By: Elliott Finesse
Re: Top Creationist Lies

Part 1: The head of the Creation Science Research Center falsifies his
college degrees.

Dr. Kelly Segraves, Director of the CSRC (Creation Science Research
Center), listed himself as M.A. and D.Sc. on the 1975 CSRC letterhead.
After having it called into question, Segraves dropped the D.Sc. in 1981
and now lists "D.R.E." in its place.

Segraves has claimed that his D.Sc. is honorary from "Christian
University", yet a computer search indicated that the only university with
that name is located in Jakarta, Indonesia.

 Segraves claims to have received his M.A. from Sequoia University in 1972
but  there is no such place. The closest name match is a Sequoia College
in California, which only offers two year associate degrees and has no
record of any student named Kelly Segraves. Note that "D.R.E." is a
doctorate of religious education and does not qualify as a scientific
degree.



Top Creationist Lies pt2


 The following letter, dated July 5, 1984, was sent to H. M.
 Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, by
 John W. Patterson (Ames, IA) and Robert J. Schadewald (Fridley,
 MN). To our knowledge, there has been no reply.


Dear Dr. Morris:

 As long time creationist-watchers, we try to keep up with trends in
creationism. We have become aware of what might be a new ICR doctrine, and
we're seeking confirmation. The story actually begins more than two years
ago.

In the spring of 1982, Duane Gish appeared on a PBS television program
about creationism and evolution. During the program, biochemist Russell
Doolittle spoke at length about the marked similarity of human proteins to
the corresponding chimpanzee proteins, giving several specific example. In
reply, Gish said the following:

If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that
man is more closely related to the chimpanzee than other things. But on
the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you'll find that
man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you
focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find* that man is more
closely relate to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee.

We have been trying for two years to get Gish to document these
assertions. He has repeatedly insisted that the proteins he* spoke of
exist and promised to send references. We have seen some spectacular
display of tap-dancing, but no documentation. (Gish did cite a remark by
radiochronologist Garniss Curtis, but Curtis was apparently talking about
something else.) Since neither Gish nor anyone else can provide the
sequences of the chicken and bullfrog proteins Gish claims are closer to
human proteins than the corresponding chimpanzee proteins, we concluded
that Gish lied on national television. We stated and documented this
conclusion in a letter published in _Origins Research_ (copy enclosed).

At the recent 1984 National Bible-Science Conference in Cleveland, we
again approached Gish and asked for references. Except for the irrelevant
reference to Garniss Curtis's statement, he had none. After nearly two
years of promising to provide references, he reversed himself and said he
would NOT provide them. Furthermore, he argued that is not his
responsibility to provide them. Asked whose responsibility it is, Gish
claimed it is up to Garniss Curtis and us!

We have long been conscious of the numerous substantial differences
between creationism and science, but this is new to us. Scientists (and
science writers) take full responsibility for their public statements.
Gish apparently rejects this responsibility. Was he speaking for himself
in this matter, or is this doctrine of non-responsibility an official ICR
policy? If so, we suggest that ICR speakers should level with the public
and preface their presentations with the following disclaimer: "I am not
responsible for the truth or accuracy of any statement I make."



Top Creationist Lies pt3


John Morris (an officer and a "full professor of geology" at the Institute
for Creation Research) believes humans and dinosaurs once coexisted, and
that dragons were in fact dinosaurs. During a debate on the television
show "AM Indiana" Morris stated that "Alexander the Great has a very sober
history of an encounter with a dragon, and most of the historians of the
day list dragons as if they were real."

Unfortunately for Morris, no writings of Alexander have survived. The
historians Plutarch and Arrian quote from alleged letters of Alexander,
but the letters do not tell of any meeting with a dragon.

Morris was then asked for details about the fossiliferous sedimentary
rocks which, in his book "The Ark on Ararat", he had (falsely) claimed had
been found near the top of Mt. Ararat, and were proof that this volcanic
peak had once been under water. To his opponent's great astonishment,
Morris denied that he had ever written such a thing:

"I have never said that those fossils were on top of Mt. Ararat. Those
fossils are IN SIGHT OF Mt. Ararat." I reported that in 1969 a
glaciologist claimed he found a fossil layer about the 14,000-foot level.
The fossil layers that I'VE studied are some ten miles away."

Morris's denial was false. On pages 10 and 11 of "The Ark on Ararat" --
written by Morris and the preacher Tim LaHaye, and issued in 1976 by
Thomas Nelson, Inc. -- we find:

     A great deal of evidence exists indicating that not only
     was Mt. Ararat once covered by water, but it even erupted
     while submerged under great depths of water. In common
     with many mountains around the world, Mt. Ararat exhibits
     fossil-bearing strata. Sedimentary rock (by definition
     laid down by flood [sic] waters) containing the
     fossilized remains of ocean creatures has been found as
     high as the snow line, approximately a 14,000-foot
     elevation. Furthermore, on the exposed northeastern face,
     layers of lava are intermingled with layers of sediments.

When confronted with the passage, Morris replied that the discovery was
the work of the creationist Clifford Burdick and had been described in the
"Creation Research Society Quarterly."  According to Morris, Burdick:

"Conducted a rather extensive geologic survey over the space of several
summers. He not only has written that he discovered fossil-bearing strata,
on the west flank of Mt. Ararat, but he has told me so personally. . . .
The discovery was included not only in Burdick's CRSQ articles, but also
in the official report by the Archaeological Research Foundation to the
Turkish Government, resulting from their expeditions in the 1960's."

However, no where in Burdick's article: "Ararat -- the Mother of
Mountains," (which had appeared not in the "Creation Research Society
Quarterly" but in the Society's "1967 Annual") did the author claim that
there were fossiliferous, sedimentary layers on Mt. Ararat. He simply gave
a list of fossils found in 1845, by one H. Abich, in sedimentary rocks
that were at least ten miles from Ararat.

By: Elliott Finesse
Re: Creation Science Sez:

 "The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to
tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the Holy
Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that
ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology".

-- Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (San Diego:
Creation-Life Publishers, 1972), p.9

"The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is
the actual historical truth, _regardless of any scientific or chronologic
problems thereby entailed._"
Ibid p.82

"The main trouble with [Biblical] catastrophist theories is that there is
no way of subjecting them to empirical test....There seems to be no
restraint on imagination or speculation when catastrophism is espoused,
and this is one reason why it has been in such poor repute for over a
hundred years ... We cannot verify it experimentally, of course, any more
than any of the various other theories of catastrophism [e.g. Velikovsky],
but we do not need experimental verification; God has recorded it in His
word, and that should be sufficient."
-- Henry M. Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (Nutley, N.J.:
Craig Press, 1970), p.30

-------------

The minisymposium on variable constants published in the Creation Research
Society Quarterly (CRSQ) 26(4), 27(1,2,3) is an illuminating example of
doing creation science.

Byl (1990) (CRSQ) 27(2):68-71 Sept. points out that there are a half dozen
or so mutually exclusive explanations as to how we can observe stars and
galaxies that are more than ten thousand light years away.

In such a situation, "conventional" scientist would try to test all the
proposed explanations, attempting to discover which one ( if any ) is
"correct." Byl feels this approach is dangerous:

 "Caution must be taken to avoid falling into a trap of justifying faith
in the Bible on this basis of our ability to provide 'scientific
explanations' of Biblical events. Better six sketches of possibilities
than one detailed theory upon which to much trust is placed."

Yeah, careful! You don't want to get shot down by someone with Satanic,
godless facts!

---
TIMM 1.0.2 - The Ideal Mac Mailreader.
 * Origin: Hayward, CA//510-786-6560//28800 (1:215/130)