Fallacies of Creationism

Richard C. Smith is a professor in the Classics Department of the
University of Alberta.

This rather interesting volume provides a comprehensive critique of creationism from the viewpoint of a well-trained physicist who is concerned that creationism may be accepted as a valid scientific alternative in North American education. He discusses the nature of creationism as a modern movement, the basis of its theories, and the contrast between its ideas and the views held by most of the scientific community on evolution, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the origin of life, the age of the world, the nature of fossil evidence, and the origin of man.

Though many facets of creationism relate to educational systems and institutions in the United States, such as Christian Heritage College and The Institute for Creation Research near San Diego, California, there are also a number of Canadian organizations which are active in promoting creationist views, such as the Creation Science Association of Canada, based in Vancouver, with branches in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario. It would also appear that creationism is currently being taught in a number of school systems in Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario.

In light of the considerable influence of this movement, Young feels it is extremely important to show in considerable detail why most scientists regard creationism not as a scientific alternative based on minority research, but as a misrepresentation of science based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Creationists generally propose that the universe is no more than ten thousand years old, that the geology of the earth resulted largely from catastrophic processes, such as the Great Flood, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the result of the sin of Adam, and, particularly, that life did not evolve.

The author indicates that creationists use the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a “proof” that evolution cannot occur in principle even though itapplies to closed systems rather than to the open systems of actual life. In order to support their views, creationists must also reject radioactive dating and the relationship of fossils to any interpretation of an orderly sequence in the past. Young, in contrast, shows how our present knowledge of chemistry relates to the possibility of a non supernatural beginning to life, which is explainable in terms of the properties of matter and the laws of nature.

All in all, the book does a good job of showing the weakness of creationism as an alternate model for understanding nature, and deals with the gaps in our present knowledge of the origins of life which are more likely to be filled through honest research than uncritical and irrational thought.