What do you think?
Rate this book
A Case for Creation
Book by Wayne F. Frair, Percival William Davis
155 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1983
1 person is currently reading
42 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 18, 2025
A CASE MADE OF THE NEED FOR MORE CREATIONIST RESEARCH/RESEARCHERS
Wayne Frair (1926-2015) was Professor Emeritus of Biology at The King’s College; he also served as the President of the Creation Research Society from 1986 to 1993, then remained a member of its board of directors until 2004. Percival Davis was a professor of Life Science at Hillsborough Community College in Florida prior to his retirement.
They wrote in the Preface to this 1983 book (first edition, 1967), “Recent attempts to include creationism in public school teachings of origins have created a sense of misplaced confidence. If we are to battle for men’s souls, we must not neglect their minds. It is futile to expose students or anyone else to unconvincing concepts. In our opinion, creationists must set forth a case for creation with all the … skill that a lawyer would use to convince a skeptical jury… It is an illusion to suppose that the problems evolutionary doctrine raises for the Christian are well under control…
“It is our aim to enter a plea for increased research by Christians concerning the origins of life on Earth and Earth’s subsequent history… We are not sympathetic, however, with the approach that attempts to apply Scripture haphazardly to the latest fashion of intellect or science… We are not attempting to interpret or misinterpret the Bible so that is speaks the language of the 20th century geologist or zoologist. That approach… would defeat its own purpose by leaving the enemy in uncontested possession of the battlefield. Such an attempt really constitutes a search for the most graceful means of surrender.”
In the first chapter, they ask, “Do modern scientific advances depend on the theory of evolution and require an acceptance of its tenets? There seems to be no good reason to insist that biological studies always be informed by evolutionary considerations. What recent important biological achievement could not have been accomplished just as well as without a belief in evolution on the investigator’s part?” (Pg. 14)
They explain, “Evolutionists have pointed out that certain structures often found in organisms seem to have no function. Why would a Creator include a functionless organ in an animal’s body? These ‘vestigial structures’ … may be distinguished from ‘rudimentary structures’ such as nipples in male primates that normally do not develop but which do, of course, function fully in females. (If male nipples really were vestigial, they would indicate that Australopithecus nursed HIS young!)… Blind cave fish with remnants of eyes and flies with a hereditary stubby, shriveled wing condition appear to have true vestigial organs. These and similar degenerations apparently have indeed resulted from typically disadvantageous mutations…. A better name for some of these supposedly vestigial organs of which evolutionists make so much would be ‘organs of unknown function.’ The list of human structures thought to be vestigial has shrunk greatly in recent years… Even the coccyx, the supposed remnant of a prehensile tail, anchors several muscles. It may not be vital, but it is definitely useful.” (Pg. 29-30)
They ask, “[Did] modern birds… evolve from a ‘reptilian’ common ancestor … [lose] some of the machinery for tooth production but retained the tooth-producing genes? This is an evolutionary explanation. Another possibility is that in the creation pattern of some or all birds, God placed in the cells genetic information for ontogenesis, because there ARE fossil birds with teeth. Because of mutation, tooth production was lost… toothlessness may have resulted from loss by mutation, while some genes that formerly were involved in the very earliest development of teeth exert a temporary effect in one aberrant species. Loss of an originally created characteristic by mutation… provides an alternative explanation, making it unnecessary to relate birds to some imagined nonavian ancestor merely on the basis of this tooth data.” (Pg. 46)
They argue, “The origin of birds is shrouded in mystery… Nevertheless, it has been a tantalizing exercise for generations of budding biologists… to select among potential avian (usually reptilianlike) ancestors. Those involved in those studies would do well to consider a creation alternative… Intermediate forms are poor evidences for evolution because they imply a circular argument. The argument usually begins with the assumption that evolution has occurred and that therefore later forms have descended from earlier ones…. If we find something that approximates those forms, we take it to be a vindication of evolution. In this fashion we could suggest… that vertebrates have descended from something like horseshoe crabs because intermediate forms … occur at about the right place in the fossil record.” (Pg. 61-62)
They advise, “Some creationists have embraced continental drift with an enthusiasm that we hope is not ill-advised, because a problem still exists. If the usual geological time scale is accepted, continental drift would have occurred at a rate of inches per year… But if the much shorter chronology consistent with biblical revelation is accepted, the rate would have had to be many miles per year to produce the present location of the continents. This would have been a sort of continuous catastrophe… More creationist geologists are urgently needed to address these problems.” (Pg. 74)
