Chapter 1

What Is Science?
by Roger Patterson on February 22, 2007; last featured July 29, 2014
Featured in Evolution Exposed: Biology
Share:
* *
*
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is
excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999
Creation & Family Entertainment
Need answers? Live & on-demand video content from Answers in Genesis, the Ark
Encounter, Creation Museum, and more.
FREE TRIAL
What You Will Learn
Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe
by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a
product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there
is really no reason to expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the
principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were
believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a
creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history.
To help us understand that science has practical limits, it is useful to divide
science into two different areas: operational science and historical (origins)
science. Operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present
and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and
satellites. Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence from the
past and includes the models of evolution and special creation. Recognizing that
everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an
important step in realizing that historical science is not equal to operational
science. Because no one was there to witness the past (except God), we must
interpret it based on a set of starting assumptions. Creationists and evolutionists
have the same evidence; they just interpret it within a different framework.
Evolution denies the role of God in the universe, and creation accepts His
eyewitness account—the Bible—as the foundation for arriving at a correct
understanding of the universe.
What Your Textbook Says
Evolutionary Concept
Glencoe
PH-Campbell
PH-Miller
Holt
Articles
It is not necessary to distinguish between historical and operational
science.
11–23, 1060– 1061
19, 299
3–14
14– 20
1:1, 1:2, 3:1
Observability, testability, repeatability, and falsifiability are the
hallmarks of the scientific method.
11–23
27, 37–38, 305
10, 14, 369, T537
19
1:1, 1:2, 1:3
There are some questions science cannot answer.
21–22
 38
5–6
—
1:1, 1:3
Questions about behavior can be answered by asking “why” questions.
—
51, 54
T870
824
1:1, 1:3
Evolution was not observed, but we can still understand how it happened.
396–397
51, 54
410
—
1:2, 1:3, 3:4
Biblical creation is religion, and evolution is science.
—
—
3
277
1:1, 1:2, 1:3
Note: Page numbers preceded by “T” indicate items from the teacher notes
found in the margins of the Teacher’s Edition.
What We Really Know
If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not
considered scientific.
In its original form science simply meant “knowledge.” When someone says today that
they work in the field of science, a different picture often comes to mind.
Science, in the view of an outspoken part of the scientific community, is the
systematic method of gaining knowledge about the universe by allowing only
naturalistic or materialistic explanations and causes. The quote on page 19
reflects this attitude. Science in this sense automatically rules out God and the
possibility that He created the universe because supernatural claims, it is
asserted, cannot be tested and repeated. If an idea is not testable, repeatable,
observable, and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific. The denial of
supernatural events limits the depth of understanding that science can have and the
types of questions science can ask. We may define naturalism and materialism as:
Naturalism: a belief denying that an event or object has a supernatural
significance; specifically, the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to
account for all phenomena.
Materialism: a belief claiming that physical matter is the only or fundamental
reality and that all organisms, processes, and phenomena can be explained as
manifestations or interactions of matter.
The problem with the above definition of science is that, even though naturalistic
science claims to be neutral and unbiased, it starts with a bias. The quote from
Dr. Todd on page 19 demonstrates that bias: only matter and energy exist and all
explanations and causes must be directly related to the laws that matter and energy
follow. Even if the amazingly intricate structure of flagella in bacteria appears
so complex that it must have a designer, naturalistic science cannot accept that
idea because this idea falls outside the realm of naturalism/materialism. Many
scientists have claimed that allowing supernatural explanations into our
understanding of the universe would cause us to stop looking for answers and just
declare, “God wanted to do it that way.” This is, of course, false.
The ability to study the world around us is only reasonable because there is a
Lawgiver who established the laws of nature. Most people do not realize that modern
science was founded by men who believed that nature can be studied because it
follows the laws given to it by the Lawgiver. Johannes Kepler, one of the founders
of astronomy, said that science was “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Many
founders of scientific disciplines, such as Bacon, Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal,
Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Maxwell, and Kelvin were Bible-believing
Christians. As a matter of fact, the most discerning historians and philosophers of
science have recognized that the very existence of modern science had its origins
in a culture at least nominally committed to a biblical worldview. (See
www.answersingenesis.org/go/bios.)
Science has been hijacked by those with a materialistic worldview and exalted as
the ultimate means of obtaining knowledge about the world.
What, then, should Christians think of science? Science has been hijacked by those
with a materialistic worldview and exalted as the ultimate means of obtaining
knowledge about the world. Proverbs tells us that the fear of God, not science, is
the beginning of knowledge. In a biblical worldview, scientific observations are
interpreted in light of the truth that is found in the Bible. If conclusions
contradict the truth revealed in Scripture, the conclusions are rejected. The same
thing happens in naturalistic science. Any conclusion that does not have a
naturalistic explanation is rejected.
The words creation and evolution can be used in many different ways. Evolution will
be used in this book to describe the naturalistic process that is alleged to have
turned molecules into man over billions of years. As creation is used through out
this book, it is intended to describe the supernatural acts of God who created the
universe and everything in it in six, approximately 24-hour days, about 6,000 years
ago. This perspective is often referred to as young-earth creationism. The true
history of the universe is revealed to us from God’s eyewitness perspective in the
Bible. This history can be summarized as the 7 C’s of history: Creation of the
universe, Corruption of the universe as a result of man’s sin, the judgment of
mankind in the Catastrophe of Noah’s Flood, Confusion of languages at Babel, Christ
coming to earth to live a righteous life and then to pay for our sins on the Cross,
and the future Consummation when God creates the New Heaven and New Earth. This
history serves as a foundation for interpreting evidence in the biblical
creationist’s worldview.
Making a distinction between two types of scientific study helps us to understand
the limitations of naturalistic presuppositions in science:
Scientist with dripper

The examples of science used in the textbooks show only operational (observational)
science. This type of science, which makes observations and repeated experiments in
the present, allows us to produce technology that benefits mankind. Evolution does
not fit within the definition of operational science and should be classified as
historical (origins) science
Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that
uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to
understand how nature commonly behaves.
Operational science is the type of science that allows us to understand how DNA
codes for proteins in cells. It is the type of science that has allowed us to cure
and treat diseases, put a man on the moon, build satellites and telescopes, and
make products that are useful to humans. Biblical creationists believe that God has
created a universe that uses a set of natural laws that operate consistently in the
universe. Understanding how those laws operate is the basis for scientific
thinking.
Some events defy natural laws. Christians refer to these things as miracles, but
naturalistic science must find a way to explain these occurrences naturally. This
approach rejects miracles in the Bible because they cannot be explained using
natural laws. Such scientists occasionally try to explain the miracles in the Bible
as natural phenomena, but this ultimately undermines the authority of God and His
Word.
What Is Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based
on a presupposed philosophical point of view.
The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so
interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations
involving operational science. Neither creation nor evolution is directly
observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Each is based on certain
philosophical assumptions about how the earth began. Naturalistic evolution assumes
that there was no God, and biblical creation assumes that there was a God who
created everything in the universe. Starting from two opposite presuppositions and
looking at the same evidence, the explanations of the history of the universe are
very different. The argument is not over the evidence—the evidence is the same—it
is over the way the evidence should be interpreted.
Evolutionists often claim that people misuse the word “theory” when discussing
science and don’t make a distinction between a scientific theory and the common use
of the word “theory.” You may say, “I have a theory about why Mr. Jones’ hair looks
funny” but that theory has never been compared to a broad set of observations. This
is not the sense of a theory in science.
In light of this, few would argue that there are different types of theories. So it
would be good to refine this term further to avoid any baiting and switching of the
word “theory”. Just as it was valuable to distinguish between operational and
historical science, it would be good to do the same with operational and historical
theories. A scientific operational theory is:
Operational Theory: an explanation of a set of facts based on a broad set of
repeatable and testable observations that is generally accepted within a group of
scientists.
That evolution has been elevated to the status of an operational theory (and “fact”
in the opinion of some) is not due to the strength of the evidence, but in spite of
it. Because evolutionary ideas are interpretations of past events, they are not as
well-founded as testable scientific theories like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity
or Newton’s Theory of Gravity. These theories offer predictable models and the
ability to conduct experiments to determine their validity in different
circumstances. Molecules-to-man evolution does not offer this opportunity because
these events happened in the past. Therefore, evolution is not an operational
theory. For these reasons evolution could be considered an historical theory, along
with creation models and other origins theories.
Historical Theory: an explanation of past events based on the interpretation of
evidence that is available in the present.
Debate of Truth

It is important to recognize that people’s presuppositions influence the way they

interpret evidence. Evolution is based on a reasoning process that rejects God.
Creation starts from the authority of God’s Word. Your presuppositions are like a
pair of glasses that you wear to look at the world around you.
Evolution fits this definition of theory, but it relies on the assumption of
naturalism. In the naturalistic scientific community, evolution has become a theory
that is assumed to be an established fact and not an explanation. Evolution is the
prevailing paradigm, and most scientists have stopped questioning the underlying
assumptions that the theory is based upon. Creationists develop theories, too, in
light of biblical truth, but they are not as widely accepted by scientists. All
interpretations (theories) of the past are based on assumptions and cannot be
equated with facts that are observable in the present. This holds true for
creationist or evolutionist theories. (See article 1:3 on page 29 for more on this
topic.)
Evolution also relies heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism— a belief that
the present is the key to the past. According to uniformitarians, the processes in
the universe have been occurring at a relatively constant rate. One of these
processes is the rate of rock formation and erosion. If rocks form or erode at a
certain rate in the present, uniformitarians believe that they must have always
formed or eroded at nearly the same rate. This assumption is accepted even though
there are no observations of the rate of erosion from the distant past and there is
no way to empirically test the erosion rate of the past. However, the Bible makes
it very clear that some events of the past were radically different from those we
commonly observe today. Noah’s Flood, for example, would have devastated the face
of the earth and created a landscape of billions of dead things buried in layers of
rock, which is exactly what we see.
Good operational science can provide us with answers to many questions about the
world around us and how it operates, but it cannot answer the questions of where we
came from and why we are here.
Just as evolutionists weren’t there to see evolution happen over several billion
years, neither were creationists there to see the events of the six days of
creation. The difference is that creationists have the Creator’s eyewitness account
of the events of creation, while evolutionists must create a story to explain
origins without the supernatural. Just because many scientists believe the story
does not make the story true. Believing the Bible and the information that has been
revealed to us by our Creator gives us a foundation for thinking—including our
thinking about science. Good operational science can provide us with answers to
many questions about the world around us and how it operates, but it cannot answer
the questions of where we came from and why we are here. Those questions are
outside the scope of operational science. But we are not left without an answer.
God has given us the answers to those questions in His Word, the Bible.
Reference Articles
1:1 The nature of science and of theories on origins, Gish, www.icr.org/article/391
Scientific theories must be testable and capable of being proven false. Neither
evolution nor biblical creation qualifies as a scientific theory in this sense,
because each deals with historical events that cannot be repeated. Both evolution
and creation are based on unobserved assumptions about past events. It is
inconsistent to say that evolution qualifies as a scientific theory while creation
does not. Both have scientific character by attempting to correlate scientific data
within a certain framework (model).
No theory of origins can avoid using philosophical statements as a foundation.
Creationists use a supernatural act by an Intelligent Designer to explain the
origin of the universe and the life we see on earth. Evolutionists do not allow any
supernatural explanation as a foundation but insist that only natural laws and
processes can be used as explanations. Both are worldviews used to interpret the
data. The data is the same; the interpretations arrive at different conclusions
based on the starting assumptions. Allowing only evolutionary teaching in public
schools promotes an atheistic worldview, just as much as teaching only creation
would promote a theistic worldview. Students are indoctrinated to believe they are
meaningless products of evolution and that no God exists to whom they are
accountable.
Life on earth was either created or it developed in some progressive manner; there
are no other alternatives. While there are many versions of both creation and
evolution, both cannot be true.
Penguin Swimming

Making observations about living organisms can increase understanding about many
aspects of biology. But it is important to recognize the limitations when you cross
into historical science.
1:2 Feedback: A “more glorious” means for creation? Hodge,
www.answersingenesis.org/go/glorious
Accepting that God created the universe in the way that He said He did is a common
stumbling block for many who want to accept the interpretation promoted by
evolutionary scientists. There are many reasons why the God of the Bible would not
have used evolution and the big bang to create the universe. Those who hold to this
position are putting man’s fallible interpretation of scientific data into the text
of Genesis.
Accepting the big bang or evolution as factual accounts of the origin of life and
the universe is not scientific. They are interpretations of facts. The assumptions
that underlie the interpretations are based on the idea that man can determine
truth independent of God. Operational science is based on repeatable observations
and falsifiable statements while historical science is based on interpreting data
that cannot be repeated. Operational science leads to computers and space shuttles
as products of repeatable processes. Historical science leads to shifting
interpretations that are not reliable.
The only way to arrive at a true interpretation is to start with true assumptions.
Since the Bible is the eyewitness account of the Creator of the universe, it is the
best starting point for interpreting past events.
1:3 Creation: Where’s the proof? Ham, www.answersingenesis.org/go/proof
All scientists, creationist or evolutionist, have the same evidence; the difference
is the presuppositions that are used to interpret that evidence. All reasoning is
based on presuppositions. Biblical creationists start with the assumption that the
Bible provides an accurate eyewitness history of the universe as a basis for
scientific thought. Evolutionists begin with the presupposition that only natural
laws can be used to explain the facts. Facts exist in the present, and our
interpretations are an attempt to connect the past to the present. The
evolutionists must assume everything about the past, while biblical creationists
have the Bible as a “time machine” that can provide valuable insight into the past.
Evidence of War

It is not true to say that there is different evidence for creation and evolution.
Everyone has the same evidence—it is just interpreted in different ways.
If someone expects you to argue that the Bible or creation is true without using
the Bible as evidence, they are stacking the deck in their favor. They are
insisting that facts are neutral and that truth can be determined independent of
God. Facts are always interpreted, and the Word of God is absolutely trustworthy.
Demonstrating how the Bible can be used to effectively explain a fact, like the
presence of fossils, demonstrates that it is valid as a filter for interpreting
facts. Many people do not realize how their presuppositions impact their thinking.
Exposing a person’s presuppositions will help them to see how they filter the
facts, and then challenging the origin of those presuppositions will force them to
evaluate their stance.
If science depends on naturalistic explanations, it must accept that our thoughts
are simply the products of chemical reactions that evolved from random chance. How
can you ultimately rely on randomness to evolve the correct way of thinking? If
there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How
can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone
decide what it is?
Questions to Consider
1. Do all scientists believe in naturalistic evolution? Why or why not?
2. There are two contenders for the history of life on earth: some form of
naturalism (evolution) or supernatural creation. Are there really any alternatives
to some form of naturalistic evolution in science if science is restricted to
naturalism?
3. Since evolution and creation are both based on religious beliefs, why should one
be taught in public schools and not the other?
4. Should there be a distinction between experimental (operational) science and
historical science?
5. Since a naturalistic approach to science can only refer to materialistic
explanations, how can naturalists use logic if logic is not a material part of the
universe?
6. Is it necessary for science to allow only naturalism?
7. Would all scientific thought and advancement end if supernatural creation was
accepted as a possible model for how the universe and life on earth began?
8. Why is supernatural creation considered to be a “science stopper” and not a
“science starter,” considering that most of the founding fathers of science
believed in the Bible and a supernatural creation event?
9. If an all-knowing Creator God exists, wouldn’t it be logical to say that He
knows about the scientific laws He created? Why not use what He says as a
foundation for scientific thinking?
Tools for Digging Deeper
(see a complete list in the Introduction)
The Biblical Basis for Modern Science by Henry Morris
Creation: Facts of Life by Gary Parker
Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics by Duane Gish
Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson
Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe
In Six Days by John Ashton
Men of Science, Men of God by Henry Morris
On the Seventh Day by John Ashton
www.answersingenesis.org/go/science
Do Creationists Reject Science?
by A. Peter Galling on February 4, 2008
Share:
* *
*
Anyone familiar with the creation/evolution debate should know that anti-
creationists love to lob the accusation that creationists are “anti-science” or
that they “reject science.” Evolutionists frequently label creationists “flat-
earthers” and even go as far as suggesting that consistent creationists should deny
the law of gravity!
What’s more, these assertions are sometimes made with the implication (or outright
allegation) that creationists are openly anti-science.1 So, for those who haven’t
already made up their minds before hearing us out—or reading what we’ve written
many times on this website—are we truly against science? Not at all! Answers in
Genesis (like other creationist groups) affirms and supports the teaching and use
of scientific methodology, and we believe this supports the biblical account of
origins. So why all the disagreement?
Creation & Family Entertainment
Need answers? Live & on-demand video content from Answers in Genesis, the Ark
Encounter, Creation Museum, and more.
FREE TRIAL
Starting Points
Much of the problem stems from the different starting points of biblical
creationists and Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests
for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort
through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is,
can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be
some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression
is impossible).
For Bible-believing Christians, God’s Word is our starting point: our presupposed
foundation through which we interpret and balance fallen man’s ideas, including
those derived scientifically. Although some may consider this a foolish faith,
everyone has such faith in something. But which is foolish: faith in the unmovable
Word of the omniscient creator God or faith in man’s fallible, changing ideas?
Two Kinds of Science
Also causing confusion is the simple distinction some try to make between “faith”
and “science.” Answers in Genesis believes this dichotomy is in error, because some
form of faith (in a religion) is required to believe in creation or evolution. Both
creation and evolution make claims about an unrepeatable past that was not observed
by humans. Thus both creation and evolution fall under the category of historical
science. This is distinctly different from operational (observational) science,
which is a methodological system governing directly observed, repeatable results
(such as laboratory experiments). Take a look at the differences between
operational science and its counterpart, historical or “origins” science, which
requires extrapolation beyond the presently available data—in other words, faith in
a story about the unobserved past.

