Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T16:27:30.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Creation Science Logic and Rhetoric, and Some Responses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2017

David R. Schwimmer
David R. Schwimmer*
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Geology, Columbus State University, Columbus, GA 31907-5645
Get access

Extract

“Creation Science” is a philosophical hydra that seems to strike at a wide range of ideas and data accepted by nearly all professional biologists, paleontologists, geologists, and astronomers. “Creation Science” (here, simply, Creationism) holds views of natural processes that are so diametrically opposed to those of orthodox science, one would assume both views could not coexist in a rational world. And yet, overwhelming numbers of Americans accept much of the Creationist position, and unknown numbers accept at least some of its tenets (such as the uniqueness of humans, as distinct from “animals”).

Type
Creationism and Flood Geology
Information
The Paleontological Society Papers , Volume 5: The Evolution-Creation Controversy II: Perspectives on Science, Religion, and Geological Education , October 1999 , pp. 105 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Baldridge, H.D. 1974. Shark attack. Berkeley Publishing Corporation, New York, 263p.Google Scholar
Carroll, R. L. 1997. Patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 448 p.Google Scholar
Coffin, H. G. 1983. Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington. Geology 11:298–299.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, P. E. 1991. Darwin on trial. Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove IL, 195 p.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. E., 1997. Defeating Darwinism by opening minds. Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.Google Scholar
Lewin, R. 1987. Bones of Contention. Simon and Schuster, New York, 348 p.Google Scholar
Lorey, F. 1994. Tree rings and biblical chronology. Institute for Creation Research, Impact 252, 4 p.Google Scholar
Lubenow, M. L. 1992. Bones of contention. Baker Book House, 295 p.Google Scholar
Lubenow, M. L. 1997. Alleged evolutionary ancestors coexisted with modern humans. Institute for Creation Research, Impact 286, 4 p.Google Scholar
Morris, H. M. 1991. Adam and the animals. Institute for Creation Research, Impact 212, 4p.Google Scholar
Morris, H. M. 1998. That their words may be used against them. Institute for Creation Research.Google Scholar
Morris, H. M. 1999. What they say. Institute for Creation Research, Back To Genesis 123 (March, 1999): a–c.Google Scholar
Morris, J. D. 1993. Did Jonah really get swallowed by a whale? Institute for Creation Research, Back to Genesis 60 (December, 1993), p. d.Google Scholar
Morris, J. D. 1994. What about the horse series? Institute for Creation Research, Back to Genesis 63 (March, 1999), p. d.Google Scholar
Morris, J. D. 1994. Does the geologic column prove evolution? Institute for Creation Research, Back to Genesis 67 (July, 1994), p. d.Google Scholar
Schwimmer, D. R. 1984. Is there scientific method in Creationist madness? p. 3–26 in Walker, K. (ed.) The Evolution-Creation Controversy: Perspectives on Religion, Philosophy, Science and Education. The Paleontolgical Society Special Publication 1.Google Scholar
Stambaugh, J. 1994. Star formation and Genesis I. Institute for Creation Research, Impact 251, 4 p.Google Scholar
Swisher, C. C. Iii, Rink, W. J., Anton, S. C., Schwarcz, H. P., Curtis, G. G., Suprijo, A., Widiasmoro, . 1996. Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Google Scholar
Thomson, K. S. 1997. Natural Selection and evolution's smoking gun. American Scientist, 85: 516–518.Google Scholar
Walker, K. R. (ed.) 1984. The Evolution-Creation Controversy: Perspectives on Religion, Philosophy, Science and Education. The Paleontological Society Special Publication 1, 155 p.Google Scholar