What do you think?
Rate this book
In the Beginning: A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists Are Wrong
"The creationists are eager to inflict their particular brand of 'science' upon our children," writes Chris McGowan, "and this is where responsible scientists must draw the line. The creationists say that they want only 'equal time' to present their views, as a credible alternative to evolutionary theory, in the science classroom. The problem is, though, that what the creationists are offering is not science. They are selling good old-fashioned fundamentalist religion, all spruced up with scientific terminology and ideas to look like science. As part of their pressure sales technique, they allege that if you are not for them you must be against them, and therefore against God and Christianity. What is clear from reading their literature and attending their debates is that they do not represent mainstream Christianity, and that they are as unorthodox in their theology as they are in their science."In this lively and controversial book, Chris McGowan, a vertebrate paleontologist, meets the creationists head on and systematically demolishes their arguments with geniune scientific evidence supporting evolutionary theory. For the layperson who may be bewildered by the creationist's misinterpretation - or even misrepresentation - of the facts, McGowan provides an easy-to-follow explanation of evolution that answers many common questions. While attacking the creationist's point of view with no holds barred, In the Beginning also offers a readable and well-illustrated introduction to evolution science. As a defense against the creationist threat to intellectual freedom and scientific truth, this book will attract a wide variety of interested readers.
221 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 1, 1983
1 person is currently reading
3 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 3, 2025
A DEFENSE OF EVOLUTION, COMBINED WITH A CRITIQUE OF ‘CREATION SCIENCE’
Zoologist Chris McGowan wrote in the Preface to this 1984 book, “The leading creationist spokesmen are prolific writers who touch on all aspects of science… though usually with an appalling disregard for scientific accuracy… I am going to stick largely to my own subject. I do not discuss the origins of the universe… What this book will outline, however, is the subject of organic evolution, and how new organisms have come into existence… The book is primarily written for open-minded people who want to be able to see the creation issue in its true light. I hope that any teachers facing the battle over creationism in their classrooms will read this book… if our school boards … are unwise enough to allow themselves to be duped by the creationists, it will be our high school teachers and their pupils who will be on the front line.”
He states in Chapter 1, “Since Darwin’s time the theory has been subjected to extensive testing in many different fields, and none of these have falsified the theory… The theory of evolution would be falsified if we found that the earliest fossils were not the simplest, or that all the different types of organisms appeared at the same time.” (Pg. 5)
He admits, “As an evolutionist I do not profess to have answers to all the questions that have been raised by critics of evolution---far from it. There are many aspects of evolution that puzzle me as well as other evolutionists. There is, for example, a major discussion going on … over the mechanisms of macroevolution… Can major changes, like the appearance of lungs or feathers, be accounted for by the accumulation of lots of small changes, or is some other mechanism involved? Although there is frequent disagreement among specialists… there is no disagreement on the question of whether evolution has occurred.” (Pg. 41)
He rejects the idea of ‘panspermia’: “I have always been puzzled as to how living material was supposed to have survived the transition from space to the earth’s atmosphere. If the spores arrived on meteor... how did they withstand the frictional heat that causes the surface of meteors and spacecraft to glow white-hot? If, instead, the particles rained gently down like dust, how did they survive the ultraviolet and other high-energy radiations above the ozone layer?” (Pg. 47)
Of Noah’s Flood, he observes, “Would the flood waters have been drinkable with all those dead things floating around in it, or would Noah have had to provision the ark with water? If fresh drinking water had to be carried, this would have presented horrendous storage problems.” (Pg. 57)
He continues, “How did all the animals find enough to eat on that mountainside in Turkey when the flood subsided... it would … have taken some time before plants could have started growing again… What did the plant-eaters do while they were waiting for the plants to grow? What did the meat-eaters do while they were waiting for the plant-eaters to multiply?... how did they disperse themselves to the four corners of the earth? How did the two pandas make it across Eurasia to China? How did the two kangaroos hop… across the ocean to Australia?” (Pg. 57-58)
He acknowledges, “we have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multicellular organisms… The creationists, of course, love to draw attention to these gaps… the incomplete fossil record… gives only part of the evolutionary history of a given group… because so many major evolutionary changes have taken place in the soft parts of the body…When we see gaps within a segment of the fossil record, we should remember that these gaps may not necessarily be as significant as they appear, because they may be bridged by features that are not preserved.” (Pg. 95)
He points out of the ‘human footprints’ in Texas, “biologist David Milne… argued that the ‘human’ footprints were actually just the single toeprints of theropod dinosaurs… I viewed the Paluxy River film again and, sure enough, in one of the ‘human’ prints I could discern a side toe.” (Pg. 108) [Note that the Institute for Creation Research/ICR in 1996 basically disavowed the ‘human/dinosaur’ footprints at Paluxy River; John Morris Jr.’s article admitting this is still posted on the ICR’s website.]
