What is Creation Science?

If you seek a definition for creation science online, you may find one or more of the following definitions: From Answers.com: “1. The effort to provide scientific evidence supporting the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible. 2. Creationism.” From Princeton University’s WordNet: “an effort to give scientific support for the truth of the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis”. From Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary: “creationism; also : scientific evidence or arguments put forth in support of creationism.”

Wikipedia has a long article on creation science. The subheading of “Metaphysical assumptions” starts as follows:

“Creation science makes the a priori metaphysical assumption that there exists a creator of the life whose origin is being examined. Christian creation science holds that the description of creation is given in the Bible and that empirical scientific evidence corresponds with that description."

Creation scientists also view the preclusion of all supernatural explanations within the sciences as a doctrinaire commitment to exclude the supreme being and miracles. They claim this to be the motivating factor in science's acceptance of Darwinism, a term used in creation science to refer to evolutionary biology which is also often used as a disparagement.”

There is bias

It does seem to be fair to state the following two points:

• Advocates of “Creation Science” often start out by “assuming” there is a God, and then looking for evidence that supports that position.

• Advocates of “Evolution” often start out by “assuming” there is no God (or god), and then looking for evidence that supports that position.

Of course, neither statement is logically true of all supporters of either view. –It is possible for a person to start out with an open mind or “neutral” position – just wanting to know the truth about the matter.

Even with a bias, however (and who does not have some kind of bias?!), what is “not fair” is if someone looking for facts and truth hides or buries findings he/she does not like, because they seem to be against the “pet” position.

I freely admit a “bias” in favor of a Creator. However, my purpose on this site is to show some facts that prove Evolution cannot be right – thus is wrong. And, in the process, those same facts either offer support for Genesis Creation Proof, or at least they do not disprove it.

Why we read about “creation science”

Creation Science may be (and was so, above) defined as “the same thing” as Creationism. The key point to make is that many proponents of creation science are sincere in their beliefs that the facts that are scientifically discernable do not support Evolution, and they do support Creationism.

It apparently is true that Creation Science started or became widely known because of a perceived need by Christians to counteract Evolution – which was being widely accepted as true – and thus “disproving” the existence of God and the Bible (which teaches creationism).

Put simply, Creation Science attempts to beat the “scientists” behind Evolution at their own game. Christians who are creation scientists are saying that there is science that supports creationism. –That is said because evolutionists say that science supports Evolution, and only “Religion” (which they claim is not scientific) supports creationism. –That is, since (evolutionists say) religion is not scientific, creationists have no legs to stand on. (And the US courts, to and including the Supreme Court, have tended to agree. Thus creationism has been ruled to be something that cannot be taught in schools, since that would be tantamount to establishing a state religion, which is not allowed by the Constitution.)

If you read about Intelligent Design on this site, you will see a certain progression that has occurred, at least in part because of the courts in the United States of America: Creationism was “struck down” as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. So some creationists tried to show that the creation really is scientific – that creation science has the facts and that evolution, which claims to be based on science, really is not. But courts sided with the evolutionists, saying that “Creation Science” was really just creationism – a religion – disguised as science. So, the next step, within just the last 30 years, was for some creation-science advocates to turn to the term “Intelligent Design”. They tried to leave out the “religion” aspect by emphasizing what seems obvious: intricate, complex systems such as in animal and human life, must have had an awesome Designer, given how wonderful they are. (Alas, even that has been successfully challenged in the courts – not on the facts, really, but again by using the “scare tactics” of saying that still gets back to religion.)

So . . . is creation science “scientific” or not?

Evolutionists claim that creationism (or creation science) is not scientific, because, they say, it cannot be proven by experiment, and it cannot explain why things are as they are. They also object to creationism claiming to state facts and truth, without leaving open the possibility that additional research or observation might lead to a different conclusion.

There is a correct understanding that places creationism outside the realm of how many men have chosen to DEFINE “science”. So in that way of looking at reality, creationism (or creation science) really is NOT scientific.

But that is a clever “trap” of words and definitions, because “science” SHOULD include the full realm of reality not yet understood.

Let us look at this argument for or against creationism being scientific, from this perspective:

Evolution cannot explain where the first chemicals or whatever came from – through experiment or otherwise. It cannot explain what caused non-life to become living. All it can do is look at what can be determined (or supposed) by the five senses – and extrapolated by guesses from those things.

Creationism, or creation science, cannot explain were God came from. But it can point to the Bible as the divine revealing to mankind from and by God of how and why some things in the universe came to be and are.

IF the facts from the Bible are shown to be reality, then they are true – and in some reasonable sense of definition “scientific”.

For example, what IF the Bible had said that he moon is made of green cheese. And IF astronauts had brought back “moon rocks” that, when analyzed, were found to be green cheese, that would have been strong evidence of the Bible being true. Truth that was not otherwise expected but was later found to be fact AND to have been “foretold” in the Bible must be considered valid reason to listen to the Bible.

And although the green cheese hypothesis is conjecture (since it is not from the Bible), there ARE many truths of the Bible that have been proven fact. So the Bible should not be discarded as “unscientific” in the sense of not being a trustworthy, valuable, and even life-saving guide.

So, what we are left with is that some people who set themselves up as bring really in the know and the authorities have defined “science” to EXCLUDE the Bible – by DEFINITION. But this site (and others!) presents facts that are reality and thus would be considered “scientific” by reasonable people were it not for others attacking them on the basis of a definition that fails to encompass enough of reality.

Thus we see court decisions against creation science. That is because courts can look for technicalities to make judgments that are correct by the letter of the law but that do not deliver justice by the intent of the lawmakers.

Scientists for creationism – an example

An interesting conference took place in Los Angeles in 1996, sponsored by Biola University. Nearly 200 scientists came together because they all agreed that evolution does not offer a reasonable explanation for the origins of things and how the earth and universe are. Contrary to the usual view that creation scientists are Christian Fundamentalists, many Protestant denominations were represented, as were Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Judaism.

One result of the gathering was a book that included chapters written by several participants. Its title is Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design. In his introduction, the editor, William Dembski, noted the makeup of the group and that it would be unfair to say there is agreement among all who are Christians as to all the specifics of the creation of the universe or of life.

He does, however, point out the common bond everyone attending could latch onto: The “common enemy” is naturalism. To quote Dembski: “There is . . . an approach to unifying the Christian world about creation. Rather than look for common ground on which all Christians can agree, propose a theory of creation that puts Christians in the strongest possible position to defeat the common enemy of creation, to wit, naturalism.” And he concludes the point by saying: “We learn a great deal about something by learning what it is not. Creation is not naturalism. By developing a theory of creation in opposition to naturalism, we learn a great deal about creation. Mere creation, then, is a theory of creation aimed specifically at defeating naturalism and its consequences.” (Quotes are taken from pages 13 and 14 of Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design, edited by William A. Dembski; InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL copyright 1998 by Christian Leadership Ministries.)

Dembski also points out that scientific naturalism does not necessarily deny God. –It just requires that He have no obvious or traceable connection with how the universe came together or functions.

Quoting him from page 14: “What evidence is there of God interacting with the world? How we answer this question is crucial to how effective we are going to be in overcoming naturalism, scientific or otherwise.”

He goes on to explain that science must be looked at to answer the question of whether God’s interaction with the world is discernible. –But it must be true science, not encumbered by philosophical bias or other non-scientific baggage.

In summary: Is “science” properly defined?

We find ourselves perceiving a need to use science properly in order to fend off the world’s accusations that Christianity is not scientific. But it is the misuse of real science that has allowed so many to make claims that evolution is true. Such claims are not true at all, but rather a great deception that has hoodwinked so many people.

And to that point, look at what the courts have done to block the teaching of creation science:

“Creation Science” was driven at least in large part by the desire to get approval for proper teaching of origins in American public schools. That was because the courts had ruled that allowing “Creationism” to be taught, even as an alternative to evolution, was an unconstitutional establishment of a religion.

But, alas, the courts were not to be denied their pro-evolution bias. After several states enacted laws allowing the teaching of creation science, it too was finally knocked down as simple creationism all over again – disguised as science but, said they, not really meeting the test of true science.

Go from creation science to intelligent design

Return to creationism

Return to Genesis-Creation-Proof.com Home Page