Operations science
Origins science
Based on:
 the senses (assuming they are reliable)
assumptions about the past
Uses:
experiments
extrapolation
Deals with:
the present
the past
Results in:
repeatable conclusions, technology
unrepeatable stories about the past

Operations science is used by millions of scientists worldwide, who perform

experiments and tests that result in discoveries about the world around us and new
technologies. A perfect example would be the work of scientist-monk Gregor Mendel,
father of genetics. His meticulous operations science involved careful cross-
breeding of various pea plants, along with copious notes on the combinations and
results. His years of work led to our knowledge of how genes work in the present,
and have led to significant scientific advancements.
On the other hand, examine the origins science of Charles Darwin (and others like
him). Darwin made observations, yes; he then borrowed the already-existing idea of
natural selection and mixed it with a view he assumed was true (based on his
rejection of the Bible): uniformitarianism. Thus, by combining observations,
scientific ideas, and anti-God philosophy, Darwin published a speculation on how
all of life could have descended from a common ancestor.
Although Mendel had presuppositions about how created things would behave, based on
biblical ideas, his work was borne of observations + careful, repeated
experimentation + testable conclusions. Mendel produced hypotheses whose
predictions could be tested. Darwin’s work was the result of observations +
philosophical presuppositions + speculation. Darwin produced a story about a past
that could neither be observed nor tested experimentally.
Thus, Answers in Genesis argues that evolutionary ideas are origins science, not
operational science; evolution is, itself, a religious worldview, just as creation
is part of a religious worldview, which affects how scientists do origins science.
It is impossible to escape the presuppositions that give rise to one’s theory on
origins. Those who portray evolutionism as solid science (contrasting it with
[construed as blind] “faith” in creationism) ignore the fact that scientific data
must be interpreted through a worldview.
As for operations science, creationists are staunch supporters of it. Furthermore,
we believe that the basic principles required for operations science are
specifically biblical (that is, operations science requires belief in a
understandable universe, in the ability to discover truth, and in the consistent
workings of nature). See “The Creationist Basis for Modern Science” and “The
Biblical Origins of Science” for more on this topic.
Another way our opponents attempt to mislead the public is by claiming that no
scientists accept the Bible’s account of creation. But once again, this claim is
far from the truth. There are many PhD scientists alive today who accept biblical
creation, and many famous scientists of the past accepted the Bible’s account as
well. Visit Creation scientists and other biographies of interest to read about
some of these individuals and articles about how creation scientists are
discriminated against. Answers in Genesis itself employs several PhD scientists,
including (for example) Ivy League-educated, award-winning anatomist Dr. David
Menton.
The allegations that creationists reject, dislike, or hamper science are all flat-
out wrong and/or deceptive. They distract from the real issue and lead to
misunderstandings about the nature of (and philosophical assumptions behind)
origins science, produce errant stereotypes of creationists, foster close-
mindedness and discrimination against creationism, and cause people to forget the
biblical basis for science. Creationists are strong supporters of science—but not
of naturalistic philosophy masquerading as science.
What about the classroom?
Another of the popular caricatures of creationists in general is of the “book
burner” who wants to remove all vestiges of evolution from the public schools. In
fact, we are often accused of wanting to force the teaching of creation and
suppress all disagreement. However, this is certainly not the case. The classroom
is exactly where the evolutionary model should be taught. In fact, we believe that
when students are taught evolution—with all its flaws—they are better equipped to
understand the bias each scientist carries and better able to understand the
differences between operational and origins science. After all, students will
encounter Darwinism when they turn on the TV or go through a museum, etc.; it’s
important that they understand the theory and the faith behind it.
We are also against mandating the teaching of creation in public schools (although
a fair treatment of the issue would be ideal). After all, staunch evolutionists, in
particular, may be unlikely to accurately present the creation view if they are
forced to discuss both sides. We want students to hear the truth of God’s Word and
how science shows a young earth and a global Flood, but forcing someone to teach
what they do not accept may be counterproductive. Although creationist teachers
have been forced to exclude the Bible from science classes for years and, in many
cases, cannot even question the evolutionary paradigm without fear of losing their
jobs; we are not asking for the reverse from evolutionists. A searching student
should be able to find ample information on the creationist worldview from their
churches, parents, or reputable creationist websites. There is a special section,
in fact, on AnswerInGenesis.org for students.
We believe that the evidence, when speaking for itself, attests to the faith
required to assemble a viewpoint on origins. When students have access to both
sides of the argument, we have no doubt they will see that evolution, like
creation, is a position supportable only through faith. When they see that many of
the “evidences” for evolution are simply suppositions, they will understand that
only God can give an eye-witness account. And, as we know from science, first-hand
experience is much more reliable than just-so stories.
1. For example, in a widely circulated 2006 Associated Press article, Dylan Lovan
wrote, “That [dinosaurs lived with man], of course, is contradicted by science, but
that’s the point of [our $27 million] Creation Museum rising fast in rural
Kentucky.” We opined then that such inaccuracy could “[give] many readers the false
impression that we wholeheartedly agree that our views contradict science—and are
spending millions of supporter donations to show it! In fact, Mr. Lovan’s article
makes it sound as though we may have signs around the museum that say, ‘Everything
you see here, of course, is contradicted by science!’”
Biblical Faith is Not “Blind”—It’s Supported by Good Science
by Dr. Jason Lisle on April 7, 2006
Featured in Feedback
Share:
* *
*
The word “science” is used in many ways. Many secular humanists try to redefine
science as “naturalism”—the belief that nature is “all there is.”
Dear Ken
As a committed Christian you have to accept that the miracles recorded in the Bible
are literally true. If such is the case then you have to accept that science is a
complete misconception of the way the Universe functions.
Family Entertainment + Creation
Need answers? Live & on-demand video content from Answers in Genesis, the Ark
Encounter, Creation Museum, and more.
FREE TRIAL
This is not the case. The word “science” is used in many ways. Many secular
humanists try to redefine science as “naturalism”—the belief that nature is “all
there is.” In other words, by attempting to equate “science” (knowledge) with
“naturalism” (a secular belief) they exclude the possibility of miracles before
they even examine the evidence. But normal (operational) science deals only with
repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to
make educated guesses about origins in the past. Since the Bible has demonstrated
itself to be accurate time and time again, we have knowledge from history that
miracles have indeed occurred.
Naturalism is not science; rather, naturalism is a fallacious philosophical bias.
In fact, naturalism is actually incompatible with science as will be shown below.
However, the miracles in Scripture are fully compatible with true science.
Science presumes that the Universe is ordered and follows rational physical laws
which can be determined by man.
This idea actually comes from the Bible. Think about it like this: why is the
universe ordered and why does it follow rational laws? The answer is that there is
a Creator; God is logical and has imposed order on the universe. The universe obeys
laws because there is a Law-giver. And why should it be possible for these laws to
be discovered by man? The answer is that God has given us that ability; God created
our mind—we are in His image. In fact, the Bible encourages us to gain
understanding and wisdom (Proverbs 4:5, 4:7).
My prayer is that my comments will encourage and bring Praise and Honor to God.
Your WHOLE ministry is such a God-send ( I mean that literally!) I appreciate every
single part of it. Actually, I could go on and on about your exciting, meaningful,
and much needed ministry.
It’s so exciting thinking about all the avenues you reach that I feel like I’m
going to burst.:-) I hope before I die, that I’ll be able to visit and take a tour.
Please know that I will remember you all and the ministry in my prayers.
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! for getting back to the basics (plus, plus, plus. :-))
Sincerely,
Sharon Swan
USA
However, if naturalism were true—if nature is “all there is”—then why should the
universe have such order? If the universe were merely an accident, the result of a
“big bang” as most naturalists believe, then why should it obey rational physical
laws? Why would there be laws if there is no law-giver? And why should our brains
(supposedly the product of random mutations and natural selection) be able to
understand the universe? Why should one accident be able to understand another? The
idea of naturalism is therefore incompatible with science. Only the Bible gives the
proper foundation for scientific inquiry.
This would obviously not be the case if miracles occur. Scientific laws are
supposed to hold true for every circumstance, this is why they are termed laws.
Not so. The ideal gas law does not work in certain instances. Newton’s laws of
gravity and motion do not hold true near the surface of a black hole. These laws
are approximations of the way nature works and do not apply in all circumstances.
It would be better to say that the laws of nature (as formulated by man) are
descriptions (with varying degrees of accuracy) of the way God normally upholds the
universe today.
However; miracles run counter to the laws of physics this is why they are miracles.
Miracles contradict physical laws hence the laws of physics do not hold true for
all circumstances so are therefore wrong!
If God is capable of creating the universe and establishing laws of nature, would
He not also be able to suspend those laws on occasion for special purposes? It is
irrational to think that God could create the universe but then would have no power
over it.
But, if we start from the Bible, the universe makes sense. God sustains the
universe in a logical orderly way that can be described mathematically. But God is
all-powerful and can suspend the laws of nature when He wishes.
To summarize: God can do what He wants; He’s God! Therefore, miracles are possible.
But God normally upholds the universe in a consistent and orderly way that humans
are capable of describing mathematically. Therefore, science is possible.
For example the Law of Conservation of Matter which states that matter can neither
be created nor destroyed except by nuclear reaction must obviously be incorrect as
illustrated by the feeding of the five thousand. Here a good deal of matter was
created from nothing with no large energy inputs or emissions. (This would also
negate E = MC2).
Actually, the laws of conservation only make sense if we accept the Bible. Why is
it that no new mass or energy can come into existence? It is because God has made
all things (John 1:3) and ended His work of creation by the seventh day (Genesis
2:2). Why is it that mass and energy do not simply cease to exist? This is because
God sustains the universe by His Word (Hebrews 1:3) and by Him all things consist
(Colossians 1:17).
In a sense, the law of conservation of mass and energy is merely a “scientific”
summary of Genesis 2:2, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:17. Without the
Bible, there is no basis for the law of conservation of mass and energy!
But God can suspend this law since He created it. Possibly this is what happened
when Jesus fed the 5,000. During the Creation Week, it is a good thing that God did
create new material from nothing—otherwise we wouldn’t be here to discuss it!
Incidentally, God’s creating something from nothing does not actually violate E=mc2
since this equation quantifies the amount of energy associated with a given amount
of mass; it is not a restatement of the conservation of mass or energy. (Of course,
God could suspend E=mc2 if He wanted to.)
(By the way, nuclear reactions do not actually destroy matter, but merely convert
one element into another, such as the fusion of hydrogen into helium in the core of
the sun. Mass and energy are conserved in such a reaction.)
The turning of water into wine would indicate either that elements are not stable
and can be transmuted without the expenditure of energy; for this act produced
complex organic chemicals from H2O and I dont recall anybody complaining that the
wine was hot or that matter can be created without the expenditure of energy.
A God who can create the entire universe (in 6 days!) could certainly do something
as trivial as turning water into wine.
Walking on water certainly negates the idea of uniform acceleration due to gravity
and also, the concept of floatation due to relative density is rendered absurd.
Some insects walk on water using surface tension; this does not negate gravity. Of
course, the Lord can suspend/alter/supersede these laws at His will. The laws of
nature were made by God and serve Him; He is not bound by them as we are.
Referring to an earlier time, the parting of the Red Sea would render a great many
scientific laws totally defunct as would staying the passage of the Sun in its
course or turning a staff into a snake. There are many, many miraculous events in
the Bible all of which negate scientifically derived laws
Not true, the scientific laws are not negated, simply superseded by the One who
created them, but they continued to be operational after every miracle. So your
argument that the scientific laws are negated by miracles is without warrant.
(Not to mention scientific theories and hypotheses) and therefore render the
pursuit of science a nonsense.
The Bible is actually the foundation for science. That’s not to say that non-
Christians can’t do science; they can. But in order to do so, they must borrow
biblical ideas (such as an orderly universe that obeys laws). Without the
supernatural, there is no basis for logical, orderly laws of nature.
My point is:- You can accept the Bible on faith (as you are supposed to) or you can
accept that we live in a world where physical laws are a constant. You cannot do
both.
Biblical faith is not “blind”—it’s supported by good science. The Bible teaches
both that there are laws of nature (“ordinances of heaven and Earth“—Jeremiah
33:25) and that miracles happen, such as the resurrection of Christ. The idea that
science goes against the Bible is therefore not a biblical concept. So we can
accept the Bible on faith and a world where physical laws are a constant.
Either E=MC2 or it doesnt;
It does because God wills it. Of course, God could suspend this if He chose to do
so.
either there is a constant gravitational force or there isnt and so on and so
forth. Or, to put it another way, you either believe what the Bible states or you
dont.
And where does the Bible say that science is not compatible with faith in God? It
does not state that anywhere.
If you do then pursue faith if you dont then pursue science. You cannot do both as
they run counter to each other.
This is not true and it is not biblical. Many great scientists have had faith in
the Bible. Think of Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, James Clerk Maxwell and many
others.
Why is it that you think that science and faith “run counter to each other”? My
suspicion is that you may have bought into the secular humanist’s claim that
science is the same as naturalism. There are many false things that are often
presented as science, such as (particles-to-people) evolution, the big bang and
billions of years. But such beliefs are not consistent with good science, as we
have shown in our many resources. Science has confirmed many of the teachings of
the Bible. Genetics shows how animals reproduce after their kinds; fossils and
rocks show evidence of the worldwide Flood; 14C in diamonds shows the world is
“young”; and many others as well.
Regards B.C., Australia
P.S. I believe you taught my daughter when you were teaching yr 8at State High.
I hope this is helpful.
– Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG–USA (on behalf of Ken Ham and AiG)
Is the Origin of Life a Scientific Question?
by Dr. Danny R. Faulkner on May 20, 2016; last featured May 1, 2018
Also available in Español
Share:
* *
*
The Origin of Life: What Are the Possibilities?
The origin of life has been debated for a long time. Basically, there are four
possible explanations for the existence of life on earth:
FREE Bible Guide
Quick Answers to Common Questions about the Bible.
DOWNLOAD NOW
1. Life on earth arose spontaneously.
2. Life on earth has always existed.
3. Life on earth came about through a supernatural act of creation by an
intelligent Being.
4. Life was seeded from space.
The Application of Science to the Question
Science is supposed to be about things that are observable. That is, science can
probe only things that we can detect with our five senses. Science also must be
repeatable. This means that when an experiment or observation is repeated, we get
the same results. These restrictions on science have led to what we call the
scientific method, the general rules that we follow in doing science. The
scientific investigation of the origin of life presents us with at least two
problems. First, since life began before people were around, we hardly can observe
the process. Second, since the origin of life appears to have been a unique event,
we hardly can repeat it.
How do these four possibilities stack up? The fourth possibility doesn’t really
explain how life came about, but instead passes the question off to some other
location. Many would object that the third option is unscientific and hence ought
not to be considered. If we restrict the definition of scientific to questions that
can be answered through the application of the scientific method to natural
processes, then option three may be considered unscientific. However, what is the
status of the other two options? Option one is the assertion of abiogenesis, the
belief that life must have arisen from nonliving things through a natural process.
However, abiogenesis has never been observed. To the contrary, it has been shown
numerous times that biogenesis is true, that only living things give rise to living
things. That is, abiogenesis has been scientifically disproved. To persist in
belief in abiogenesis, one must believe in something that clearly is unscientific.
What about option two? Life can be eternally existent only if the earth and the
universe are eternal. However, the overwhelming scientific consensus today is that
the universe is not eternal but instead had its origin a finite time ago. This
conclusion most often is reached by appeal to a big bang origin for the universe.
In fact, the vast majority of scientists today would opine that the big bang is a
scientific fact However, not all scientists agree with the big bang model, but one
may scientifically conclude a finite age of the universe by other means. For
example, the second law of thermodynamics requires that the universe will
eventually suffer a “heat death,” where no usable energy remains. This clearly is
not the case presently, so the universe cannot be eternal.
Hence, to accept either option one or option two requires violating basic
conclusions of science. Since neither option one nor option two is scientific and
option four does not answer the question of the ultimate origin of life, only
extreme bias against any possibility of the supernatural origin of life would lead
one to reject the third possibility. The fact that none of the four options are
scientific underscores the fact that the origin of life is not a scientific
question.
The fact that none of the four options are scientific underscores the fact that the
origin of life is not a scientific question.
Attempts to Answer the Question
Perhaps the best solution to this dilemma is to conclude that life does not exist.
Some may insist that is a silly response. It is, but it is no sillier than some
other suggested responses. For instance, some people may say, “Well, we’re here, so
option one must have happened.” As reasonable as that may seem to the person saying
it, it hardly proves that life arose spontaneously. One could just as easily say,
“Well, we’re here, so option three must have happened.” A person who believes in
the eternality of the universe could just as easily assert that option two must be
true, because we are here. This approach commits the informal fallacy of begging
the question (i.e., assuming what you are trying to prove while making an
argument).
A better approach might be to assert that the only reason why we have not observed
abiogenesis is that it so rarely happens. That is a logical possibility, but it has
no empirical evidence to support it. Belief in abiogenesis is the reason that so
much attention is given to the search for evidence of life elsewhere in the
universe. This search takes many forms, such as programs leading to the discovery
of extrasolar planets, planets orbiting other stars. So far, we have found about
2,000 other planets, but none are clearly earth-like, that is, suitable for life.
Another manifestation for the search for life elsewhere is the seemingly never-
ending missions to Mars. Each mission to Mars reveals no evidence for life on Mars
(and frequently shows just the opposite to be the case), which is followed by the
next mission that appears to be based upon the premise that we just haven’t looked
in the right parts of Mars yet. Then there is SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence. SETI operates by listening for radio broadcasts from planets orbiting
other stars. The first SETI program was in 1960. Today SETI operates almost
continuously, and it has generated a tremendous amount of data. What has been the
result of all of this data? We have found no evidence of any alien transmissions.
There are other avenues that the search for life elsewhere has pursued. Suffice it
to say that none have produced any encouraging evidence for life elsewhere.
Therefore, as far as science has been able to demonstrate thus far, life does not
exist anywhere else. One may object that all the data are not in. That is true, but
when are all the data ever in for any question in science? By this reasoning, we
can never reach a conclusion in science, because some future data might contradict
the conclusion that the current data leads to. In science, we work with the data
that we have in hand. Sometimes further data overturns an earlier conclusion. That
is the nature of science—it changes. However, that never can be the justification
for reaching the opposite conclusion suggested by the data that we now have. Only
bias in favor of abiogenesis causes abiogenesis to persist as a real possibility in
the minds of many scientists.
The prospect that life is unique to the earth is unsettling to many scientists.
The prospect that life is unique to the earth is unsettling to many scientists.
That would leave the door wide open to the possibility that the earth has special
status. In turn, that has theistic implications. But what if the best data, the
best science, lead to that conclusion that there might be a Creator? Only extreme
atheistic bias would preclude God’s existence. It is no wonder that some scientists
have concluded that their science tells them that there is no God—that was the
assumption that they started with. Once again, we encounter the informal fallacy of
begging the question.
The lack of the existence of life elsewhere, along with recognition of the extreme
complexity of even simple life, and the fact that matter does not spontaneously
order itself into complex machinery such as required by life has led some to posit
the eternal universe. They reason that the probability of life arising
spontaneously from nonlife is vanishingly small, so small that life could not arise
in a universe even billions of years old. However, they believe that if the
universe is eternal, then even an event extremely improbable as the origin of life
eventually will happen. In a universe with a finite age, it is inconceivable that
life could arise, but in an eternal universe, it is inevitable that life will arise
at least once somewhere. Many people who believe in option four, that life
originated elsewhere and was seeded on the earth, believe in an eternal universe.
However, as previously stated, there are good reasons to believe that the universe
is not eternal, not to mention God’s revelation that he created the universe.
The Multiverse
Enter the multiverse. The multiverse is the idea that our universe is just one of
an infinite number of universes, collectively referred to as the multiverse. The
proposal is that existing universes give rise to new universes all the time. Each
universe in the multiverse has a finite age, but collectively, the multiverse may
have always existed. In this sense, the multiverse is a return to an eternal
entity. The multiverse has been invoked to explain a number of physical and
cosmological difficulties. Just one of these problems is the origin of life. If the
origin of life is so improbable as not to have occurred in a single universe of
finite age, then increase the odds by positing an infinite number of universes,
even though each universe has a finite age. The reasoning is that this still
amounts to an infinite number of chances, which means that in at least one universe
life will arise. It is not happenstance that we are in that universe, because we
would not be here to contemplate this question if we were not.
To most people, the multiverse idea seems desperate and just a wee bit crazy. But
this idea has gained tremendous traction among cosmologists, astronomers, and
physicists. They even talk of some sort of observational tests for the multiverse.
They claim that early in the existence of our universe, other universes might have
left an imprint. However, if another universe really could breach the barrier
between universes, wouldn’t that universe then be a part of our universe?
Otherwise, that situation would seem to contradict the very definition of universe,
the totality of physical existence. Ultimately, the existence of other universes,