He argues, “[Creationists] ask why we do not find fossils with partly developed feathers, and I believe that the answer lies in the incomplete nature of the fossil record… Let us be in no doubt---feather impressions ARE rare in the fossil record, and even when they have been preserved they only give us information about some of the feathers. The only place left to search for evidence of the transition from scales to feathers is in the living world. If we examine the wing of a penguin, we see a wide range of covering structures, from small structures that look like scales… to structures that are obviously feathers… There are all shades in between… feathers and scales are essentially just variations on a theme; both are formed of a horny protein called keratin, and they both develop along similar embryonic pathways.” (Pg. 119-120)
He suggests, “In Probainognathus… we see an early stage in the loss of the reptilian articular-quadrate jaw joint. It is not difficult to visualize the next step, when the articular and quadrate bones are freed up to link up with the stapes to form the mammalian ear ossicles. Dr. [Duane] Gish’s contention that nobody has been able to explain how the transitional fossil could have chewed its food while its jaw was being unhinged and reconnected is without foundation.” (Pg. 139)
He admits, “The embarrassing fact is that we have not yet found the ancestor of the ichthyosaurs… Why have we not found the ancestor? Creationists would argue … that it never existed, but I prefer to believe that the ancestor did exist, and that we have just not found it yet…” (Pg. 158-159)
He concludes, “Should the creationists have their way, I believe we would see science revert back to the mystical art form that it was during the dark ages. And science will not be the only casualty… the majority of creationists do not place a high value on the freedom of inquiry and expression necessary to the growth of learning. To dismiss them as harmless… is to underestimate the danger they pose. The time has come to put the creation science movement where it belongs---and that is definitely not in the science classroom.” (Pg. 188)
This book will be of great interest to those seeking critiques of creationism.
Zoologist Chris McGowan wrote in the Preface to this 1984 book, “The leading creationist spokesmen are prolific writers who touch on all aspects of science… though usually with an appalling disregard for scientific accuracy… I am going to stick largely to my own subject. I do not discuss the origins of the universe… What this book will outline, however, is the subject of organic evolution, and how new organisms have come into existence… The book is primarily written for open-minded people who want to be able to see the creation issue in its true light. I hope that any teachers facing the battle over creationism in their classrooms will read this book… if our school boards … are unwise enough to allow themselves to be duped by the creationists, it will be our high school teachers and their pupils who will be on the front line.”
