Why you shouldn't believe "Scientific Creationist" literature

"... fundamentalists and magic-mongers alike merely do harm to true religion ... [ for ] in every such direct battle since the Renaissance, science has been the victor." - The Rt. Rev. E. W. Barnes, F. R. S., Bishop of Birmingham, in Pupin, Science and Religion, p. 57.

"Evolutionists insist that the duck-billed platypus is an evolutionary link between mammals and birds."  - Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, p. 109

"We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." - Duane Gish, Evolution?  The Fossils Say No!, p. 42

"Thus it is obvious that one can logically reject the historicity of Genesis 1-11 only if he likewise rejects the rest of the Bible as well, and even the infallibility of Christ himself.  Many modern-day religious liberals and even some supposedly conservative Christians have done exatly that.  Most Christians, however, are unwilling to go this far.   Some try to avoid the issue altogether, but this tactic almost inevitably is a prelude to compromise.
     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" - Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, (San Diego, Creation-Life Publishers, 1972),  p. 82.

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.  Ibid., p. 94.

As a matter of fact, the creation model does not, in its basic form requre a short time scale.  It merely assumes a period of special creation sometime in the past, without necessarily stating when that was.  On the other hand, the evolution model does require a long time scale.  The creation model is thus free to consider the evidence on its own merits, whereas the evolution model is forced to reject all evidence that favors a short time scale. - Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974),  p. 136.

1. Duane Gish of the ICR claimed in his first book on the fossil record that

 
"Dubois concealed the fact that he had also discovered at nearby Wadjak and at approximately the same level [as the Java Man skullcap] two human skulls (known as the Wadjak skulls) ... It was not until 1922, when a similar discovery was about to be announced, that Dubois revealed the fact that he had possessed the Wadjak skulls for over 30 years." (Gish 1979)
2. C. Loring Brace, a prominent paleoanthropologist, informed Gish in a debate in 1982 that Eugène Dubois had in fact published preliminary accounts of the Wadjak skulls in 1890 and 1892.  Gish did not ask for references,  which he should have done, if he were interested in resolving the issue.
3. In 1985 Gish  repeated the same claim in the next update of his book.
4. In 1986 Brace published an article on creationist claims about Homo erectus (Brace 1986) in which he listed his references for Dubois' early publications on Wadjak Man.
5. During a debate with Gish in 1992, Karl Fezer repeated Brace's claims, and showed a transparency listing Dubois' early publications on Wadjak Man.  Gish denied that these publications mentioned Wadjak Man (in effect calling Brace a liar), on the grounds that Sir Arthur Keith had claimed in 1925 that Dubois had concealed the existence of the Wadjak skulls. Keith did indeed say that, but he was apparently unaware of Dubois' early publications on Wadjak.
6. In 1995 Gish once again repeated his original claim, essentially unchanged, in his next book:
 
"Dubois failed to publish the fact that he had also discovered at nearby Wadjak two human skulls (known as the Wadjak skulls) ... It was not until 1922, when a similar discovery was about to be announced, that Dubois published the fact that he had possessed the Wadjak skulls for over thirty years." (Gish 1995)
 
7. Joyce Arthur, in 1996, pointed out Gish's error once more. In his response, Gish (1997) again claimed that Keith's 1925 statement, and similar ones by W. W. Howells in 1946 and 1959, showed that Dubois had not published on Wadjak, ignoring the fact that if Brace's references were correct (and Gish made no attempt to show they were not), Keith and Howells were simply wrong.  Gish then goes on to say:

 
"Brace claims that Dubois had already published these previous Wadjak finds and therefore I was either ignorant or less than honest in making such a claim. If this is so, I would like to have the documentation from Brace."

Creationists like to play on the common misunderstanding of the word 'theory'.   In common usage (vs scientific usage) 'theory' means something like "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis, to guess.  From this misunderstanding, they make the argument "Evolution is only a theory".  They then point to the intense debate on various aspects of the theory, and say "If evolution is only a theory, and the scientists themselves can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it?"

In scientific usage, facts and theories are different things, not rungs on a hierarchy of certainty.   Facts are the world's data.   Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.    Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.  Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.   And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.  [ 1 ]

A theory (as the word is used by scientists) is a detailed description of some facet of the universe's workings that is based on long observation and, where possible, experiment. It is the result of careful reasoning from those observations and experiments and has survived the critical study of scientists generally. [ 2 ]