scientific and 9. Avoid ad hoc miracles. Calling in miracles ad hoc to creationist communities. This group included Dr. Gregg solve any theoretical problem when there was, going in, no Wilkerson, a field geologist for the California Bureau of Land reason to believe that God would invoke miracles seems Management; Dr. , a Harvard-trained paleontol- intellectually dishonest because when a natural explanation ogist; John Mark Reynolds, a Ph.D. candidate in ancient is given the whole apologetic is destroyed. Avoid the "God philosophy and the philosophy of religion at the University of the Gaps." of Rochester; and Walter ReMine, an electrical engineer with 10. Avoid chronological snobbery. Just because an idea B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Michigan. is old does not mean that is invalid. The best presentation that I attended was given at the 11. Knowledge does not preclude God. A completely last session in the general track on the last day of the natural explanation of the universe does not preclude the conference. The paper by John Mark Reynolds, was titled existence of God. "Creationism and the Armies of the Night: A Response to These points might seem elementary, and they have been Dr. Isaac Asimov," and was a critique of an article written made before by scientists defending evolutionary theory, but by Asimov criticizing creationism. Reynolds went far beyond to have them made by a creationist and then applied to the this narrow topic, and in a quite unexpected direction. His creationist movement is unprecedented in my limited talk was a primer on how to carry on an intellectually honest experience. and reasonable debate. Structuring his talk around a series Reynolds had one more surprise. He concluded by saying of warnings against various common logical fallacies used that the arguments against Asimov's article did not imply in debates, Reynolds, a young-earth creationist, attempted to that creationism should be taught in high school science classes. show what has been wrong with the creationism-evolution Labeling it a personal opinion, Reynolds said that modern debate. He advised: creationism (which is only twenty years old) is not developed 1. Avoid "silver bullet" arguments. Macrotheories (like the enough to be introduced in opposition to evolutionary theory theories of science and religion) are not susceptible to disproof (which is over 150 years old). Rather, creationists should work by a single argument. In defense of evolution, Reynolds said, harder until they develop a coherent model, logically "Any theory that has been around for 150 years and has incompatible with evolution, but which answers the data, and outstanding intelligent people working on it, is unlikely to worry about the rest later. He concluded by saying that he be susceptible to one magical silver bullet." would support teaching creationism in a separate class on

34 FREE INQUIRY comparative philosophy, which should study not only Christianity and creationism but also Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Pantheism, humanism, and logic.

n attending the technical sessions, I discovered that the Iscientists who believe in creationism can actually do science, but it is science as depicted in the Sidney Harris cartoon that gave this article its title. It is ordinary, everyday science up to a point and "then a miracle occurs." It is science kept on a very short, religious leash.

A technical paper that illustrated this point admirably was

"A Three Dimensional Simulation of the Global Tectonic ine az

Changes during Noah's Flood" by Dr. John R. Baumgardner.

mag

t t is

Baumgardner works in the Numerical Fluid Dynamics Group t

of the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National ien Sc

Laboratory. His paper described a finite element, three- n dimensional, spherical hydrodynamic computer program that ica

he developed for high-power supercomputers and used it to Amer —

simulate global plate tectonic motion. The paper was based is Harr on a previous paper Baumgardner presented to the American

Geophysical Union (AGU). Sidney Sidney At the beginning of his paper, Baumgardner stated that one of the most important needs in creation science today