He states in Chapter 1, “Since Darwin’s time the theory has been subjected to extensive testing in many different fields, and none of these have falsified the theory… The theory of evolution would be falsified if we found that the earliest fossils were not the simplest, or that all the different types of organisms appeared at the same time.” (Pg. 5)
He admits, “As an evolutionist I do not profess to have answers to all the questions that have been raised by critics of evolution---far from it. There are many aspects of evolution that puzzle me as well as other evolutionists. There is, for example, a major discussion going on … over the mechanisms of macroevolution… Can major changes, like the appearance of lungs or feathers, be accounted for by the accumulation of lots of small changes, or is some other mechanism involved? Although there is frequent disagreement among specialists… there is no disagreement on the question of whether evolution has occurred.” (Pg. 41)
He rejects the idea of ‘panspermia’: “I have always been puzzled as to how living material was supposed to have survived the transition from space to the earth’s atmosphere. If the spores arrived on meteor... how did they withstand the frictional heat that causes the surface of meteors and spacecraft to glow white-hot? If, instead, the particles rained gently down like dust, how did they survive the ultraviolet and other high-energy radiations above the ozone layer?” (Pg. 47)
Of Noah’s Flood, he observes, “Would the flood waters have been drinkable with all those dead things floating around in it, or would Noah have had to provision the ark with water? If fresh drinking water had to be carried, this would have presented horrendous storage problems.” (Pg. 57)
He continues, “How did all the animals find enough to eat on that mountainside in Turkey when the flood subsided... it would … have taken some time before plants could have started growing again… What did the plant-eaters do while they were waiting for the plants to grow? What did the meat-eaters do while they were waiting for the plant-eaters to multiply?... how did they disperse themselves to the four corners of the earth? How did the two pandas make it across Eurasia to China? How did the two kangaroos hop… across the ocean to Australia?” (Pg. 57-58)
He acknowledges, “we have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multicellular organisms… The creationists, of course, love to draw attention to these gaps… the incomplete fossil record… gives only part of the evolutionary history of a given group… because so many major evolutionary changes have taken place in the soft parts of the body…When we see gaps within a segment of the fossil record, we should remember that these gaps may not necessarily be as significant as they appear, because they may be bridged by features that are not preserved.” (Pg. 95)
He points out of the ‘human footprints’ in Texas, “biologist David Milne… argued that the ‘human’ footprints were actually just the single toeprints of theropod dinosaurs… I viewed the Paluxy River film again and, sure enough, in one of the ‘human’ prints I could discern a side toe.” (Pg. 108) [Note that the Institute for Creation Research/ICR in 1996 basically disavowed the ‘human/dinosaur’ footprints at Paluxy River; John Morris Jr.’s article admitting this is still posted on the ICR’s website.]
He argues, “[Creationists] ask why we do not find fossils with partly developed feathers, and I believe that the answer lies in the incomplete nature of the fossil record… Let us be in no doubt---feather impressions ARE rare in the fossil record, and even when they have been preserved they only give us information about some of the feathers. The only place left to search for evidence of the transition from scales to feathers is in the living world. If we examine the wing of a penguin, we see a wide range of covering structures, from small structures that look like scales… to structures that are obviously feathers… There are all shades in between… feathers and scales are essentially just variations on a theme; both are formed of a horny protein called keratin, and they both develop along similar embryonic pathways.” (Pg. 119-120)
He suggests, “In Probainognathus… we see an early stage in the loss of the reptilian articular-quadrate jaw joint. It is not difficult to visualize the next step, when the articular and quadrate bones are freed up to link up with the stapes to form the mammalian ear ossicles. Dr. [Duane] Gish’s contention that nobody has been able to explain how the transitional fossil could have chewed its food while its jaw was being unhinged and reconnected is without foundation.” (Pg. 139)
He admits, “The embarrassing fact is that we have not yet found the ancestor of the ichthyosaurs… Why have we not found the ancestor? Creationists would argue … that it never existed, but I prefer to believe that the ancestor did exist, and that we have just not found it yet…” (Pg. 158-159)
He concludes, “Should the creationists have their way, I believe we would see science revert back to the mystical art form that it was during the dark ages. And science will not be the only casualty… the majority of creationists do not place a high value on the freedom of inquiry and expression necessary to the growth of learning. To dismiss them as harmless… is to underestimate the danger they pose. The time has come to put the creation science movement where it belongs---and that is definitely not in the science classroom.” (Pg. 188)
This book will be of great interest to those seeking critiques of creationism.
