George Romanes Was a Creationist?

“Gradual Evolution is in analogy with God’s other work.”
               - George J. Romanes¹

Answers in Genesis has a rather shameful and lame “ Index.” It has brief bios for their speakers, a list of present day “ scientists,” and a list of those in the past. For the past scientists, they mark a number with “(old-earth compromiser *)” with the following bit of explanation:

*As far as we know, the scientists of the past believed in a literal Genesis unless otherwise stated. The ones who did not are nevertheless included in the list below, because of their general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposition to evolution. But because this has been disastrous in the long run, no present day 'long-agers' are included intentionally, because they should know better.

In other words, they claim that everyone that they list is a creationist and that furthermore that if they don't say otherwise the person was a young-earther who fully accepts an universal Noachian Deluge.

Here is one of their entries:

George Romanes (1848–1894) Biology; Physiology

Douglas J. Futuyma² quoted George Romanes as having said the following in 1882:

If we reject the natural explanation of hereditary descent from common ancestry, we can only suppose that the Deity, in creating man, took the most scrupulous pains to make him in the image of the ape. This, I say, is a matter of undeniable fact—supposing the creation theory is true—and as a matter of fact, therefore, it calls for explanation. Why should God have thus conditioned man as an elaborate copy of the ape, when we know from the rest of creation how endless are His resources in the invention of types?

Romanes wrote a several important books on evolution. Ernst Mayr³ pointed out that Romanes coined the term “neo-Darwinism” for August Weismann’s rejection of both acquired characteristics and saltation in favor of selectionism. The guy was without any doubt an evolutionist. So why is Answers in Genesis claiming that he is a creationist? Maybe they are assuming that because late in his life accepted the existence of God he must been a creationist? That would be a fallacy not to mention untrue.

Prof. Romanes is not the only false entry in the list.

James Dana (1813–1895) Geology

James Dwight Dana was editor of the American Journal of Science and in his own time was rather well known geologist. That alone should be enough to realize that he not a young-earther since that was universally rejected by science that that time. He was one of the last holdouts to evolution. But by 1874 he accepted evolution though, in his own words, “while admitting the derivation of man from an inferior species, I believe that there was a Divine creative act at the origin of man…”⁴ So why is Answers in Genesis trying to call him one of there own since they are rather intolerant of even a hint of theistic evolution or old-earthism?

Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology

Anyone who even as much knows who this guy was know that he was not a young-earther and did not believe in a Noachian Deluge. He was the first to advance the idea of an ice age. Agassiz was one of the last creationists of importance and modern creationists should note that he absolutely refused to allow religion determine his scientific opinions.⁵

John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology

Again remember that Answers in Genesis says that unless it says otherwise the scientist believed in a literal genesis and thus was a young-earther. Ronald Numbers⁶ tells us:

Dawson remained a special creationist until his death, but his opposition to evolution noticeably softened over the years as he came to acknowledge that evolution was not inconsistent with design. Never a biblical literalist, he readily granted that the days of creation represented long periods of time, that the Noachian deluge was universal only in the sense that it encompassed the narrator’s experience, and that the earth—but not man—was of great antiquity….

Another false entry:

Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology

Sir Richard Owen was not a young-earther either. That is an inexcusable error. What is excusable was that AiG said that Owen was a creationist which is a common misconception about the man. He was an evolutionist though he was an extremely anti-Darwinian evolutionist.⁷ Owen, for example, proposed that birds are decended from pterodactyls (extinct flying reptiles). That hypothesis in the end proved wrong. But it shows that Owen should not be listed by Answers in Genesis as a creationist.

Answers in Genesis also includes entries that are not wrong, but rather seem to be desperate attempts to be able to list someone important as supporting their views.

Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology

This is the author of Omphalos (from the Greek word for navel) who proposed that the Earth was young but was created with the appearance of age. Martin Gardner⁸ tells us:

Gosse admitted geology had established beyond any doubt that the earth had a long geological history in which plants and animals flourished long before the time of Adam. He was also convinced that the earth was created about 4,000 B.C., in six days, exactly as described in Genesis. How did he reconcile these apparently contradictory opinions? Very simple. Just as Adam was created with a navel, the relic of a birth which never occurred, so the entire earth was created with all the fossil relics of a past which had no existence except in the mind of God!

This is not as ridiculous as it may seem at first. Consider, for example, the difficulties which face any believer in a six-day creation. Although it is possible to imagine Adam without a navel, it is difficult to image him without bones, hair, teeth, and fingernails. Yet all these features bear in them the evidence of past accretions of growth. In fact there are not an organ or tissue in the body which does not presuppose a previous growth history.

His views were universally rejected. Many thought it was blasphemy since they believed that it made God into a liar. In any event, I am surprised that Answers in Genesis wants to him as one of their own for both the before-mentioned blasphemy and since he admitted geology shows an old-earth. I guess they must have hoped that their followers would not know who Gosse was and just be impressed by yet another listing of an important scientist supporting creation.

John Murray (1808–1892) Publisher

Murray was Charles Darwin’s publisher. I do not know what his views on creationism were. But I don’t understand why a list that is supposed to be of scientists who accepted creationism would list him since publishers are not scientists. To me this is just Answers in Genesis padding their list. This is not the only example. They also list “clergy,” “,” some mathematicians, etc.

Answers in Genesis also list scientists who lived before Darwin was even born. This is yet again more padding. Is it really fair to list people as not supporting a part of science who lived before it was established? Maybe I should list important scientists who did not believe in atoms, but worked before the existence of atoms was settled, to support the idea that atoms do not exist? (Ernst Mach is an example a scientist who argued against the existence of atoms.) Everyone should see at once that would be a fallacy. So why should it be any different for evolution? Answers in Genesis is simply listing people with centuries out-of-date views because they lived centuries ago. It’s absurd!

Now lets expand our discussion of AiG’s list to include the scientists of the present day as well as those of the past. The first thing to notice about their present day list is that is rather small. To some people might find that a surprising statement since it lists name after name. But consider, a similar list of biologists that accept evolution would easily fill a good sized book. The same would be true of geologists who accept that the planet Earth is quite old.

Another thing to notice about the list of both present and past creationists is that the strong majority of them are not biologists. In other words they are listing people who have neither studied biology in class or practiced it as a profession. In other words we have a fallacy of false authority here. I dare say that if someone is going to be cited as an “” it should at least be in his own field. Most people do not see an accountant when they are sick. No one would think of using a biologist an authority for general relativity, so why should a physicist be considered an authority on evolution. (Of course even among physicists, as in all types of scientists, creationists are an extreme minority.) Remove the non-biologists and list of Answers in Genesis becomes even more tiny. AiG’s list is hardly unique in this regard. The Institute of Creation Research also commits this folly. Their list lists someone who studies lightning safety. I am sure that he is a smart guy, but does he really make a list of creationists any more impressive?

Let's continue with the list from AiG. Here is a present day entry:

Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist

His doctorate in geophysics is from a diploma mill. In other words he is a fake.

Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist

He has not actually done any professional biochemistry in three decades, but I would not have singled him out just for that. What is worse is that he has a well-deserved reputation for dishonesty in his arguments for creationism. He has also been big in spreading falsehoods about biochemistry (his field) in his false claims that a bullfrog has the closest cytochrome c to a human or that a chicken lysozyme is closest to human.

Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist

Barnes’ doctorate was merely honorary. I have already mentioned the fallacy of citing a physicist as an authority against evolution. But I might mention that he was often a quack in his own field. He was one of the people behind some pseudoscience calling itself “Common Sense Science.”

In short, AiG’s is as unimpressive as it is inaccurate.

These short of phony lists of scientists supporting creationism are nothing new. William Louis Poteat⁹ in 1922 debunked one such list with “twenty-one really great scientists in the world” that was published in 1920 with:

Two do not appear in the biographic dictionaries, five are misrepresented, seven won reputation in other than biological fields, and six have been in their graves more than forty years, two of these having died long before Darwin’s great book was published. One lone biologist is left to support the thesis that the doctrine of evolution is discarded by the science of today. And this man’s position is so peculiar that he is usually mentioned as the single exception to the universal acceptance of evolution by biologists of responsible position.³⁰

 

Finally, I will of course mention that even if the creationists could produce a long list of living scientists from relevant fields who support their views it would not make creationism legit. The quality of the arguments counts far more than the quality of the people making the argument. And when one gets down too it, the creationists argue with false facts, fallacies, out-of-context quotations, out-of-date citations, etc.

Previous Index Next