Creationism - National Center for Science Education

“We-.deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to
overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.” ICBI also issued a similar
“Statement on Hermeneutics” (reprinted in its catalog), which is also strongly and
explicitly creationist.
Norman Geisler, a professor of systematic theology at Dallas Theological
Seminary with a Ph.D. from Loyola University, was a defense witness at the 1981
Arkansas creation-science trial. Though he actively promotes creation-science, he is not
a young-earth creationist, and has stated that the wording of the Arkansas bill, which
defined creation as “recent,” caused unnecessary trouble. “Why provide [the
evolutionists] with one more excuse to proclaim the creationists’ view religious (since
many believe only the Bible teaches a young earth)?” (1982:20). The Creator in the
Courtroom: “Scopes II” (written in collaboration with two of his Dallas Theol. Sem.
Grad students, and with a Foreword by Duane Gish of ICR) is Geisler’s account of the
trial. Geisler argues strenuously against the evolutionist plaintiffs, analyzing and
denouncing their many legal errors and logical fallacies with Jesuitical rigor. Geisler also
rebuts the accusation by Wendell Bird of the Creation Science Legal Defense Fund, who
had hoped to lead the defense (he later defended the Louisiana bill before the Supreme
Court), and John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, that Attorney General Clark
mishandled the defense.
Bill Keith, president of the Creation Science Legal Defense Fund, former state
senator and author of the Louisiana creation-science bill, aggressively defended his
“balanced treatment” bill in Scopes II: The Great Debate (1982). Though vehemently
anti-evolutionist (he calls it the “greatest hoax of the 20th century”), Keith is also an oldearth
creationist, and objects to being lumped with the young-earthers. “Virtually all of
the stories dealing with creation-science have said we believe the earth is only 6,000
years old. I don’t believe that and I’m the author of the creation-science law” (1982:79).
Keith also includes a long section on the Arkansas trial, attacking the defense team as
inept and ill-prepared, and chastizing them for not accepting help from the CSLDF, Bird,
Whitehead, and Gish. He concludes with advice on how to influence the legislative and
educational process to present creationism, urging creationist lobbyists to stress scientific
evidences and avoid discussion of religious implications of creationism.
You too can join us in this great crusade for freedom of speech, freedom to know the truth and freedom
from educational oppression and indoctrination. Creation-science is pure science and it belongs in the
public school classrooms. Yet censors abridge it from the curricula. [1982:193]
In McDowell and Stewart’s book The Creation, Stewart says that either youngearth
or old-earth creationism may be true (1984:44-45).
Pat Robertson, a strong supporter of creation-science, has hosted both old- and
young-earth creationists on his 700 Club TV show. (Former co-host Danuta Soderman
once pointed out that a fossilized insect “millions of years old” looked exactly like
modern insects, thus refuting evolution: this argument implies old-earth creationism.)
One scientist featured on the 700 Club is Robert Gange, an electrical engineer at
Sarnoff Research Center in Princeton, N.J. (he says he was “honored seven times” by
NASA), and head of his own creation-science organization, the Genesis Foundation.
Gange’s book Origins & Destiny (1986) promotes old-earth creationism, appealing to the
Big Bang as the moment of Creation, the obvious Design of the universe, and such