Creation Research

Creation Research UK

They are the UK and European arm of the Australian creationist organisation, Creation Research (http://www.creationresearch.net), headed by John Mackay. As far as we can make out the UK operation has no full time staff but it is headed by Randall Hardy who appears to run it alongside his own operation, amen.org.uk (see http://www.amen.org.uk). It is based in Ashton-under-Lyne in Lancashire in the Northwest of England. Like Answers in Genesis UK, it is heavily into promoting the literature and DVDs, etc., of its parent organisation.

A long article which talked a lot about Creation Research appeared on the Financial Times of 14th October 2006. It can be found here

Creation Research UK has a charitable trust, the Creation Research Trust (registered at the Charity Commission as number 1103449). The listed trustees (when the web site was visited in August 2006) were Randall Hardy, whose address was given as in Withington in Manchester, David Keep and Andrew Forbes. In both 2004 and 2005 its income was a touch under £10,000. Our best guess is that most of this went towards the costs of Mackay touring the UK.

Treasurer of the trust is Andrew Forbes, a financial consultant in London. David Keep, who lives in Manchester and is a computer consultant, is secretary.

The income levels, on the face of it, show that Creation Research UK is minuscule in comparison with Answers in Genesis UK (Now running at around £500k a year) and less than a sixth of the size of the Creation Science Movement (around £62k). However, the income seems to exclude sales of material by Creation Research UK.

Creation Research UK also appears to rely on other volunteers to run the organisation including John and Marguerite Young who handle the financial side of sales by Creation Research UK. Presumably these mainly relate to material published by Creation Research in Australia. John Young is a pastor in North Manchester and his wife is a teacher.(1)

However, despite its apparent small size, it is difficult to assess how influential Creation Research is vis-à-vis the other UK-based creationist organisation. Our guess is that it is roughly on a par with the Biblical Creation Society in influence because Hardy himself has been well connected to much of the rest of the creationist movement and Mackay is a long-established act in the UK.

It's smaller than the Biblical Creation Society but it has a relatively powerful parent organisation behind it.

Hardy looks more to be an organiser than a proselytiser and, indeed, it appears that one of the biggest, if not the biggest, role of the organisation is to organise Mackay’s annual UK tours. In 2006 this also included a "family conference" in Wales which was openly aimed at pushing pseudo-science onto children. There is no doubt that John Mackay is the power behind the (UK) throne.

Mackay has been touring the UK, proselytising, for the best part of two decades and his Australian operation employs full time staff as well as providing him with a living.

What is abundantly clear is that Mackay wants creationism taught in British schools. Actions speak volumes here. Mackay brags that he has been inside British schools and his web site brags about teaching creationism in Australian schools and its schools programme and creationist give-aways for school teachers. Hardy’s web site for years has been displaying how creationists can infiltrate schools (without parental knowledge).

Creation Research UK can call upon not only Mackay and his staff, such as Diane Eager, to proselytise and get into UK schools but also Mackay’s associates such as in Canada. Mackay shipped in three people from abroad during his 2006 tour, all three of which were booked to teach/proselytise inside Millfield School in Lancashire until the headteacher decided he had had enough.

Similarly, the UK operation can draw on all the material produced by Creation Research in Australia.

Mackay holds a degree in geology but appears to have no formal education in genetics (Creation Research implies otherwise by stating that he has "studied" genetics). He originally became a "professional" creationist in the early 1980s by teaming up with Ken Ham and then joining in with the organisation that later became Answers in Genesis and is now Creation Ministries International. Prior to becoming a professional creationist, Mackay was a schoolteacher.(1)

(This can be confusing. What is now known as Answers in Genesis is in fact the USA/UK AiG operations that split off from Answers in Genesis in Australia in early 2006. The latter then renamed itself Creation Ministries International.)

Mackay split off from AiG in 1987 to form his own ministry and appears, until recently, to have had nothing to do with it ever since. Why Mackay split off isn’t certain but there is clear evidence to show that he dislikes Carl Wieland, still head of Creation Ministries. Both Mackay’s outfit and Creation Ministries are headquartered in Brisbane in Queensland.

Mackay plays the Australian larakin (he's a bit of a Rolf Harris look-a-like) but the evidence suggests that underneath he is a hard line reactionary fundamentalist.

(1) The evidence in the UK suggests that the more senior creationist "activists" are disproportionately teachers or educators. We have not looked at the Australian or US position though. Ken Ham was a schoolteacher in his early career.

Creation Research is seriously wrong

Technically, Creation Research is a Queensland-based Christian evangelical ministry (note that evangelical is not synonymous with creationist – Creation Research is a vocal critic of much of the evangelical movement, see From Creation to Calvary). There is little doubt that it is smaller than Creation Ministries (ex-AiG).

That Creation Research is a fundamentalist organisation is in no doubt. It's web site states that the bible is "inerrant throughout" and that "Its assertions are factually true and it is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct", and that "the account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for research into the origin and history of life."