if they really are other universes, lies beyond the realm of science, because they
are not part of physical existence, at least the physical existence that we will
ever be able to probe.
If science cannot tell us the origin of life, then if we wish to learn about life’s
origin, we must look elsewhere.
Conclusion
Let us return to the question of the origin of life. Every attempt to explain life
contradicts science. But don’t feel bad about that, because science is a very
limited practice. There are many things, such as the answers to moral questions,
that we cannot learn from science. Clearly, a Creator is a logical possibility
(yes, this is a possibility, scientifically). If science cannot tell us the origin
of life, then if we wish to learn about life’s origin, we must look elsewhere. The
first few chapters of Genesis are an account of the origin of life and everything
else in our universe. We know that the Bible is inspired by God and hence is
authoritative and reliable. The few other possibilities briefly discussed here
contrast with the simplicity of the creation hypothesis. This illustrates the
futility of man’s thinking that the Apostle Paul wrote about (Romans 1:21;
Ephesians 4:17–18).
Feedback: “You Can Question Science”
by Avery Foley on May 16, 2018
Share:
* *
*
Many evolutionists believe that creationists ignore or have a low view of science.
Reflecting this thinking, Twitter user Steve responded to an AiG supporter on Ken
Ham’s Twitter account:
You can question science. That’s the beauty of it. However you’d most likely be
wrong. Science has no other agenda but to seek the truth. I think this maybe [sic]
why you have a problem with it, because the truth contradicts the earth being 6,000
years old and us all coming from 2 people.
Can Science Be Questioned?
Steve begins his tweet by claiming that the beauty of science is the ability to
question it. Of course, those familiar with science know that scientists try to
disprove, not prove, their hypothesis. And future evidence can overturn what was
already believed to be established science. So, of course, scientific findings can
be questioned.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
However, in context, Steve is referring to millions of years and evolution. And
what he overlooks is the difference between observational and historical science.
Observational science is directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It is this
kind of science that develops medical innovations, put man on the moon, and propels
technology forward. Observational science employs the scientific method. Using the
same methods, under the same conditions, the test results can be replicated.
Historical science is very different. This kind of science is not directly
testable, observable, and repeatable because it deals with the past. And the past
cannot be directly tested, observed, or repeated.
What a scientist believes about the past will determine how they interpret the
evidence. Each scientist comes to the evidence with a preexisting set of beliefs
that determines how they view and interpret the evidence. The evidence does not
“speak for itself.” It must be interpreted, and that is where the disagreement
between creationists and evolutionists comes from. They approach the evidence with
different starting points (God’s Word vs. man’s word), and therefore arrive at
different interpretations of the exact same evidence.
Science Has No Agenda
Steve goes on to claim that “science has no other agenda but to seek the truth.”
This argument is a logical fallacy known as reification, “attributing a concrete
characteristic to something that is abstract.” Science has no agenda. It is a
methodology, not a person, so it cannot have any agenda or purpose whatsoever.
Science does not seek the truth. Scientists and researchers use the methods of
science to try to disprove a hypothesis and thereby reveal more about the world
around us.
While science has no agenda, scientists do!
While science has no agenda, scientists do! Many people perceive scientists as
unbiased pursuers of the truth. But each scientist approaches the evidence with a
preconceived set of beliefs. And they interpret the evidence through that lens,
which, for many scientists, is molecules-to-man evolution and billions of years of
history.
Of course, it is not wrong to use the findings of past scientists as a foundation
for future scientific work. Scientific knowledge builds on itself. But unobservable
molecules-to-man evolution and ancient ages for earth and the universe do not come
from the evidence. They originally came from philosophical beliefs about the nature
of God and the truth of his Word. And these beliefs still do not come from the
evidence. They are assumed and then used to interpret the evidence.
Does Truth Contradict the Bible?
Steve concludes his tweet by claiming “the truth” contradicts what the Bible says
about the age of the earth and the origin of humanity. Really, he is taking an
interpretation of the evidence, and calling it “truth” when it is no such thing. It
is simply a constantly changing interpretation.
Truth is ultimately found in God’s Word (John 17:17) and the person of Jesus Christ
(John 14:6). God cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and the Scriptures come from him (2 Timothy
3:16). Therefore, we know the Scriptures are truth.
Now, the Bible is not a science textbook, but it is the history book of the
universe. When it touches on fields such as astronomy, biology, geology, cosmology,
and anthropology, it is always accurate and trustworthy, since it was written by
the Creator of the universe who also maintains it (Colossians 1:16–17).
Because God’s Word is the starting point, these models will not contradict what
Scripture tells us.
We can take the framework the Bible gives us (i.e., young creation, organisms
reproducing according to their kinds, mankind created specially in God’s image, a
global flood, and the Tower of Babel) and use that to create hypotheses and models,
which are subject to change as more evidence emerges. These hypotheses and models
include understanding speciation within kinds, models of deposition during the
flood, what mechanisms could bring light from distant stars to earth in only
thousands of years, and many more. Because God’s Word is the starting point, these
models will not contradict what Scripture tells us. But we can use them to create
testable predictions, the gold standard of science. As that research is done, the
model can be modified or discarded if need be.
Steve is wrong—“truth” has not, does not, and will never contradict God’s Word.
God’s Word will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8), long after man’s ideas have come and
gone.
A Response to “Talking Science as Christians”
by Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson on June 25, 2018
Featured in Why Do So Many Reject Creation Science?
Share:
* *
*
On June 5, 2018, a self-described Christian and professor of chemistry1 published a
provocative blog post titled “Talking Science as Christians.”2 The author, “RJS,”
under the guise of offering advice from a career in science, took young-earth
creation (YEC) to task and sharply rebuked it. This post was given additional
publicity by the “SEBTS [Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary] Alumni” Twitter
account on June 24. How should Christians—and Southern Baptists in particular—
respond?
Since RJS accuses YEC advocates of quote-mining, let’s begin our discussion by
giving RJS a fair hearing. I will quote directly from RJS’s article, and then
intersperse my comments. I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but my
goal is to give RJS’s comments as much context as possible.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick Answers to Common Questions about the Bible.
DOWNLOAD NOW
RJS begins with a compelling introduction:
How to talk about science and faith . . . or perhaps, and more important, how not
to talk about science and faith. Here are some thoughts from 50+ years as a
Christian involved in a range of churches, and from 30+ years as an active
scientist, 26 years as a professor.
This is an impressive resume—and should cause anyone to sit up and pay close
attention. Having not yet reached the age of 40, I personally am very keen to hear
RJS’s insights from RJS’s years of experience.
In our current age of “fake news,” RJS’s first piece of advice is timely.
1. Make Sure Your Facts are Straight.
I agree whole-heartedly.
RJS then takes a swipe at YEC:
There is no scientific controversy about the age of the earth. It is old, far older
than 10,000 years. The few scientists who doubt this almost invariably do so for
religious reasons, with Christianity being the most common. If you feel that the
Bible teaches a young earth and thus hold this position, at least be honest in the
way you approach it.
Given the central importance of RJS’s first point, I find this illustration ironic.
The history of young-earth creationism3 as well as the resumes and professions of
current YEC proponents are readily available.4 A very simple survey of this
literature would have revealed the numerous errors in this paragraph.
The history of young-earth creationism as well as the resumes and professions of
current YEC proponents are readily available.
For example, consider the history of YEC. Nearly all participants in the origins
debate—whether creationists or evolutionists—point to the 1961 book The Genesis
Flood as the catalyst for the modern YEC resurgence. One of the coauthors of this
book, Henry Morris, had a PhD in hydrology. Morris was also a professor at a
mainstream university—Virginia Tech. In fact, for a time, he was chair of the
engineering department. This is not the sort of pedigree that fits the stereotype
of YEC proponents as scientifically illiterate Bible-thumpers.
As another example, two years after the publication of The Genesis Flood, the
Creation Research Society was founded. This organization commenced for the purpose
of facilitating scientific dialogue among professional scientists who dissented
from the consensus views on the age of the earth and on evolution. Again, this
doesn’t fit the assertion that “the few scientists who doubt this almost invariably
do so for religious reasons.” Science has played a big role in the views of public,
professional YEC proponents.
A survey of the book titles over the last 50 years from leading YEC organizations
underscore this conclusion. For example, consider these titles:
* Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! by Duane Gish, PhD
* The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth: Past, Present, and Future by John
Morris, PhD
* Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris, PhD
* Footprints in the Ash: The Explosive Story of Mount St. Helens by John Morris,
PhD, and Steven Austin, PhD
* Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation, & the Flood by Andrew Snelling, PhD
In fact, just this past fall, I published the landmark book Replacing Darwin: The
New Origin of Species in which I spend 10 chapters arguing from science that
evolution is being replaced. Even a brief perusal of this book would make this fact
manifest. If nothing else, RJS could have consulted the critical review (that we
published on our website); RJS would find little discussion of Bible verses on the
part of my critic (or in my rebuttal)—but extensive arguments over science.
Finally, for decades, YEC scientists have maintained peer-reviewed science
journals, conducted original scientific research, and published highly technical
books on the results of these laboratory and field experiments. Among the leading
scientists at major YEC organizations, scientific preoccupation is a nearly
inescapable fact.
Why would RJS omit these facts? I’m troubled that the illustration for RJS’s first
point, “Make Sure Your Facts are Straight,” is replete with such blatant
misrepresentations.
RJS expounds on the opening critique of YEC:
Ridiculous and easily falsified claims will undermine your credibility with anyone
who happens to check, or who is exposed to science in more detail in the course of
their education. Make sure you understand any science you use to support your
position. Too often scientific results are twisted to support a young earth when,
in fact, they say nothing about the age of the earth.
Since RJS doesn’t seem to be familiar with the long history of creation science, I
wonder what instances of “twisting” RJS has in mind.
RJS continues,
Don’t take quotes out of context, don’t misrepresent and misinterpret others to
“proof-text” your position. More damage is done by the way the position is defended
than by the position itself.
Again, I agree with RJS’s advice. And, again, in light of RJS’s critique of YEC,
RJS would seem to do well to heed RJS’s own advice.
More from RJS:
Don’t accuse those who are Christians and scientists and who hold to an old earth
(the vast majority) of bowing to materialism or trying to curry favor with the
establishment unless you truly understand the evidence and can offer a coherent
explanation of why the evidence points in a different direction.
As Darrel Falk of BioLogos5 can personally attest, I am intimately familiar with
the arguments for evolution. Before our panel discussion at the Evangelical
Theological Society (ETS) meeting in November of 2015, we had a four-hour lunch
together. Near the end of our lunch, Falk decided to tell me the evidences for
evolution that he was going to share at the ETS meeting. As Falk would start his
argument, I would join him and then finish it—because I regularly read the
publications of my opponents.
In contrast, RJS shows no evidence of having read the technical publications of YEC
scientists. Does RJS truly understand the evidence proffered by YEC scientists? The
absence of references in RJS’s article is telling.
RJS takes another swipe at YEC:
If you are getting your scientific facts from resources provided by a creationist
organization, please double check them. Find out why those of us who are Christians
and scientists find this information misleading, incoherent, wrong, and even
occasionally deceitful. Joel Duff at Naturalis Historia explains much of this quite
carefully from the perspective of a Christian and a biologist.
This is another ironic illustration of RJS’s point. Of all the opponents of YEC,
Joel Duff has repeatedly demonstrated poor scholarship. At Answers in Genesis, we
have already documented some of the most glaring examples of shoddy work on his
part (in his field of expertise, no less!). If RJS were familiar with the YEC
literature, I think RJS would have thought twice before citing Duff.
Incidentally, despite Duff’s large volume of anti-YEC blog posts on Naturalis
Historia, Duff has not published a single critique of my book Replacing Darwin, and
he has hardly attempted a robust rebuttal of any of my several technical research
papers. Duff has publicly acknowledged my book; Duff has also publicly acknowledged
my technical explanation for the origin of species. But Duff has not published a
serious critique of it—despite Duff’s PhD training in biology. This silence is
telling. Perhaps the “scientific facts from resources provided by a creationist
organization” aren’t so erroneous after all.
RJS clarifies the “acceptable” options for YEC proponents:
The only scientifically coherent approach to “Young Earth” is to postulate a mature
creation with the appearance of age. Personally I think this position has
theological problems and misinterprets the purpose and role of Scripture in
Christian faith. I don’t think Scripture is intended to set us straight so that we
know that the appearance of age in the world is an illusion, but others see things
differently. We can have this discussion.
This sweeping statement contains no attempts to engage any of the actual scientific
arguments that YEC scientists have put forth. Many YEC astronomers reject aspects
of “appearance of age,” and YEC geologists have little use for the concept.
Instead, they’ve built a robust, scientifically coherent explanation for geologic
features from a YEC perspective.
The next three points of advice from RJS deal with nuances in evolution and in
philosophy. For sake of space and relevance, they aren’t significant enough to
engage in this post. Furthermore, they seem to be written as if Replacing Darwin
doesn’t exist. I see no point rehashing the main theses of Replacing Darwin until
RJS reads it and engages the arguments therein.
However, RJS’s last point contains such a deep level of irony, it cannot be
ignored:
5. Love Your Neighbor as Yourself.
In the discussion bear in mind that many of your brothers and sisters may have
differing viewpoints. This is true for all of us, wherever we come down on
questions of science, Christian faith, and the interplay between these. Let your
approach be governed by gentle love rather than combat and conquest. Don’t
rhetorically “other” those with whom you disagree. This shouldn’t be “us” versus
“them.” Please listen.
Has RJS done any homework on YEC science? Has RJS listened what YEC scientists are
saying?
This advice comes right after RJS exhorts the reader to “Do your homework.” Has RJS
done any homework on YEC science? Has RJS listened what YEC scientists are saying?
Has RJS engaged the reams of books, papers, and evidences that YEC scientists have
produced? Conversely, by beginning the article by saying, “There is no scientific
controversy about the age of the earth. . . . The few scientists who doubt this
almost invariably do so for religious reasons,” RJS doesn’t just put YEC scientists
in the “other” category; RJS acts as if we don’t even exist. Finally, RJS
categorically labels YEC science (thus scientists) as “misleading, incoherent,
wrong, and even occasionally deceitful,” without giving any clear indication that
he is at all knowledgeable about it (them). Is this what “love your neighbor as
yourself looks like”?
In summary, RJS’s post seems to (sadly) illustrate exactly “how not to talk about
science and faith.”
Further Reading
Examples of technical scientific literature from YEC scientists (of which RJS seems
to be unaware) include the following:
Biology
Jeanson, N.T. 2017. Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species. Green Forest, AR:
Master Books.
Jeanson, N.T. 2013. “Recent, Functionally Diverse Origin for Mitochondrial Genes
from ~2700 Metazoan Species.” Answers Research Journal 6: 467–501, available online
at https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-dna/recent-functionally-
diverse-origin-for-mitochondrial-genes-from-~2700-metazoan-species/.
Jeanson, N.T. 2015. “Mitochondrial DNA Clocks Imply Linear Speciation Rates within
‘Kinds.’” Answers Research Journal 8: 273–304, available online at
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/clocks-imply-linear-
speciation-rates-within-kinds/.
Jeanson, N.T. 2015. “A Young-Earth Creation Human Mitochondrial DNA ‘Clock’: Whole
Mitochondrial Genome Mutation Rate Confirms D-loop Results.” Answers Research
Journal 8: 375–378, available online at
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-genome-mutation-rate/.
Jeanson, N.T and J. Lisle. 2016. “On the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic
and Phenotypic Diversity: Genetic Clocks, Population Growth Curves, and Comparative
Nuclear Genome Analyses Suggest Created Heterozygosity in Combination with Natural
Processes as a Major Mechanism.” Answers Research Journal 9: 81–122, available
online at https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/on-the-origin-
of-eukaryotic-species-genotypic-and-phenotypic-diversity/.
Jeanson, N.T. 2016. “On the Origin of Human Mitochondrial DNA Differences, New
Generation Time Data Both Suggest a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model and
Challenge the Evolutionary Out-of-Africa Model.” Answers Research Journal 9: 123–
130, available online at
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-dna/origin-human-mitochondrial-
dna-differences-new-generation-time-data-both-suggest-unified-young-earth/.
Geology
Snelling, A.A. 2014. Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation, & the Flood.
Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
Austin, S.A. 2003. “Nautiloid Mass Kill and Burial Event, Redwall Limestone (Lower
Mississippian), Grand Canyon Region, Arizona and Nevada.” In Proceedings of the
Fifth International Conference on Creationism, edited by R. Ivey Jr. Pittsburgh,
PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 55–100.
Austin, S.A. 1986. Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Creationism. Edited by R.S. Crowell. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship,
3–9, available online at http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Mount-St-Helens-and-
Catastrophism.pdf.
Austin, S.A. 1984. “Rapid Erosion at Mount St. Helens.” Origins 11 (2): 90–98,
available online at http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Rapid-Erosion-at-Mount-
St-Helens.pdf.
Austin, S.A. “Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava
Dome at Mount St Helens Volcano,” Journal of Creation 10 (3): 335–343, available
online at http://creation.com/excess-argon-within-mineral-concentrates.
Austin, S. A. et al. 1994. “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: a Global Flood Model of
Earth History.” In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Creationism, edited by R.E. Walsh. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship,
609–621.
Baumgardner, J. R. 1986. “Numerical Simulation of the Large-Scale Tectonic Changes
Accompanying the Flood.” In Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Creationism, Vol. 2., edited by R. E. Walsh, C. L. Brooks, and R. S. Crowell.
Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 17–30.
Baumgardner, J. R. 1990. “3-D Finite Element Simulation of the Global Tectonic
Changes Accompanying Noah’s Flood.” In Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, edited by R. E. Walsh, C. L. Brooks, and R. S.
Crowell. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 35–45.
Baumgardner, J. R. 1994. “Computer Modeling of the Large-scale Tectonics Associated
with the Genesis Flood,” in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Creationism, edited by R. E. Walsh. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship,
49–62.
Baumgardner, J. R. 1994. “Runaway Subduction as the Driving Mechanism for the
Genesis Flood.” In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Creationism, edited by R. E. Walsh. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship,
63–75.
Baumgardner, J. R. 2003. “The Physics Behind the Flood.” In Proceedings of the
Fifth International Conference on Creationism, edited by R. L. Ivey Jr. Pittsburgh,
PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 113–126.
Whitmore, J. H. et al. 2014. “The Petrology of the Coconino Sandstone (Permian),
Arizona, USA.” Answers Research Journal, 7: 499–532, available online at
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/petrology-of-the-coconino-
sandstone/.
Whitmore, J. H., G. Forsythe, and P.A. Garner. 2015. “Intraformational Parabolic
Recumbent Folds in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) and Two Other Formations in
Sedona, Arizona (USA).” Answers Research Journal 8: 21–40, available online at
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/intraformational-parabolic-
recumbent-folds/.
Doesn’t Science Disprove the Bible
Get Answers
by Ken Ham on January 1, 2012; last featured October 6, 2019
Featured in Answers Magazine
Share:
* *
*
In today’s world we often hear statements like “science disproves creation” or
“science proves evolution.” Whenever we hear such claims, the first thing we should
ask is “What do you mean by science?”
The word science comes from the Latin scientia, which means “knowledge.” When most
people think of the word science, they tend to equate it with technology, yet
secularists also equate the word science with molecules-to-man evolution and
millions of years.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick Answers to Common Questions about the Bible.
DOWNLOAD NOW
To help sort out the confusion, there needs to be an understanding that we can
divide science into two categories:
1. Operational (or Observational) Science. This refers to knowledge gained by
direct observation (using the five senses) and based on repeatable testing. Such
“science” (knowledge) has enabled scientists to build our modern technology like
airplanes and rocket ships. Whether one is a creationist or evolutionist, we all
use the same operational science. Thus, both evolutionists and creationists can be
honored for their observational science.
2. Historical Science. This refers to knowledge about the past—in essence, history.
This type of science cannot be observed directly or based on repeated testing, so
we need other ways of finding knowledge. The Genesis account of origins gives us
knowledge about the past, revealed by an infallible witness—God. Those who believe
in Darwinian evolution claim to have knowledge concerning the past, too, but this
knowledge is based upon the beliefs of fallible humans who did not witness the
supposed evolutionary history. Genesis is the true account of historical science,
whereas evolution is really a fictional historical science.
Thus, the battle between creation and evolution (the Genesis account versus man’s
account of origins) is really a battle over historical science. The role of
operational (or observational science) is that it can be used to confirm or refute
one’s historical science.
Observational science (in geology, biology, astronomy, anthropology, etc.) confirms
the account of origins in Genesis and refutes the evolutionary account. (Many of
these confirmations are available on our website, www.answersingenesis.org.)
The problem is not with the science but with the mistaken interpretation of
unobserved history.
When listening to arguments that supposedly support evolution, you have to learn
how to separate observational science and historical science. Here is one example
to get you thinking in this way: if you see a claim that sedimentary rock strata
containing fossils are millions of years old, then you need to sort out what is
observational versus historical science. The statement that rocks are sedimentary
rocks is one of observational science. Both creationists and evolutionists agree on
what is directly observed.
But the claim that the rocks are millions of years old falls under historical
science. It is not observational but rather an interpretation regarding the past.
Biblical creationists would not agree with this interpretation but instead
interpret the fossils as a deposit from the Flood of Noah’s day or some post-Flood
catastrophe that occurred only thousands of years ago.
Thus, observational science cannot disprove the Bible. We agree on the
observational science but totally disagree on the historical science. The problem
is not with the operational science but with the mistaken interpretation of
unobserved history.
Ken Ham, a former public school science teacher, is the founder and president of
Answers in Genesis–USA. He has edited and authored many books about the authority
of God’s Word and the impact of evolutionary thinking on our culture, including the
recent best seller, Already Gone.