"1 think ym should be more explicit here in step two." by 1977 is finding a mechanism for Noah's flood. The mechanism he 0 proposed was the sudden subduction of all of the ocean floor, exposing the underlying magma, between the Precambrian zones. At the close of his talk, Dr. Baumgardner said that and Cambrian eras. The effects of this subduction included: he was modifying his model to include frictional heating effects. a temporary global rise in sea level from 1,200 to 1,800 meters CSF gave this paper an award as the best technical paper as the warmer, lighter magma replaced the cold, denser ocean presented at the conference. During the question and answer crust; the conversion of huge volumes of water to pressurized session that followed, in an example of the new dedication steam as the magma filled the gaps between the diverging to technical accuracy, Wise rose to offer some objections to ocean plates, producing intense global rain (one meter per Baumgardner's paper. Wise pointed out that Pangaea did not hour for forty days and nights); violent tidal wave activity; exist at the beginning of the Cambrian era, but instead a flow pattern induced in the mantle that pulled apart the belonged to the Permian era (a jump of more than 280 million supercontinent, Pangaea; the disappearance of all pre-Flood years). Therefore, if the Flood occurred at the Precambrian- oceanic crust; the formation and cooling of all present-day Cambrian boundary, Pangaea could not be pre-Flood. Wise oceanic crust; and the formation of all of today's mountain stated that the Cambrian distribution of land mass consisted ranges. of a series of island continents spaced along the equator. He Then, as if this were not spectacular enough, two more based this on paleomagnetic and fossil evidence. Baumgardner "miracles" occurred. To start the subduction, Baumgardner disputed the accuracy of the late Paleozoic date for Pangaea, assumed that the crust around the non-Tethyan margin of saying that the reconstruction was not well constrained and Pangaea became 500° C colder to a depth of 400 km. Then, that the fossil evidence could indicate that during the pre- to fit the necessary motion into the time scale of Noah's Flood, Flood era the Atlantic Ocean opened and close in a geological Dr. Baumgardner reduced the viscosity of the magma nine wink. orders of magnitude (i.e., he divided the viscosity constant by a billion). When Baumgardner got to this point, he said s I listened to the technical papers, I wondered if it was that he did not mention this change in magma viscosity in Apossible for these new creationists to accomplish the goals his paper to the AGU. they had set themselves: to build a creation model capable To be perfectly fair, he did propose a method to reduce of challenging the theory of evolution in explaining the data the viscosity of the magma. He stated that frictional heating and to gain scientific respectability. I concluded there were at the boundary of the subducting plate and the magma might two reasons they probably could not. reduce the magma viscosity. He even showed the results of First, they are just too late. This battle was fought and a computer model demonstrating this. However, the model lost by over one hundred years ago. When showed a flat crustal slab falling straight down. I am not Darwin published The Origin of Species, he faced a community aware of any observations that document this behavior in of skeptical scientific creationists. He convinced them of the subducting tectonic plates. In addition, Dr. Baumgardner did soundness of his hypotheses on the basis of his data. Most not address why this reduction of magma viscosity due to of the data is still valid, and it has been added to in ways frictional heating is not observed today in the major subduction that Darwin could never have imagined. This conservation

