Science in Christian Perspective



Is Creation-Science Science or Religion?
Dallas Theological Seminary
Dallas, Texas 75204

From: JASA 36 November 1984): 149-155.

This essay examines the grounds for rejecting creation-science given by the Arkansas Federal Court (Jan. 5, 1982). It looks at the charges that the idea of creation comes from the Bible, and that creation-science is religion because it implies a supernatural cause or Creator. It also examines the allegation that creation-science is not science because it is not a testable or falsifiable theory.

The first charge is found wanting because the source of a scientific theory is irrelevant to its scientific adequacy, and disallowing theories with implications of a Creator unconstitutionally favors naturalistic religions.

The charge that creation is not science is based on a prevailing confusion between operation -science (empirical science) and origin-science (forensic science). Neither creation nor macroevolution is an operation science, but both are an origin science.

Is creation-science science or religion? In Arkansas (Jan. 5, 1982) a federal judge ruled that creation-science is religion.1 We propose to examine the grounds of this decision with a view to answering this question: should creation-science be taught in public school science classes?

What is Religion?

A. The Grounds of the Arkansas Decision

Nowhere does the Arkansas judge provide a definition of religion. However, he did rule creation-science is religious because it has certain characteristics which the judge considered essentially religious. According to judge Overton these religious characteristics include the following:

1. A supernatural cause; 2. Creation from nothing; 3. A religious source (the Bible); 4. The implication of a Creator.2

B. An Analysis of the Arkansas Decision

1. A Supernatural Cause. The validity of these conclusions bears scrutiny. First of all, the claim that whatever involves a supernatural cause is religious appears to beg the question in favor of naturalistic religions. Why eliminate only beliefs, such as creation, which are consistent with supernatural religions? To do so is to show a preference for naturalistic religious beliefs. For naturalism is also an essential of many religions. In fact, the Supreme Court has declared that 11 among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."3 So to rule out views of origin which involve a supernatural cause has the effect of favoring these naturalistic religions.

Furthermore, limiting science to purely naturalistic causes seems to be misdirected for historical, philosophical, scientific, and educational reasons. Historically, it is widely acknowledged that the belief in a supernatural creation is the very origin of modern science. In a landmark article on the source of modern science, M. B. Foster wrote: "What is the source of the un-Greek elements which were imported into philosophy by the post-Reformation philosophers, and which constitute the modernity of modern philosophy? The answer is ... the Christian doctrine of creation."4 indeed, for the first two and a half centuries of modern science (1620-1860) most of the leading lights in science believed the universe and life gave evidence of a Creator. It is sufficient to recall names like Bacon, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Agassiz, Maxwell, Mendel and Kelvin-all of whom believed in a supernatural cause of the universe and life.

Philosophically, it is difficult to justify an approach to origins in science which gives a hearing to only one of the available alternative explanations. Indeed, it is of the essence of philosophy to be open to opposing views. Furthermore, not allowing a creationist explanation of origins is contrary to

In view of this reasonable distinction we would conclude that if one approaches a Creator from the objective, detached vantage point Of scientific inference he has not thereby engaged in a religious exercise.

present practice in high school humanities and philosophy classes. Here arguments both for and against a Creator are presented. I fail to see why the same procedure should not also be utilized in a science class.

Scientifically, there are some serious objections to disallowing minority views. Remember Galileo. Remember also Velikovsky. 5 Furthermore, without new (which means, minority) views there would be no possibility of scientific progress. There is a good current example of this. The prevailing views of coal formation call for millions of years of build up of decaying vegetation. However, a scientist working from a nonevolutionary model, theorized that coal can be formed in short times by chemical action. The result was the revolutionary but highly underpublicized invention of a fossil fuel for a fraction of the price of gasoline.6 By disallowing creationists' theories an opportunity to be presented, scientists in the name of science may be unwittingly hindering the progress of science.