Galileo & Creation in Early Modern Science

by Dr. Terry Mortenson on June 16, 2011; last featured February 15, 2020
Featured in The Great Turning Point
Share:
* *
*
The controversies regarding the early chapters of Genesis and the geological
discoveries and theories were part of a complex movement of thought which pulsed
through the educated minds of Europeans.
The controversies in early 19th-century Britain regarding the relationship of the
early chapters of Genesis to the geological discoveries and theories did not, of
course, take place in a vacuum. They were part of a complex movement of thought
with philosophical, theological, social, political, and ecclesiastical dimensions,
which pulsed through the educated minds of Europeans in general and of Britons in
particular. The following highlights some of the most important people, events, and
currents of thought leading up to and contributing to a revolution in worldview,
which profoundly affected the 19th century Genesis-geology debate.
Noah's Ark Guide - FREE
Get equipped with biblical answers to questions about Noah's ark and the global
flood.
DOWNLOAD NOW
The Galileo Affair
Shortly before his death in 1543 and with some hesitation, Nicholas Copernicus
(1473–1543), the Polish mathematician and astronomer, published On the Revolutions
of the Heavenly Spheres, in which he argued that the earth was not the center of
the universe, as generally believed, but rotated on its axis and revolved with the
other known planets around the stationary sun. Over the subsequent decades,
opposition to his theory (as a description of physical reality, rather than merely
as an alternative mathematical description) arose because it seemed contrary to
common sense, was opposed to Aristotelian physics, lacked convincing astronomical
evidence, and was contrary to a literal interpretation of various Scriptures.
Approximately 150 years passed before his theory was generally accepted. But it was
soon embraced by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) and Galileo Galilei (1564–1642),
though the latter was at first reluctant to publicize his views.
Galileo Galilei

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642)

In 1613, Galileo finally came out in the open in his Letters on Sunspots. He argued
that his observations of the heavens by means of the recently invented telescope
were consistent with what Copernicus had proposed was the actual relationship and
movement of the earth and heavenly bodies. Initially, the Roman Catholic
authorities accepted Galileo’s assertions as compatible with the teachings of the
Church. Eventually, however, Jesuit university professors (who were ultra-orthodox
defenders of Catholic dogma and embraced the geocentric theory) were sufficiently
provoked by Galileo’s further writings so that they pressured the pope in 1633 to
force Galileo to recant the heliocentric theory on threat of excommunication. He
did recant, but was still under house arrest for the remainder of his life.1
This incident gave considerable support to others at the same time and later, who
insisted (following Galileo) on a complete bifurcation between the study of the
creation and the study of Scripture.2 The Bible was written to teach people
theology and morality, not a system of natural philosophy (i.e., science), it was
argued. Or as Galileo said, the intention of Scripture is “to teach us how one goes
to heaven, not how heaven goes.”3 Therefore, Galileo concluded that:
Nothing physical which sense experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary
demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned)
upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning
beneath their words. . . . On the contrary, having arrived at any certainties in
physics, we ought to utilize these as the most appropriate aids in the true
exposition of the Bible.4
With frequent reference to Galileo, this approach to the relation of science to the
interpretation of Scripture was demanded by all the opponents of the British
scriptural geologists of the early 19th century. The old-earth proponents believed
that, prior to the work of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, it was quite natural
for Christians to take various verses in the Bible to imply an immovable earth
surrounded by the revolving heavenly bodies because they had no philosophical or
observational reasons to think otherwise. But once the new mathematical
descriptions and telescopic observations had been made known, they were forced to
reinterpret those verses so as to remove the apparent contradiction between the
truth revealed by Scripture and that revealed by God’s creation. In exactly the
same way, the old-earth proponents reasoned, geology has brought forward
observational proof that the earth is much older than previously thought and so
Christians must interpret Genesis 1 and 6–9 differently, so as to harmonize
Scripture with this newly discovered teaching of creation.5
Galileo interpreted the account of the miracle of the long day of Joshua 10:12–15
as literal history, though he explained the stationary position of the sun in terms
of Copernican theory and the language of appearance.
It should be noted now that the Galileo affair was focused exclusively on the
present structure and operation of the universe, rather than on how it came into
being and attained its present arrangement. By way of comparison, Galileo
interpreted the account of the miracle of the long day of Joshua 10:12–15 as
literal history, though he explained the stationary position of the sun in terms of
Copernican theory and the language of appearance. He apparently also took the
account of the creation of the sun on the fourth day of Genesis 1 to be literal
history.6 At the end of this book I will return to this distinction between what
are sometimes called “operation science” and “historical science.”
Baconian Science
The famous English politician and philosopher Francis Bacon (1561–1626) also had an
enormous influence on the subsequent development of science and on the views of
later Christians regarding the relationship of Scripture to science. He too
promoted the separation of Scripture from scientific study of the physical world.
Bacon advocated the concept of the two books of God: the book of Scripture and the
book of nature. In Advancement of Learning (1605) he made his well-known statement
of the relationship of Scripture to nature:
For our Saviour saith, “You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God;”
laying before us two books or volumes to study, if we will be secured from error;
first the Scriptures, revealing the will of God, and then the creatures expressing
his power; whereof the latter is a key unto the former: not only opening our
understanding to conceive the true sense of the Scriptures, by the general notions
of reason and rules of speech; but chiefly opening our belief, in drawing us into a
due meditation of the omnipotency [sic] of God, which is chiefly signed and
engraven upon his works.7
Sir Francis Bacon

Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626)

Later in the same work he criticized the “school of Paracelsus”8 and others for
pretending “to find the truth of all natural philosophy in the Scriptures;
scandalizing and traducing all other philosophy as heathenish and profane.” He
continued in general terms:
For to seek heaven and earth in the word of God, whereof it is said, “Heaven and
earth shall pass, but my word shall not pass,” is to seek temporary things amongst
eternal; and as to seek divinity in philosophy is to seek the living amongst the
dead, so to seek philosophy in divinity is to seek the dead amongst the living. . .
. And again, the scope or purpose of the spirit of God is not to express matters of
nature in the Scriptures, otherwise than in passage, and for application to man’s
capacity and to matters moral and divine.9
Fifteen years later, Bacon developed these ideas further in Novum Organum (1620).
Here, in condemning the mixture of superstition and theology in the works of Greeks
(such as Pythagoras and Plato), he argued that it was foolish to attempt to found
“a system of natural philosophy” on the basis of the first chapter of Genesis, Job,
or other sections of the Bible, because such an “unsound admixture of things divine
and human” would produce not only an erroneous philosophy, but also a heretical
religion.10 In particular, Bacon chastised the scholastic theologians of his day
for this unwise mingling of “the disputations and thorny philosophy of Aristotle
with the body of Religion in an inordinate degree.”11
Another key part of Bacon’s scientific methodology was that he insisted that
accurate knowledge of the physical world could only expand on the basis of
inductive reasoning from a wealth of data collected by observation and
experimentation. Errors resulted from speculation based on too few facts.
These two ideas (i.e., the separation of the study of Scripture and science and the
method of inductive reasoning from much observed data) were fundamental to the
objectives of the Geological Society of London, founded in 1807, and many old-Earth
geologists repeatedly highlighted their dependence on Bacon.12
But for this study, it will also become important to consider a little-noted
passage relating to Bacon’s influence on geology. Just a few pages before the first
quotation above from The Advancement of Learning, Bacon noted that the Levitical
laws of leprosy teach:
A principle of nature, that putrefaction is more contagious before maturity than
after. . . . So in this and very many other places in that law, there is to be
found, besides the theological sense, much aspersion of philosophy. So likewise in
that excellent Book of Job, if it be revolved with diligence, it will be found
pregnant and swelling with natural philosophy; as for example cosmography and the
roundness of the earth; [here he quoted the Latin of Job 26:7] wherein the
pensileness of the earth, the pole of the north, and the finiteness or convexity of
heaven are manifestly touched. So again matter of astronomy; [here he quoted the
Latin of Job 38:31–32] where the fixing of the stars ever standing at equal
distance is with great elegance noted. And in another place, [here he quoted the
Latin of Job 9:9] where again he takes knowledge of the depression of the southern
pole, calling it the secrets of the south, because the southern stars were in that
climate unseen. Matter of generation [here he quoted the Latin of Job 10:10] etc.
Matter of minerals [here was another partial quote of Job in Latin] and so forwards
in that chapter. So likewise in the person of Salomon [sic] the King, we see the
gift and endowment of wisdom and learning. . . . Salomon became enabled not only to
write those excellent parables or aphorisms concerning divine and moral philosophy,
but also to compile a natural history of all verdure, from the cedar upon the
mountain to the moss upon the wall (which is but a rudiment between putrefaction
and an herb), and also of all things that breathe and move.13
Earlier he had briefly expressed his apparent belief in a literal six-day creation,
after which the creation was complete. He also believed that the Flood and the
confusion of the languages at the Tower of Babel were judgments of God.14 Some of
these beliefs were expressed in more detail in his Confession of Faith, first
published posthumously in his Remains (1648), but written some unknown time before
the summer of 1603.15 This eight-page confession16 reads like a detailed, orthodox
creed.
Scriptural geologists also contended that it was unBaconian to be dogmatic about an
old-earth general theory of the earth, when so little of the earth’s surface had
been geologically studied in the early 19th century.
Of particular relevance to this study is his statement that during the six days of
creation God “made all things in their first estate good,” each day’s work being a
“perfection,” but that “heaven and earth, which were made for man’s use, were
subdued to corruption by his fall.” He believed that God ceased His creation work
on the first sabbath and never resumed it. Since then He has continued His
providential work of sustaining His creation and after the Fall He has been doing
His redemptive work. According to Bacon, “the laws of nature, which now remain and
govern inviolably till the end of the world, began to be in force when God first
rested from his works, and ceased to create; but received a revocation, in part, by
the curse, since which time they change not.”17 So clearly in Bacon’s mind, the
laws of nature which scientists should endeavor to discover by observation and
experimentation were not the means by which God created the fully functioning
universe and earth with its various kinds of plants and animals, and man.
These various remarks by Bacon about creation, the commencement of the laws of
nature, Scripture, and the study of nature might seem at first sight to be
inconsistent or contradictory, and we might surmise that his remarks about
separation of science from Scripture in Novum Organum represent a recantation of
earlier statements. But there is no clear evidence that this was so.18 All his
remarks are important for understanding the 19th century Genesis-geology debate, in
which old-earth geologists and many scriptural geologists disagreed over what it
meant to be “Baconian” in one’s reasoning about the created world. It will be shown
that one scriptural geologist, Granville Penn, argued (and some other scriptural
geologists explicitly agreed with him) that Bacon’s beliefs, based on scriptural
revelation, about the nature of the original creation and about when the present
laws of nature came into operation, were as much a part of Bacon’s philosophic
principles as his belief that the study of Scripture and the study of the natural
world should not be unwisely mixed. In other words, the scriptural geologists
believed that the former principles of Bacon qualified the meaning of his latter
principle. Therefore, it was unBaconian to reconstruct earth history based solely
on the present laws of nature. Scriptural geologists also contended that it was
unBaconian to be dogmatic about an old-earth general theory of the earth, when so
little of the earth’s surface had been geologically studied in the early 19th
century. So while the old-earth geologists claimed to be Baconian in one sense, the
scriptural geologists considered that they too were following Bacon in important
respects. We will return to this Baconian aspect of the debate at the end of the
book, especially under the discussion of the problematic nature of geology.
The Enlightenment
The Enlightenment or “age of reason” in the 17th and 18th centuries was a time when
reason was elevated to the place of supreme authority for determining truth. Some,
such as René Descartes (1596–1650) and John Locke (1632–1704), sought to use reason
to defend the Christian faith, but others used reason to discard all other forms of
authority, especially tradition, religious experience, ecclesiastical leadership,
and the revelation of Scripture. Ironically, they often relied heavily on the
writings of Locke and Descartes to do so. Hazard observed:
Was there ever a more singular example of the way in which after a while a doctrine
may develop ideas completely at variance with those with which it started? . . . To
the cause of religion, the Cartesian philosophy came bringing what seemed a most
valuable support, to begin with. But that same philosophy bore within it a germ of
irreligion which time was to bring to light, and which acts and works and is made
deliberate use of to sap and undermine the foundations of belief.19
Descartes used the tools of examination, free inquiry, and criticism to attempt to
establish with certitude issues such as the existence of God and the immortality of
the soul. Skeptics used those same tools to overthrow those beliefs.
One of those Cartesian skeptics was the Dutch apostate Jew, Benedict de Spinoza
(1632–77), who in 1670 wrote a most damaging book called Tractatus Theologico-
Politicus. It was opposed by Jews, Protestants, and Catholics, for it swept away
key traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. Spinoza rejected the Scriptures as the
prophetic revelation of God, believing them to be crusted over with errors and
ancient culture. Not surprisingly, Spinoza strongly rejected the miracles in the
Bible as being contrary to the universal laws of nature. His primary concern in
Tractatus was to establish a scientific method of hermeneutics. Spinoza attempted
unsuccessfully to interpret the Bible impartially without any presuppositions.
Although Spinoza’s ideas were strongly opposed at the time, they made their impact
on the early 19th century in two ways: through the teaching of the English deists
and through the German and French biblical critics, many of whom were also deists.
Deists viewed the Creator as a great watchmaker, who, once He had wound up the
world, allowed it to run without interference according to the laws of nature. As a
result, miracles were denied along with fulfilled prophecy and divine revelation.
Deism received a firm response from orthodox churchmen so that by the 1750s openly
deistic writers had essentially died out in England. Nevertheless, deistic ideas
took root and spread into the 19th century, often hidden in works on natural
theology which were so prevalent in the early decades. (Natural theology considers
the theological/moral truth about God that can be gleaned from the study of His
creation, i.e., nature.) Brooke notes:
Without additional clarification, it is not always clear to the historian (and was
not always clear to contemporaries) whether proponents of design were arguing a
Christian or deistic thesis. The ambiguity itself could be useful. By cloaking
potentially subversive discoveries in the language of natural theology, scientists
could appear more orthodox than they were, but without the discomfort of duplicity
if their inclinations were more in line with deism.20
One Anglican clergyman wrote in 1836 that as a result of the growing influence of
natural theology and German neology “a large portion of what passes as Christianity
is but deism in disguise!”21
In Germany and France deism flourished, especially in biblical scholarship, where
the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) and Spinoza had great influence.
Reventlow concludes his thorough study by saying:
We cannot overestimate the influence exercised by Deistic thought, and by the
principles of the Humanist world view which the Deists made the criterion of their
biblical criticism, on the historical-critical exegesis of the 19th century; the
consequences extend right down to the present. At that time a series of almost
unshakeable presuppositions were decisively shifted in a different direction.22
As critical biblical scholarship gained the upper hand on the continent in the late
18th and early 19th centuries, its penetration into the British (and North
American) churches was hindered, no doubt partly because of lasting effects of the
evangelical revival led by the Wesleys and Whitefield.
So a revolution in theological and philosophical worldview was in full bloom by the
early 19th century. Its development can also be traced in the history of geology
and cosmogony.
Previous Chapter
The Historical Context
Next Chapter
Historical Developments in Geology, Paleontology, and Cosmology
The Great Turning Point
The Great Turning Point

