Issue XI was devoted entirely to exposing the difficulties in creationist attempts to render scientifically plausible the story of Noah's Ark. It proved to be the most popular issue we have published, and many of the written comments will be printed in our next issue. But debunking the efforts of pseudoscientific biblical literalists by pitting their claims against the facts of nature is only one way to reveal the bankruptcy of their case. Another, and perhaps more basic, approach is to challenge their biblical literalism itself. Do "scientific creationists" read the Bible correctly? Is their biblical scholarship credible, or is it as outdated and superficial as their science?
In this issue, Conrad Hyers demonstrates how the matters dealt with in Genesis have nothing to do with the current creation-evolution controversy. The great religious issue that the biblical writers sought to resolve was one of a very different sort-one that proved to be more basic to modem Western religious belief than creationists suspect.
In future issues of Creation/Evolution, we will feature articles discussing Genesis from further angles. Although we remain a journal that focuses upon the scientific errors creationists make, it is important that we not miss the fact that they make errors in biblical scholarship as well-lest some accept the creationist claim that one must choose between evolution and the Bible.
In the matter of choosing, J. B. Gough shows in this issue that the whole creationist notion that there are only two "models"—the "creation model" and the "evolution model"—is philosophically indefensible.
And then there is another matter. Are creationists really catastrophists? Robert Schadewald shows why the answer is no.
From what you learn in this issue, it should become apparent that creationists err in more areas than science.