Creationism - National Center for Science Education

But the truth is that—when we disregard mere refinements of detail, and technicalities of a non-essential
character—the doctrine of Evolution in general, and that of the Origin of Species (the Darwinian
hypothesis) in particular, can be set forth “in words easy to be understood,” and can be understood by
persons of ordinary intelligence and of common school education. And furthermore, the scientist and
philosopher have no facts upon which to base their conclusions except such as are matters of common
knowledge, or are accessible to all men through textbooks and cyclopedias. We fully concede to experts
their special competence in investigating, clarifying, and setting forth the facts; but, in the all important
matter of drawing conclusions from those facts, the expert has no greater ability than the ordinary persons,
of whom juries—which in common-law cases are the sole ‘fudges of the facts—are composed. It is for the
benefit of these that we are now writing; and in summoning Evolution to stand trial at the bar of ordinary
common sense, our own function will be mainly to present the pertinent facts as fully and concisely as
possible. [1922:7-8]
A somewhat bizarre modern reflection of this view is expressed by A.E. Wilder-
Smith, a British-born creation scientist highly esteemed by creationists for his impressive
scientific credentials (he holds three earned doctorates in chemistry and pharmacology).
That God designed—created—the universe is a self-evident truth, which proves that
evolution is utterly impossible. According to the Bible, he claims that (citing Romans):
refusal to accept something which is self-evident (such as the relationship between design and designer)
brings with it an inevitable consequence. It has certain effects upon the very mechanism of our thinking,
for it amounts to doing violence to the logic inherent in a delicate thought mechanism. [1970:234]
Wilder-Smith, in his “cybernetic approach to evolution,” declares that acceptance of the
logically undigestible doctrine of evolution literally jams our thought-processes.
A logical but delicate mechanism like the brain needs to be fed on sound logic if it is to grow and prosper.
But if it is fed nonsense (such as maintaining that randomness spawns code spontaneously [i.e., evolution]),
then the logical thought mechanism is damaged and is no longer able to function normally and logically. It
becomes futile in thought and darkened in senselessness. When one sees the present state of universities
[Wilder-Smith taught in the U.S.], their student bodies and faculties, one wonders if the thought- and logicdeforming
process has not proceeded a long way already. For so much that is occurring on our campuses
can only be classified as thoroughly illogical and unreasonable. Perhaps this is the result of the “thought
mills” becoming damaged by being fed on false intellectual fare for so long! [1970:235]
THE BACONIAN-NEWTONIAN IDEAL OF SCIENCE
Marsden has impressively demonstrated that “rather than being indiscriminately
antiscientific, fundamentalism when examined as a belief system proves to reflect a
striking commitment to the assumptions and procedures of the first scientific revolution”
(1984:97). Fundamentalist creationists retain a Baconian view of philosophy and
science, which they inherited, along with biblical inerrancy, from the Princeton
theologians.
Isaac Newton, the apotheosis of the Scientist (at least until this century) professed
to follow this Baconian approach:
Whereas the main Business of Natural Philosophy is to argue from Phaenomena without feigning [or
“framing”] Hypotheses [“non fingo hypotheses”], and to deduce Causes from Effects, till we come to the
very first Cause, which certainly is not mechanical... [Quoted in Gillispie 1951:6]
From this, Newton proves God the Creator. Similarly, notes Gillispie, Jean Deluc, a
contemporary and opponent of Hutton’s geological uniformitarianism, appealed to