AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF William E. Elliott for the degree ofMaster of Science in General Science presented on March 1, 1990. Title: History and Analysis of theCreation ltee Society Redacted for Privacy Abstractapproved: The resurgence of creationismthe past few years has been led by advocates of recent-creationism. These individuals, a minority among creationists in general, argue that the entire universe was created approximately 10,000 years ago in one six- day period of time.Recent-creationists support their position by appealing to the Genesis account of creation and scientific data. Their interpretation of Genesis is based on the doctrines of conservative, evangelical Christianity. Their interpretation of scientific data is informed by their theological presuppositions. The scientific side of recent-creationism is supported by several organizations, most of which had their origin in one group, the Creation Research Society. The CRS is a major factor in the rise of the modern creationist movement. Founded in 1963, this small (c. 2000 mem- bers) group claims to be a bona-fide scientific society engaged in valid scientific re- search conducted from a recent-creationist perspective. These claims are analyzed and evaluated. The Society's history is discussed, including antecedent creationist groups. Most of the group's founders were members of the American Scientific Affiliation, and their rejection of changes within the ASA was a significant motivating factor in founding the CRS. The organization, functioning, and finances of the Society are de- tailed with special emphasis on the group's struggles for independence and credibility. founding the CRS. The organization, functioning, and finances of the Society are de- tailed with special emphasis on the group's struggles for independence and credibility. The Creation Research Society's journal, the Creation Research Society Quar- terly, is analyzed with special emphasis on how its writers support recent-creation- ism from scientific data. The Society also publishes a number of creationistbooks, and these are discussed. Special attention was given to the group's most ambitious project, a high school biology textbook designed for use in public schools. Research efforts of the CRS are evaluated to determine if the Society does "do science." Some of their work has scientific value, but a significant portionof it is trivial in nature. In some cases the CRS does do science in that they seek to test hy- potheses from an honest evaluation of observational evidence. However, they operate independent of the traditional scientific community which ignores their efforts. HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF THE CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY by William E. Elliott A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Completed March 1, 1990 Commencement June, 1990 APP VED: Redacted forPrivacy 71sorNof History of Science Redacted for Privacy Chairman of Department of General Science Redacted for Privacy Grade School'(I Date thesis is presented March 1, 1990 137Pedby William E. Elliott Acknkowle dgement The author expresses his deep appreciation to those who played a significant role in bringing this project to completion. Thank you, Jim Morris, for your diligent efforts as my major professor and editorial sounding-board. And to you, Paul Farber, for your input and encouragement. My thanks also goes to the staff of the General Science Department for their support and encouragement throughout this project. Other individuals provided essential support that was beyond the call of duty. Richard Muntz and Connie Edgar of the Western Baptist College library not only en- dured my many requests for strange and wonderful information, but they obtained everything I needed. Wayne Frair, President of the Creation Research Society, and other CRS members generously provided information from their personal files which provided unique, helpful insights into the workings of the CRS. A number of special friends provided needed personal encouragement throughout my work, but none so special and so important as that of my wife, Diane, and my sons, David and Michael. My thanks to all of you. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1 THE ORIGIN OF THE CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY 6 The Society's Theological Foundation 6 The Society's Theological Commitment 8 Antecedent Creationist Organizations 10 The Research Science Bureau 10 The Religion and Science Association 11 The Deluge Society 12 The American Scientific Affiliation 13 The ASA's Origin 13 The ASA and Inerrancy 17 The ASA and Evolution 19 The ASA and Creationism 20 The ASA and Recent-Creationism 23 Publication of The Genesis Flood 24 CHAPTER 2 ORGANIZATION OF THE CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY 30 Early Background 30 The Board of Directors 34 Offices 37 Membership 39 Operational Problems 47 Summary 60 CHAPTER 3 THE CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY 62 Theological Context 65 Analysis of the Quarterly 69 Editorials 70 Regular Columns 74 Letters to the Editor 76 Papers 78 Biology Papers 82 Geology Papers 89 Physics Papers 