Educationally, serious oversights are involved in forbidding creation-science an entrance to the science class room. With the exception of a few vocal zealots for evolution 7 Most serious scientists recognize that macro-evolution is not a proven fact; it is at best only a theory. Some evolutionists have even admitted it is a "myth"8 or a matter of "faith." Speaking to a group of American scientists (Nov. 5, 1981) the famous British paleontologist, Colin Patterson said, 11 the explanatory value of the hypothesis of common ancestry is nil." He went on to say, "I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you have experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith.9

In any event, it is possible that evolution may be wrong, and creation may be right. If this is so, then court decisions which forbid teaching creation could have the consequence of legislating the impossibility of presenting the truth in the science class room. I find it difficult to believe that fairminded scientists are willing to say in effect: "creationscience may be true, but we will not allow it to be taught anyway!" Have we reached the point in American scientific education that we have so narrowed our definition of 11 science" that we have eliminated the possibility of it discovering truth?

2. Creation from Nothing. The Arkansas judge affirmed that "creation of the world 'out of nothing' is the ultimate religious statement because God is the only actor.10 But this pronouncement appears to be a case of special pleading. For there are only two basic views on the origin of the universe: 1) either it is eternal or else 2) it came into being out of nothing. But why should we legislate that the belief in an uncaused, eternal universe is not religious, but the belief that it had a cause of its beginning is essentially religious? There are religions which believe the universe was not created from nothing (e.g., pantheism, atheism), just as there are those which believe it was made from nothing (e.g., theism). Why should one belief about the origin of the universe be considered religious and not the other?

Further, if we insist that a belief is religious because it is part of or consistent with some religion, then we will have to exclude from the public school most beliefs about origin and ethics ever held by mankind. For there is scarcely a significant cosmological or ethical view ever held that has not been at some time part of the religious beliefs of some group somewhere. Surely this is too high a price to pay in order to rid our schools of what some believe are undesirable minority views among scientists.

Of course some may claim that it is scientific to believe the universe came into existence from nothing without a cause. But they may insist that to believe something (or someone) caused the universe to exist is religion. However, why should the denial of causality be scientific and its affirmation unscientific? Even the skeptic, David Hume, rejected as absurd the suggestion that things might arise without a cause.11 The principle of causality-that every event has an adequate cause-is fundamental to science. Hence, if there is scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning, then it is reasonable to postulate a cause for the universe coming into existence. In fact, it is both arbitrary and unscientific to limit the quest for causes to only natural ones. The prominent astrophysicist, Dr. Robert Jastrow, recently went so far as to say that "science has proven that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment." Thus, "the scientists' pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation."12 Jastrow concludes, 11 that there are what I or anyone else would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think a scientifically proven fact."13

3. The Implication of a Creator. Of course it must be admitted that there is a difference between postulating a Creator as a cause and positing a natural force. A Creator is an object of religious devotion or commitment. So it can be argued that a Creator is an inherently religious concept and, thus, should be ruled out of the proper domain of science. On the other hand, it is argued that natural objects and causes are not inherently religious. Hence, they can be legitimately posited as causes of events in the world.

However, this argument falters for several reasons. First of all, many natural forces (rain, wind, sun) are also objects of religious worship and devotion for many. In view of this any appeal to the causal powers of wind, rain or sun should also be considered religious. Further, if we must exclude from a science class anything which has been worshipped, then we would have to eliminate rocks from geology class because some people have worshipped rocks! We would surely have to exclude religious icons from archaeological and historical studies. With this same kind of reasoning we should also forbid the presentation of any historical evidence for Christ or Buddha in history classes. For both men are the object of religious worship or devotion by millions. After all, any historical evidence presented for the existence and teaching of these religious figures may have the effect of encouraging religious devotion to them.

Reasonable minds can see that such inferences are faulty. For it is clear that one can present historical evidence for the existence of Christ or Buddha without calling on students to worship them or make an ultimate commitment to either them or to their teachings. The same thing holds true in high school philosophy classes. Evidence and arguments can be presented for the existence (or non-existence) of a Creator without thereby calling on anyone to worship or make an ultimate commitment either for or against this Creator as such.

