On the cover of The Quest for Right, Volume 1, there's a row of stars with just one brighter than the rest. If the author was honestly giving himself a one star review, that would be fair enough, but no, he means to indicate in fact that this is just the first in a seven-volume series by the self-proclaimed "Bible scholar and scientist extraordinaire".
Yes, C. David Parsons would like to be seen as not merely a scientist but one extraordinaire. From the evidence of this book it is would seem that one earns this particular label not by actually carrying out any science such as mere scientists ordinaires might do, but by making stuff up straight out of one's stupid fat head.
What's most appalling about the result is that it is meant as a textbook for teaching children, even though it is full of the most ridiculous rambling drivel. It is a measure of the desperate nature of the creationist project that a crank such as Parsons is able to have his crazed nonsense published in a high quality edition, on heavy gloss paper with full colour printing, simply because his goal is to show that the Bible is the first book of scientific literature. His publisher does not seem bothered that Parsons produces no evidence for his crackpot ideas, apparently all that matters is that he claims Biblical support for them.
In order to make out that the Bible has anything at all to say about modern scientific ideas, it is necessary to twist its meaning in a quite grotesque fashion. When it comes to such reinterpretation of the ancient text, Parsons is prepared to go much further than most, so that he says for example that Job 38:6, usually rendered as:
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
should be revised to read:
Whereupon are the sedimentary foundations thereof fastened? or who caused the nebulous rain to descend on the corner stone thereof;
to supposedly demonstrate that the Bible describes the formation of the Earth with scientific accuracy. Well, sort of. Parsons has own his wacky version of science to match his wacky version of Christianity. Anything else is just wrong. In Parsons' private universe, science is a kind of rival hierarchy to the Church, and its ideas can be established purely by authority. He several times mentions something called the "scientific council" which he appears to believe is a ruling body which determines the current scientific orthodoxy. Presumably this is one of those conspiracies that is so powerful it is able to hide all evidence of its existence, like the Illuminati or the Tufty Club.
One of Parson's notions is that it is unchristian to mention the names of pagan gods and so the planets of the solar system should be renamed accordingly:
|Name||Revised Name||Name||Revised Name|
|Earth||Earth, "Life Giving||Neptune||Exerciser|
Just how useful this innovation is will immediately be apparent.
As is often the case with cranks, Parsons has a beef with non-classical physics and quantum physics in particular. Being so extraordinaire, he has been able to devise an alternative classical atomic model. Unfortunately it is utter bollocks. With blithe disregard of any need for experimental validation, he proceeds to lay out a scheme which is essentially fictional. It has made-up terms for made-up components of matter ("struts", "buttresses", "protrubands" and so on) which behave in a made-up manner. Naturally enough there are no equations nor any tests that would help demonstrate the superiority of his model over conventional physics. But - because under his scheme all conventional radioactive dating is incorrect, and therefore the usual age given for the Earth of 4 billion years can be discarded in favour of one consistent with Young Earth Creationism - his theories are Biblical.
To be properly godly, much accepted science must be swept away. Capillary action, the browning of fruit, the transmission of light through glass; all the conventional explanations are to be rewritten in line with Parsons' new scientific doctrine. He helpfully tabulates old against new for comparision, of which here's a sample:
|Failed Premises||Reasoning Anew|
|The atom’s nucleus consists of nucleons (protons and neutrons) around which electrons orbit in fixed shells; the atom consists of mostly empty space.||The charge consists of a family cluster of energy cells (called a protruband) and buttresses adhered together by planned interaction (i.e., the mutual electrostatic attraction between their opposite electrical charges and magnetism).|
|The nucleus is 1/1,000,000 the size of the entire atom.||The design ratio of a protruband to a buttress is that of a quarter to a dime.|
|An orbiting electron weaves a shell around the tiny nucleus at a speed of no less than seven million billion rotations per second. The atom may be compared to a miniature sun-earth system.||A buttress is electrostatically attached to an open field of a protruband. Classical electrodynamics forbids a buttress to orbit the central cluster, as any particle in orbit would be immediately subdued by centripetal acceleration (the tendency of an object to move toward the center of rotation.)|
|The scintillations on the screen in Sir Rutherford’s experiment announced the arrival of ionized particles as they passed unimpeded through the mostly empty space of the atoms constituting the gold foil.||The strut bullets became immersed or imbedded in the molecular structure of the gold foil. Each sparkle announced the passage of a single wave train of light in an instance of absorption. This is an absolute.|
|The element hydrogen consists of a solitary electron orbiting a single proton.||A hydrocluster consists of a great number of energy cells; pure hydrogen does not possess a buttress.|
|The periodic table of the elements, establishing an assigned number of protons, electrons, and neutrons, is based on the conclusion that hydrogen possesses one proton and one electron.||The ill-fated periodic table of the elements is wiped clean of all supposed elementary numbers and electrical charges. The chart is a ruse.|
Balderdash would be too kind a word, wouldn't it? All this would be amusing if there were not creationists actively at work in US and UK schools. Not all creationists are as batty as Parsons, but they are all equally wrong, in that they think their beliefs about what an old book says should be afforded the same respect as serious scientific endeavour. This is a dangerous notion indeed.