Many people in the church today think that “young-earth” creationism is a fairly
recent invention, popularized by fundamentalist Christians in the mid-20th century.
Is this view correct? Answers in Genesis scholar Dr. Terry Mortenson presents his
fascinating original research that documents a different story.
READ ONLINEBUY BOOK
Footnotes
1. Much has been written about this complex Galileo affair. See Thomas
Schirrmacher, “The Galileo Affair: History or Heroic Hagiography?” Creation Ex
Nihilo Technical Journal, 14(1), 2000, p. 91–100 (at
https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/books/great-turning-point/TJ14_1-
Galileo.pdf); Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts
Between Science & the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986); Colin A.
Russell, Cross-currents: Interactions Between Science and Faith (Grand Rapids, MI:
W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985), p. 37–54; Colin A. Russell, R. Hooykaas, and David
C. Goodman, The “Conflict Thesis” and Cosmology ( Milton Keynes: Open University
Press, 1974); William R. Shea, “Galileo and the Church,” in God and Nature, David
C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, editors (Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press, 1986), p. 114–135; John Dillenberger, Protestant Thought and Natural Science
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1960), p. 22–28; Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican
Revolution (1971), p. 219–228.
2. There had been others before, too, such as the moderate Lutheran, Rheticus, who
studied mathematics and astronomy under Copernicus and helped get his book
published. Rheticus had virtually the same view of the interpretation of Scripture
in relation to the study of nature that Galileo had and he wrote about it in a
pamphlet in 1539. See R. Hooykaas, G.J. Rheticus’ Treatise on Holy Scripture and
the Motion of the Earth (1984).
3. Galileo Galilei, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615), from Stillman
Drake, transl., Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (1957), p. 186, reprinted in
D.C. Goodman, editor, Science and Religious Belief 1600-1900: A Selection of
Primary Sources (Bristol: J. Wright [for] the Open University Press, 1973), p. 34.
4. Ibid., in Drake, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (p. 182–183); and in
Goodman, Science and Religious Belief 1600-1900 (p. 32–33).
5. It will be seen later, however, that this thinking developed in stages in
geology generally and in the minds of individual geologists. At first only Genesis
1 was reinterpreted, while the Flood of Genesis 6–9 was seen as a global,
geologically significant event. After 1830, Genesis 6–9 was reinterpreted to mean a
local and/or geologically insignificant flood.
6. See Galileo Galilei, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615), from Drake,
Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, p. 211–216), reprinted in Goodman, Science and
Religious Belief 1600-1900, p. 47–49.
7. Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning (1906 Oxford edition), p. 46 (Book I,
part VI.16).
8. Parcelsus (1493?–1541) was a Swiss doctor and chemist.
9. Bacon, The Advancement of Learning, p. 229 (Book II, part XXV.16).
10. Francis Bacon, Novum Organum (1859), Andrew Johnson, transl., p. 42 (Book I,
Part LXV).
11. Ibid., p. 82 (Book I, Part LXXXIX).
12. Martin J.S. Rudwick, “The Foundation of the Geological Society of London: Its
Scheme for Co-operative Research and Its Struggle for Independence,” British
Journal for the History of Science, vol. I, no. 4 (1963), p. 325–355; James R.
Moore, “Geologists and Interpreters of Genesis in the Nineteenth Century,” in God
and Nature, David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, editors, p. 322–350.
13. Bacon, The Advancement of Learning, p. 43–44 (Book I, part VI. 9-11). It might
be argued that since Bacon said that Solomon gained his insights on the natural
world from learning, he was simply stating that Solomon was a good natural
philosopher, anticipating Bacon’s methodology. But this interpretation is debatable
because Bacon said that Solomon was also endowed with wisdom about divine and moral
philosophy and it is doubtful that Bacon thought this wisdom came by Baconian-style
scientific methods of analysis. Furthermore, there is no indication that Bacon
believed that the use of such scientific methodology was the way Moses discovered
the laws of leprosy or the men in Job’s day discovered these geographical and
astronomical truths.
14. Ibid., p. 40-42 (Book I, points VI.2-8). Bacon’s statement on the days of
creation reads (p. 40–41), “It is so then, that in the work of the creation we see
a double emanation of virtue from God; the one referring more properly to power,
the other to wisdom; the one expressed in making the subsistence of the matter, and
the other in disposing the beauty of the form. This being supposed, it is to be
observed that for anything which appeareth in the history of the creation, the
confused mass and matter of heaven and earth was made in a moment; and the order
and disposition of that chaos or mass was the work of six days. . . . So in the
distribution of days we see the day wherein God did rest and contemplated His own
works, was blessed above all the days wherein he did effect and accomplish them.”
15. DNB on Bacon, p. 824.
16. Francis Bacon, The Works of Francis Bacon (1819), II: p. 480–488.
17. Ibid., p. 482–484.
18. Thomas Fowler, “Introduction,” in Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, p. 45.
19. Paul Hazard, The European Mind: 1680–1715 (London: Hollis and Carter, 1953), p.
160.
20. John H. Brooke, Science and Religion (Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1991), p. 194.
21. William J. Irons, On the Whole Doctrine of Final Causes (1836), p. 13.
Similarly, T.H. Horne, a great Anglican biblical scholar, wrote an 81-page tract
for wide distribution called Deism Refuted (1819). I consulted the sixth edition of
that first year. Another edition appeared in 1826 and an American edition came out
in 1819. It was warmly reviewed in the Edinburgh Monthly Review, Vol. II (1819), p.
661–670, where the writer complained of deistic belief spreading among the lower
classes. Other tracts or books refuting deism included Reverend Thomas Young’s
Truth Triumphant (1820); Francis Wrangham’s The Pleiad; or A Series of Abridgements
of Seven Distinguished Writers, in Opposition to the Pernicious Doctrines of Deism
(1820); Robert Hindmarsh’s Christianity Against Deism, Materialism, and Atheism
(1824); and the anonymous translation from French called Alphonse de Mirecourt; or
The Young Infidel Reclaimed from the Errors of Deism (1835).
22. Henning G. Reventlow, The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern
World (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), p. 412.
Is Historical Science Useful?
The differences between empirical and historical science, how predictions can be
helpful in the sciences, and how worldview affects our perspective about the past.
by Dr. Jennifer Hall Rivera on July 16, 2021
Share:
* *
*
Scientists disagree on the accuracy of historical science to analyze evidence from
the past. This disparity in viewpoints is largely between scientists who support
evolutionary ideas and those who believe in the biblical, God-spoken creation.
Scientists who support evolutionary ideas will often not acknowledge that science
should be divided into two categories, empirical and historical. What is the
difference? Empirical (observational) science is observable, testable, and
repeatable, whereas historical (origins) science does not meet these criteria.
Empirical vs. Historical Science
At its root, the word science means knowledge. Knowledge is learned by studying the
world around us. When you hear the word science, the first things that likely come
to mind are research and experiments using the scientific method. The scientific
method uses the five senses (sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell) to
hypothesize (predict) and then directly observe, record, and analyze information to
collect empirical data.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
In order to analyze this type of evidence, a scientist must draw conclusions and
make inferences about things they did not directly observe. This lies outside the
realm of the scientific method and demonstrates that scientific study does have
limits.
Can this method be used when examining evidence from the past? Evidence that is not
directly observable in its original form, like fossils, archeological artifacts, or
crime scene evidence? In order to analyze this type of evidence, a scientist must
draw conclusions and make inferences about things they did not directly observe.
This lies outside the realm of the scientific method and demonstrates that
scientific study does have limits. Take, for example, a crime-scene investigator.
When the crime-scene investigator arrives on a scene and collects evidence, they
must use observational science to process the evidence (i.e., DNA and fingerprint
analysis). They then have to apply the analysis to a criminal act that occurred in
the past. This requires the interpretation of past events. Any scientific study
that falls outside the boundaries of empirical, operational science falls into a
distinct category we call historical science.
Supporters of the evolutionary theory claim that scientists who believe in a six-
day God-spoken, biblical creation and young earth of 6,000 years use historical
science as a crutch to “discredit evolutionary theories,”1 since evolutionary
processes are not observable. This claim was recently discussed in the Integrate
curriculum by BioLogos, an organization that propagates the idea that God used
evolution in the creation process. They claim that those who classify crime-scene
evidence and fossils as historical science are inaccurate. They believe that
current standards can test evidence from the past.
Verifiable Predictions=Observational Science?
Responding to Compromised Curriculum
* Human Wisdom: Something to Suspect?
* Misguided God of the Gaps
* Right or Wrong in the Creation/Evolution Debate
* Should Christians Trust Scientific Experts?
BioLogos also claimed that evolutionary ideas about life on earth, and the
predictions that stem from this belief, are observable in nature and therefore not
historical science. This assertion is contrary to what is considered observational
science. Evolutionary processes have never been observed. The origin of life is in
the past and not unobservable, and studying unobservable evidence from the past is
not empirical science. Studying evidence from the past, unobservable in its
original form, is interpreted based on a set of assumptions. BioLogos went on to
say that evolution is empirical science because scientists have been able to make
testable predictions and found evidence to support their claims. One example
provided was the discovery of a fossil labeled Tiktaalik. The article claimed this
was a transitional fossil. They stated in their article, “Is historical science
reliable?”.
Based on known fossils and their dates, according to the theory of evolution, land
animals evolved from aquatic animals some 375 million years ago. That generates the
prediction that we might be able to find transitional fossils if there are layers
of rock from that era that formed under suitable conditions for preserving the life
forms then.2
But when we take a closer look at the Tiktaalik, it is clear the design of this
creature is not exclusive and is evidence of a thoughtful master Designer and
Creator God:
A “robust” pelvic girdle with long-rayed pelvic fins in an extinct lobe-finned fish
is not, however, evidence of ambulatory evolution, just evidence that Tiktaalik was
as sturdy and strong on its back end as on its front. For a nine-foot-long fish,
this would seem to be a good design.3
Uniformitarianism
But is uniformitarianism what the Bible describes? Contrary to this evolutionary
ideology, biblical-creation scientists recognize that natural processes today are
very different from what occurred in the past.
Supporters of molecules-to-man evolution believe that natural laws and processes
operate in the same way today as they have in the past. This assumption is called
uniformitarianism and is summarized as “the present is the key to the past.” But is
uniformitarianism what the Bible describes? Contrary to this evolutionary ideology,
biblical-creation scientists recognize that natural processes today are very
different from what occurred in the past. Using the Bible as the starting point is
the key to understanding what happened in the past and interpreting the evidence we
see in the present.
Since the past is unobservable, studying evidence from the past, such as fossils,
requires historical facts, reliable sources, or eyewitness testimony to provide
clues to the events that occurred. Therefore, biblical-creation scientists rely on
the perfect eyewitness testimony of Jesus Christ found in the inerrant Holy Bible.
The Bible is the only fully accurate source to interpret the events from the past
and to analyze the evidence seen in the present. One clear example is the biblical
description of the global flood in Genesis chapter seven. This catastrophic, global
event forever changed the surface of the earth and resulted in the death of
billions of living things. And what do we find today? Billions of dead organisms
have been buried in layers of sediment and debris laid down by water. This is
visible evidence of the Genesis account. Clearly, processes in the past are
different from what is seen in the observable present.
Ironically, while BioLogos insists in a textbook they funded that “[T]here is no
basis for the origin science-operation science distinction” (emphasis theirs), the
evolutionary community at large disagrees.4 A Harvard herpetologist wrote, “But
evolutionary biology is a historical science. Like astronomers and geologists, we
evolutionary biologists try to figure out what happened in the past. And like
historians, we are bedeviled by the asymmetry of time’s arrow-we can’t go back in
time to see what happened. Moreover, evolution occurs notoriously slowly, seemingly
making it impossible to watch as it occurs.”5 It is very curious that BioLogos
willingly swallows everything the secularists say and regurgitate it with a
smattering of God-language, yet for some reason reject the distinction between
origins and operational science that even secularists acknowledge, seemingly only
to undermine young-earth creation, which is based on a straightforward reading of
Scripture.
The interpretation of evidence from the past is always influenced by a scientist’s
worldview, whether originating from a man’s evolutionary ideas or God-spoken,
biblical creation. Both worldviews require faith to believe, since both worldviews
are unobservable. The question is, do you believe in man’s everchanging, imperfect
ideas about origins or God’s historical account provided in his perfect Word?
Worldview Influences Interpretation
Everyone would agree that a scientist will study and interpret evidence based on
their expertise in their respective field. But secular and biblical creationist
scientists do not agree that all scientists interpret evidence through the lens of
their worldview. A worldview consists of beliefs, views, and perspectives which
form the way we view the world, especially about origins, the existence of God, and
the scientific processes in place in the world. There are only two worldviews:
either man’s imperfect word or God’s perfect Word. Because secular scientists and
biblical creation scientists start from two very different worldviews, their
definition of science varies. Science is not, and can never be, neutral.
Every scientist, and every person, starts with a presupposed set of ideas or
beliefs, which is their worldview. A scientist’s presuppositions directly influence
the direction of their research and their interpretation of the evidence.
Every scientist, and every person, starts with a presupposed set of ideas or
beliefs, which is their worldview. A scientist’s presuppositions directly influence
the direction of their research and their interpretation of the evidence. The
influence of presuppositions applies to both secular scientists, who support
evolutionary ideas, and biblical-creation scientists, who believe in the authority
of God’s Word, and thus a supernatural creation. As we discussed earlier, there is
also disagreement between the secular and biblical-creation scientists about the
difference between empirical and historical science. The area of disparity is
largely attributed to the fact that, for creation scientists, historical science is
founded upon the Bible and its inerrancy, which evolutionary ideas reject. But the
principle holds that what cannot be observed in the present is historical in
nature.
Reliability
When scientists evaluate historical evidence, like fossils or crime scene evidence,
a certain amount of assumption and interpretation is required because the past is
not observable, testable, or repeatable. Neither creation nor evolution falls into
the classification of observable science. Both start with a set of assumptions and
rely on faith to believe. Evolution is nothing more than a set of ideas based on
man’s interpretation of evidence. Fundamentally, it’s the same data and the same
evidence but is seen through two opposing frameworks, and therefore different
conclusions are drawn. As Christians, we have the perfect Word of God to provide
the historical reference. The Bible is the starting point to interpret the evidence
from the past, understand the processes observable in the present, and anticipate
the events yet to come.
So, to answer the title question, “Is historical science helpful?,” we would answer
yes, but only when used through the lens of God’s perfect Word, which is found in
the Bible.
Two Kinds of Science?
Also available in Español
Share:
* *
*
We could simply tell you there are two main types of scientific research—
operational and historical—but we’d rather show you. And to do that, we want you to
take part in a short experiment. (Don’t worry. You won’t even have to move from
your seat.)
Imagine that a friend points to a building and asks you to tell them about it.
Being the inquisitive individual that you are, you immediately set out to describe
the building in as much detail as you can.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
The first part of your investigation is pretty straightfoward. You climb to the top
and drop down your measuring tape to find that the building is exactly 1,453 feet
and 8 9/16 inches from the ground to the tip of the broadcast tower—that includes
over 100 floors and an observatory. You put the building on your scales and find it
to be 365,000 tons.
“That’s great,” says your friend. “But when was it built?”
Measurements alone can’t tell you that part. You could make an educated guess, of
course, but there’s really no need. After all, you have an eyewitness account.
After a quick Internet search, you hand your friend the complete history of this
amazing historical monument—otherwise known as the Empire State Building in New
York City.
Two Kinds of Science
While our experiment above was fictional, the two methods used for uncovering data
aren’t. Some bits of information can be gleaned simply by examining things with
your senses—such as the height and weight. Other people can then check your results
by making measurements of their own. We often call this operational science (also
called observational science—for obvious reasons).
What exactly is science? This engaging and short video from the supersonic Check
This Out! collection will get you up to speed. Share everywhere.
But some research requires either making educated assumptions about the past by
examining evidence in the present (historical or “origins” science)—or finding a
primary source of information. While our assumptions could be accurate, it’s always
better to start with an eyewitness account. Otherwise, our assumptions could lead
us in the wrong direction.
For example, some geologists take present-day rates of radiometric decay and rock
formation and imagine that the rates have always been the same. That’s why they
think the earth is so old (it’s not). But we can’t zip back in time to test this
for accuracy.
What we can do, however, is check our historical research against a trustworthy
eyewitness account. But what about for the history of the earth? Does something
like that exist? You bet—and this amazing compendium of history isn’t hard to find.
Just pull out your trusty Bible.
A Trustworthy Source
The Bible often gets attacked as being antiquated and anti-science. But that’s not
the case. In fact, using the Bible as a framework allows us to understand why
science is even possible and to make sense of the past from a solid foundation.
Starting from the Bible, given to us by the Creator of all things, we know when
we’re on the right track (Hebrews 4:13; Colossians 2:2–3).
Are We Anti-science?
Share:
* *
*
Anyone familiar with the creation/evolution debate should know that anti-
creationists love to lob the accusation that creationists are “anti-science” or
that they “reject science.” Evolutionists frequently label creationists “flat-
earthers” and even go as far as suggesting that consistent creationists should deny
the law of gravity!
What’s more, these assertions are sometimes made with the implication (or outright
allegation) that creationists are openly anti-science. So, for those who haven’t
already made up their minds before hearing us out—or reading what we’ve written
many times on this website—are we truly against science? Not at all! Answers in
Genesis (like other creationist groups) affirms and supports the teaching and use
of scientific methodology, and we believe this supports the biblical account of
origins. So why all the disagreement?
Starting Points
Much of the problem stems from the different starting points of biblical
creationists and Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests
for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort
through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is,
can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be
some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression
is impossible).
Two Kinds of Science
Also causing confusion is the simple distinction some try to make between “faith”
and “science.” Answers in Genesis believes this dichotomy is in error, because some
form of faith (in a religion) is required to believe in creation or evolution. Both
creation and evolution make claims about an unrepeatable past that was not observed
by humans. Thus both creation and evolution fall under the category of historical
science. This is distinctly different from operational (observational) science,
which is a methodological system governing directly observed, repeatable results
(such as laboratory experiments).
Chapter 7
Prosecution—The Philosophy and Correct Application of Science
by Dr. Jason Lisle and Tim Chaffey on February 9, 2012
Featured in Old-Earth Creationism on Trial
Share:
* *
*
In this chapter we will examine the nature and role of science, as well as the
ability and limitations of scientific dating methods.
At this point, we have established that the Bible unequivocally teaches a “young”
earth. In other words, God created the universe and the earth in six ordinary days,
roughly 6,000 years ago. But what do the scientific dating methods indicate?
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
In this chapter we will examine the nature and role of science, as well as the
ability and limitations of scientific dating methods. It is crucial that we have a
proper understanding of how science works, and the underlying philosophy and
assumptions involved in any age-dating method before any accurate age estimates can
be made. We will then apply proper scientific techniques to the evidence. We will
find that the scientific evidence confirms the biblical age of the earth of several
thousand years.
The Bible First
The Bible must come first in our quest for knowledge; it is superior to other
sources of information, including knowledge gained from the natural sciences. This
must be the case because other sources of knowledge presuppose the Bible. In other
words, in order for us to gain knowledge about anything in the universe through any
means (including scientific analysis), we would have to already assume that the
Bible is true. People do not often realize this, so let’s briefly explore this
idea.
In order for science to be possible, what things must be true?1 What are the things
that scientists assume (presuppose) before any investigation of evidence?
Scientists presuppose that the universe obeys logical, rational laws, and that the
human mind is able to discover and understand these laws and make predictions about
how the universe will be in the future. Without these assumptions, science would be
impossible. Yet, these assumptions are exactly what we would expect from the Bible.
God is rational and upholds the universe in a logical, orderly fashion—which we
call the “laws of nature.” And since God made our minds to be able to function in
this universe (and since we are made in God’s image), it stands to reason that our
minds would have the ability to discover truths about the universe.
Worldview
A person’s underlying philosophy and assumptions about how the world works.
But without the Bible, we wouldn’t have justification for these truths. This isn’t
to say that unbelievers cannot do science; they can. The non-Christian also assumes
a rational, orderly universe, and a rational mind that can understand the universe.
But the non-Christian cannot justify these concepts within his own worldview; he
cannot account for what he is doing. Science cannot be rationally used to override
the plain teaching of the Bible, because the plain teaching of the Bible is
required in order for science to be possible.
Furthermore, since the Bible has never been wrong about anything, and since it is
the very Word of the One who knows everything, we must place our confidence in the
Bible above all other sources of information. Many old-earth creationists do not
accept this principle. Instead, they have a tendency to put the Bible at the same
level (in principle) or below the level (in practice) of the latest secular
scientific theories. This is rationalized under the premise that since God made the
universe, nature must be as truthful as the Bible. Old-earth creationists will
sometimes say it like this: “The record of nature must be just as perfect, and
reliable and truthful as the 66 books of the Bible that is part of the Word of
God.”2 As mentioned earlier, Dr. Hugh Ross has said, “The facts of nature may be
likened to a sixty-seventh book of the Bible.”3
However, there is a fundamental error with this reasoning. Nature is not
propositional truth. Propositional truth is a statement or sequence of statements
that are true. However, nature is not comprised of statements! Therefore, nature
cannot be true or false; it simply is. If I held up a rock and asked someone to
evaluate whether it was true or false, this would make no sense. True and false
apply to statements. If I made a statement about the rock (“This rock exists”),
then we could evaluate the statement as true, but not the rock itself. Likewise,
when scientists make statements about nature, we can evaluate those statements as
true or false, but not nature itself.
In fact, the “record of nature” is somewhat misnamed because a record is an account
in writing, whereas nature is not written. Again, nature is not propositional
truth. On the other hand, the Bible is propositional truth. It is a sequence of
statements, and all the statements that are affirmed in the Bible are true. In a
sense, the Bible is the “record of nature” since it records the creation of the
universe and many of the major events of history. It is simply false when old-earth
creationists talk of fossils and rocks as a “record of nature” that is supposedly
comparable to the Bible.
This isn’t to say that we cannot learn anything from nature. When evidence from the
natural world is properly interpreted, it can provide a wealth of information.
However, the way in which such evidence is interpreted depends largely on what a
person already believes about the world. Most people are unaware of how
significantly a worldview affects one’s interpretation of data. This is an
important principle, and we will revisit this in detail later. For now, it is
sufficient to say that the conclusions scientists draw from data are very strongly
influenced by their beliefs. Science is not nearly as objective as many people
believe it to be.
There are several problems with treating scientific theories about nature as if
they were at the same level as Scripture. First, as mentioned in chapter 4, nature
is cursed (Rom. 8; Gen. 3), whereas the Bible is not. This instantly places the
Bible in a higher position.
Second, scientific theories are not nature; rather, they are statements made by men
about nature. As such, they are fallible—whereas the Bible is not. It is true that
we can misunderstand the Bible and we can also misunderstand scientific claims.
However, we must remember that the Bible is never wrong, whereas scientific claims
sometimes are.
Third, the way in which we interpret nature is strongly dependent on what we
believe about the world. In order to do science at all, we must accept some of the
truths of the Bible. As such, the Bible is actually the foundation of science.
This is not to say that we should never trust scientific theories; many of them are
very well established. However, when there is a conflict between the ideas of men
and the Word of God, the Bible must be considered our ultimate authority, because
scientists can and have made mistakes. (It happens a lot—take it from me!) But God
knows everything and never errs nor lies. So, unlike human wisdom, the Bible is an
infallible source of information. Since the Bible teaches a young earth, we can
know for certain that the earth is young.
This really should be enough for a Bible-believing Christian. Sadly, it’s been our
experience that few professing Christians really believe the Bible in its entirety.
They may believe that the Bible has moral value and they may even believe much of
biblical history—such as the death and resurrection of Christ. However, when
secular scientists tell them that we know the world is billions of years old, they
crumble. Many Christians simply will not believe the history recorded in Genesis 1,
no matter how clear the text is, because they place more faith in men than in God.
They will either reject Genesis outright, or worse, they will “reinterpret” the
Bible to match the secular notion of billions of years. However, when someone
“reinterprets” the clear meaning of the words to accommodate outside notions, it
simply means he does not believe the words.
“Reinterpreting” = not believing the text
However, many of the evidential old-earth arguments are really nothing more than
unbiblical, faulty philosophy disguised as science. When we understand the role of
science, and apply it properly, we will find that it supports the biblical time
scale. We offer these two chapters to help people understand that when scientific
evidence is correctly interpreted, it will confirm what the Bible teaches.
The Nature of Science
The word science comes from the Latin scientia, which means “knowledge.” So, in its
broadest sense, science is what we know. Under this definition, all historic
events, including all the events recorded in the Bible, fall within the realm of
science.
Today, many dictionaries will define science as knowledge that has been gained
through observation and experimentation. This is the most common definition today,
and it is more restrictive than the original meaning. For example, we do know some
things that fall outside the modern definition of science. Recorded history is one
example. We know that Abraham Lincoln became president of the United States. We
know this, but not because we have observed it, or confirmed it by experimentation;
rather, we know it because we have reliable historical records.
Operational Science and Origins Science
Since science relies on observation and experimentation, it is well suited for
describing and quantifying how the universe operates today. To be clear, we’ll call
this kind of study “operational science.” Operational science would include such
branches as physics, chemistry, and biology. For example, by observing how things
fall, and by performing controlled experiments, we can deduce the formula for
gravity, as Isaac Newton did. This formula, along with other laws of physics, can
then be used to make predictions about the future—such as the positions of the
planets next year. For the most part, physics, chemistry, and biology describe the
way the world operates today, and therefore fall under the scope of operational
science.
The topics of creation, evolution, and the age of the earth do not fall under the
category of operational science. These issues pertain to the past—how and when the
universe came into existence. This is not something that can be answered directly
by observation and experimentation. That’s not to say that the methods and
processes of operational science cannot shed light on these issues. Clearly,
scientific methods can help inform our understanding of the past. However, since
the past is gone, it cannot be observed, nor can we experiment on it.
The above statement may seem obvious, but many people do not really grasp this
concept. In fact, many have objected to this concept by saying, “But a fossil is a
piece of the past.” This objection just is not true. A fossil is a piece of the
present; otherwise we would not have it! We could certainly make some guesses about
how and when the fossil formed in the past. But, could operational science ever
prove these guesses to be true? No. At best, operational science could establish
that fossils can be formed in a certain way today. For example, by creating fossils
in a laboratory, we know that they can form very quickly under the right
conditions. But operational science could never prove for certain how a particular
fossil formed if that fossil’s formation was not observed. Past events are not
accessible to operational science because they cannot be observed or experimented
upon.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with making a reasonable conjecture about how a
fossil formed by drawing on the observations and experiments of operational
science. For example, operational science tells us that fossils and rock layers can
form very quickly under flood conditions. It is therefore reasonable to conjecture
that many of the fossils and rock layers of the earth were formed during a
particularly massive flood. Applying scientific techniques of the present to answer
a question about the past is called “origins science.” Note that some branches of
study, such as astronomy and geology, include both operational and origins science.
Origins science is an attempt to answer a history question using science.
Radiometric dating is one example. The radioactive elements contained in a certain
rock are measured (in the present: this is the science part—it is testable and
repeatable), and then (along with certain assumptions that we will discuss below)
an estimation is made about how long ago the rock formed. In principle, there is no
reason why such a guess cannot be made. However, origins science is much less
certain than operational science, because it is difficult to ever prove or disprove
the conclusions. How do we really know for certain how long ago the rock formed?
Any “scientific” age estimate is really just an educated guess, and in most cases
it is impossible to know with any certainty whether that guess is actually correct.
We should also understand that questions of age and history are best answered by
consulting a history book, if one is available.
Consider the following facetious example. Suppose two students are asked to find
out when World War I started. This is obviously a history question. The first
student consults several history books written around the time and finds that they
generally agree on the date. He concludes that it began in A.D. 1914. The second
student puts on his white lab coat, and gathers a number of chemicals, beakers, and
DNA samples, and begins experimentation in a laboratory. After several weeks, he
concludes from his experiments that World War I began 3.7 million years ago. Which
student would you be more inclined to believe? What if the second student actually
held a PhD in geology and had just won a Nobel Prize? Would this change your mind?
Hopefully, you would dismiss the 3.7-million-year date as absurd since recorded
history indicates precisely when the war began. Even without knowing the details,
we can conclude that the second student was mistaken. His education and
accomplishments are irrelevant. It would be simply absurd to reject recorded
history in favor of guesswork—even “scientific” guesswork. And yet this is
precisely what many people do when it comes to the age of the earth. When we ask
about the age of something, we are not asking a science question, but rather a
history question. We are asking, “At what point in the past did something come into
existence?” Why is it that when it comes to the age of the earth, people reject the
recorded history of the Bible in favor of “scientific” guesswork? It seems that
many Christians do not have any real confidence in the Bible.
The Bible as a Starting Point for Science
Cartoon of a man fighting without his weapons and armor

