Gish’s Defense of Creationism
Gish’s first claim: Neither the “general theory of evolutions”
(“molecules-to-man theory”) nor “creation
theory” qualify as scientific theories.
Argument—
1. In order to be a scientific theory, a theory must meet 3 conditions—(a) it must be supportable by observable events or processes, (b) it must be capable of predicting future observations or experimental results, and (c) it must be falsifiable.
2. Neither the “general theory of evolution” nor “creation theory” meet any of the conditions (a), (b), or (c) in premise 1.
3. Therefore, neither the “general theory of evolution” nor “creation theory” qualify as scientific theories.
“Creation model” vs. “Evolution model”:
Creation model Evolution model
[Life forms originate] “[b]y acts [Life forms originate] “[b]y
of a Creator.” naturalistic, mechanistic
processes due to properties
inherent in inanimate
matter.”
The distinguishing characteristics All living things originate
of basic plant and animal kinds are “from a single living complete in the first representatives source, which itself arose
(of those basic kinds). from inanimate matter.”
Each plant and animal kind
came into existence by
slow, gradual changes.
Variation and speciation are limited Variation is unlimited. All
within each [basic] kind. life forms are genetically
related to each other.
Implications (“predictions”) of the two models about the fossil record:
Creation model Evolution model
The fossil record would show the The fossil record would
“[s]udden appearance in great show the “[g]radual change
variety of highly complex forms.” of simplest forms into more
and more complex forms.”
The fossil record would show the The fossil record would
“[s]udden appearance of each show “[t]ransitional arteries
created kind” complete with linking all categories” and
distinguishing characteristics, no “[n]o systematic gaps.”
sharp boundaries between “major
taxonomic groups,” and “[n]o
transitional forms between higher
categories.”
Gish’s second claim: As a scientific “model,” the “Creation
model” is superior to the “Evolution
model.”
Argument—
1. The implications of the “Creation model” about the fossil record are in greater accord with the fossil record than the implications of the “Evolution model.”
2. Therefore, as a scientific model, the “Creation model” is superior to the “Evolution model.”