Indeed, one may speak of a Creator without presenting Him as an object of worship. In fact, it is not uncommon in Western thought for the Creator of the world not to function as the ultimate object of devotion or commitment. Both Aristotle and Plato are examples of this, as were the Gnostics. All of these views posited a Creator which they did not worship as the ultimate good but was simply viewed as the cause of the universe.

Dr. Paul Tillich was consulted by the Supreme Court when they concluded (in the Torcaso case, 1961) that belief in a God is not essential to religion. Tillich gives the key as to how the Ultimate (be it a Creator or whatever) may be approached in two different ways. if we study the Ultimate from a detached objective point of view this is not religion; it is philosophy. However, when we approach the same Ultimate from an involved, committed perspective this is religious.14 Building on Tillich's distinction, Dr. Langdon Gilkey notes that it is like two different climbers scaling a mountain from different sides. They are not approaching two different peaks. There is only one Ultimate. But there is more than one way this Ultimate can be approached.15

In view of this reasonable distinction we would conclude that if one approaches a Creator from the objective, detached vantage point of scientific inference he has not thereby engaged in a religious exercise. And this is precisely what creation-science does with regard to positing a Creator as a possible scientific explanation of origins.

The idea of a creative Cause of the universe is religiously innocuous when presented simply as a scientific theory. it is even less problematic when it must be presented as only one of the alternate ways to explain the data. It should be pointed out that these features of presenting creation only from an objective scientific approach and as only one of opposing views are part of the creation-evolution laws which were passed in both Arkansas and Louisiana.16

4. The Creation View Comes from a Religious Source. One of the more curious implications of the Arkansas ruling is its claim that creation-science was considered religious because it came from a religious source, the Bible. This reasoning has the characteristics of the genetic fallacy. First of all, let us grant that the source of this idea of creation is the Bible. If this makes it religious, then modern science itself is also religious. For it is well established that the doctrine of creation revealed in the Bible was the source of modern science. As M. B. Foster put it in response to the general query as to the source of modern science, "The answer to the ... question is: The Christian revelation. . . ."17 If this is so then modern science itself is religious since it came from a religious source!

Second, if we must reject a scientific theory because it comes from a religious source, then we must also reject many archaeological discoveries. For the source and inspiration of many near-eastern archaeological finds came from the Bible. Further, we would have to reject Kekule's model of the benzene molecule, since he got it from, a vision of a snake

Norman L. Geisler is Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary. He has previously taught philosophy at Trinity College and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has a BA and MA from Wheaton College, a ThB from William Tyndale College and PhD from Loyola University. He is author of numerous books and a frequent speaker at conferences.

biting it's tail!18 And we must also consider the alternating current motor unscientific because Tesla received the idea for it in a vision while reading a pantheistic poet.19 But has anyone ever rejected Socrates' philosophy simply because his inspiration for it came from a Greek prophetess? Or has anyone ever rejected Descartes' rationalism simply because his inspiration came from three dreams on November 10,

Why then should one arbitrarily rule out Of science classes the inference that highly complex information in the first living thing was the result of an intelligent agent?

1619? On the contrary, it is wrong to reject a scientific mo el because of its source-even if the source is religious in nature. Scientists are not concerned about the source of a model but rather about its adequacy in explaining the data. One evolutionist recently stated the issue well when he wrote:

I would like to stress that I have no quarrel with the creationists, use of Genesis and other parts of the Bible as sources of ideas, scientific and otherwise. The ultimate test of a scientific theory or model is the degree to which it efficiently and logically correlates our perceptions of our surroundings (both spatial and temporal). Depending on the idiosyncrasies of individual scientists, any source of ideas, inspiration, or insight may be useful for model building-experimental observation, the Koran the Bible, a revelation, numerology, a dream or hallucination: etc. The history of science reveals many examples of valuable scientific contributions which had their roots in such inspirations.20

What is Science?

