Evolution 2.0 & Perry Mason

Perry Marshall is an expert in web advertizing (e.g. Google AdWords) and has written Evolution2.0 on the creation/evolution topic.  Justin Brierley (Unbelievable) has written an endorsement.  Perry is the man behind the Technology Prize for the Origin of Information, that is, prove that DNA could arise naturally - he is offering $5M if the process can be patented.

Perry has a friend who favors the young earth view, but could not defend his view from a science standpoint.  He should have read YES - Young Earth Science.

In the book we find this mantra "God could make the universe in a billion years, or he could make it in an instant.  I don't think it matters" (Appendix 2).  Truly the Lord is omnipotent, but this misses the point.  Our Creator is sovereign over events and things happen for a reason.  Prophecy and God's timeline are not arbitrary - Time Matters.

Perry seems to have done little research on the creation side.  Here are a few suggested resources:

• Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRS)

• Answers Research Journal (AiG)

• Journal of Creation (CMI)

• Creation-Evolution Headlines

• Creation Moments

• Acts & Facts (icr)

He brings up the speed of light (the distant starlight challenge), but seems to be unaware of a number of possible solutions.  The Horizon Problem is an issue for the Big Bang advocates as well.

Perry claims that "science does not testify to a young Earth" yet that are a number of scientists and scholars that support or are sympathetic to Young Earth Science (YES):

      David Hume (Philosopher)

      Lucretius (Epicurean and poet)

      James Hogan (former engineer and scifi author)

      Vine Deloria (Native American scholar)

      William Corliss (compiler of scientific anomalies)

      Richard Milton (Mensan and science journalist)

      Melvin Cook (Chemist, Nitro Nobel winner)

In the section "Putting Faith on the Science Chopping Block" Perry makes an amazing statement on solving apparent Bible-science conflicts, "I'm going to let science and engineering answer the question for me."  A better approach is to realize that the Bible is a message from the Creator and gives true info on history, science as well as the way to heaven:

When I think on my ways,    I turn my feet to your testimonies;The earth, O Lord, is full of your steadfast love;    teach me your statutes! (Ps. 119:59, 64)

Regarding evolutionary schemes for the origin of life Perry rightly states,

None of this is empirical.  We are bullied to believe it simply because it get  repeated many times ... along with the dubious claims like "virtually all scientists accept this."  Consensus is not science.

Unfortunately, Perry fails to apply this same critical thinking to Old Earth Fallacies (OEF).  He also tries to stretch the meaning of day in Genesis chapter one.  However, the pattern evening/morning 1st Day, evening/morning 2nd Day etc.  clearly indicates normal days.  Basil of Caesarea in his Hexameron defended the real days of Creation Week.  The censuses in Numbers 1 and 26 of the fighting men of Israel reaches over 600K.  If the deep time theory was true, Scripture could have used large numbers to describe the vast ages of the past.

Perry claims the "vestigial legs" of a whale point to evolution (pp. 13-15).  Jerry Bergman in his book Fossil Forensics has a whole chapter refuting the supposed evidence for whale evolution (38 pages, 6 pages of references).  He shows that the "floating" bones near the end of whales does have a function.  In 1955, E.H. Colbert (Evolution of the Vertebrates - Wiley) revealed that "no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals" (Fossil Forensics, p. 337).  The current evidence backs this up.  

Perry Marshall should take a few clues from Perry Mason, the classic TV lawyer played by Raymond Burr.  In a screen test Raymond Burr admits "I'm not infallible" (he trades places and plays the DA).  He also deals with the problem of convicting the innocent (2:30 mark).  Has creationism been convicted without a fair trial?  Hopefully, Perry Marshall is also willing to take the tag "fallible" and realize that a young earth is possible.  

Leonard Nimoy (who later became Spock) is confronted with his crime in one exciting episode of Perry Mason.  Marshall should apply some good Vulcan logic to the origins conflict.  He rightly critiques the Origin Of Life (OOL) theories of mainstream science, but fails to see the fatal errors in Darwin's Tree of Life.  In one episode of Perry Mason we encounter this exchange:

Hamilton Burger:  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Mason has indeed surpassed himself.  He has created for you a story which is pure poppycock! Absolute and complete nonsense.  The defendant in this case is a shrewd, scheming woman.  She seduced her employer, she stole from him, and finally she murdered him.  And as for Mr. Mason's ridiculous theory about a hose, this is an "abandoned" real estate office we're talking about.  The water's been shut off there for over a year. How could anyone possibly...
 Perry Mason:  Your honor, the District Attorney is stating facts not in evidence.   Since he lost the opportunity to get these matters in legitimately, in rebuttal, he is now trying to do it through prejudicial misconduct.  I ask the court to declare a mistrial.

Have Darwinists depended on "facts not in evidence" and should the origins controversy be declared a mistrial?  For a great book on the Scopes Trial, check out Monkey Business by Marvin Olasky (World) and John Perry. 

For another spot-on book review, check out our response to Science Left Behind by Alex Berezow of Real Clear Science and Hank Campbell of Science 2.0 which came out in 2012.