In effect, Creation Research's starting point is its conclusion.

It then goes on to state its objective drawn from the conclusion:

"Therefore we research, document and promote the scientific aspects of creation are important, they are secondary to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Sustainer, Saviour, Lord and Judge, Who is an equal member of the triune Godhead - Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

(Note that this quote does not make grammatical sense.)

Its "science" therefore is built to fit between the conclusion and the objective. This just isn't rational.

Normally a scientist (or anyone else trying to understand complex issues) makes observations first (gathers the facts) then draws the conclusions and seeks further, confirming, evidence. Either a model or a theory is used (or, in its absence, developed) to explain the observations and, if necessary, to make predictions.

What you don't do is to provide the explanation, then find the facts. That’s the wrong way round. The rational approach has, as its objective, to expand knowledge or understanding. The objective of Creation Research is to convert people to religion.

Its "facts" are only there to proselytise – they are, by necessity, selective. None of its research or evidence is even remotely impartial or balanced. Consequently, it lacks any intellectual credibility whatsoever.

Stitching up academics

The Guardian reported in 2002 (25 March) that Creation Research had undertaken a "survey" of British academics about their views on the origins of life and their willingness to debate it. The survey was clearly rigged to prove a point (this sort of thing is a common tactic amongst creationists).

Now, most self-respecting academics would throw such rubbish from a creationist straight in the bin. In fact, they were left in a no-win situation. If they binned it but a few others, who questioned current understanding, replied, Mackay would have been in a position to argue that "a high proportion" of academics didn't believe in the Theory of Evolution. That then left all academics open to the charge that they were not teaching their students "the truth", that there were big doubts about it.

Of course, if they replied, they would then be asked by Mackay why they were unwilling to debate with him in public. If they did agree to debate with him, then they would be (potentially) eaten alive by someone who would set the agenda and have no hesitation in using all the advocacy tricks in the book including deception, misrepresentation and evasion.

Remember Mackay is a seasoned pro at this game – academics are not even trained in the simple basics of such debates. Indeed, scientific disputes are simply not resolved or resolvable by open, short debates.

By all accounts, the questionnaire was amateur. The Guardian quoted one academic as saying that: "it is so badly worded that it clearly is not written by someone who knows about the area."

It was then being handled by one Andrew Forbes of Creation Ministries UK. The Guardian reported that Forbes' intention was to poll every academic in the UK. Creation Research UK also stated that "We are working with him [but] it's a personal initiative, not something we are paying for."

More background information

Creation Research looks to be quite a loose network of people in Europe, the UK, Canada and Australia with many giving it part time assistance or acting as agents or local organisers. Anne Mackay, probably John Mackay's wife, is in charge of organising but does not appear to be active in preaching abroad.

The main heavyweight in the Australian operation appears to be Dr. Diane Eager who is understood to act as Creation Research’s in-house "scientist" (alongside John Mackay). Before joining Mackay full time in 2000 she was a lecturer in medical biology at the University of Canberra in Australia. She is a medical doctor. She is believed to be an Evangelical Anglican. Prior to 2000 she had been working closely with Creation Research.

Rather than using UK-based people for his more serious proselytising during April-June 2006, Mackay brought in Diane Eager and a Canadian couple, Vance and Korelei Nelson, of Creation Truth Ministries (CTM) in Canada.

According to CTM Nelson is the director. It states that he holds two earned degrees. He earned a theology degree from North American Baptist College in 1997 (Bachelor of Religion with a specialisation in Christian ministry). Nelson also earned a science degree in 2002 (BSc in biology). Nelson also claims to have studied concepts relating to creation and evolution at the college level (10 credit-hours directly relating to origin science).

However, no details are given as to the name of the college where he received his science degree or whether it was accredited or not. However North American Baptist College is in Canada.

The CTM website bragged that it made presentations in state schools in England in May 2006 but did not name the schools (surprise, surprise).

Here are the details of the Nelson's 2006 UK itinerary taken from CTM's web site on 19 April 2006:

The 26 April TV event was on Revelation TV, a fundamentalist satellite channel available through Sky Television.

The 30 April venue was at Westminster Chapel. This is a Congregationalist church and is a substantial building. Nelson was also "presenting" at the Calvary Chapel (Westminster City School) in Westminster the same evening.

Mackay was involved in the Home School conference as well. That was being held in Wales. Creation Research’s web site stated that Mackay would lead the event. Diane Eager was understood to have participated.

The 8th-12th venue was the one which made many angry. Mackay's published itinerary completely omitted the fact that it was over these five days and, indeed, Creation Research UK seems to have suggested the event was only for three days – Tuesday 9th to Thursday 11th. (it doesn't actually state this though). So, if Nelson was being truthful, the creationists had organised five days in the school(s).

According to Mackay's itinerary, he had nothing booked for the 8 May yet Nelson claimed that he (Nelson) would be presenting in state schools on the 8th.

Note that Nelson claimed that he would be presenting in more than one state school (he used the plural).