Granted that creation-science is not essentially religious, there remains the question as to whether it is really scientific. Here both the Arkansas decision and much of anti-creation literature are based on an equivocal use of the term " science."21

A. Two Kinds of Science: "Operation -science" and "Origin-science"

Non-creationists rightly point out that: 1) the universe operates by natural laws; 2) these laws represent repeatable patterns of events which may be tested by observation in the natural world; 3) the singular acts of creation are not testable by any of these operational laws of nature because the acts of creation were not observed nor have they been repeated. On this basis some have concluded that creation-science is not really science. They maintain, however, that naturalistic explanations of origins, such as evolution, are scientific.

I believe this conclusion confuses two kinds of science: science about the operation and science about the origin of things.22 First, if observation of some recurring pattern of events in nature is essential to all science, then naturalistic explanations of origins are not scientific either. After all, there were no observers of the Big Bang or of the spontaneous generation of life-both of which are widely held naturalistic explanations of origins. Indeed, there were no scientific observers of any alleged evolutionary process leading up to man. So if scientific observation of some recurring pattern of nature is essential to a scientific understanding, then naturalistic or total evolutionary explanations are not scientific either. The fact is, however, that observation of a recurring pattern of events is a key element only of scientific views about the operation of the universe but not about its origination. For only the operation of the universe involves regularities; the events of origin were unrepeated singularities.

For example, there has been no repetition of the Big Bang, spontaneous generation, or of any alleged evolutionary tree of life. These are held to be singular and unrepeated past events which are nonetheless accepted as scientific explanations in the scientific community. The simple fact of the matter is that no view of origins (natural or supernatural) is based on the observation of any recurring pattern of events. For the events of origin were neither observed nor have their like been repeated since. Hence, repetition is a crucial element of the operation of the universe but not about its origination. For there is no scientific evidence that the universe and life originated over and over. But if macroevolution is not rejected because there is no recurring pattern of events in nature against which it can be tested, then neither should creation be rejected for this reason.

The fact of the matter is that those opposed to creationscience use a double-standard. By defining science in terms of regular, repeatable patterns (operation-science), they correctly conclude that creation-science is not science in this sense. Then when asked to justify how the unrepeated singularities of macroevolution can be science, they appeal to a different sense of the term science (origin-science) in which observed analogies from the present can be used to understand these unobserved singularities of the past.

Some object to this conclusion by insisting that there is a significant difference in the kinds of singularity involved. For example, the singularity of the spontaneous generation of first life is very different from the singularity of creation of that life. The first one implies a natural cause, but the other entails a supernatural cause. But they insist that a supernatural cause places it outside the domain of science. They contend that science deals only with secondary causes (observable in the natural world) but not with primary or ultimate causes (which are not observable). The latter, they say, is philosophy (or religion) but not science. Evolution deals only with secondary causes, but creation refers to a primary cause (a Creator). Hence, they conclude that evolution is science and creation is philosophy (or religion).23

In response to this several things should be noted. First of all, science deals with all of nature, the whole physical space-time universe. That is, science deals with all events (and their causes) in the spatio-temporal universe. just because some of these events do not have a material cause does not mean they are not subject to scientific analysis. Otherwise, science by definition must be materialistic. But if science were limited only to material causes then neither psychology, psychiatry, nor sociology would be science because they involve mental causes. Neither historically nor logically can science be limited to only material causes. It is simply arbitrary to do so. But if science can include mental (intelligent) causes of events which occur in the space-time world, then there is no reason to eliminate intelligent creation of the world or life forms from the realm of science.

Second, taking recent discoveries in astronomy as a model it is no longer possible to exclude a supernatural primary cause as a possible explanation of the origin of the universe.

Based on these scientific principles, creation is a viable explanation of origins. For there is no observational evidence in the present that can adequately account for the cause of origin of the universe by operational laws alone.

For the only kind of cause that could have brought the whole of nature into existence is one from beyond nature, namely, a supernatural Cause. Indeed, the word supernatural is even being used by astronomers, such as Robert Jastrow, to refer to the cause of this unique origin event.

