All of the excerpted sentences below were taken from the 1999 book entitled Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins. More specifically, these sentences were taken from a fourteen-page section of the book written by agnostic intelligent-design evolutionist Michael J. Denton entitled Comments on Special Creationism. I have purposely modified Michael Denton's sentences in his essay to show readers of this webpage how the corresponding adjectives creationary and evolutionary ought to be used by all fair-minded evolutionists and creationists. The adjective creationary ought to be a part of the active core vocabulary of every educated English-speaking person and it should be used consistently alongside the parallel adjective evolutionary, especially in the context of the ongoing evolution-creation debate. (The form creation in creation model is an adjectival use of the noun creation. The form creationary in creationary model is an adjective derived from the noun creation)
I wrote that, "the world bore no trace of the supernatural drama that Genesis implied," that the special [creationary] framework "was frankly non-scientific and irreconcilable with the fundamental aim of science to reduce all phenomena to purely natural explanations." (p. 142 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
Finally consider and contrast the relative ease of the special [creationary] model and the evolutionary model to account for another fascinating case of geographical distribution, that of the living ratites (flightless birds) and the other unique species of animals and plants found only on the southern continents. (p. 147 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
If we are to explain this distribution in [creationary] terms, we must assume that God created each ratite species separately in each of the four regions in which they are found today. (p. 148 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
How does the [creationary] and evolutionary explanation of these facts compare? To explain this pattern in [creationary] terms, we must assume that God has for some reason created each different ratite species on each of the now separate regions that were once part of Gondwana. (p. 148 - I twice replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
So on the [creationary] model, we now have to assume that for some reason God must have created a vast biota of diverse but related forms and placed them on just those land masses that were once part of Gondwanaland. (p.148 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
The relative implausibility of the [creationary] model grows further when we examine the DNA sequences of the modern descendants of the ancient fauna and flora of the supercontinent. What we find is fantastically difficult to account for on [creationary] terms. (p. 148 - I twice replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
If the [creationary] explanation of the spatial diversity of the species of the southern lands is accepted (i.e., that God for some reason created a vast class of related animals and plants only on those lands that had millions of years previously been part of Gondwanaland), we must now also accept that the differences in the DNA sequences of the southern flora and fauna were also specifically contrived so that they exactly correspond, according to the molecular clock calculations, with the time when the supercontinent split up. (p. 149 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
I think the relative plausibility of the [creationary] and evolutionary accounts of the spatial and temporal pattern of the unique flora and fauna of the southern lands speaks for itself. (p. 149 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
In passing it is worth noting that there are aspects of human biology that make a great deal of sense if modern humans are descended from a non-human primate ancestor but that are very difficult to account for by the special [creationary] model. (p. 149 - I replaced "creation" with "creationary".)
Despite my misgivings about the [creationary] ideology I certainly agree with Johnson, as does Lamoureux, that the cosmos exhibits evidence for design. (p. 150 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
I reject completely the special [creationary] worldview that organisms are in essence artifact-like and that God assembled different living things as an engineer might assemble human artifacts. (p. 152 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
The special [creationary] worldview, being in essence supernaturalistic, denies itself the possibility of any genuine teleological interpretation of man's centrality in the natural order. (p. 152 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
The adoption of a special [creationary], supernaturalistic creed ironically precludes for ever the development of a fully rational demonstration of man's centrality in nature, or indeed any argument from the natural order purporting to demonstrate purpose in the cosmos. (p. 153 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
I am also unaware of any serious systematic attempt by Johnson to show how the facts of biology, such as those of geographical distribution discussed above, can be accounted for more plausibly in [creationary] than evolutionary terms. (p. 154 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
In his advocacy of special creationism I believe Johnson is merely the latest in a succession of vigorous [creationary] advocates who have been very influential within conservative Christian circles, particularly in the United States, during the twentieth century. (p. 154 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
This is not because science is biased in favour of philosophical naturalism but because the special [creationary ] model is not supported by the facts and is incapable of providing a more plausible explanation for the pattern of life's diversity in time and space than its evolutionary competitor. (p. 154 - I replaced "creationist" with "creationary".)
Last Modified: 15 May 2006
Page Started: December 2000