John Woodmorappe (born October 1954) is the pen name of Jan Peczkis,[1] an author who has published several articles and books with the creation science groups Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. His main works are Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study and the The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. He has also written several articles in creationist journals. He was a science teacher in public high schools throughout his teaching career. He earned a BA in Biology, a BA in Geology, and a MA in Geology.[2]
Contents |
Woodmorappe's work Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study is a systematic rebuttal of objections to the feasibility - and thus historicity - of Noah's Ark. The book attempts to deal with all stated feasibility problems by actually analysing the feasibility of possible solutions.
Woodmorappe's analysis of the requirements for feeding the animals relies heavily on comparison with mass production farming. Glenn Morton, who is specifically mentioned in Woodmorappe's book, claims that such comparison cannot be applied, as the care of thousands of animals that require all the same food (farming) is vastly different from the care of thousands of different animals that require vastly different food sources (on board the ark).
Woodmorappe analysed several methods of waste management, as used in industrial farming, and also stated that some animals have been trained to defecate on command. Morton argues that Woodmorappe's suggestion that Noah and his family could have trained the animals beforehand to assist in ways such as urinating and defecating on demand into buckets is ridiculous, stating that "this, of course, makes Noah the greatest animal trainer in history."[3]
Morton offers other criticisms in his review of the book.[3] Woodmorappe has written a rebuttal to Morton's criticisms.[4]
Morton does commend the work’s thoroughness and scope and recommends that “anyone with a serious interest in the ark and its problems, or a student of the creationist movement should obtain a copy."[3]
Woodmorappe published Radiometric Dating Reappraised in 1979 attacking geological dating by claiming bad data points, geologists "fudging" radiometric dating results, and criticizing the geologist data of a 4.5 billion year earth date rather than the 6,000 years that Woodmorappe claims.
Steven H. Schimmrich criticized the work, claiming misrepresentation of terms, "highly inflammatory rhetoric," and "superficial treatment of data."[5]
Geologist Dr. Kevin R. Henke from the University of Kentucky has written over forty articles which criticize Woodmorappe's statements on geology, various radiometric methods and the overall capabilities of radiometric dating, and accusing him of misquoting sources to support his arguments.[6]