They turn to the origin of cells: “It is thought [by evolutionists] that perhaps blue-green algae invaded a primitive eukaryotic cell and produced the ancestor of all higher plants… There is some evidence for this theory, fantastic as it may seem. Algae, including blue-green algae, do occur in symbiotic relationships with flatworms, fungi, hydra, and other organisms. Sometimes they even invade cells of these organisms as the primitive chloroplast supposedly did. More importantly, both mitochondria and chloroplasts do have their own DNA and possess at least some independent genetic information, which is what one might predict if they did not originate from the substance of the host cell itself. Their ribosomes, too, resemble those of prokaryotes more closely than those of the cytoplasm. This evidence, although interesting, is certainly only circumstantial. It does suggest that eukaryotes MAY have originated in this fashion, but it does not show that they did in fact do so.” (Pg. 95-96)
In their Epilogue (‘Creationism’s Unfinished Business’), they suggest, “What does creationism need to be convincing? 1. Creationism needs an uncompromising but civil spirit… we must avoid the intellectual criminalization of our opponents who, despite their bias, are for the most part learned and decent people, honestly convinced that they are right… 2. Creationism needs more scholars… The most telling arguments for the antiquity of the earth are geological and astronomical in origin. In our opinion they have never been answered satisfactorily by creationists, probably because there are too few committed creationists professionally qualified to deal with the specialized data in these areas… 3. Creationism needs more clear-cut biblical foundations. We do not believe that the biblical basis of creation has been fully explored despite the years of study that have been devoted to it by Jewish and Christian Scholars.” (Pg. 135-136)
They add, “4. Creationism needs research. The sorest points faced by creationists today were also the sorest points of creationism in Darwin’s day. Were it not for the almost total ascendancy of evolution in scientific thought, creationism might be a very well-developed discipline. As it is, we creationist scientists too often have retreated into an intellectual shell, leaving the discovery and interpretation of the facts solely to the opposition. This lack of research is not entirely the fault of creationism, however. Few people realize how very expensive modern biological research has become, or how sophisticated the apparatus must be to allow the researcher to work on the outer borders of scientific knowledge… Further advances require instruments costing in the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece… Not even crude estimates are available of the financial support for creation research, but in comparison it can be only the smallest pittance.” (Pg. 136)
This book will be of keen interest to creationists.
Wayne Frair (1926-2015) was Professor Emeritus of Biology at The King’s College; he also served as the President of the Creation Research Society from 1986 to 1993, then remained a member of its board of directors until 2004. Percival Davis was a professor of Life Science at Hillsborough Community College in Florida prior to his retirement.
They wrote in the Preface to this 1983 book (first edition, 1967), “Recent attempts to include creationism in public school teachings of origins have created a sense of misplaced confidence. If we are to battle for men’s souls, we must not neglect their minds. It is futile to expose students or anyone else to unconvincing concepts. In our opinion, creationists must set forth a case for creation with all the … skill that a lawyer would use to convince a skeptical jury… It is an illusion to suppose that the problems evolutionary doctrine raises for the Christian are well under control…
“It is our aim to enter a plea for increased research by Christians concerning the origins of life on Earth and Earth’s subsequent history… We are not sympathetic, however, with the approach that attempts to apply Scripture haphazardly to the latest fashion of intellect or science… We are not attempting to interpret or misinterpret the Bible so that is speaks the language of the 20th century geologist or zoologist. That approach… would defeat its own purpose by leaving the enemy in uncontested possession of the battlefield. Such an attempt really constitutes a search for the most graceful means of surrender.”
In the first chapter, they ask, “Do modern scientific advances depend on the theory of evolution and require an acceptance of its tenets? There seems to be no good reason to insist that biological studies always be informed by evolutionary considerations. What recent important biological achievement could not have been accomplished just as well as without a belief in evolution on the investigator’s part?” (Pg. 14)
They explain, “Evolutionists have pointed out that certain structures often found in organisms seem to have no function. Why would a Creator include a functionless organ in an animal’s body? These ‘vestigial structures’ … may be distinguished from ‘rudimentary structures’ such as nipples in male primates that normally do not develop but which do, of course, function fully in females. (If male nipples really were vestigial, they would indicate that Australopithecus nursed HIS young!)… Blind cave fish with remnants of eyes and flies with a hereditary stubby, shriveled wing condition appear to have true vestigial organs. These and similar degenerations apparently have indeed resulted from typically disadvantageous mutations…. A better name for some of these supposedly vestigial organs of which evolutionists make so much would be ‘organs of unknown function.’ The list of human structures thought to be vestigial has shrunk greatly in recent years… Even the coccyx, the supposed remnant of a prehensile tail, anchors several muscles. It may not be vital, but it is definitely useful.” (Pg. 29-30)
They ask, “[Did] modern birds… evolve from a ‘reptilian’ common ancestor … [lose] some of the machinery for tooth production but retained the tooth-producing genes? This is an evolutionary explanation. Another possibility is that in the creation pattern of some or all birds, God placed in the cells genetic information for ontogenesis, because there ARE fossil birds with teeth. Because of mutation, tooth production was lost… toothlessness may have resulted from loss by mutation, while some genes that formerly were involved in the very earliest development of teeth exert a temporary effect in one aberrant species. Loss of an originally created characteristic by mutation… provides an alternative explanation, making it unnecessary to relate birds to some imagined nonavian ancestor merely on the basis of this tooth data.” (Pg. 46)
They argue, “The origin of birds is shrouded in mystery… Nevertheless, it has been a tantalizing exercise for generations of budding biologists… to select among potential avian (usually reptilianlike) ancestors. Those involved in those studies would do well to consider a creation alternative… Intermediate forms are poor evidences for evolution because they imply a circular argument. The argument usually begins with the assumption that evolution has occurred and that therefore later forms have descended from earlier ones…. If we find something that approximates those forms, we take it to be a vindication of evolution. In this fashion we could suggest… that vertebrates have descended from something like horseshoe crabs because intermediate forms … occur at about the right place in the fossil record.” (Pg. 61-62)
They advise, “Some creationists have embraced continental drift with an enthusiasm that we hope is not ill-advised, because a problem still exists. If the usual geological time scale is accepted, continental drift would have occurred at a rate of inches per year… But if the much shorter chronology consistent with biblical revelation is accepted, the rate would have had to be many miles per year to produce the present location of the continents. This would have been a sort of continuous catastrophe… More creationist geologists are urgently needed to address these problems.” (Pg. 74)
They turn to the origin of cells: “It is thought [by evolutionists] that perhaps blue-green algae invaded a primitive eukaryotic cell and produced the ancestor of all higher plants… There is some evidence for this theory, fantastic as it may seem. Algae, including blue-green algae, do occur in symbiotic relationships with flatworms, fungi, hydra, and other organisms. Sometimes they even invade cells of these organisms as the primitive chloroplast supposedly did. More importantly, both mitochondria and chloroplasts do have their own DNA and possess at least some independent genetic information, which is what one might predict if they did not originate from the substance of the host cell itself. Their ribosomes, too, resemble those of prokaryotes more closely than those of the cytoplasm. This evidence, although interesting, is certainly only circumstantial. It does suggest that eukaryotes MAY have originated in this fashion, but it does not show that they did in fact do so.” (Pg. 95-96)
In their Epilogue (‘Creationism’s Unfinished Business’), they suggest, “What does creationism need to be convincing? 1. Creationism needs an uncompromising but civil spirit… we must avoid the intellectual criminalization of our opponents who, despite their bias, are for the most part learned and decent people, honestly convinced that they are right… 2. Creationism needs more scholars… The most telling arguments for the antiquity of the earth are geological and astronomical in origin. In our opinion they have never been answered satisfactorily by creationists, probably because there are too few committed creationists professionally qualified to deal with the specialized data in these areas… 3. Creationism needs more clear-cut biblical foundations. We do not believe that the biblical basis of creation has been fully explored despite the years of study that have been devoted to it by Jewish and Christian Scholars.” (Pg. 135-136)
They add, “4. Creationism needs research. The sorest points faced by creationists today were also the sorest points of creationism in Darwin’s day. Were it not for the almost total ascendancy of evolution in scientific thought, creationism might be a very well-developed discipline. As it is, we creationist scientists too often have retreated into an intellectual shell, leaving the discovery and interpretation of the facts solely to the opposition. This lack of research is not entirely the fault of creationism, however. Few people realize how very expensive modern biological research has become, or how sophisticated the apparatus must be to allow the researcher to work on the outer borders of scientific knowledge… Further advances require instruments costing in the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece… Not even crude estimates are available of the financial support for creation research, but in comparison it can be only the smallest pittance.” (Pg. 136)
This book will be of keen interest to creationists.
September 25, 2020
This book was originally written in 1967 and had 2 revisions, the last one in 1983. It was one of the early books written by Christians who were scientists and rejected evolution and believed in the Biblical account of creation. Much of what is written had been much more thoroughly investigated and has been more precisely presented in a very large number of books, videos, etc.
It is a good book and certainly was an important book when it was written.
I personally knew the author. He signed my copy. He spoke at chapel at the Christian school where I was teaching and used turtles as visuals to demonstrate to students the weakness of Darwinism.
It is a good book and certainly was an important book when it was written.
I personally knew the author. He signed my copy. He spoke at chapel at the Christian school where I was teaching and used turtles as visuals to demonstrate to students the weakness of Darwinism.
December 28, 2012
The book has a well articulated section in chapter 1 on the limitation of scientific method. With that basis, it presents how archaeological evidences refutes evolution and, instead, supports creation. A great book for non-scientist. My review is based on the 3rd edition which was published in 1983.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews