Another creationist book. Yes, it delves into many of the standard, necessary arguments in the “Creation vs. Evolution” debate. Yes, it devastates Darwinism succinctly, easily, convincingly. Yes, anyone who has read very many of the book reviews by this book reviewer knows by now that there are sundry reviews I have done on Creationist books, and no, I have done none so far on books by Darwinists (“evolutionists”). Look, the reason for this is simple, and it is reasonable: I grew up being taught Darwinism in the elementary and secondary schools that I attended; whenever I watched any kind of documentaries about animals or insects or dinosaurs or anything biology-related on TV while growing up (which I habitually did), I was only ever taught Darwinism on those; when attending college(s), I was taught only Darwinism in biology and other classes; during and for many years after college, whenever I watched any kind of “science”-related documentary on cable TV–on, say, The Discovery Channel or whatnot–the only worldview ever taught as “science” to me on those was Darwinism; in addition, if I should have desired to attend a motion picture such as JURASSIC PARK (which I did) or other such spinoffs, those also only sought to indoctrinate me with the precepts and suppositions of Darwinism. Therefore, just by being and living in this culture, in this Darwinized civilization we find ourselves in, I and we are constantly indoctrinated in all manner of Darwinian assumptions. I get all that. We get all that. We get it daily. I know all about that. What I do NOT know about, unless I read books like these, like these Creationist works, is the OTHER side. And as it turns out, that OTHER side, the OTHER argument, the view that is never heard on mainstream media at all unless solely to be ridiculed–well, it turns out, that other side completely demolishes the mainstream interpretation of events. (Gee, where have I encountered that principle before? The better question: Where have I NOT encountered that principle before?!)
So, about this particular book: The author is a well-lettered scientist and former “evolution” teacher himself, and is now a (“Gulp,” go the Darwinists) Creationist. He writes in a succinct, efficient style, he is very acquainted with a variety of scientific and especially biological principals, with cellular processes, Mendelian genetic formulas, etc., etc. His writing style is scientifically exacting, true; but it seems that he also streamlines topics for the curious layperson to read with facility. Indeed, the tendency of the occasional, accompanying, black-and-white line diagrams tends a bit toward the cartoony here, and it seems the author is also using these as some sort of fitting foil for the purpose of softening the scientific nature of his elucidations.
He also does that other thing that creationist book writers do that so vexes “evolutionary scientists”: He supplies a fair amount of quotations from the leading “evolutionary scientists” themselves which severely demonstrate the doubtfulness of their own belief system.
Parker is also to be commended for having understanding of the importance of clear language in any ideological debate: Although he does accept the usage of the slippery, ambiguous word “evolution,” he nevertheless is linguistically savvy enough not to accept any “isms” after the word “Creation.” The author always writes “Creation,” never “Creationism.” One example from page 38 is illustrative: Here he briefly compares “Creation” to the mutually opposing philosophies “Vitalism” and “Mechanism,” and note that he sticks the “isms” on the two philosophies, but not on the word “Creation.” Too many Creationist proponents have accepted the usage of the word “Creationism” to describe their worldview, not aware of the slight that has been leveled against them already, mistakenly underestimating the importance of concise language and the little derogatory jabs that can be contained in even a few tacked-on pre-or-suffix letters, such as we find in the word “CreationISM.” Stick the other side with the “ISM”; do not accept the “ISM” for one’s own side. Like any other debate in society, it is as much about language as anything else. Never forget that. Further proof of the author’s appreciation of the importance of concise language can be seen when he uses the inventive words “docudramas” and “infotainment” to describe the kind of Discovery Channel and Science Channel documentaries that I used to watch, the kind that spew the same, corporate-line propaganda about “evolutionary science.”
On pages 208-209, there is a very succinct, very reasonable conjecture regarding some of the effects of the Ice Age I have not encountered elsewhere. That was interesting and appreciable.
Even better, for several pages there is some really insightful information given regarding the formation of the Grand Canyon from a Genesis Flood perspective. It is especially interesting given that the author himself writes that he used to take students out and show them the Grand Canyon and tell them it was millions of years old, and now, after having discarded his Darwinian belief system, when he visits the Grand Canyon, he sees how the Genesis Flood account so much more convincingly explains its geological formation, and he is embarrassed and amazed that he could have ever looked upon the same rocks with such uncomprehending eyes.
If I had to isolate one single recurring idea or theme of this author/scientist that marks his argumentation as different from any of the other Creationist works I have read thus far, it would be this: He readily writes about the concept and reality of genetic mutations and the ability of genetic mutations to cause “changes” over time in a fixed population of a specific kind of organism, though, as a Creationist, he staunchly (and empirically) asserts that these changes do not ever cause a NEW KIND of organism to form, and that nearly all of these mutations are BAD, and that they ACCUMULATE in the DNA of the organisms. Still, it is interesting to read the words of a Creationist who embraces the “mutations cause changes” line, even the very words that “evolutionists” use to describe the concept, so readily and consistently and enthusiastically. Not that other Creationists avoid or disagree with the notion; just that most Creationists do not emphasize it. But Parker, he emphasizes it. Indeed, it is his fundamental point, his foundational point where he grounds his message in order to explain the reality, the truth, of the entire Garden of Eden account, and mankind’s subsequent Fall from Grace into this trouble-torn, strife-ridden, plague-encompassed temporal existence wherein we now find ourselves. For Parker, The Fall can be explained thusly: We fell from a state of perfection, we had the maintenance of that perfection stripped from us, and we are all by now mutation-accumulated.
Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