[p. 5]

Creation Science: A Cause for Investigation?

During the Arkansas trial I listened carefully for any new, irrefutable evidence for evolution—such as the synthesis of life from inert matter. During a news conference there I remarked, if this were accomplished, evolution would again be acceptable to me. My intent is not to disparage the evolutionists who advised and testified for the ACLU, but I do question whether their mind sets even allowed them to consider that they might be scientifically wrong.

As Americans, the ACLU and others have the right to oppose the teaching of creation science in the public schools; likewise, I have the right to believe that if the public schools are going to teach about origins, students should have the option of studying either the evolution or creation model of origins. If there is unambiguous scientific evidence that one view is true, this should not be kept secret. Under our form of government, citizens may advocate whatever position they choose as far as the Constitution and the courts allow. But is it ethical for the scientific organization which is mandated to advise the Federal Government to unfairly represent the case for creation science in order to maintain preferential treatment of evolution in the public schools? I refer to the most esteemed scientific organization in America—the National Academy of Sciences.

In the spring of 1984 the Academy released a booklet "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences" (National Academy of Sciences 1984). On page two the booklet describes the Academy as a private, self-supporting organization of distinguished scientists which was chartered over a century ago by the U.S. Congress to advise the Federal Government in matters of science and technology. In its official role, the Academy had a double responsibility to act in the highest traditions of science and objectively examine the scientific merits of all evidences for creation. But a prerequisite for this undertaking required that the Academy be open-minded on this issue. The booklet contains a declaration which unmistakably reveals its position:

. . . The hypothesis of special creation has, over nearly two centuries, been repeatedly and sympathetically considered and rejected on evidential grounds by qualified observers and experimentalists. In the forms given in the first two chapters of Genesis it is now an invalidated hypothesis. . . .

Confronted by this challenge to the integrity and effectiveness of our national education system and to the hard-won evidence-based foundations of science, the National Academy of Sciences cannot remain silent.

[p. 6]

To do so would be a dereliction of our responsibility to academic and intellectual freedom and to the fundamental principles of scientific thought. As a historic representative of the scientific profession and designated advisor to the Federal Government in matters of science, the Academy states unequivocally that the tenets of 'creation science' are not supported by scientific evidence, [and] that creationism has no place in a science curriculum at any level. . . (National Academy of Sciences 1984, 7)

Under the guise of defending intellectual freedom and the integrity of the national education system, the Academy has clearly impugned the scientific integrity of the Bible. If special creation, as described in Genesis, has truly been "rejected on evidential grounds" and "invalidated," as the Academy says, then the Academy should provide the basis for these claims, or else tell where such evidence can be found. But the Academy's booklet fails on both of these counts. Instead, it arbitrarily promotes the view that certain scientific results confirm the evolutionary model, without mentioning all the uncertainties connected with those results. Throughout the booklet plausibility arguments based on questionable assumptions are used to support the evolutionary scenario. In its official capacity as the designated adviser to the Government in matters of science, the Academy has done its utmost to promote evolution as truth. Doubtless there are many who believe that meritorious recognition should be given for this action. History may even record that the timely publication of their booklet was one of the Academy's greatest achievements.

The other possibility is that the Academy will gain lasting fame in history for having opened its own Pandora's box. From the economic standpoint, if genuine scientific evidence for creation has been published in leading scientific journals and if the Academy has ignored this evidence while extolling evolution as the only truly scientific theory of origins, should not there be an investigation of this matter? The potential cost for negligence in advising the Government of this information could be enormous. For example, millions of dollars are granted annually by government agencies to fund a variety of evolution-oriented research projects. One well-funded effort concerns attempts to synthesize life from nonliving matter. All such research is based on the fundamental evolutionary assumption that in the distant past life began spontaneously, by chance. However, valid scientific evidence that the earth was created shows the evolutionary scenario to be wrong, and the belief that life began by chance crumbles. Taxpayers have a stake in learning whether the Academy has tried to maintain the status quo of evolution by remaining silent about evidences for creation. And [p. 7] Americans have more at stake in this issue than their money, almost none of which is used to investigate the scientific basis for creation.