Response to the National Academy of Sciences

The ultimate battle against creation science since the Arkansas trial has been waged by the National Academy of Sciences. Much discussion concerning how this prestigious scientific organization has denied the evidence for creation was presented in the Overview. In this concluding chapter, since the reader may now have a different perspective of the evolution/creation controversy, I ask: Is the National Academy of Sciences correct in claiming that special creation is an invalidated hypothesis? In the Conclusion of its booklet, Science and Creationism, we find the Academy's final evaluation of creation science:

[p. 195]

It is, therefore, our unequivocal conclusion that creationism, with its accounts of the origin of life by supernatural means, is not science. It subordinates evidence to statements based on authority and revelation. Its documentation is almost entirely limited to the special publications of its advocates. And its central hypothesis is not subject to change in light of new data or demonstration of error. Moreover, when the evidence for creationism has been subjected to the tests of the scientific method, it has been found invalid. (National Academy of Sciences 1984, 26)

This paragraph contains five accusations, each deserving special comment:

(1) The first sentence effectively hides the failure of evolutionists to confirm a basic prediction of their own theory—the spontaneous origin of life from inert matter. Instead of admitting that this failure invalidates the entire theory of evolution, the Academy attempts to exclude creation science from the scientific landscape by defining science to exclude supernatural power. It is somewhat of a paradox that the Academy would advance such a view because the theory of evolution is in desperate need of a supernatural power both for the origin of life and for the Big Bang. Generally these facts have not been understood by the public.

(2) In the second sentence the Academy claims that the idea of a supernatural origin of life is equivalent to subordinating scientific evidence to revelation. In truth, the abject failure of scientists to synthesize life from inert matter points to only one conclusion—that life originates only with the Creator—just as indicated by the biblical account.

(3) By claiming that the documentation for creation science lies almost entirely within the realm of special publications of its advocates, the Academy Committee members disregarded the scientific publications described in this book supporting creation. Readers should understand that the Academy cannot plead ignorance of those publications. Through my testimony at the Arkansas creation trial in 1981 and my presentation at the American Association for the Advancement of Science symposium in 1982, a significant number of prominent evolutionists became aware of the implications of my research.

(4) The claim that the central hypothesis of creation science is not subject to change in the light of new data is directly refuted by the falsification test that I had proposed to the scientific community in 1979. As noted before, the failure of evolutionists to respond to this critical test leads to only one conclusion—the fundamental uniformitarian principle is not now, nor has it ever been a sufficient basis for granites to form. Without this principle the evolutionary mosaic disintegrates.

[p. 196]

(5) In the last sentence the Academy asserts that evidence for creation has been subjected to the scientific method and found to be invalid. This statement is definite and unequivocal, with no qualifications. Thus far, to my knowledge, whenever my evidences for creation have been critically examined, they have successfully withstood those examinations. Nevertheless, due to the impeccable reputation of the Academy for scientific integrity, we must ask: Is the Academy able to back up its all-inclusive claim? If so, it should immediately reveal what published scientific report negates my published evidences for creation.

American taxpayers, especially those who question the evolutionary model, deserve to know whether such a report actually exists. If it does exist, the integrity of the Academy remains intact. If it doesn't exist, then the Academy's claim must in reality rank as only one of its greatest wishes. In the latter case, it seems that all open- minded evolutionists should query whether their faith in evolution has been misplaced. They might consider that the Creator left trillions of "tiny mysteries" in earth's Genesis rocks to establish substantive faith in the inspired record of creation.

Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

Shortly before I was scheduled to speak at the First International Conference on Creationism to be held at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in August 1986, I sent a letter to Dr. Frank Press, President of the National Academy of Sciences, via overnight courier, inviting him to come to my lectures and present any evidence which he thought invalidated my scientific data. On several occasions during my presentation I asked whether any representative of the NAS was present. The audience was silent. About a month later I then sent a duplicate letter to Dr. Press. Still there was no reply.

However, some others in attendance at this Conference did raise objections; this afforded me an opportunity to clarify many issues, in particular that the White Mountain granites in New Hampshire are also created rocks. My contribution and response to those objections were later published in the Proceedings of the conference (Gentry 1987a; Appendix).

Thus came to an end my attempts to elicit a reply from the Academy before this book was first published in late 1986. But the next year another opportunity arose to ask for a public response from Dr. Press and other prominent evolutionists, and the results of that inquiry will now be discussed.