Third, if only secondary causes can be considered scientific explanations, then the very distinction between primary and secondary causality begs the question in favor of naturalism.24 For all secondary causes by definition are natural causes. Hence, by definition only natural causes would be allowed as scientific explanations. This would make science incurably naturalistic by definition! This is not only unnecessary but it is arbitrary. It is a form of methodological naturalism.

Fourth, since it is logically possible that not all events of origin can be explained by only secondary (natural) causes, then by limiting science to only natural causes one is faced with the absurdity that science would have to insist on a natural cause even if it is false! Not only is this unreasonable but it would also lead to a lot of fruitless activity in science, by insisting that one seek purely natural causes where the evidence indicates the contrary. It would be like demanding that geology students continue to study the faces formed on Mount Rushmore until they can explain them by some natural process of erosion!

Fifth, there are only two possible explanations for the origin of first life. Either it resulted from purely non-intelligent natural forces, such as erosion forming the Grand Canyon. Or else life originated by intelligent intervention, such as the creation of the faces on Mount Rushmore. And it matters not whether the non-intelligent natural force was created or uncreated. The observed fact is that natural force cannot produce the likes of Mount Rushmore or a hydroelectric plant without direct intervention by some intelligence.

So in the final analysis there are only two possible efficient causes of first life (whatever instrumental causes may have been utilized). Thus our point is that if one allows only a natural (non-intelligent) cause of first life as a scientific explanation, then he has arbitrarily ruled out of science the very kind of intelligent cause the evidence may call for. Indeed, in a land-mark work it has recently been shown by some of our own ASA members that the most plausible scientific explanation of the origin of first life is an intelligent cause.25

Finally, inferring intelligent causes for certain kinds of events has long been an accepted practice even in the area of physical sciences. Archeologists have always inferred intelligent causes for pottery, arrowheads, or hieroglyphics because of the distinctive marks of intelligent contrivance or the complex information conveyed by them. Why then should one arbitrarily rule out of science classes the inference that the highly complex information in the first living thing was the result of an intelligent agent? It is also an accepted practice in contemporary astronomy to engage in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). And certain criteria have been established by which one can distinguish a purely natural signal (such as stars emit) from the signal of an intelligent being.26 If this is legitimate science to lay down criteria by which one can determine an intelligent cause for the sequence of symbols, then there is no good reason to insist that creationists cannot do the same for the sequence of elements in the first living cell.

B. The Nature of a Scientific Understanding of Origins

The operational laws of the universe are based on observation and repetition. Any theory about the operation of the universe can be tested by measuring the theory against a recurring pattern of events in the natural world. But with the past events of origin (of the universe and life) it is a different matter. These unique events of origins are past singularities. No theory about these events can be tested by measuring the theory against these events for the simple reason that the original events are not available for our observation.27 For this reason a science of origins is more like a forensic science. We have no instant replay of an unobserved murder. The forensic scientist must make an inferential reconstruction of the past on the basis of what he knows in the present.

There are two essential principles in origin science: the principle of causality and the principle of uniformity. The principle of causality holds that every event has an adequate cause. And the principle of uniformity says the present is the key to the past. Hence, the kind of cause known repeatedly in the present to produce a certain kind of event is assumed to be the kind of cause that produced like events in the past.

Let's apply these principles to a specific situation. Some contemporary proponents of the Big Bang theory believe that the scientific evidence, such as observing an expanding universe with dwindling usable energy (A la Second Law), leads to a supernatural cause of the universe. Astrophysicist, Dr. Robert Jastrow, said emphatically that there were "supernatural forces at work"28 in producing the universe. He adds,

Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.29

Now should Dr. Jastrow be disbarred from science because he believes the scientific evidence leads to the supernatural, even to Genesis chapter one? Should his book be banned from public school libraries?

Recently another renowned scientist, Sir Fred Hoyle, concluded that there is a Creator of first life in the universe. Surprised by his own mathematical calculations that the chances for life appearing spontaneously were 1 in 1040,000, this former atheist concluded there must have been an intelligent Creator of first life.30 Now it seems eminently unfair to argue that Fred Hoyle was doing science as long as he did not conclude the evidence pointed to a Creator of life but was no longer doing science once he believed the scientific evidence favors a Creator.