Many times, unbelievers will ask a Christian to leave the Bible out of the
discussion when talking about the age of the earth or evolution. The foolish
response would be to accept these terms, say okay, and then proceed to throw
science evidences at the unbeliever without the Bible. And sadly, this is what many
Christians do. This approach is generally futile.
It tends to be ineffective because the unbeliever does not have the correct
worldview to properly interpret the evidence. The wise Christian never abandons the
Word of God—he must challenge the assumptions of the unbeliever rather than accept
them! Proverbs 26:4 states, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you
also be like him.”
By this, we are not implying that all unbelievers are fools, but it is most
certainly “folly” to start with the assumption that the Bible is not true or is
irrelevant to origins. Why? Because the Bible is true and is very relevant to
origins, considering it is the Word of a perfect God who has always been there and
created everything. Why would we start with an assumption that is false?
Proverbs 26:5 states, “Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his
own eyes.” Some people think that this verse contradicts verse 4, but they are
mistaken. Verses 4 and 5 together do not form a contradiction; they form a
strategy. We do not accept the erroneous, unbiblical assumptions of the unbeliever
or we would be like him (verse 4). However, we can and should, for the sake of
argument, show where his erroneous assumptions would lead if they were true. In
other words, we show how the unbeliever’s faulty assumptions lead to a ridiculous
conclusion that he does not accept. This will demonstrate that he cannot be “wise”
for starting with such fallacious assumptions (verse 5). This may sound very
abstract, so we will illustrate it with the following example.
An unbeliever might say, “I’m an evolutionist; your view is unscientific because
you believe that God created the universe. If you’re going to prove that evolution
is false then you have to use the laws of science only.” Rather than buying into
this premise, we challenge it (Prov. 26:4). We might say, “Why do you think a
belief in God is ‘unscientific’? This isn’t true; in fact, it is because God exists
that science is possible. Think about it: the reason the universe is orderly and
logical is because a logical God has imposed order on His creation. It’s because
God created our minds that we are able to discover the laws of science that He
created.” We then respectfully show the inconsistency in the unbeliever’s thinking
(Prov. 26:5). “If the universe were just an accident as you believe, then why
should it obey orderly principles? Why should there be laws if there is no
Lawgiver? You have accepted the biblical principle of an orderly, logical universe,
while simultaneously denying the God who makes such order possible.”
This same kind of approach can be used on old-earth creationists. We will show that
they accept secular, anti-biblical assumptions while simultaneously claiming to
believe the Bible. Such inconsistencies are common in old-earth creationism. In the
next few sections, we will compare and contrast the biblical and secular
philosophies of science. Note that, for the most part, old-earth creationists
embrace the secular assumptions of science rather than the biblical ones. So, we
are really contrasting the young earther’s biblical assumptions with the old
earther’s secular assumptions.
The Biblical Axioms of Science
The consistent Christian approaches science from the following perspective. Since
God created the universe, and since God is logical, we expect the universe to be
logical. We expect it to obey rational laws, since God is the ultimate Lawgiver.
Since God created our minds, and has given us stewardship of the earth (Gen. 1:26,
28), we expect to be able to understand, to some degree, how the world works. Since
God is the omnipresent sustainer of all things, and since He does not change, it
makes sense that God would not arbitrarily change the way He sustains the universe.
Granted, there have been times when God has acted in an extraordinary way to
accomplish an extraordinary purpose. But the fact that God normally upholds the
universe in a logical and quantifiable way is what the Christian would expect. The
laws of nature are descriptions of the logical, consistent way that the Lord
sustains the universe. The fact that these laws apply throughout space and do not
vary with time is a reflection of God’s omnipresent and consistent nature.
Interestingly, secular scientists also embrace the above biblical principles of
science, although they deny the biblical basis for these principles. That is to
say, secular scientists agree that the universe is logical and orderly, that it
obeys natural laws, that the mind is able to understand much of the universe, and
that the laws of nature are constant with time and space. Yet, they would have no
logical reason to believe these things if the Bible were not true. This is a very
blatant inconsistency in secular thinking, and so we will explore this in greater
detail later.
However, there are some additional biblical assumptions of science that are
embraced by the consistent Christian but are usually rejected by the secular
scientist. For one, Christians have a supernatural worldview. That is, we allow for
miracles. In fact, we insist on them. Since God is beyond the universe that He
created, we know that He is able to work outside natural law, and according to the
Bible, He occasionally does. We could define a “natural law” as a “description of
the way God normally upholds the universe.” A miracle would occur when God acts in
an unusual way to accomplish an extraordinary purpose. The resurrection of Christ
would be one example. God does not normally raise the dead today.
Another biblical axiom is that God created the universe supernaturally. During the
creation week, God was acting in a way that He does not today. God was speaking
into existence new things—the land, the plants, the sun, the moon, the stars, and
the animals. God also created Adam from the dust of the earth, and Eve from Adam’s
side. God is not doing these things today and the Bible specifically tells us this.
It states that God ended His work of creation by the seventh day (Gen. 2:2).
Therefore, the consistent Christian does not expect that the laws of nature (which
describe how God upholds the world today) can properly describe how God created the
world.
Today, for example, we have the law of conservation of energy and mass, which
states that no new energy or mass can come into existence. This law was obviously
not in effect (at least in its present form) during the creation week; new energy
and mass were coming into existence at God’s command. Likewise, the consistent
Christian expects that God will again act in a supernatural way when He brings an
end to this world and creates a new heaven and earth. Biblical miracles such as the
resurrection of Christ and the creation of the universe are historical facts. They
are true but are largely beyond the scope of operational science.
One must understand that the way God created the universe is not the same as the
way He maintains the universe today. This is absolutely clear from the Bible.
Secular scientists deny this principle, since they deny biblical creation. They are
forced to assume (not because of facts, but because of their philosophical bias)
that the creation of the universe was a natural event. They expect that the
processes that formed the universe are the same as those that are acting within the
universe today. Even though this is unbiblical, this secular assumption is also
largely embraced by old-earth creationists, as will be shown in the next chapter.
One last biblical axiom has to do with the geological impact of the Flood. After
the Flood, God promised to never again send such a devastating Flood of waters upon
the earth (Gen. 8:21, 9:11). So, we can infer from Scripture that the Flood was the
most geologically significant event since creation. Psalm 104:8 suggests that
mountains rose and valleys sank during this catastrophe. Therefore, we would expect
that many of earth’s geologic features, such as mountains, canyons, volcanoes, and
rock layers were shaped rapidly during and soon after the worldwide flood.
Secular Assumptions in Science
We have seen that most secular scientists use a number of biblical assumptions when
doing science. They assume (just as a Christian does) that the universe obeys
natural laws, that these laws do not change with time or space, and that the human
mind is capable of understanding the laws of nature, etc. However, the secular
scientist has no logical reason to believe these things if the universe were merely
an accident. He might argue that he uses these assumptions because they work—they
make science possible. But that does not explain why they are true, whereas the
Bible does explain this.
Because of his denial of Scripture, the secular scientist has several assumptions
that differ from the Christian’s perspective. These assumptions deal largely with
origins science rather than operational science. This explains why Christians and
non-Christians largely agree on matters of operational science; that is, we agree
on how the universe works today. However, we disagree about the past because the
secular scientists make a number of philosophical assumptions that are unbiblical
and unfounded. The two most obvious are naturalism and uniformitarianism.
Naturalism
The belief that nature is all that exists. Inherent in this belief is the denial of
miracles.
Naturalism is the belief that nature is all that exists. A naturalist does not
believe in miracles. He believes that everything that happens or has ever happened
has occurred within the laws of nature. This even includes the origin of nature.
The secular scientist assumes that everything that exists is the result of the laws
of nature working over time. Curiously, a number of secular scientists do believe
in God, or some version of a supreme being. However, they seem to regard this as
irrelevant to their studies. It is as if they intentionally pretend that “nature is
all that there is” when in fact they believe that to be false. Naturalism has
become the modus operandi of the secular scientist in our day. It is the guiding
principle to which virtually all secular scientists adhere. Yet, it is false.
If naturalism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything.4 Proofs involve
use of the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, which says that you
can’t have A, and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. The laws of
logic are not part of nature. They are not part of the physical universe. You can’t
stub your toe on a law of logic. So, if nature (the physical universe) is all that
exists and if laws of logic are not part of nature, then they can’t exist. But they
are required for rational reasoning. So, the naturalist view is actually self-
refuting. If it were true, it would be impossible to reason. Yet naturalism is what
secular scientists use as the foundation for their thinking. We will show why this
explains many of the incorrect conclusions drawn by secular scientists, such as
evolution and an old earth.
Uniformitarianism is the belief that nature is uniform. This term can be used in
more than one way, so let’s expand on this. First, uniformitarianism can simply
mean that the laws of nature do not arbitrarily change with time. Of course, this
is true. It is a biblical principle that God has maintained the universe
consistently since its creation.5 We part company with secular scientists when they
assume that the laws of nature have always applied—even to the origin of the
universe and life. We do this because the Bible teaches that God created the
universe and life supernaturally.
More frequently, the term uniformitarianism is the assumption that rates have
always been generally the same as they are today.6 This is summed up in the phrase
“the present is the key to the past.” Secular scientists observe that canyons are
deepening, and some mountains are slowly lifting today. They assume that these
present rates have been more or less constant throughout time. If that were the
case, then it would take a very long time for mountains and canyons to form.
Uniformitarianism assumes that the major geologic features of earth were formed
gradually over vast periods of time by the slow and gradual processes we observe
happening today. Since we do not observe a worldwide flood today, this event is
dismissed out-of-hand by the uniformitarian scientist.
We are not suggesting that it is always unbiblical and wrong to assume that a
particular process has been constant throughout time. For example, we believe the
orbit of earth around the sun has remained about the same since God created the sun
on the fourth day. However, we should always have a good, cogent reason for making
such an assumption on a case-by-case basis. In addition, we certainly would not
assume a rate is constant when we have good biblical reasons to believe otherwise.
For example, there are certainly some universal biblical events that would have
affected the rates at which some things occur. The global flood killed people and
animals at a much greater rate than is happening today. So our disagreement with
secular scientists is not that rates are never constant, but rather that (1)
secular scientists have a tendency to arbitrarily assume that such rates are
generally constant, and (2) that secular scientists ignore biblical events, such as
creation and the Flood, that would most certainly affect the rates of various
physical processes. The present is not the key to the past. The biblically minded
person should realize that the reverse is true: the Bible (which tells us about the
past) is the key to (understanding) the present.
It is clear that a belief in naturalism and uniformitarianism would lead to vastly
inflated estimated ages for the earth and its various features. If we incorrectly
assumed that the earth had formed by natural processes, then we would incorrectly
conclude that it took a great deal of time for the earth to cool from the molten
blob from which it allegedly formed. If we incorrectly assumed that there was no
worldwide flood to push up mountains and form canyons, then we would incorrectly
conclude that it took vast ages for these features to form at today’s rates. These
conclusions are not irrational; they follow logically from the starting
assumptions. However, the starting assumptions are wrong—and consequently, so are
the conclusions! We will now examine how these assumptions and others adversely
affect the unbeliever’s estimates of the age of the earth.
The Assumptions of Age-Dating Methods
Recall that questions of age are not “science” questions but history questions,
since they ask when in the past something happened. Age is not a substance that can
be measured in the present by scientific processes. Age-dating methods are applied
to a process—where something changes to something else at a known rate, such as the
radioactive decay of substances in a rock. By extrapolating backward, one can
estimate when the process began. There are several assumptions involved in this
process that cast serious doubts on such methods.
It has been our experience that very few people really understand the assumptions
involved in science—especially those of the age-dating methods of origins science.
There are three significant assumptions involved in almost all age-dating
techniques. These are the constancy of rates, the initial conditions of the system,
and the assumption that the system is “closed” (which means that no material from
the system is exchanged with the outside world). In this text, we will deal
primarily with the first two assumptions. These assumptions tie in very strongly
with the assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism.
Here is an example to illustrate these assumptions. Suppose a friend decided to pay
us a surprise visit one day. We have not seen him for a while because he moved to a
town 500 miles away several years ago. We notice that he is moving at 50 miles per
hour as he arrives. We wonder how long ago he began his trip. This is a history
question. To travel 500 miles at 50 miles per hour would take ten hours. So we
conclude he began his journey ten hours ago. Of course, this may not be accurate
because we have employed the above assumptions, which may not be true. He may have
been traveling faster than 50 miles per hour for most of the trip, only slowing
down for the last leg. In this case, our age estimate would be too high. We have
assumed the constancy of rates, when the rate was not constant.
We have also made another assumption. It may be that he no longer lives in that
city 500 miles away but now lives in a town that is only 50 miles away. So even if
his rate really were constant, it would only take him one hour to arrive rather
than ten. In this case, we have assumed the incorrect initial conditions, and this
leads us to a vastly inflated age estimate.
Secular Assumptions and the Age of the Earth
Since the majority of secular scientists believe in naturalism and
uniformitarianism, this causes them to make incorrect assumptions about the initial
conditions and constancy of rates of various earth processes. These faulty
assumptions lead to inflated estimates for the age of the earth. Here is a real-
world example to illustrate this concept.
Today it is estimated that the Grand Canyon is eroding at a rate of 168 million
tons per year.7 When we factor in the average density of material (2.0 g/cm3), this
works out to a volume of 0.018 cubic miles per year of sediment that is removed.
The Grand Canyon itself is just under 1,000 cubic miles in volume. If we divide
1,000 by 0.018, we find that it would take over 50,000 years8 for the Colorado
River to remove enough material to form the Grand Canyon at today’s rate of
erosion.
Notice the assumptions that have gone into this estimation. One assumption would be
the starting conditions. We have assumed that there was not a canyon there to begin
with—it really was cut out of pre-existing rock. This is a pretty safe assumption
since the rock layers are mostly sedimentary rocks—the kind laid down by water.
Most people would agree that the earth was not created with a Grand Canyon already
there; so the Christian and non-Christian agree on the starting conditions in this
case.
What about the rate of erosion? Have we made an unwarranted assumption here? Is it
possible that the rate at which water cuts the canyon was faster in the past?
Certainly! We know from Scripture that there was once a worldwide flood that killed
all air-breathing land animals9 and people except those on the Ark (Gen. 7:21–23).
Such a catastrophic event would lay down many successive layers of sediment,
trapping the remains of animals killed during the Flood. We would expect to find
layers of rocks containing fossils all around the world—and this is exactly what we
do find. The walls of the Grand Canyon are made of these fossil-bearing sedimentary
rock layers. So the canyon formed after the Flood.
Since all the land on earth was covered with water (Gen. 7:17), the amount of water
that rushed into the oceans after the Flood would have been staggering! Such a
massive quantity of water would have certainly cut canyons quickly. We know that
such things can happen, because we have recently observed smaller canyons forming
in a matter of days from massive flooding.
A consistent Christian would conclude that most of the Grand Canyon must have
formed rapidly by catastrophic amounts of water and mud shortly after the worldwide
flood. But since the unbeliever adheres to uniformitarianism, he denies the
biblical flood, and consequently his estimated age of the Grand Canyon is far too
old. Faulty starting assumptions have resulted in faulty conclusions. We will
examine more of these kinds of arguments in the next chapter.
Whenever we come across any age-dating technique, we need to think about what
assumptions have gone into it. When it comes to estimating the age of something,
the Christian should always examine the assumptions about initial conditions, the
constancy of rates, and whether the system was closed. This is not to say that a
creationist would always disagree with the assumptions of a particular age
estimate. Sometimes we have good reasons to think that certain rates really have
been essentially constant; however, we do not arbitrarily assume that this is so.
Moreover, we certainly do not assume constancy of rates when we have good biblical
reasons to believe otherwise, such as the rapid changes in earth’s topography
caused by the worldwide flood.
Don’t Answer, Answer
In the spirit of Proverbs 26:4, we refuse to accept the erroneous and unbiblical
philosophies of uniformitarianism and naturalism. These doctrines have caused
unbelievers to make incorrect assumptions about initial conditions and constancy of
rates. In fact, virtually all old-earth arguments assume these false philosophies.
Clearly, we cannot accept the conclusions of age estimates that are based on faulty
starting assumptions. Unfortunately, old-earth creationists generally do accept
such arguments. In some cases, they may not have realized the assumptions from
which such estimates are derived.
However, in the spirit of Proverbs 26:5, we can, for the sake of argument, show how
the secular assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism would lead to logical
inconsistencies. When creationists talk about scientific evidence that confirms the
biblical age of the earth, this is usually how the topic is approached. For the
sake of argument, we will assume naturalism (nature is all that there is) and
uniformitarianism (rates are generally constant—no worldwide flood) in the
following examples. Then we will show how the logical conclusions still contradict
the notion of billions of years.10
Science Confirms a Young Earth
Rivers are constantly removing small fractions of salt from the land and
transporting it to the ocean. The rate at which this happens has been measured. The
salt added to the ocean by all the rivers in the world is about 450 million tons
per year.11 The water at the ocean’s surface is constantly evaporating and then
falls as rain, which collects in rivers, completing the cycle. The salt does not
evaporate and only a fraction (27 percent is a generous upper limit) of the salt
added to the ocean every year can be removed (by salt sprays and a handful of other
processes). As a consequence, the ocean gets saltier every year by at least 330
million tons.
Illustration showing 450 million tons of salt per year entering the oceans and
only 27% per year leaving, with words stating, “Salt fills the sea too fast!”

Assuming uniformitarianism (that this trend has been more-or-less constant

throughout time), we can extrapolate backward to figure out when the ocean was
entirely fresh water. In fact, just to be generous to the old-earth supporters, we
will use a “worst-case scenario” rate even larger than today’s rate. When we do the
calculation, the answer we get is that the oceans cannot be older than 62 million
years. Note that we have also assumed the “worst-case scenario” initial conditions;
we have assumed the ocean had no salt in it at all when it was first created. If
the ocean did have salt in it at its beginning, then the true age must be
considerably less than 62 million years.
If we used today’s rates, we would get 38 million years. These numbers may sound
high, since they are much higher than 6,000 years, but evolutionists and other old-
earth supporters believe that the oceans are three billion years old—50 times older
than our upper limit estimate. Yet, when we use their starting assumptions, we find
that this cannot be true. The old-earth belief is inconsistent with its own
assumptions.
Likewise, rivers also carry sediment from the continents into the oceans. This mud
accumulates on the ocean floor. The rate at which this occurs is about 20 billion
tons per year. The only significant way to remove such mud is thought to be
subduction (plate tectonics), but this could only remove a maximum of one billion
tons per year at current rates. The rest just accumulates.
How long would it take to get the current amount of mud in the oceans? Assuming
uniformitarianism (no worldwide flood), and “worst-case scenario” initial
conditions (we assume there was no mud at all to begin with), it would take 12
million years to get the present amount of mud. So even when we intentionally
ignore the effects of a global flood (which would deposit a great deal of mud very
rapidly) we still find that the oceans cannot be 3 billion years old, as taught by
old-earthers.
Many people have heard of carbon dating. Without being overly technical, it is
sufficient to say that carbon dating is based on the process of carbon-14 (C-14)
changing to nitrogen.
Carbon 14 disappears over time in a bone

The amount of 14C becomes less with time.

This process happens at a known rate. By measuring the current amount of C-14 in a
dead organism and by extrapolating backward, scientists can estimate when it died.
As with virtually all age-dating methods, this technique assumes certain initial
conditions and it assumes that the rate at which C-14 decays is constant.12
The problem for old earth supporters is that C-14 always gives “young” age
estimates (a few thousand years)—even on things like coal beds that are supposedly
millions of years old. At its current decay rate, C-14 simply cannot last even one
million years. Yet, C-14 has been found in coal that is supposedly millions of
years old and even in diamonds that are allegedly more than a billion years old.13
Since diamonds are the hardest known substance, there is essentially no chance of
contamination from the outside. So this is very compelling evidence that the earth
is only thousands of years old.
Human population growth is another example. Starting with one man and one woman and
using today’s growth rate, it would take less than 2,000 years to get all the
people on earth. Of course, even the strictest uniformitarian would have to grant
that the growth rate was slightly less in the past because of famines, disease,
higher infant mortality rate, etc. Even if we use a much lower growth rate, we
still find that human beings have only been around for a few thousand years, which
is much less than evolutionists and old-earth supporters assume. In order to be
compatible with the secular time-line, the growth rate would have to be extremely
different from today’s rates, which is certainly incompatible with
uniformitarianism. In fact, the growth rate would have to be essentially zero for
hundreds of thousands of years. Of course, it is absurd to think that earth’s
population remained constant for such a long time.
In the above examples, we have used the same secular assumptions of naturalism and
uniformitarianism employed by the old-earthers and have shown how these lead to an
inconsistency. In many cases, the evidence is simply inconsistent with an old earth
—even when secular assumptions are used. Of course, if we use our own Bible-based
starting assumptions, there is no problem. We assume that the universe was
supernaturally created. We assume that the world was created fully functional from
the beginning and was similar in many respects to the way it is today14 (with some
important differences, of course), because the Bible indicates this. We assume that
a worldwide flood is responsible for much of earth’s topography today, since this
is a logical inference from the Word of God. These starting assumptions are very
consistent with scientific observations. Yet when we start with secular, old-earth
assumptions, we find that such assumptions lead to inconsistencies.
The scientific case for a young earth is very strong. In the next chapter, we will
examine scientific arguments that supposedly support an old earth.
Previous Chapter
Defense—A Local Flood?
Next Chapter
Defense—“Scientific” Arguments
Old-Earth Creationism on Trial
Old-Earth Creationism on Trial

As the modern Church struggles to find a place of relevancy for a new generation
that already has massive demands on its time and attention, more and more young
people raised in the Church are leaving it—failing to find the answers to their
questions of faith and life, beset with doubts raised by issues that the Church
chooses not to address. Opting to skirt the controversy of Genesis as literal
history, the biblical authority of the Holy Word is called into question and
reduced to a collection of mere stories.
READ ONLINEBUY BOOK
Master Books has graciously granted AiG permission to publish selected chapters of
this book online. To purchase a copy please visit our online store.
Footnotes
1. These kinds of questions concerning the preconditions of intelligibility are a
powerful way of defending the Christian worldview. The late Christian philosopher
Dr. Greg Bahnsen specialized in this kind of apologetic. A student of Dr. Cornelius
Van Till, Dr. Bahnsen was known as “the man atheists most feared” due to his
ability to destroy non-Christian worldviews (especially atheism) on the basis of
preconditions of intelligibility.
2. H. Ross, Toccoa Falls College, Staley Lecture Series, March 1997.
3. H. Ross, Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the
Creation-Date Controversy, (Wheaton, IL: NavPress, 1994), p. 56
4. This was brilliantly demonstrated by Christian philosopher Dr. Greg Bahnsen in
the “Great Debate” on the existence of God. In this debate, Dr. Bahnsen showed that
his opponent (atheist Gordon Stein) could not even make sense of the debate itself
without presupposing the biblical God.
5. Though, at the Fall, God apparently removed some of His sustaining power. This
was certainly a change—but not an arbitrary one. God had an important reason for
doing this.
6. Uniformitarianism doesn’t necessarily mean that we assume a given rate itself is
necessarily constant, only that the trend we see today has always applied. For
example, radioactive decay is not constant; it is an exponential decay (it happens
slower as the source material is depleted). So the uniformitarianism assumption in
this case is that radioactive decay has always been an exponential decay and that
the “decay constant” (a mathematical term describing the “steepness” of the
exponential decay curve) has never changed. Another example is the recession of the
moon; this rate is not constant—it goes as the sixth power of distance. So the
uniformitarian assumption is that this has always been the case.
7. S. Austin et al., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (Santee, CA: Institute
for Creation Research, 1994), p. 87
8. Most secular geologists believe that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old.
But as we can see, this is difficult to support even if we assume today’s slow and
gradual rate of erosion.
9. Specifically, those land animals which have the “breath of life” died. The
Hebrew phrase implies that this is a subclass of animals, possibly referring
primarily to vertebrate animals (though we would not be dogmatic on this point).
10. Henry Morris listed 68 of these processes in Appendix 5 of The Defender’s Study
Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, 1995), p. 1505–1508.
11. S.A. Austin and D.R. Humphreys, “The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for
Evolutionists,” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Creationism,
Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship 1991.
12. To be precise, the uniformitarian assumption in this case is that the
exponential decay constant does not change with time.
13. L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin, Radioisotopes and the Age of the
Earth Vol. II (Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 2005), p. 609.
14. This is to say that there were stars, galaxies, plants, and animals present
right at the end of the first week.
Science or the Bible?
by Ken Ham and Dr. Terry Mortenson on June 14, 2007; last featured July 5, 2009
Featured in Answers Magazine
Also available in Español
Share:
* *
*
Ever heard one of these claims? Perhaps you’ve even said one yourself. Over the
years, we’ve heard them all—but they’re all false, or at least they imply a
falsehood.
Common claims by non-Christians:
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
Science proves the Bible is wrong.
Evolution is science, but the Bible is religion.
Evolutionists believe in science, but creationists reject science.
Common claims by Christians:
I believe the Bible over science.
Creation is religion, but evolution is religion, too.
Creationists believe in the Bible and reject science.
The Bible’s account of beginnings cannot be tested in a laboratory, so secular
scientists—and even some Christians—believe it is not science and must be
classified as religion.
Secular scientists claim that their view of beginnings (evolution) can be tested in
a laboratory, so their view is scientific. For instance, they point to mutated
fruit flies or speciation observed in the field (such as new species of mosquitoes
or fish).
But this is where many people are confused—what is meant by “science” or
“scientific.”
It is helpful to distinguish between operational science and origin science, and
compare how each one seeks to discover truth.
Before we get caught up in a debate about whether the Bible or evolution is
scientific, we have learned to ask, “Could you please define what you mean by
science?” The answer usually reveals where the real problem lies.
Defining Science
People are generally unaware that dictionaries give a root meaning, or etymology,
of science similar to this one from Webster’s: “from Latin scientia, from scient-,
sciens ‘having knowledge,’ from present participle of scire ‘to know.’”
And most dictionaries give the following meaning of the word: “the state of
knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.”
Although there are other uses of the word, the root meaning of science is basically
“knowledge.” In fact, in the past, philosophy and theology were considered
sciences, and theology was even called the “queen of the sciences.”
But over the past 200 years, during the so-called Scientific Revolution, the word
science has come to mean a method of knowing, a way of discovering truth. Moreover,
many people assume that modern science is the only way to discover truth.
Operational science uses observable, repeatable experiments to try to discover
truth. Origin science relies on relics from the past and historical records to try
to discover truth.
To help people clear up the confusion, we have found it helpful to distinguish
between two types of modern science, and compare how each one seeks to discover
truth:
* Operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt to discover
truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to
find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe. For example,
we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab
or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which
has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for diseases.
* Origin science attempts to discover truth by examining reliable eyewitness
testimony (if available); and circumstantial evidence, such as pottery, fossils,
and canyons. Because the past cannot be observed directly, assumptions greatly
affect how these scientists interpret what they see.
So, for example, how was the Grand Canyon formed? Was it formed gradually over long
periods of time by a little bit of water, or was it formed rapidly by a lot of
water? The first interpretation is based on secular assumptions of slow change over
millions of years, while the second interpretation is based on biblical assumptions
about rapid change during Noah’s Flood.
Can a Creationist Be a Real Scientist?
Both creationist scientists and evolutionist scientists have religious (or faith)
components to their scientific models about origins. Yet both types of scientists
are equally capable of doing both operation science and origin science.
Operation science, whether done by an evolutionist or a creationist, has benefited
mankind in many ways, particularly through technology. Creationists have
contributed greatly in this area of science, including nineteenth-century
physicists Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell, and more recently Dr. Raymond
Damadian, who invented the MRI imaging used by medical doctors (see here).
In origin science, creationists are discovering many things that honor the
Creator’s wisdom and confirm biblical history.
See a list of creation scientists.
Dr. Raymond Damadian

Dr. Raymond Damadian is a young-earth creationist who is also credited by many as

“the man who invented the MRI scanner.” He has received numerous awards for his
work and in 1989 was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame. Photo
courtesy Fonar Corp.
The Nature of the Debate
At this point, most people realize that the debate is not about operation science,
which is based in the present. The debate is about origin science and conflicting
assumptions, or beliefs, about the past.
Molecules-to-man evolution is a belief about the past. It assumes, without
observing it, that natural processes and lots of time are sufficient to explain the
origin and diversification of life.
Of course, evolutionary scientists can test their interpretations using operation
science. For instance, evolutionists point to natural selection and speciation—
which are observable today. Creation scientists make these same observations, but
they recognize that the change has limits and has never been observed to change one
kind into another.
Until quite recently, many geologists have used studies of current river erosion
and sedimentation to explain how sedimentary rock layers were formed or eroded
slowly over millions of years. In the past few decades, however, even secular
geologists have begun to recognize that catastrophic processes are a better
explanation for many of the earth’s rock layers.
Also during this time, creation geologists have been identifying evidence that
points to the catastrophic formation of most of the rock record during the unique
global Flood of Noah’s day.
These present-day observations help us to consider the possible causes of past
events, such as the formation of the Grand Canyon. But operation science cannot
tell us with certainty what actually happened in the past.
After we explain these two types of science, people usually begin to recognize the
potential problems with the statement “evolution is science, but the Bible is
religion.” Molecules-to-man evolution is not proven by operation science; instead,
it is a belief about the past based on antibiblical assumptions.
The Bible, in contrast, is the eyewitness testimony of the Creator, who tells us
what happened to produce the earth, the different kinds of life, the fossils, the
rock layers, and indeed the whole universe. The Bible gives us the true, “big
picture” starting assumptions for origin science.
Different Histories
Thus, creationists and evolutionists develop totally different reconstructions of
history. But they accept and use the same methods of research in both origin and
operation science. The different conclusions about origins arise from different
starting assumptions, not the research methods themselves.
So, the battle between the Bible and molecules-to-man evolution is not one of
religion versus science. Rather, it is a conflict between worldviews—a
creationist’s starting assumptions (a biblical worldview) and an evolutionist’s
starting assumptions (an antibiblical worldview).
The next time someone uses the word science in relation to the creation/evolution
controversy, ask him first to define what he means. Only then can you begin to have
a fruitful discussion about origins.
Proven Facts
Let us be clear. Accurate knowledge (truth) about physical reality can be
discovered by the methods of both operation science and origin science. But truth
claims in both areas may be false. Many “proven facts” (statements of supposed
truth) about how things operate (in physics, chemistry, medicine, etc.), as well as
about how things originated (in biology, geology, astronomy, etc.) have been or
will be shown to be false. So, as best we can, we must be like the Bereans in Acts
17:11 and examine every truth claim against Scripture and look for faulty logic or
false assumptions.
Which Worldview Is Correct?
There are many ways to test the accuracy of the biblical worldview against
naturalistic atheism (the worldview that controls most origins research). When our
research is based upon biblical truths about the past, we find that our
interpretations of the biological and geological facts make sense of what we see in
the real world, whereas evolutionary interpretations don’t really fit what we see.
Let’s look at an example. The Bible says that God created distinct groups of
animals “after their kind” (see Genesis 1). Starting with this truth of the Bible
as one of our assumptions, we would expect to observe animals divided into distinct
groups, or kinds. Creationists postulate that our creative God placed phenomenal
variability in the genes of each kind, so there could be considerable variety
within each kind. But the preprogrammed mechanism for variation within the kind
could never change one kind into a different kind, as evolutionists claim and their
belief system requires.

Evolutionary Geologist Daniel Phelps: Afraid to Debate?

