Differences within the creation science community are no more surprising than those between denominations or churches. Differences have been present ever since the church began. Even Peter, Paul, and James had differences. While disagreeing on some issues, they respected and appreciated each other’s work. That is generally true for creation science organizations. The Center for Scientific Creation (CSC) is grateful for the many creation science ministries and speakers. Although quite distinct, each fills an important niche. This battle for minds is huge. All who help are needed and appreciated, although we may use different approaches and have different scientific backgrounds.
Creation science organizations vary in size, finances, activities, style, views of Scripture (including which translation is best), target audiences, and methods for acquiring scientific information. Large organizations have wide forums and many opportunities to present their perspectives, but also must maintain larger staffs and facilities, so meeting payrolls is a major consideration. CSC is small, so its activities are limited, but it has the flexibility that comes with being small and independent. (CSC’s Board of Directors oversees its activities.)
If fund raising is essential for an organization’s survival, major resources are usually devoted to developing and maintaining a donor base, mailings, and financial appeals. If donors become the primary audience, organizations may end up “preaching to the choir,” and newsletters may emphasize why their organization is deserving. As a not-for-profit organization, CSC is grateful for donations, although we never solicit them. Instead, our focus is on research, writing, and helping those teaching the subject. The sales of our book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the flood, support most of CSC’s work.
Creation science groups also have different target audiences. Most creation groups primarily address church audiences and emphasize biblical aspects of origins. Some groups focus on specific denominations or local regions. CSC’s target audience is universal—Christians and non-Christians, scientists and laymen, and evolutionists and creationists.
Creation organizations acquire scientific information in various ways, but almost all rely on people they trust or something they have read. However, I believe primary sources of information must always be sought, directly examined, and tested. Frequently, I conduct my own experiments, computer simulations, calculations, and field trips. My reading load is large and includes the most authoritative science journals and books, often resulting in communication with authors of relevant papers. When our mutual interest is a scientific matter, I am not concerned with an author’s philosophical positions—and rarely does it arise in our cordial discussions or correspondence. Some creationists feel differently and prefer not to interact with an evolutionist, atheist, someone with a different doctrinal position, or fellow creationists who are independent.
Most creationists focus on one or a few scientific disciplines, such as the life sciences. However, people’s questions have no academic boundaries, and multiple disciplines often bear on an issue, so I try to study in depth all scientific disciplines relating to origins. I have always had to work in multiple scientific disciplines: in diverse engineering situations at MIT, as a professor preparing thousands of students for practically all technical fields, and as the director of a large research and development laboratory. One of the most frequent and longest standing criticisms of me by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Answers in Genesis (AiG) is that I am not a degreed geologist. That is true, although I have studied much geology and have worked with great geologists. Had I studied only geology, I might have accepted some evolutionary assumptions. Furthermore, I would not have had the in-depth study in physics, mathematics, mechanics, materials science, and other disciplines that are so important to a scientifically sound understanding of the flood. Thus, Part II of this book, which examines the flood, would not exist.
A newer movement, Intelligent Design (ID), vigorously and effectively defends the scientific evidence supporting the creation of life. The ID movement restricts its scientific case primarily to the life sciences, using almost identical evidence and arguments long used by creationists. (See categories of evidence 1– 42 on pages 7– 27.) That body of evidence is the easiest to understand for laymen and those who are already creationists. However, because the ID movement rejects the global flood and supports the big bang and an old Earth, and rarely deals with geology, physics,1 and major topics in astronomy, ID uses only a portion of our available tools. (Understanding the global flood is critical in dismantling evolution. Conversely, those not accepting the flood, as explained in Part II of this book, will probably believe in evolution or a multibillion-year-old Earth—or both.) Even outside the classroom, most ID leaders avoid publicly discussing the Bible or identifying the “intelligent designer” as the Creator,2 but when seeking funds, they court the Christian community.3 By avoiding the more complex, controversial, and to some, embarrassing matters mentioned above, the leaders of ID believe they will appeal to some in the academic community—their target audience. While I agree that biblical matters should not be brought into public schools, science courses should not ignore relevant scientific evidence.
Questions frequently arise about Dr. Hugh Ross and his organization, Reasons to Believe. CSC disagrees with many of Ross’ scientific and biblical positions, especially his claims that the big bang (a flawed theory4) was the creation event, Noah’s flood was not global but only a local flood, and hominids existed 2–4-million years before Adam. Some have tried to arrange for written or oral debates between Dr. Ross and myself. I accepted; he declined.5
Two of the largest creation organizations are ICR and AiG. ICR’s approach is more academic; AiG’s is generally directed to Christian lay people. Both organizations hold the Bible in the highest regard, see creation as a foundational issue, and defend a global flood and a young Earth and universe. CSC agrees and is grateful for ICR’s and AiG’s strong positions in these areas. However, CSC and ICR/AiG have had serious differences.6