Let me define a few terms, first of all. Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by God. Typically people who believe this believe in the biblical creation account, as told in Genesis. In general, creationists believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old, and that all life on Earth was created in its present form by God. Another term for creationism is creation-science, a somewhat contradictory term that many creationists apply to themselves.

Evolution is the theory that attempts to explain how life on Earth came to be. In general, evolutionists believe that life arose spontaneously millions of years ago, and evolved into today's many species. This was accomplished mainly through the mechanism of natural selection- that is, the idea that the strongest and best-adapted organisms survive to pass along their genes.

Hmmm, anyway, this first post will be sort of seperate from the real topic of the thread; I'm going to review a creationist book that I just read. Skip this review if you want, but be sure to engage in the incredibly lively and fun debate that will follow. Ok kiddies, let's get started.

THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION, by Scott M. Huse

Now, this won't be a very normal or good review, seeing as how I've never really written a book review before. Instead, I'm going to point out several things that I thought were funny, ridiculous, or just plain wrong. After starting the book I decided to fold down every page that contained an outrageous or noteworthy statement: I ended up with 18 pages folded down (out of 129- not a bad ratio).

Obviously, this book is meant to disprove the theory of evolution. Mr. Huse does this in a couple of ridiculous ways. Now, I don't know if this book is indicative of the entire Creation-Science genre, but Huse seems to have some fundamental problems making his arguments. Here are a couple of techniques that he uses:

1. Erroneous quoting. I have two problem with the quotes Huse uses.

First of all, he quotes leading biologists and evolution theorists when it suits him, but ignores the fact that their beliefs are 180 degrees from his own. For example, he might quote Steven Jay Gould as saying that the eye is highly specialized and complicates the theory of evolution, but he ignores the fact that Gould is one of the country's most eminent supporters of evolution.

Secondly, Huse uses quotes from questionable sources to prove his arguments without any other evidence. Using credible sources to do this would be bad enough, but the sources he names are often random and biased. For example (this is a gross exagerration, but it gets my point across):

Huse: Evolution is stupid. As Bob G. Dwaynesfield of Bucknell university says, "Evolution is stupid." Therefore, we can see that evolution is clearly stupid.

2. Use of scripture. Now, scripture is all well and good for religion, but quoting the Bible when trying to prove that God exists or that evolution is a fraud is terrible procedure. A few examples from the text:

"Surely, the honest and objective observer has no other recourse than to conclude that the earth-sun system has been carefully and intelligently designed by God for man. As it is written: 'The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's: but the earth hath He given to the children of men.'"

"The most logical and reasonable conclusion which can be reached based on mathematical analysis is that complex, ordered systems, which so characterize the world in which we live, never happened by mere chance but are the handiwork of our Creator, Almighty God. 'Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite.'"

"Without question, DNA remains one of the greatest testimonies of special creation. As the Psalmist exclaims: 'I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.'"

3. Totally ridiculous statements and stances. Sigh... it's quite sad, some of the things that he says. Check it out:

"Biblical morality, exemplified by the teachings of and very life of Jesus Christ, is without question, the ultimate standard of morality."

Talk about ethnocentrism. Also, just for the record, that comma placement is his, not mine.

In Appendix A, labelled "Scientific Facts Which Prove Evolution": "Listed on this page are all of the known scientific facts which can be used to prove that evolution is an established fact of science, as commonly taught: (the page is blank)"

Very cute, but Huse is only showing his own ignorance here. Everything hinges on his definition of "fact," which the glossary tells us is "something observed or measured; an actual event, occurence, quality or relation." By this definition, there is plenty of evidence that can be used to prove evolution as a fact. Certainly there is no piece of evidence that, standing alone, can prove evolution once and for all. Scientists use a multitude of evidence and a corroboration of ideas and facts to prove evolution, inasmuch as anything can be proved. And, of course, it goes without saying that special creation is not a fact, by his definition or any other.

"True science supports and confirms the Genesis account of creation and repudiates organic evolution."

One can only assume that by "true science," Huse means "science that supports my theory." Real scientists do not dismiss out of hand evidence that goes contrary to their expectations; this is part of why creation-science is not really science.

"Rather than being an evolutionary transitional form, the duck-billed platypus is yet another demonstration of our Creator's virtuosity."

Like many of his points, this is pure speculation, and rather amusing speculation at that.

Toward the end of the book, we see what Huse's real agenda (and, one can assume, the agenda of the creationist movement) is. As Huse says:

"The fruit of evolution has been all sorts of anti-Christian systems of beliefs and practice. It has served as an intellectual basis for Hitler's nazism and Marx's communism. It has promoted apostasy, atheism, secular humanism, and libertinism, as well as establishing a basis for ethical relativism, which has spread through our society like a cancer. The mind and general welfare of mankind has suffered greatly as a result of this naturalistic philosophy."

Where should I begin? First of all, I'd like to ask any knowledgeable Christians where in the Bible it says that Communism is anti-Christian. The fact that Huse attempts to throw a defense of capitalism under the creationist umbrella reveals that he is really only sticking up for his long-held beliefs. He believes in God, he believes in capitalism, and he believes in baseball, and goddammit, he's going to defend these beliefs. I'm surprised he didn't argue that evolution is responsible for the increase in the popularity of hockey.

The real meat of Huse's argument here is that evolution has (allegedly) caused most of society's problems, and is therefore bad. Belief in evolution has caused SECULAR HUMANISM, you say? Then it must be destroyed! It is the work of none other than SATAN HIMSELF, but smart God-fearing Christians will never fall for his lies. To arms, good Christians!

You think I'm exagerrating? Read on. After talking at some length about how society's morals have been degraded, Huse says:

"Many other Biblical difficulties with the theory of evolution could be listed. The foregoing considerations, however, should suffice to establish the fact that Bible-believing Christians must reject any and all forms of evolutionary thinking. Compromising theistic evolution simply cannot and need not be reconciled with Biblical Christianity. '...ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.'"

First of all, the question of whether or not evolution fits with the Bible does not affect whether it is true or not. As Huse himself admits, however, the discrepancy between what evolution says happened and what the Bible says happened is large, and consequently Christians cannot believe in evolution. Therefore, we see that Huse's book is a thinly disguised veil for his real motivation: protecting his religion by attacking its enemies.

Does this book spell the collapse of evolution? No. I suspect that Huse is a very bad writer, even for the creationist movement- I can't verify this, as his is the only creationist book I've read. Compared to most others, though, he is a bad writer. Maybe creationism has better and more valid arguments than his; I won't know until I've read more thoroughly.

I would be lying if I said that I understood all the science presented in this book. He repeatedly puts forth scientific "proofs" of which I am in no position to pass judgement. When he says, for example, "The sun's radiation pressure also serves to push small inter-planetary matter into space. This phenomenon is known as the Poynting-Robertson effect. If the solar system is truly billions of years old, there particles should no longer be present." I have no way to prove or disprove him. Such matters are far over my head, and I won't even offer an attempt at refuting something that I don't understand.

Why, then, do I think that Huse is full of shit? His thinly-veiled religious fervor. His obsession with quoting Scripture. His shoddy arguments and even shoddier proofs. His enthusiasm in attacking evolution, which indicates that he is desperate to feel that he himself is right in his beliefs.

To conclude: this book sucks. If this is the best the creationists have to offer, then they're in trouble.

Back to the Millennium Crossroads of the Mind's Eye