In point of fact, to argue that only non-intelligent causes are scientific is contrary to the scientific principles of causality and uniformity. Based on these scientific principles, creation is a viable explanation of origins. For there is no observational evidence in the present that can adequately account for the cause of origin of the universe by operational laws alone. And as to the scientific data relating to the alleged spontaneous generation of life, one scientist recently wrote, "One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."31

Neither can the beginning of the universe be adequately explained by operational natural laws. By the very nature of the case there were no natural processes before nature came into existence. Likewise, natural forces can account for the Grand Canyon, but these operational laws do not explain the faces formed on Mount Rushmore! The only kind of cause we ever observe forming things like Mount Rushmore is intelligence. This is our uniform experienee.32 Hence, the scientific principle of uniformity points to an intelligent source for Mount Rushmore. But since even the simplest form of life conveys vastly more information than does Mount Rushmore, it is not unscientific to postulate an intelligent cause of life.

To use another example, the redundant patterns of radio signals from stars do not indicate an intelligent cause. But were astronomers to receive a single sentence of intelligible information on their radio telescopes, some would not hesitate to postulate extra terrestrial intelligence as its cause.33 Now if such an inference is scientific and is allowed in our public schools, then why should creationists be forbidden to make scientific inferences to an intelligent cause of life? For example, the genetic information in the human brain is equal to the information contained in all the world's great libraries.34 Why then should it be unscientific to infer this vast information has an intelligent source?35 In fact, would we not consider it to be unscientific to assume that all the books in all the great libraries have no intelligent cause? After all, has anyone ever observed even one volume of a library result from an explosion in a printing shop? Or has anyone ever observed spontaneous information transformation from one source to another by random changes? Rather, is it not our uniform observations that new information always has an intelligent cause? If this is so, then it is simply arbitrary to rule out legitimate inferences to an intelligent, supernatural cause of the universe and life forms from scientific reasoning. For origin-science is different from operation-science. Unlike operation-science, origin-science has no recurring pattern of events in nature against which to test its theories. Instead, origin-science is dependent on the scientific principles of causality and uniformity which lead naturally to a creationist's view.

In conclusion, it is more than arbitrary to eliminate the teaching of scientific views about origins. Clarence Darrow, the ACLU lawyer in the famous Scopes trial, said it well: it is "bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origin. "36 And if it was bigotry in 1925 when only creationists' views were taught, then it is still bigotry in 1984 when only evolutionary views are being taught. Bigotry has not changed in the past half century; only the bigots have.


1For a published account of the Arkansas ruling McLean v . Arkansas (January 5, 1982) see Norman L. Geisler, The Creator in the Courtroom, Milford, Michigan: Mott Media, 1982, chapter 8.

2Ibid., pp. 174,176, 177.

3Torcaso vs. Watkins (1961) reported in United States Reports: Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court at October Term, 1960, reporter of decisions, Walter Wyatt, Washington, D.C., United States Government Printing Office, 1961, p. 495, n. 11.

4M.B. Foster, "The Christian Doctrine of Creation and the Rise of Modern Natural Science," Mind (1934), 43:448 (emphasis added).

5Carl Sagan has an honest account of the injustices done to Velikovsky's minority scientific views. See Sagan, Cosmos, New York: Random House, 1980 ' pp. 90, 91.

6This was reported by an expert science witness at the Arkansas trial, Dr, Donald Chittick. See Geisler, ibid., pp. 142, 143.

7Isaac Asimov, for example, makes the unfounded claim that "scientists have no choice but to consider evolution a fact." See "The Genesis War," Science Digest (Oct., 1981), p. 85.

8One writer put it this way:

    Loren Eisley, The Immense journey, New York: Random House, 1957, p. 199.

9This is taken from "Appendix A" of Plaintiffs' Pre-Trial Brief for the Louisiana creation-evolution trial, filed June 3, 1982 by Patricia Nalley Bowers, Assistant Attorney General, Louisiana Department of justice.

