I am about half way through the just published Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics by Duane Gish. Gish, for those that may not know is a prominate ICR "scientist". Imagine my supprise when in the "Introduction", Henry Morris, ICR head, says that Gish will "concentrate on defending the fact of creation rather than the date of creation". Later on pages 33-34, in discussing what might falsify creation, Gish says, quote:

Many and probably the majority, of creation scientists believe that it is very likely that the earth and the cosmos are quite young. A figure of ten thousand years, plus or minus a few thousand years, is often mentioned. Let us suppose that eventually, to the satisfaction of most of these scientists, it is finally established that the earth is four to five billion years old and the universe itself is 10 to 20 billion years old. Would that constitute a falsefication of creation theory? Of course not. There are, in fact, right now many creationists who accept an old age for the cosmos. Creation theories would merely be realigned so that all such theories would incorporate long time intervals between the creative acts of God. Another example that has actually already taken place is the belief relative to the fixity of species. Pre-Darwinian creationists,..., held to the fixity of species. At that time, genetic data were limited and many scientists of that day had considerable confidence in man's ability to discover the limits of variability within a basic kind, which they assumed could be equated with what was defined as a species. ... modern creationists no longer hold to the fixity of species, but to the fixity of created kinds.

Now, on to the contridiction. The January 94 issue of the ICR's newsletter, Acts & Facts includes an article "Impact No. 247, Compromises and Consequences: The Genesis Account" by Fred Willson, M.S., ICR Extension Specialist in Science Education. He starts off, "The world of unbelievers expects that those who call themselves Christians will believe that the Genesis account is literally and historically true.... [they] have little respect for those who compromise on them". Later he says, "Scriptural language allows only one correct interpertation. For Christians to allow the Genesis account more than one interpertation makes it meaningless".

He goes on "Tom McIver, writer of anti-creation articles and books, raps Christians for trying to make Genesis fit evolutionary science. In a lengthy article (in which it appears he must have read everything written by Christians on the day-age theory and gap theory) he has this to say:'Each ('day-age' or 'gap-theory')... involves critical compromises with the plainest, most literal reading of the Bible to force Scripture into concordance with scientific evidence reguarding the age of the earth.' Dr. McIver is perceptive enough, as are many unbelievers, to see inconsistencies in Christian thinking. Therefore when we say we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, we must show it by our words and works."

In the rest of the article, he makes an unconvincing case that such compromise has led to the current European state of affairs, but it is clear that he expects believers to hold to a recent creation. In fact, all ICR staff members, according to the Introducing ICR pamplet, adhere to a Statement of Faith that includes the phrase, "The Biblical record of the primeval world is fully historical, including recent creation of all things... Evidences in the earth's crust and human legends are to be interperted in light of this true history".

So, does the "creation theory" of "creation scientists" include a recent creation or not? Would "creation scientists" compromise on this or not? It's kind of hard to say based on the ICR's selfcontridrictry positions, isn't it? To bad they never got past the first chapter of their book, they might have found this warning from their idol:

Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Go Back