May 21, 2017
I found this gem in a used bookstore, hidden on the highest shelf, in a stack of obviously outdated and abandoned scientific books. While it was published in 1984, it is entirely relevant today.
"And science will not be the only casualty, for science is only one branch of learning, and the essence of all learning -- be it science, the arts, or the humanities -- is to expand the frontiers of human knowledge. With their literal, fundamentalist views, the majority of creationists do not place a high value in the freedom of inquiry and expression necessary to the growth of learning. To dismiss them as harmless, simple-minded cranks is to underestimate the danger they pose. The time has come to put the creation science movement where it belongs -- and that is definitely not in the classroom."
33 years later, and it still rings true. This book (that I have never even heard of prior to discovering it on a dusty shelf) should have been the end-all to the creation/evolution debate. The author so brilliantly debunks every point creationists use to "foil" that which they do not understand. If anything, the chapter on the ark is a must-read, especially if you need a good laugh.
"And science will not be the only casualty, for science is only one branch of learning, and the essence of all learning -- be it science, the arts, or the humanities -- is to expand the frontiers of human knowledge. With their literal, fundamentalist views, the majority of creationists do not place a high value in the freedom of inquiry and expression necessary to the growth of learning. To dismiss them as harmless, simple-minded cranks is to underestimate the danger they pose. The time has come to put the creation science movement where it belongs -- and that is definitely not in the classroom."
33 years later, and it still rings true. This book (that I have never even heard of prior to discovering it on a dusty shelf) should have been the end-all to the creation/evolution debate. The author so brilliantly debunks every point creationists use to "foil" that which they do not understand. If anything, the chapter on the ark is a must-read, especially if you need a good laugh.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 28, 2007
This book is one I first read in the early '80s. It was written in response to the 'creation science' movement that was so prevalent back then.
The book takes the movement's main points and demolishes them one by one. There's a lot to be learned here.
I was especially fascinated with the many lines of evolution that he covered: reptiles to birds, reptiles to mammals, horses and man. It was all very informative. The chapter on Noah's Ark was rather funny as Dr. McGowan showed the impossibility of storing over 1 million species of animals, and their food, and their waste products, in a structure about the size of a small apartment building.
I met Dr. McGowan a couple of years after first reading this book. A very personable gentelman. We spent a half hour discussing paleontology. I wish I'd had the book with me, would have been nice to get an autograph. ;)
A most enjoyable book, I'll recommend it to anyone who likes to learn.
The book takes the movement's main points and demolishes them one by one. There's a lot to be learned here.
I was especially fascinated with the many lines of evolution that he covered: reptiles to birds, reptiles to mammals, horses and man. It was all very informative. The chapter on Noah's Ark was rather funny as Dr. McGowan showed the impossibility of storing over 1 million species of animals, and their food, and their waste products, in a structure about the size of a small apartment building.
I met Dr. McGowan a couple of years after first reading this book. A very personable gentelman. We spent a half hour discussing paleontology. I wish I'd had the book with me, would have been nice to get an autograph. ;)
A most enjoyable book, I'll recommend it to anyone who likes to learn.
October 3, 2013
I agree with the author's conclusions these days, but I read many years ago as when I was young and a Christian, undecided about evolution & creation. My memory of the book is that it makes different assumptions compared to a devout Christian who believes God can do anything, and discusses faith with a mocking tone. I was very unimpressed.
I'd have to reread the book to give it a fair review, but it didn't answer my questions at the time, actually made me *more* inclined to believe in creation (I was young and ignorant). It's not a book I'd recommend for explaining evolution to a religious person.
I'd have to reread the book to give it a fair review, but it didn't answer my questions at the time, actually made me *more* inclined to believe in creation (I was young and ignorant). It's not a book I'd recommend for explaining evolution to a religious person.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews