It is often thought that a belief in evolution is essential for a basic understanding of all science.
Dr. Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist with a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado, put it this way: “is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function?”
Dr. David Menton, a cell biologist, said “evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”
A testament to this unnecessary need for evolution is the rise of technology. Not a single technological advancement has been from the cause of a belief in evolution. All of these advancements are based on the laws of physics – which did not evolve, and further goes to show that a designer is necessary for every observable advancement.
If creationists ‘do not understand the scientific method’ – then how come there are so many notable scientists who believed in a Biblical creation: Isaac Newton (discovered calculus, laws of motion/gravity, invented reflecting telescope), Johannes Kepler (laws of planetary motion), Dr. Raymond Damadian (inventor of the MRI), and on and on. A belief in Biblical creation did not hinder these noted scientists from making these scientific developments.
The supposedly game-changing discovery of evolution has done little to nothing to add to observable and useful scientific advancements. This makes complete sense in a creationist’s mindframe. According to a Biblical creationist – God invented the laws that guide a stable universe. Without this stability, we could not trust any of our observances of that universe. The fact is that we have this stability – therefore we are not in a constantly changing world. Evolution itself does not make sense according to science. Science does make sense in a Biblical worldview. Therefore creationists may actually be better equipped for scientific work.
The argument isn’t in whether creationists do not use the scientific method or not. They do. We have the same evidence, the same steps, what we differ in is our conclusions from the evidence. That is where the debate is.