While no consensus exists among philosophers of science on a definition and paradigm for the “Scientific Method,” certain principles and methods of inquiry are nearly universal among working scientists and constitute a minimum framework for the concept. These include: the use of logic and Occam's Razor, objectivity, a positive approach to knowledge (i.e. that the universe is knowable and the knowledge should be obtained), and at least implicit application of the hypothesis/theory/law/fact hierarchy of generalization. Investigations of natural phenomena within these parameters may be termed “scientific” and, conversely, the circumvention of even one essential principle should remove the cachet of “Science.”

A sample of “Creation Science” literature is examined to determine whether it adheres to the minimum “Scientific Method” described. Examination reveals that, indeed, all of the enumerated criteria are violated. Objectivity and the positive approach to knowledge are flouted overtly in several documents, whereas logical fallacies, violations of Occam's Razor, and misapplications of the heirarchy of generalization are rampant among (and intrinsic to) “Creationist” arguments, but typically must be ferreted out. Most distressful logical fallacies are non-factual statements, false assumptions, anachronisms, and a set of novel errors which may be termed “apparent scientism” (e.g. the citation of nonrefereed polemical writings, using conventional journal format). It is concluded that the methodological bankruptcy evidenced in materials examined removes the philosophy espoused from “Science” and leaves only the “Creationist” component.

In Christian faith, the Bible stands equally true with nature as coexpressions of God's self-revelation. Literalism means the acceptance of that record as true, whether of rocks, fossils, or scriptures. “Biblical literalism” as used by many fundamental sects additionally requires very restricted interpretations formulated more for countering natural and theological “heresies” than for conformity with the Bible. Yet Genesis, in Hebrew, uses phenomenological language and idiom to describe the Creator and creation, leaving great latitude on the questions of how and when. Prominent among “conflicts” which have influenced Judeo-Western thought are: Babylonian and Alexandrian conquests, Greek logic and paganism, Islamic scholarship, the Renaissance and Reformation, and the Age of Reason, including the atheistic materialism of David Hume. James Hutton, Hume's protege, developed the idea of sufficiency of natural causes in the absence of a creator. Lyell and Darwin then extended this substantive uniformitarianism to inorganic and organic evolution. Both Creationism and Darwinism are predicated on a dualistic cosmological model of an instant, miraculous creation versus a self-existent, evolving, Time-Energy-Matter universe. Darwinism draws from the earth evidence for change over eons of time, and assumes self-existence and chance causation. Creationism insists on an earth created young with the appearance or illusion of age, denying time and therefore chance. As debate rages, neither side seems willing to reexamine the Bible, which plainly teaches that God's purposes are normally worked out through natural law which has no existence apart from His sustaining will. The material Universe is, according to the Bible, the self-expression of a God who cannot lie.

“Scientific creationists” have created their own version of geology in order to defend their axiomatic insistance on a young Earth. To “prove” the Earth's youth, they cite (among other things) measured decay-rates of Earth's magnetic field and concentrations of elements in seawater. They also state that all plutons are quick frozen, that plutonic igneous rocks bear no relation to modern volcanism, and that all sedimentary rocks must be interpreted in terms of a “global hydrologic singularity,” i.e. Noah's Flood.

Having explicitly denied uniformitarianism and embraced catastrophism, “Creationists” renege by using uniformitarian reasoning over and again. They practice “pick & choose” empiricism by citing only those data which seem to support their case. “Creationists” even choose when and if to apply scientific principles, e.g. their use of thermodynamics to “disprove” organic evolution while ignoring thermodynamics' implications for magma cooling and metamorphism.

The methods of “Creationism” are clearly intended not to increase knowledge of the Earth but to delude the scientifically unsophisticated. Thus, “Creationism” can hardly be considered a science. Further, its repeated use of fallacious thinking brands “Creationism” as hopelessly illogical and its disingenuous statements and tactics disqualify it from even the ranks of nonempirical epistemological systems.

The total number of radiometric age determinations that have been made on geologically significant samples now exceeds about 300,000. This total, which includes many duplicate determinations by different investigators using different techniques, is being augmented at the rate of about 15,000 per year. Nevertheless, estimates of the ages of geological eras have not changed significantly since the first few dozen determinations were made more than 50 years ago. Consequently, the level of confidence that can be assigned to the specific ages on the radiometric time scale is much greater than is generally realized.

Because no one was around to chronicle most of the geological events which occurred during the earth's history, it is necessary to rely upon somewhat less direct (but no less useful) methods to place these events in the proper time frame. The basic assumptions used are 1) we live in an ordered universe, and 2) physical laws have not changed through time. The assigning of an age (in years) to a particular event requires that some process having a predictable rate be utilized. Various radioactive nuclides are commonly used but a number of other methods provide supplementary or complementary chronologic information. These other methods include tree-ring counting, varve counting, thermoluminescence, amino acid racemization, obsidian hydration, and magnetic reversals. Because of the cross testing of methods and the interlocking nature of the age data, the geologic time scale rests upon a very firm foundation.

Critics of the concept of organic change through time have demanded proof not only of “transitional forms” but of specific transitions among higher taxonomic groups. Transitional forms among species and between a species of one genus and a species of another genus have been criticized because most demonstrated ancestor-descendant transitions are considered to occur within one “kind” of organism; the “kind” concept is bereft of biological meaning.

Natural selection acts upon organisms at all stages of ontogeny, and especially at larval-juvenile stages. Large shifts in the morphology of one or more features are common in groups of organisms that evolve by heterochrony. Because heterochrony involves a change in timing of the appearance or development of a particular feature, recognition of heterochrony requires a confident knowledge of ontogeny. The resulting increase in complexity (e.g. recapitulation) or decrease in complexity (e.g. paedomorphosis), well documented among living organisms, commonly excludes morphologic intermediates. Paedomorphosis is especially important in the evolution of progressively simplifying lineages and has been well documented from living plants and animals and fossil representatives of echinoderms (blastoids, crinoids), conodonts, arthropods, mollusks and vertebrates. Heterochrony characterizes the evolution of most metazoan organisms, occurs at all taxonomic levels and was probably responsible for major innovations by which higher taxonomic groups are recognized.

In order to rectify perceived problems in the nineteenth century autochthonous and allochthonous theories of coal formation, an alternative theory was proposed that hypothesized that sylvo-marine, lycopod-dominated, floating peat mats were responsible for the development of Carboniferous coals. This pelagochthony theory was not widely accepted at the time but recently has been resurrected in order to explain the formation of Carboniferous coals well within the “Biblical time scale.” Numerous, unsubstantiated “facts” have been proposed to support the floating mat hypothesis including: the supposed hollow construction of arborescent lycopods; the extensive intertwining of stigmarian axial systems; a supposed continuous transgression of the shallow epeiric sea; a supposed stratified water column below the floating mat; and others. An examination of lycopod anatomy and morphology negates the contention of hollow arborescent lycopods and allows establishment of criteria to aid in the identification of in situ plants. An evaluation of the floating mat hypothesis in perspective demonstrates the untenable character of this proposed coal-forming mechanism. Reattachment of the floating mat is highly probable in the shallow epeiric sea, either by stigmarian axial systems proper, or helically arranged ‘rootlets.’ Isostatic adjustments of the mat would continue downwards as more biomass is generated by maturation of the trees. However, if this is ignored, meteoric waters introduced onto the surface of the mat would promote rapid decay in the tropical environment, and may preclude peat accumulation.

Human footprints, and similar images, have been described from rocks on various continents: North and South America, Europe, Asia and Africa; on rocks of any age, including Precambrian metamorphics.

Many of these images are carved. The Precambrian “footprints” of North Georgia were carved on the modern rock surface, but are not within the rock. Weathering rates are so high that they can be only some hundreds of years old. The instep and all of the toes were sharply defined, as is characteristic of carvings. The number of toes was not constant from print to print. The Cretaceous “footprints” of Missouri were also sharply-defined carvings, although they appeared on the bedding plane. There are no “jumping” indentations at either heel or toe, even though the two prints (side by side) were completely isolated on a wide smooth surface. The Precambrian “footprints” of Sweden likewise are carvings, on the modern weathering surface, with sharply-detailed outlines.

Many more of these images are not footprints of any animal at all. They vary in size, shape, and depth of indentation. Just as carved images typically show too much sharp detail, these images do not show any detail, rarely resemble the correct shape, and commonly are not consistent in size. The Cretaceous “footprints” of central Texas are a hodge-podge of random markings of various kinds, the large majority of which were formed by differential erosion of a non-homogenous limestone. Whereas dinosaur footprints in the same rocks show systematic patterns and sequences, the so-called “human footprints” are erratic natural markings and excavations.

A tiny minority of these images was made by the feet of human or primitive humanoid creatures. These genuine footprints show recognizable patterns and sequences, but not much detail; occur on bedding planes; and date only from Pleistocene or late Pliocene rocks.

Even though our Constitution is utterly secular, the practice of religion enjoys stronger legal guarantees than does the dissemination of scientific knowledge, especially in the public schools. Americans are often led to believe that science and religion do not conflict, but this is false whenever a religion based on scriptural inerrancy arises as is now the case with resurgent fundamentalism. Current battles between “scientific creationism” and evolution illustrate but do not exhaust this point. Since science education cannot escape the growing fundamentalist threat, the friends of science ought to increase their influence in public school curricula, in guaranteeing scientific integrity in curricula, and in improving the image of science.

The political fight for the inclusion of “scientific creationism” in public school curricula has generated reactions of scientists from many disciplines, who nearly unanimously dismiss this material as unfit for science teaching. Because some “creationist” materials were written specifically for science classes, such as general science, biology, and geological modules, they should be evaluated prior to use for scientific content and accuracy. Should these materials fail to conform with the body of generally accepted, modern scientific knowledge, then they do not belong in the science classrooms of our public schools.

I have examined several of the books written by “creationists” for public school science classes, and evaluated them for bias and distortion in their treatment of scientific facts, hypotheses and conclusions. All of the materials I examined exhibit statements of distortion and bias.

In addition to unsatisfactory scientific content, I have also noted a degree of dogmatism. This is curious because one of the objections of the “scientific creationists” to current content in public school science classrooms is the teaching of modern science in dogmatic fashion: for example, Darwinian evolution is taught as dogma, in conjunction with no other alternatives (i.e. “scientific creationism”).

These materials proposed for the public school science classroom do not belong there, because they do not teach modern science. The lack of scientific validity of “science creationist” literature should be emphasized in debate and discussion at especially the local level.