96 Historical Studies 102 Education Papers 105 Research Papers 106 Book Reviews 107 The Writers 109 Summary 111 CHAPTER 4 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY BOOKS 113 CRS Biology Text 114 Quarterly Anthologies 123 Monograph Series 124 Other Books 132 Book Sales 134 CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH IN THE CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY 136 Support of Research 138 Research Topics 139 Creation Research Society Laboratory and Experiment Stations 145 Summary 148 CHAPTER 6 AN EVALUATION OF THE CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY 150 The CRS as a Society 150 The CRS as a Scientific Society 150 The CRS as a Creationist Society 155 The CRS as a Religious Society 157 The Quarterly 158 Summary 161 BIBLIOGRAPHY 166 APPENDIX I CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY BOARD MEMBERS 192 APPENDIX II OFFICERS AND EDITORS OF THE CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY 196 APPENDIX III SCIENCE CITATIONS DATA 199 INDEX 202 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Membership Catagories 41 2. Voting Membership Ratios 42 HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF THE CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY Introduction The scientific part of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy seemingly ended in July, 1925, when Judge John T. Raulston gavelled the now-famous case of The State of Tennessee vs. John T. Scopes to a close. Creationism had won the battle, but it lost the war. Biology teacher Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution, but the fundamentalist anti-evolution crusade had been made the laughing-stock of American intelligencia. Most of the scientific community turned their backs on Day- ton and creationism, convinced that defense attorney Clarence Darrow had shown that the concept of evolution was valid as a scientific and an intellectual concept. But the acceptance of evolution by the public was still not a foregone conclusion, for many still held to a Biblically-oriented creationism. In the last two decades history seemed to repeat itself as creationism re- emerged as a significant force in America. The increased activity of creationists and their successes in promoting their cause was obvious to all who read their daily pa- pers. Text-book controversies in California, trials in Arkansas and Louisiana, and the establishment of new institutions devoted to advancing the creationist cause demonstrate the vitality of the movement and the degree of popular support it en- joyed.' 'Edward Larson, Trial and Error: The American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985) discusses the recent legal actions. Dorothy Nelkin, The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the High Schools (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1982) deals with the recent text-book issues. The Institute for Creation Research in El Cajon, California and the Creation- Science Research Center in San Diego are the two most familiar of creationist insti- 2 Aggressiveness, sophistication, and diversity characterize this resurgent creationism while unity of organization and leadership are remarkably absent. Com- pared to the fundamentalist anti-evolution crusade of the 1920's with the charismatic William Jennings Bryan in the lead, the creationist movement seems too unorganized to accomplish anything. No single leader has emerged to give direction to the cause, nor have creationists agreed on their goals, or even accepted a single definition of cre- ationism. Yet there is enough coherence among creationists to identify creationism as a "movement" in sociological terms.2 The modern creationist movement, however, is not unified, for it has both a moderate and a conservative wing. Moderate creationism accepts God as the Creator, but takes no stand regarding the means and date of creation. Moderate creationists have no political agenda for introducing their view into public education, nor do they seek public confrontation with evolutionists. The conservative part of this move- ment consists of recent-creationists who base their position on a literal interpreta- tion of the Genesis account of creation. They argue that God created the universe in six 24-hour days approximately 10,000 years ago, then reworked the surface of the early earth with the world-wide Noahican Deluge. This group follows an agenda of con- frontation, debate, and legal action to include this variety of creationism in public education. tutes that have been founded in the last twenty years. In 1982 The New York Times re- ported the results of a survey which concluded that: "44 percent, nearly a quarter of whom were college graduates, said they accepted the statement that 'God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.'" Only nine percent agreed with the statement, "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process." Richard Severo, "Poll Finds Americans Split on Creation Idea," The New York Times, Section B, p. 22, Au- gust 29, 1982. The recent rise of creationism is also documented by Conrad Hyers, "The Fall and Rise of Creationism," Christian Century 102 (April 24, 1985) 411-415.