
Origins 5(2):105-109 (1978).
LITERATURE REVIEW
THE CREATION-EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY. R.L. Wysong. 1976. Inquiry Press, East Lansing, Michigan. 455 pages.
After a thorough and critical reading, I must describe Dr. Wysong's
book as the best comprehensive treatment of scientific creationism that has become
available prior to mid-1977.
Many readers will appreciate the author's efforts to present a fair
treatment of contrasting evolutionary and creationist views. The approach taken throughout
the book is to present a set of facts, offer an evolutionary and a creationist
interpretation, and leave the reader to decide the relative merits of the interpretations.
The extent to which the author's creationist bias is apparent in varying degrees
throughout the range of topics he covers is no discredit to his effort to present a fair
and balanced treatment. Readers who wish to investigate more fully any of the topics
treated by Wysong will appreciate his extensive documentation.
The 138 illustrations, about one for every three pages of basic text,
combine with the author's clear, straight-forward style to make the subject material more
easily comprehensible than many readers of this type of literature may have thought
possible. A number of these illustrations will be useful to individuals who have occasion
to present lectures on origins.
Chapters 1 and 2 briefly sketch the influence of evolutionary thought
throughout modern society, contrasting the good and the undesirable consequences that may
be attributed to both the creationist and the non-theistic evolutionary models. Wysong
proposes the interesting viewpoint that creation and contrasting evolution models are
theories of human behavior. From his experience as a veterinarian he observes that
attempts to correct social ills, like attempts to correct physical ills, will depend for
success on having a correct model for diagnosis.
Chapter 3 gives a survey of the possibilities for explaining life on
Earth, and also provides good discussions on the nature of reality, the need for
open-minded investigation to find a solid basis for truth, and the difference between
hypothesis, theory and law; between philosophy and science.
Individuals who have had difficulty grasping probability considerations
regarding the abiotic formation of biochemicals will appreciate the treatment given in
Chapter 5. The discussion in paragraph 2 on page 78 would be more consistent, and the
effort required by the reader minimized, if the number 24 rather than 16 were used for the
number of coin flips required to realize the 1/8 chance of getting heads
three times in a row.
Chapter 6 provides an excellent discussion on the origin and
development of DNA in biological systems. Some difficulty in following this discussion may
be caused by the confusion of probability with number of molecules at the beginning of
paragraph 2 on page 115. The opening sentence should read, "...1089,190
DNA molecules," not 1/1089,190. This and the following chapter provide a
more complete and more accurate treatment of probability considerations related to the
origin of life than has been previously available in the creationist literature.
Much sound evidence for a short history of the life-support system
provided by planet Earth is given in Chapter 10. One of the best lines of evidence is that
provided by river deltas (p. 163) (1). Unfortunately, the author's treatment of geology,
geochemistry and radiometric dating is principally based on uncritical borrowing from
previous creationist literature and does not compare with his handling of philosophy,
molecular biology and genetics. For instance, at the bottom of page 153 it is stated that
most radiometric dates are not "scientific." Any carefully determined
radiometric data (age) are scientific, irrespective of its interpretation in terms of real
time. The "error" (page 154) in most cases is not in the radiometric dates but
in the interpretations in terms of real time.
In the discussion on biogenesis and spontaneous generation in Chapter
11 the author presents an interesting treatment of the problem posed by extension of the
law of biogenesis to the Creator. The nature of the Creator's existence and the on-going
relationship between Creator and creation are confronted in a helpful philosophical
discussion which continues into the following chapter. There the question is raised, Is
life a property of matter, or matter a property of life?
Subsequently the author returns to a consideration of biopolymer
formation, with an excellent, easily understood qualitative treatment. The prebiotic
atmosphere necessary for evolutionary models of origin and a discussion of both the
evolutionist and creationist views regarding thermodynamic arguments related to origins
are well presented.
Three chapters are devoted to a discussion of biological variation. A
choice collection of authoritative quotations on the genetic aspect of evolution is given,
as well as an excellent discussion of the "survival of the fittest" principle,
including an imposing list of negative examples for "natural selection."
The question concerning circular reasoning in geology is treated in
Chapter 20, which contains a choice selection of quotations from authorities who affirm
that paleontological criteria are the basis for determining the time sequence of geologic
strata.
Critical readers of this book will often be perplexed to determine
whether a parenthetical statement within a quotation is a comment by Wysong or part of the
original text which is being quoted. The book would have benefited from the services of a
professional editor. The use of tenant for tenet on page 56, stalagtites
for stalactites on page 172 and the expression "the earth is surrounded by
thousands of square miles of sedimentary strata" on page 355 provide examples. At
times the author indulges a vigorous, unconventional style that will delight some readers,
and possibly dismay others. Frequently encountered are non-dictionary terms such as quantitate,
complexify, complexification, multiquadrupledoupleillions, and scavengerized.
More serious, perhaps, are unprofessional expressions such as: "keeping his clammy
little hands out of the pot," regarding evolutionist origin-of-life experiments, on
page 237; "the second law says it just won't done ain't gonna happen" on page
257; "a million billion quintuplatillion umptaplatillion, multuplatillion
impossibidillion fantasticatrillion years" on page 347; and "sudden 'poof!'
creation" on page 411.
Unfortunately the author tends to oversimplify certain concepts and
bases some of the "proofs" on either results reported under highly specialized
and artificial laboratory circumstances, or on unverified theoretical models. Space does
not permit an exhaustive list of some serious technical errors in this book, but I would
like to point out a few examples.
Wysong's discussion of the geomagnetic moment on page 161 involves
several hazardous simplifications. The available geomagnetic field data have been
collected over a period of only 130 years and must be extrapolated on a strictly
uniformitarian basis over ten-fold to obtain the 1400 year half-life estimate. An
additional uniformitarian extrapolation of nearly ten-fold must be made to reach the
desired conclusion. Linear, exponential or sinusoidal decay can be fitted to the available
data. While exponential decay is the preferred choice in Wysong's discussion, a sinusoid
section can give a slightly better fit. Since paleomagnetic evidence establishes beyond
question that there have been numerous geomagnetic reversals during the time igneous and
sedimentary features have been formed, there is a good possibility that the recent
decrease in geomagnetism could be the initial stage of another reversal, rather than
evidence for a unidirectional change throughout Earth history.
The atmospheric helium interpretation given on page 163 does not take
adequate account of several facts. Hydrogen is known to escape rapidly from Earth's
atmosphere (2). Helium escapes from the outer atmosphere in the order of 1/50 as
fast as diatomic hydrogen and 1/300 as fast as monatomic hydrogen (3). Earth's atmosphere
is 0.934 percent argon which contains nearly 10,000 times more argon-40 than does
primordial argon (4). The most reasonable explanation for this high concentration of
argon-40 is the accumulation of argon-40 produced by potassium-40 radioactivity.
Of the seven plus locations specified on page 373, human footprints in
immediate association with dinosaur footprints have been reported for only one
the Glen Rose area of Texas. An individual who wishes to utilize this evidence in
support of the contemporaneity of men and dinosaurs should make a first-hand observation
of the footprint features in the Dinosaur State Park area. The dinosaur footprint evidence
there is unquestionable, possibly the best in the world. But a large number of
conservative creationists, including many scientists with doctorates, who have studied
this area find the presumed evidence for human footprints highly questionable at best. A
number of human footprints quarried from the Paluxy River bed have been proven to be
carvings made for sale to tourists. Pictures taken of irregularities in the rock that have
been wetted by water or oil to obtain better photographic contrast are far more convincing
than first-hand observation of the unretouched features. The wetting process introduces
subjective bias on the part of the photographer (5).
One conclusion that the reader of this review may make is that its
author is unduly critical. I trust that my readers will consider this review as an effort
to be constructive, an effort to place scientific creationism on a more solid scientific
base and give it a posture less susceptible to attack by well-informed persons.
A second conclusion that may be reached is that the scope of topics
Wysong has attempted to cover is probably too great for a single writer. Creationist
writers would do better to confine their efforts to the area(s) in which they have
specialized to the extent of attaining adequate competence. The cause of creationism is
not well served when one writer (or speaker) in good faith uncritically borrows the
weaknesses and errors of another writer. Conviction concerning the truth of creationism,
or of a particular model of creationism, does not assure competence to discriminate
between good and unsound supporting arguments. A book that attempts the wide scope covered
by the Creation-Evolution Controversy should be a team effort, or at least should
in its development be critiqued by specialists in each of the areas covered.
Finally, it can be observed that there is a firm and ample scientific
basis for a creation model of origins in contrast with a non-theistic evolutionary model.
But a corresponding firm and ample scientific basis for the traditional Hebrew-Christian
short chronology view of planet Earth as a life support system does not exist, at least at
present. Claims that the scientific evidence, of itself, inductively leads to the
short-chronology inherent in a straightforward grammatical-historical reading of the Bible
should be expected to have a negative effect on unsympathetic scientifically informed
individuals. Every effort should be made to develop sound models for relating scientific
evidence to a biblically based viewpoint in a manner that will minimize the barriers
encountered by scientifically informed individuals who become sympathetic toward this
viewpoint, and that also will meet the needs of individuals whose educational experience
makes it difficult to retain a biblically based viewpoint. Dr. Wysong is to be commended
for the progress he has made toward these goals.
FOOTNOTES
All contents copyright
Geoscience Research Institute. All rights reserved.
| Home
| About Us
| Contact Us
|
Send comments and questions to
webmaster@grisda.org
| What's New
| Resources
| Search
| Links
|