Creationism - National Center for Science Education

vigilant in protecting the Bible than Catholics, and dismissing as “tiresome
equivocations” all arguments by Catholic theologians which are not strictly creationist.
Creation by God is an act, not a process, she insists. Because of the Galileo affair,
Teilhard and others like him over-compensate in order not to offend science, and are too
willing to accept all that science claims. Proper theology, claims Haigh, is really the
“highest and best science.” Haigh argues that certainty that one possesses the truth does
not lead to totalitarianism, as liberals accuse. Oppression and tyranny can only issue
from vice; possession of God’s truth—true theology and science—is inevitably beneficial
(n.d.:5).
The Catholic Creationist, the journal of Haigh’s CCCR, published a booklet by
R.G. Elmendorf as a supplement in 1977. Titled “Consequences,” Elmendorf’s booklet
proclaims that evolution is “nothing more than a bizarre biological bluff, a preposterous
pipe dream, a fantastic phony hoax, a colossal academic swindle” (1977:1). Elmendorf
decries the church’s divorce from science, resulting in the abandonment of the field to
evolution, stating that the Bible and science need to be reunited. Evolution is accepted
“not because it is scientifically valid but because men do not like to retain God in their
knowledge, and evolution gives a way out...” (1977:11). Elmendorf blames evolution for
all the evil trends in our society, parading long lists of evolution-based sins. “Peaceful
coexistence with evolution has about the same chance of success as peaceful coexistence
with sin. Satan is the instigator of both, and it just won’t work!” (1977:21).
Elmendorf repeats most of these arguments in his booklet How to Scientifically
Trap, Test and Falsify Evolution (1978), published by the Bible-Science Assocation of
Western Pennsylvania, which he then headed. An engineer who heads his own company,
Elmendorf insists that the second law of thermodynamics is an insurmountable barrier to
evolution—that evolution is in direct conflict with this basic law and has thus been
decisively falsified. So certain is he that he offers $5000 for proof that “evolution is
scientifically possible” (judged by himself, of course). Evolution is an uphill process, he
explains, but the Second Law proves that all processes must inevitably progress downhill.
Elmendorf explains that living organisms—apparent exceptions to the Second Law—
require a “creative trinity” for their “uphill” progress: external energy (an open system),
structure and intelligence (an energy conversion mechanism), and coded genetic
instructions. This “creative trinity” could not have evolved; it must have been created
(Wilder-Smith emphasizes the same point). A friendly and whimsical eccentric who
refers to himself as a “windmill-tilter,” Elmendorf distributes flyers and posters
illustrating the “evil fruit” of evolution (namely, all of society’s evils) and advertising his
$5000 reward for proof of evolution. Elmendorf has no need to explain away the
Church’s attitude towards Galileo; he is a confirmed geocentrist, and he also offers $1000
for proof that the earth moves.
Paul Ellwanger, who drafted the model bill that the 1981 Arkansas creationscience
law was based on, heads an organization called Citizens for Fairness in Education
which lobbies for teaching of creationism. A Catholic, Ellwanger commented on
“Creationist Materials for Catholics” in the Creation Social Science and Humanities
Quarterly (1981).
According to a column in the Santa Monica Outlook, William Marra, a
conservative Catholic philosophy professor at Fordham University in New York, was a
democratic candidate for U.S. president in 1988 (Thorne 1988). The columnist had