10Geisler, ibid., p. 174.

11Hume wrote, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that any thing
might arise without a cause: I only maintained that our certainty of the falsehood of that proposition proceeded neither from intuition nor demonstration; but from another source. The Letters of David Hume, ed. by J.Y.T. Grieg, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1932,1:187.

12Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Inc., 1978, pp. 114, 115.

13Robert Jastrow, "A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths," Christianity Today (Aug. 6,1982), p. 18.

14See Paul Tiflich, Systematic Theology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951, Vol. 1, pp. 18-28.

15See Langdon Gilkey, Maker of Heaven and Earth, New York: Doubleday Co., 1959, p. 35.

16For the exact wording of the Arkansas Bill see a published copy in Geisler, ibid., pp. 3-9.

17M.B. Foster, Ibid. (emphasis added).

18See Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 158, or "Kekule von Stradonitz" in The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1980, p. 749.

19See John J. O'Neill, Prodigal Genius: Life of Nicola Tesla, Washburn Press, 1980.

20Arnold Tulus, "How Old is the Earth?" in Sequel, Purdue University (Winter 1981-1982.)

21The Arkansas judge insisted that "The essential characteristics of science are: (1) it is guided by natural law; (2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law." Geisler, ibid., p. 176.

22 The distinction between these two kinds of science is as old as that between cosmogony and cosmology. Wilder-Smith made this distinction Dr. Charles Thaxton (Ibid.) calls these "operation-science" and "origin science." My own contribution is to set forth two crucial principles of a science of origins: causality and uniformity (see my Is Man the Measure, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, chapter 11). For example, "the laws of nature do in fact provide the basis for the functioning of a machine, without at the same time being responsible for its genesis." See A.E. Wilder-Smith in The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, San Diego: Master Books, 1981, pp. XII, XIII.

23Following Hutton, Lyell and others, Langdon Gilkey made this distinction at the Arkansas trial, and the judge apparently accepted it. See Geisler, Ibid., pp. 65, 174, 175, and Gilkey's pre-trial Deposition, pp. 4-10.

24It is purely arbitrary for naturalists like Niles Eldredge to claim that a scientist "by the rules of his profession must consider the origin of all things natural solely in naturalistic terms." The Monkey Business, New York: Washington Square Press, 1982, p. 10.

25See Charles B. Thaxton, Walter Bradley and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery Of Life's Origin, New York: Philosophical Library, 1984.

26See Olin Teague (chairman), Possibility of Intelligent Life Elsewhere in the Universe [revised October, 1977]. Report Prepared for the Committee on Science and Technology, U. S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1977, pp. 50-65.

27For this point and the use of the term "forensic science" in this connection I am indebted to Dr. Charles Thaxton. See Crossroads: Science Meets Society, Vol. 2, No. 1, Feb, 1982, p. 11.

28This is recorded in an interview with Robert Jastrow, "A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths," Ibid.

29See Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1978, p. 14.

30See Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space, London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1981, pp. 24, 142, 148.

31H.P. Yockey, "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology (1977) 67, 396.

32 Even the empirical skeptic, David Hume said, "uniform experience amounts to a proof, [so that] there is here a direct and full proof from the nature of the fact...." See Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1955 (first published 1748), p. 123 (no emphasis added).

33See Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain, New York: Random House, 1979, p. 275.

34This library analogy is used by Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p. 278. Yet in spite of it Sagan refuses to acknowledge the need for a creator.

35Recently a scientist has shown that, "The statistical structure of any printed language ranges through letter frequencies, diagrams, trigrams, word frequencies, etc., spelling rules, grammar and so forth and therefore can be represented by a Markov process given the states of the system. . . " In addition, this same "sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical." See Hubert P. Yockey, "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory" in Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981, 91, p. 16.

36See R. O'Bannon, Creation, Evolution and Public Education 5, Dayton Symposium on Tennessee's Evolution Laws (May 18, 1974).