Tuesday, 15 October 2013 00:00

A Critique of the book, “Fallacies of Creationism”: Part I

Written by 

In the previous Aug./Sept. RMCF Newsletter, I provided an introduction, in which statements of known evolutionists endorsing Willard Young’s book, “Fallacies of Creationism,” were shared.

In this Part I, quotes and statements from the book’s introduction (written by S.F.K. Threlkeld, PhD, School of Nursing, McMaster University) will be provided.

Threlkeld says on page 1, “The recognition that man is a product of biological evolution, and some knowledge of the evolutionary history of man, will without a doubt, improve our understanding of what is known as the phenomenon of man.” The writer goes on to say that, “ ….not only does Young provide the arguments of a physicist, but those of biologists and geologists as well…in general the arguments of science as opposed to non-science or anti-science: of rational thought as opposed to irrational thought.” Page 1 continues, “The book presents us with a choice between using our minds and thinking for ourselves. Or….letting someone else do the thinking for us, so we may be seduced into uncritically accepting authoritarian views….It is this choice, whether we will to use our minds or not, that is paramount to our survival, and each one of us must play a part.”

On page 2 Threlkeld states that this book provides, “a balanced argument showing the logic of the evolutionary approach, compared to, as it claims in the title, “the fallacies of Creationism. It shows us the force of arguments based on the scientific method, on the analysis of observations and measurements, and the way in which such analysis leads us to acceptable conclusions”.

In the following paragraph, a “straw man” argument is set up to debunk Creationism as being scientific. Threlkeld relates to a 3-year study by the journal Science, in which 1000 scientific and technical journals were examined, to find scientific publications by creationists. But only 18 were found, and all of these were either letters to the editor or editorials. The conclusion was that creationists couldn’t provide scientific data that is publishable in standard, peer-reviewed journals.

On page 3 the following extraordinary statement is made, “It is a fact (emphasis added) that sedimentary rocks are formed by deposition of layer upon layer of sediments, the older deposition being at the bottom, and the more recent at the top.” It is stated on page 4, “The scientific theory of evolution, change with descent, is not mere speculation. It is based upon an impressive array of facts (emphasis added) and the scientific facts themselves are based, simply on measurement and observation.”

Finally, Threlkeld talks about uncritical thinking apart from evolution. She ends with, “For those who believe that the Theory of Evolution is necessarily anti-religious, anti-Christian or atheistic, it is important to understand that the reverse is the truth.” (Page 5).

In Part II of this series I will answer these fallacious statements and explain why creation is a better model of earth’s history, and that evolution is irrational.

Blessings in His Holy Name, Ed
Dr. Ed Boudreaux, RMCF President

 

Read 1047 times Last modified on Saturday, 07 June 2014 04:25
Dr. Edward A. Boudreaux

Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Search Videos

Copyright © 2017. Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship.