you're reading...

Is Creation actual science?

This is a difficult question.  It depends on how you define science.  If science is only ideas we can test and repeat here in the present, then no.  I would label that type of science – observational science.  In comparison, I don’t see evolution as testable and repeatable here in the present.  As a clarification, natural selection is testable and repeatable here in the present.  But natural selection observed on a small scale does not prove evolution on a large scale.  Natural selection does nothing to conflict with Biblical creation.  The study of evolutionary and creationist science would fall under what I would call historical science.  These types of science are theories about the distant past that can never truly be verified.  Historical sciences models can follow particular logical flows based on starting conditions, but will forever remain assumptions that are never verifiable.

The starting condition for evolutionary historical science is that everything we see/taste/touch/hear came about from relatively nothing as an unguided naturalistic slow process over billions of years.  The starting condition for creation science is that the historical records recorded in the Bible are accurate and reliable and shed light on a very quick creation period, a fallen cursed world, and subsequent geologic flood event that shaped the world we observe today.  Both starting conditions are unverifiable in the present since we can only do science now, not in the past.  We can study the artifacts left behind from the past and draw conclusions, but we cannot prove it either way. 

The study of those ancient artifacts is the historical science we call either evolution or creation.  One will either approach the evidence with a naturalistic interpretation or a theological interpretation.  Because one uses a naturalistic over a theological does not make one interpretation more correct than another. 

Creation science takes the evidence in the world and decides how it fits into the Biblical model.  Evolutionists take that same evidence and decide where it fits into the naturalistic progression model.  One could make an easy argument that both sciences are practicing confirmation bias, and that neither science is falsifiable if they are only taking evidence and plugging it into a preexisting model. 

So, is creation science any less at fault then evolution?  I’d say no.  I think they both fall under the same category.  Both are trying to make sense of the ancient artifacts left behind based on their preferred existing models.  So, does creation science have a place in our classrooms?  My answer is yes – IF evolution does.  Both are unverifiable assumption about the past based on differing interpretations of the evidence.

Now, what about separation of church and state?  If creation science is based on a theological interpretation isn’t that endorsing religion in the public classroom?  There is no United States law barring religious instruction from the public classroom.  If I stood up in front of you and taught you what Islam believes, would that be forcing you to become a Muslim?  Some people tend to think that the separation of church and state means that no person in a government run institution should be able to say anything religious.  That is not true at all.  If it is true, the President of the United States did not get the memo.  President Obama has talked openly many times about his faith in God, praying to Jesus, and his dependency on the Christian religion.  Obama can openly talk about these things because he has that constitutional right.  The constitution protects individuals who wish to publically proclaim their faith.  Obama talking about that forced no one to become a Christian and did nothing to establish a national religion.  Talking about creation in public classrooms as comparative instruction alongside evolution would do nothing to force anyone into believing it, and would do nothing to establish a national religion.

Creation science is commonly misunderstood.  Many people think creationists ignore the scientific method, ignore the “overwhelming evidence for evolution”, and don’t have any answers for problematic issues such as dinosaurs and the variations within species.  Many people think a belief in evolution is critical for real-world work.  I heard Dr. Tommy Mitchell, a medical doctor, talk about how he was ridiculed by his colleagues for his belief in creation.  He was told that a belief in evolution was absolutely critical to understand biology, and biology was critical to understand medicine.  Dr. Mitchell replied to his colleague who had just removed a gallbladder – “how did evolution help you do that”?  Most people have not taken the time to think about it.  Would you really want a doctor to care for you that believes that “survival of the fittest” is a good thing?

In conclusion – creation is a brand of historical science comparable to evolution, neither is verifiable in the present and both are based on particular starting assumptions.  The teaching of creation science would do nothing to violate the separation of church and state.  The real issue is who would teach it, could they teach it fairly and without apparent bias?  This site, along with others offer real answers to the scientific questions raised in this article.  Most are not truly interested in hearing them.  They are more interested in defending their biased presuppositions while arguing that science should not be biased.





About Tim



Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: