Some months ago, Paul Garner launched his New Creationism blog, which pushes a dual agenda of promoting his book (also entitled “The New Creationism”), and a general belief in literal bible-based creationism. Paul presents himself as follows:
Paul Garner is a researcher and lecturer with Biblical Creation Ministries and the author of The New Creationism (Evangelical Press, 2009). He has a degree in Environmental Sciences (Geology/Biology) and is a Fellow of the Geological Society. He is married with two children and resides in Cambridgeshire, England.
I’m not sure where he studied for his degree in Environmental Sciences, but he does liberally sprinkle geological references within articles in his blog. Unfortunately, he’s felt it necessary to suspend commenting on his blog (actually, I’d observe this is frequently the case with creationist sites). The Biblical Creation Ministries, for whom he works as a researcher/lecturer
[…]is a charitable trust that supports two creation speakers. Our aim is to help people trust the Bible’s account of earth history. We believe that the book of Genesis is foundational to the Christian gospel and vital for a correct understanding of physical and biological origins.
The BCM supports two speakers, one of whom is Paul Garner. Amusingly, there is a page at the BCM site which outlines their beliefs (Statement of Faith ), which ia rather illuminating, particularly the sections near the bottom of the page concerning Creation, Fall, and Flood – and implications for scientific and historical study, notably the final bullet point:
No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any historical or scientific field of study can be valid if it contradicts the record of Holy Scripture. Evidence is always subject to interpretation by people who are fallen, fallible, and limited in knowledge.
Over the last few months, Paul’s been blogging favourable reviews of his book, and to his credit has alerted the reader to a rather negative review over at the christian Premier Community Forum, in which a poster Michael takes issue with one specific chapter (Chapter 5, Is the Present the key to the Past?). Now, I’m not particularly familiar with geological processes, so I generally don’t take part in such discussions (this is no exception), but I’d note that the discovery of “deep time” is one largely derived from geological study, so it’s rather interesting that a graduate in geology takes a strict YEC interpretation of the world around us.
At the moment, the thread spreads over about five pages. Some sample quotes from Paul Garner:
No, Christians should put Scripture first, not science. Giving science the priority really would be putting the cart before the horse. And if you read my book, you’ll discover that it’s all about scientific work being undertaken by Christians – work that confirms the Scriptural framework of a recent creation and global flood.
And in my view the Bible’s record of creation and the flood counts as evidence.
I think this pretty much sums up why any of the statements and claims made at the New Creationism can not be taken as serious science. Articles on the conformity of geological observations with biblical writing are just not tenable, and frequent discussions of the origins of species within a framework of spurious concepts such as baraminology are similarly unscientific.
Why would any rational investigator make direct observation and experimental work subservient to a historical document espousing a mythical worldview?