Summer 1991 35 of scientific data accounts for the conservatism of science. rise of the great civilizations of the ancient world. An average This growing body of old and new data adds intellectual weight world population of only a little over 4,000 is much too small and stability to the scientific theories. Because they must to account for these civilizations. In Egypt alone the explain both the old and the new scientific data, new theories construction of the pyramids and temple complex at Giza tend to include the older theory that they replace, as a limiting required many times Jorgensen's entire hypothetical world case. Niels Bohr referred to this tendency as the Correspond- population. Clearly, this argument is fatally flawed. What is ence Principle. By this principle any new theory replacing more troubling is that this analysis of the argument is not current evolutionary theories will most likely be an expanded original and has been published many times. theory of evolution. The principle, and the mass of empirical This was not the only discredited argument used by data from which it springs, will remain a major stumbling Jorgensen. He claimed that the order of fossils in the fossil block for creationism. record was a result of "hydraulic" sorting. He showed pictures The second problem facing creationism was evident in the of the Paluxy River dinosaur tracks to prove that humans conference's general session. No matter how diligently and dinosaurs lived at the same time, completely ignoring Wilkerson, Wise, and Reynolds work to upgrade the level the work of Ronnie Hastings' and Glen Kuban2 which of creation science, I fear that their work will be swamped systematically refuted these claims. Jorgensen claimed that in an unending stream of nonsense and fallacy. Theirs is not a picture of the Apollo lunar landing module's foot on the an intellectual tide that will raise all boats. One paper that moon's surface showing only a thin layer of lunar dust argues demonstrated the business as usual side of the ICC conference for a young universe, ignoring the main refutations of this was "A Creation Model Presentation to the Public Schools" argument.3'4 Finally, in what might be the most insulting presented by Greg S. Jorgensen, a Canadian professional strawman argument ever raised against scientists, Jorgensen engineer who owns a consulting firm dealing with industrial claimed that to test a theory one must drive it to its limits computer control systems. Jorgensen claimed that one of his and that evolutionary theory, at the limits, says "Hydrogen goals was to promote critical thinking. He started his talk is a colorless, odorless gas and it turns into people." The by quoting Proverbs 3:19-20: only thing that can be said in Jorgensen's defense is that this argument is not original with him. The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; Jorgensen goes into the classroom and, with his technical by understanding hath he established the heavens. credentials, presents himself as an expert in science. But the By his knowledge the depths are broken up, arguments he uses to support creationism are false and have and the clouds drop down the dew. been publicly, and repeatedly, shown to be so. I talked with Jorgensen earlier and I believe he is unaware of the false He claimed that the passage showed that God is a scientist nature of his arguments. But whether or not he is aware of and that therefore, he could not distinguish his science from the refutations of his arguments is unimportant. He should his religion. His presentation consisted of showing computer- know. In going into the public school classroom he has generated slides that he uses in his public school lectures and accepted a moral responsibility to be scrupulously honest and describing the narrative that accompanies each slide. He present only the most technically accurate arguments in favor stressed that he does not use the word Evolution in his lecture of his position. At the very least, professional engineering or say that "Evolution is wrong." Instead he presents ethics demand nothing less. creationism as being intuitively obvious—the only way things are. reationism is a grass-roots movement. Many of the talks In one slide Jorgensen tried to prove that the current given at the ICC conference stressed the need for work population of five billion people means that the earth is young. at the personal, church, and local government levels. If The slide showed a chart of world population listed alongside Wilkerson, Wise, Reynolds, and others like them were to a date and a generation number. Starting at 4000 B.C.E. with succeed, creationism would, like mainstream science, require eight people (Noah and his family) at generation zero, specialized knowledge, long training, and highly technical Jorgensen claimed that the present population should be papers in strictly refereed journals. Most people now active approaching eight billion people (assuming a doubling time in the creationist movement would be as isolated from it as of 200 years). Because the population is much less than this they are from modern science. If this occurred, they would figure, Jorgensen claims that the earth cannot be as old as either leave the movement or, more likely, choose between scientists claim. the creationism of the specialist and the creationism of the A little critical thinking applied to this chart would have masses. shown Jorgensen that his argument was false. At one end, But this choice will never need to be made. The specialists the chart indicated that the population in 1800 (generation in the movement will be tolerated because then the rest of 29) was four billion. This level was not reached until the 1970s. the creationists can say, "See! We have scientists, too." But If the population model were valid, it should accurately predict the specialists will not advance creationism. The First the data points we know. International Conference on Creationism, held in 1986, was At the other end, the chart showed the world population devoted specifically to resolving the question of the age of rising from 250 in 3000 B.C.E. (generation 5) to 8,000 in 2000 the earth. Yet at the 1990 ICC conference, Wilkerson, an old- B.C.E. (generation 10). Yet during this time the world saw the earth creationist, debated the age of the earth with Dr. Steven

36 FREE INQUIRY A. Austin, a young-earth creationist with the Institute for If evolutionists are correct, then when we die we will rot. Creation Research. The arguments were the same as four years If creationists are correct, we can choose to become children of God and live forever. If you give both theories equal odds, before and the gulf between them just as wide. which choice would you prefer? Those who call for a higher standard of intellectual rigor within the creationist community will have lip service paid to their call because everyone, after all, is in favor of honesty Notes and truth. But the intellectually suspect practices of the past will continue because they are cheap, easy to use, and very I. Ronnie J. Hastings, 1985, "Tracking Those Incredible Creationists," Creation/Evolution, vol. 5, no. I, pp. 5-15. successful. 2. Glen J. Kuban, 1986, "The Taylor Site 'man tracks,' " Origins Creationism will not become a science, but will remain Research, vol. 9, no. I, pp. I, 7-9. what it has always been—a religion. No more poignant proof 3. Frank T. Awbrey, 1983, "Space Dust, the Moon's Surface, and the Age of the Cosmos, Creation/Evolution, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 21-29. of this can be found than the words with which Greg Jorgensen 4. Steven N. Shore, 1984, "Footprints in the Dust: The Lunar Surface ends his public school lectures: and Creationism," Creation/Evolution, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 32-35. •

The Creationist Theory of Abrupt Appearances: A Critique

Arthur N. Strahler

two-volume work by lawyer Wendell R. Bird, titled theory of creation (C). The letters E, D, and C are used The Origin of Species Revisited: The Theories of hereafter as code symbols for the three theories. Evolution and Abrupt Appearance, appeared in The complete definition of theory D reads as follows: "The September 1989, following long publication delays. Each of theory of abrupt appearances is defined as scientific its two volumes runs to about 550 pages; each deals with interpretations of scientific data postulating origin through a different set of topics. Volume 1, subtitled "Science," carries discontinuous abrupt appearance in complex form" (B-1, 18). most of the text relevant to Bird's theory of abrupt You may ask: What kinds of objects make alleged "abrupt appearances. Volume 2 deals with philosophy of science and appearances"? Examples: a species or genus of an organism; religion, history, education, and constitutional issues. a continent or ocean; a planet, star, or galaxy; the entire Seasoned creationist-watchers will find little or nothing new universe. The last six words of Bird's definition are crucial in Bird's work. Instead, they will be inundated with to our analysis, especially "discontinuous" and "in complex redundancies and quotations. Most of the latter are brief, form." He leaves two interpretations open to us: (1) no prior and nearly all are from the publications of scientists described existence, that is, appearance ex nihilo; and (2) prior existence as not being proponents of "either the theory of abrupt in a noncomplex (simple) state. appearance or the theory of creation" (B-1, 1).1 Bird intends Theories E and D are characterized as constituting a no endorsement of either theory by these citations. "noncreationist" class (B-1, 7). Theory C is described as "a This article is limited to an attempt to analyze certain key scientific theory of creation" and requires or assumes belief problems Bird's theory presents. I shall not cover the in a creator (B-1, 7). In a footnote Bird uses the expression arguments for or against naturalistic evolution or for or against "either the theory of abrupt appearances or the theory of recent divine creation (creation "science). These have been creation" (B-1, 1). This disclaimer that D is not C and C dealt with at great length in several recent books and numerous is not D is important to him. Bird goes to special pains to journal articles (see for instance Strahler 1987). make clear that D "... does not necessitate reference to a Bird distinguishes three theories for comparison and creator or ad hoc explanation based on acts of a creator analysis (B-1, 1):The theory of evolution (E); the theory of ..." (B-1, 25). abrupt appearances, or discontinuitist theory (D); and the The theory of abrupt appearances (D) is vulnerable in four categories of analysis, discussed below. Arthur N. Strahler is professor emeritus of geology in the Graduate Faculty of Pure Science at Columbia University. I. Existential Nature of the Theory of Abrupt He has authored or co-authored many research papers and Appearances—Illusion or Reality? textbooks, including Science and Earth History: The Evolution/ Creation Controversy, for which he received the he theory of abrupt appearances, or discontinuities (D), first Morris D. Forkosch Book Award in 1988. Tcan have either of two existential interpretations: The first, obviously intended by Bird, is that the "abrupt

Summer 1991 37