Part 2
by Dr. Terry Mortenson on February 22, 2014
Share:
* *
*
If evolution was really true and all the scientific evidence confirmed it, why
won’t this evolutionist defend his views in a formal public debate?
In my previous article about my January 30th radio “debate” with evolutionary
geologist Daniel Phelps, leading up to the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, I
refuted Mr. Phelps claim that creation scientists are not real scientists because
they don’t publish in the peer-reviewed secular literature. It is a claim that was
also indirectly made by Bill Nye in the debate with Ken Ham.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick Answers to Common Questions about the Bible.
DOWNLOAD NOW
I concluded that article by showing that Charles Lyell (1797–1875)—one of the most
influential men in the development of the idea of millions of years of earth
history—was driven by a religiously motivated rejection of the Bible. After
publishing his famous three-volume work, Principles of Geology (1830–1833), Lyell
stifled the opposition. One historian of this period concluded this:
Lyell, like Scrope before him, simply suppressed the evidence which did not fit in
with his [uniformitarian] doctrines, and once he was voted into power [as president
of the Geological Society of London], the catastrophists found it increasingly
difficult to publish their research.1
Lyell convinced people that he was doing objective science. But he was advancing
the philosophical principles (i.e., religious doctrines) of uniformitarian
naturalism. By naturalism he was insisting that the origin and history of the world
can and must be explained by time, chance and the laws of nature working on matter.
For the naturalistic scientist, either God does not exist or, if He does exist, He
only created the initial simple matter and the laws of nature and then let
everything run on its own, without divine interruption, since the beginning. By
uniformitarianism, Lyell insisted that the processes of geological change (erosion,
sedimentation, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.) have always happened in the past at
the same rate, power, and frequency that we observe today on average per year. That
means there never was a global Flood at the time of Noah and the rock layers with
their fossils were formed over millions of years.
Furthermore, Lyell’s “principles of geology” laid the foundation for Darwin’s
theory of biological evolution. Darwin simply took Lyell’s principle of slow
gradual geological change and applied it to biology. Darwin informs us that on his
famous five-year voyage around the world on the HMS Beagle,
I had brought with me the first volume of Lyell’s Principles of Geology, which I
studied attentively; and this book was of the highest service to me in many ways.2
In comparing Lyell’s Principles to his own On the Origin of Species Darwin later
commented,
He who can read Sir Charles Lyell’s grand work on the Principles of Geology, which
the future historian will recognize as having produced a revolution in natural
science, yet does not admit how incomprehensibly vast have been the past periods of
time, may at once close this volume.3
Darwin needed the millions of years to make his theory of bacteria-to-
bacteriologist evolution seem plausible. Otherwise his theory would have been dead
in the womb. But Lyell and Darwin and all the other scientists embracing millions
of years and evolution, were confused themselves (and in the process were confusing
others) about the nature of science. And by smuggling uniformitarian naturalism
into their scientific writings they deceived the world into thinking that the
creation vs. evolution debate is a battle of science vs. religion. In fact, as Ken
Ham correctly argued in his debate with Bill Nye, it was and continues to be a
battle of the religion of most scientists vs. the revelation of God in the Bible.
Most scientists, regardless of the religious faith they may profess privately or at
their place of worship, are doing their scientific work within the framework of
uniformitarian naturalism (i.e., atheism).4 Creation scientists reject that
framework and work within a biblical framework.
Confusing the Nature of Science
Mr. Phelps and most of those who called into the radio program were also confused
in another way about science. They fail to realize or admit that there are really
two significantly different broad categories of science, what I like to call
“operation science” and “origin science.” In the debate with Ken Ham, Bill Nye
strenuously sought to deny this distinction also. But the denial of this
distinction won’t stand up under scrutiny.
Most of biology, chemistry, and physics, as well as engineering and medical
research are in the realm of operation science.
Operation (which we can also called experimental or observational) science uses the
so-called “scientific method” that can be defined this way: the use of observable,
repeatable experiments in a controlled environment (e.g., a lab) to understand how
things operate or function in the present physical universe in order to find cures
for disease, produce new technology, or put the rover Curiosity on Mars, etc. All
creationists love operational science and use the fruits of it in their daily
lives. Most of biology, chemistry, and physics, as well as engineering and medical
research are in the realm of operation science.
But that kind of science won’t answer the question, how and when did the Grand
Canyon form? Or how and when did the first living creatures come into existence? Or
is the body under the gravestone in Westminster Abbey in London that says “Charles
Darwin” really Charles Darwin? Those questions can’t be answered by any scientific
experiment. They are historical questions, the first two of which are the kind that
both the evolution model and creation model seek to answer. Both evolution and
creation models are in the realm of origin (or historical) science. Origin science
uses the historical-legal method, which can be defined as the use of reliable,
eyewitness testimony (if any is available) and observable evidence to determine the
past, unobservable, unrepeatable event(s), which produced the observable evidence
we see in the present.
Notice that in origin science there are two kinds of evidence: oral testimony by an
eyewitness and physical evidence in the present. Origin sciences include historical
geology, paleontology, archeology, cosmogony, and forensic science (e.g., criminal
investigation).
In the debate with Ken Ham, Bill Nye cited the TV crime show CSI in support of his
position that there is no distinction between operational and origin science. Bill
Nye said,
These are constructs unique to Mr. Ham. We don't normally have these anywhere in
the world except here. Natural laws that applied in the past apply now. That's why
they’re natural laws. That's why we embrace them. That's how we made all these
discoveries that enabled all this remarkable technology. So CSI is a fictional
show, but it’s based absolutely on real people doing real work. When you go to a
crime scene and find evidence, you have clues about the past and you trust those
clues and you embrace them and you move forward to convict somebody.
But in fact that crime show supports Ken Ham’s position. While criminal
investigation may involve scientific laboratory experiments that show how the
person might have died, such “reenactments” are not conclusive evidence in and of
themselves. It is only eyewitness testimony and the circumstantial evidence at the
scenes of the crime and other related nefarious activities that can really
reconstruct what happened in the unrepeatable past. And no police investigator of a
crime is worthy of the name, if he fails to look for an eyewitness or worse yet
intentionally ignores the testimony of a trustworthy eyewitness.
And how a person interprets the circumstantial evidence in the present to
reconstruct that past history is enormously influenced by that person’s religious
and philosophical worldview-based assumptions. Mr. Phelps, Mr. Nye, and most other
evolutionists deny this distinction in science and deny the critical role of
presuppositions in the question of origins. They also try to convince the public
that they are unbiased objective pursuers of truth but that creationists are biased
by religious ideas. In fact, the evolutionists are as biased as the creationists.
They are biased against the eyewitness testimony of God found in the Bible.
But some evolutionists do see this distinction in science and the role of
assumptions (at least to some degree). The great historian of geology, Martin
Rudwick, observed,
Even at the opening of its ‘heroic age,’[5] geology was recognized as belonging to
an altogether new kind of science, which posed problems of a kind that had never
arisen before. It was the first science to be concerned with the reconstruction of
the past development of the natural world, rather than the description and analysis
of its present condition.[6] The tools of the other sciences were therefore
inadequate. The processes that shaped the world in the past were beyond either
experiment or simple observation. Observation revealed only their end-products;
experimental results could only be applied to them analogically. Somehow the past
had to be interpreted in terms of the present. The main conceptual tool in that
task was, and is, the principle of uniformity.7
Evolutionists believe in absolute uniformity back to the beginning of time. But
that is an assumption, a (deistic or atheistic) religious belief. They have no
eyewitnesses or any other method to confirm the validity of that assumption.
Creationists, on the basis of the eyewitness testimony of the eternal Creator, know
that there have been two disruptions to the normal course of nature: (1) God’s
curse on creation when Adam sinned, and (2) the Flood of Noah’s day. Those two
events are critically important in determining, among other things, when and how
the fossils of former living plants and animals and the rock layers that entomb
them were formed.
In describing the geological controversy in the late 1830s over the identification
of the Devonian rock formations, Rudwick wrote about those early geologists,
Furthermore, most of their recorded field observations that related to the Devonian
controversy were not only more or less “theory laden,” in the straightforward sense
that most scientists as well as historians and philosophers of science now accept
as a matter of course, but also “controversy laden.” The particular observations
made, and their immediate ordering in the field, were often manifestly directed
toward finding empirical evidence that would be not merely relevant to the
controversy but also persuasive. Many of the most innocently “factual” observations
can be seen from their context to have been sought, selected, and recorded in order
to reinforce the observer’s interpretation and to undermine the plausibility of
that of his opponents.8
The facts don’t speak for themselves. And evolutionists repeatedly mistake
assumptions and interpretations for factual observations. Creationists can fall
prey to this mistake also. But the more conscious a person is of his assumptions
and the more honest he is in making those assumptions public, the more objective he
can be. But the assumptions still influence the observations and the
interpretations. For example, an evolutionist going into the Grand Canyon will
never ask the question, “Could what I will observe be the result of the global
flood of Noah’s day?” It is excluded as a possible explanation before he ever looks
at the evidence. A creation geologist however will be looking for the evidence that
confirms God’s eyewitness account of that event.
In commenting on the difference between the “hard” experimental sciences and the
historical sciences, the famous atheist evolutionary paleontology professor at
Harvard, Stephen J. Gould, said,
The Nobel prizes focus on quantitative, non-historical, deductively oriented fields
with their methodology of perturbation by experiment and establishment of
repeatable chains of relatively simple cause and effect. An entire set of
disciplines, different though equal in scope and status, but often subjected to
ridicule because they do not follow this pathway of “hard” science, is thereby
ignored: the historical sciences, treating immensely complex and non-repeatable
events (and therefore eschewing prediction while seeking explanation for what has
happened) and using methods of observation and comparison.9
Gould’s equally famous atheist biologist colleague at Harvard, Ernst Mayr, wrote,
Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and
methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented.
Evolution as a whole, and the explanation of particular evolutionary events, must
be inferred from observations.10
But the inferences from observations are heavily influenced by the worldview
assumptions of the observer. Evolutionists have a naturalistic (atheistic)
worldview; young-earth creationists have a biblical worldview. Creationists also
make inferences from their observations, but they are guided in those inferences by
the truthful eyewitness testimony of the all-knowing, eternal Creator who has given
us in the Bible a totally accurate historical account of the key events in history
to understand the world we live in. Evolution is a man-made myth about the past
based on a conscious rejection of that perfectly truthful eyewitness testimony.
Again, please note that in a court of law, truthful eyewitness testimony is
evidence. And no reliable judge will rule such testimony out of court. It is
critically important evidence, and in fact more important than any circumstantial
physical evidence (e.g., dead body, pool of blood, broken door jam, etc.), for
trying to figure out what happened in the unrepeatable past to explain the evidence
existing in the present. The bias of the prosecuting attorney and the police can
cause them to misinterpret the circumstantial evidence. More than one innocent
person has been sent to prison for years because of such “overwhelming evidence.”
In many other cases, the prosecution seemed to have a watertight case until the
defense found a reliable eyewitness that proved the defendant was innocent. And
when the circumstantial evidence was reexamined in the light of that testimony, the
faulty interpretations and biases of the prosecution were exposed. The eyewitness
testimony provided a far superior interpretation of the physical evidence.
So it is in origin science, God’s testimony in the Bible is evidence (the most
important evidence) to carefully consider in working out the origin and history of
the universe and life on earth. God’s Word does not tell us all the details we
would like to know, but it does give us the “big picture” within which to work out
the details as we study the scientifically observed evidence of past events that we
have available in the present.
So despite evolutionists’ denial, there is a vital distinction between operation
(experimental, observational) science that builds our technology and finds cures
for disease and origin (historical) science that tries to work out the origin and
history of the universe. Evolutionists deceive themselves and most of the world
(including many Christians) by equating the two.
A Challenge to Debate—Refused
At the end of the January 30 radio interview, I challenged Mr. Phelps to a public
debate about the scientific evidence related to origins and to do it at the
location of his choosing. He refused, instead hiding behind the false demand that I
publish my objections to evolution in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and
behind the red herring excuse that he would be giving credibility to a creationist
to debate me.
But I submit that the real reason he refused is because he can’t defend his
position in the free-marketplace of ideas. I only had biology and chemistry in high
school and one physics course in college. I have no credibility in the scientific
community and little even within Christian circles. With his BS and MS degrees in
geology, winning a debate with me should be very easy. If evolution was really true
and all the scientific evidence confirmed it, a debate with me would be a great way
for Mr. Phelps to demolish any credibility I have within the Christian community
and to make creationists look like the ignorant, gullible fools that he and other
evolutionists think we are. Too bad that he is unwilling to defend his views in a
formal public debate.
You May Also Like
* Is Historical Science Useful?
* Is Historical Science Useful? * Galileo & Creation in Early Modern Science
* Galileo & Creation in Early Modern Science * Doesn’t Science Disprove the Bible
* Doesn’t Science Disprove the Bible Footnotes
1. George Grinnell, “The Origins of Modern Geological theory,” Kronos 1, no. 4
(1976): 74. Lyell was president of the London Geological Society in 1835–1837 and
1849–1851.
2. Nora Barlow, ed., The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809–1882 (New York:
W. W. Norton, 1958), 77.
3. Ibid., 293.
4. I realize that modern geologists are open to great catastrophes to explain
some features of the geological record. But uniformitarianism is still the default
way of thinking for most geologists.
5. I.e., the first few decades of the nineteenth century.
6. The leading British historian and philosopher of science in the first half of
the nineteenth century, William Whewell, discussed this different kind of science
at length. See The Great Turning Point, 228–233.
7. Martin J. S. Rudwick, "The Principle of Uniformity," History of Science 1
(1962): 82.
8. Martin J. S. Rudwick, The Great Devonian Controversy (Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press, 1985), 431–32; italics in the original.
9. Stephen J. Gould, “Balzan Prize to Ernst Mayr,” Science 223 (January 20,
1984): 255.
 10. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 13.
Does Religion Cripple Science Innovation?
News to Know
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on June 12, 2014
Featured in Answers in Depth
Share:
* *
*
Abstract
”Let’s fix the adults,” says Tyson, “then the kids’ll be fine!”
News Source
* National Geographic: “Neil deGrasse Tyson on Creationism, Science Celebrities,
and Kids”
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, in an interview posted on National Geographic’s
website on June 6, wants to “fix” adults he considers “scientifically illiterate.”
His 13-part series Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey claims its aim is to promote science
literacy, but by this phrase and the content of many of his episodes, it is clear
that Tyson’s concern is to expunge the influence of young-earth creationists on the
minds and hearts of people.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
Tyson warns of the danger of religious influence1 on science. He says it will
create “a generation of people who will not understand what science is.” And “they
will be intellectually crippled” (emphasis his) in their ability to contribute as
innovators in science and technology. Tyson’s message complements Bill Nye’s viral
video exhorting parents to refrain from teaching a biblical view of origins to
children lest they imperil the economic and technological future of our country.
Tyson says, “The real problem in society is not whether we’re teaching our kids
enough science because, let’s say we started that tomorrow, does that mean
everything’s okay? . . . For me the real challenge and the real problem are
scientifically illiterate adults. . . . Let’s fix the adults; then the kids’ll be
fine!”
Historical Versus Observational Science
Like Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson obfuscates the distinction between historical
(origins) science and operational (observational, experimental) science. Historical
science involves interpreting scientific data through the filter of what you
already believe about the unobservable past. Yet engineers design technological
solutions for today’s problems in the present. Astronomers observe the behavior and
nature of the stars and planets in the present. Physicians discover the causes and
cures for diseases and deformities by making observations, developing and testing
hypotheses, trying out their ideas repeatedly in controlled circumstances—all in
the present.
Science literacy is surely a laudable goal. But teaching people to uncritically
accept worldview-based evolutionary assumptions as if they were observable
scientific information gleaned through the scientific method is deceptive and
promotes a poor understanding of science. Many of the Cosmos episodes were
evolutionary infomercials mingled with scientific principles. The dire warnings in
the concluding portion of this interview reveal Tyson’s keen interest in getting
the public to accept evolutionary interpretations as incontrovertible facts. This
approach confuses observable, testable scientific principles with unsupportable
evolutionary conjecture superimposed on them. By mixing up that which can be
observed with that which can only be imagined and assumed, Tyson is actually
helping create “a generation of people who will not understand what science is.”
protest

Neil deGrasse Tyson asserts that scientists—even atheists—do not try to tell
religious leaders what to teach or suggest they are teaching something wrong. When
the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum opened in Petersburg, Kentucky, in May 2007,
to proclaim the truth of the Word of God, secular protestors gathered outside the
gates to protest. They picketed, posted signs, and even hired an airplane with a
banner to fly overhead, borrowing from the Bible that they don’t believe to accuse
those who stand boldly for the truth of God’s Word of lying. Images: courtesy of
Answers in Genesis
Atheists Don’t Picket?
Tyson ends his interview with a tirade against people who because of their
“religious philosophies” want to “change the curriculum in a science classroom” or
“influence a school board.” Though he did not specifically refer to Bible-believing
creationists in this interview, he has made his hostility toward biblical belief
clear in other settings and repeatedly during the Cosmos programs. He opens his
tirade with the absurd claim that evolutionary scientists and “even atheists” do
not try to influence what is taught in religious settings. He says, “There’s no
tradition of scientists knocking down the Sunday school door telling the preacher
what to teach. That is never—atheists don’t even do that! There’s no scientists or
atheists picketing outside of your church, or synagogue, or mosque: ‘Oh that might
not necessarily be true!’ There is no such tradition!”
Answers in Genesis astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner, commenting on the interview,
says:
Tyson here spoke in broad terms without naming any names. While there are some who
believe in creation who wish to force creation being taught in schools, we at
Answers in Genesis have never advocated that, nor would we.
On the other hand, Tyson claimed that there are no atheists demanding control over
what is taught in Sunday schools. But there are some who have suggested such a
thing. Richard Dawkins has equated teaching children about creation with child
abuse. Bill Nye has strongly warned against teaching children about creation,
saying that it is okay for adults to believe in creation, but don’t you dare teach
your children that. These statements are meaningless if they are interpreted to
give a free pass to what is taught in Sunday schools. Imagine Dawkins and Nye
saying, “Don’t you dare teach your children about creation, unless it’s in church.”
No, their proscribed prohibitions are not restricted in this way.
Furthermore, the likes of Tyson, Dawkins, and Nye would make any consideration of
God forbidden within a discussion of science. Sir Isaac Newton, who literally wrote
the book for the disciplines of astronomy and physics, clearly thought that the
discussion of God was relevant to the discussion of science. I’ll trust the
judgment of Sir Isaac on this.
Metaphysical Evolution
Tyson warns against substituting religious philosophy for science. Yet, thanks to
his unbounded belief in insupportable evolutionary claims, Tyson is guilty of this
himself. For instance, Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey premiered in March echoing Carl
Sagan’s theme: “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” This in
itself is a metaphysical assertion, not a scientific one. Sagan’s comment, echoed
by Tyson, is a “religious philosophy.” Answers in Genesis astronomer Dr. Danny
Faulkner explains:
There is not a bit of science in that statement. When Sagan said it 34 years ago
and then wrote it in his book, a lot of people were saying, “Wow! What a profound
scientific statement,” but it’s actually a philosophical statement. It is denial of
the supernatural, saying the only thing that exists is the physical world, the
natural world. But to say that with any certainty Sagan had to get outside the
physical universe and see that the physical universe is all that there is. And he
would have had to do that in eternity past and in eternity future in order to say
that. If he could really see that, then he would be god. It’s a very bold,
metaphysical statement. It’s an assertion. But it’s not science. It’s not a
scientific statement.
The “religious philosophy” of evolution, despite a complete lack of experimental
evidence to demonstrate life evolving from non-living elements through random
processes—something Tyson admits in Cosmos—maintains that life evolved through
natural processes. Tyson’s religion of evolution, despite a complete lack of
experimental evidence to demonstrate living organisms evolving into new, more
complex kinds of organisms, maintains that such natural processes produced the
biodiversity we see on the earth. Tyson, during the Cosmos series, directly attacks
biblical belief as ignorant superstition while praising the work of many Bible-
believing pioneers in science (like Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, William
Herschel, etc.) who sought to uncover the natural laws that they trusted their wise
Creator God would have put in place to govern the universe He created with
consistency, orderliness, and predictability.
Science Works Because God Created
Bible-believing scientists do not “substitute” their religion for science. But they
do trust that the universe they study using the tools of science was created by a
logical, wise God and that He has told us some things about His Creation in His
Word, the Bible. While it is possible and even common for fallible human beings to
misinterpret both scientific data and the written word, Bible-believing scientists
understand the correct interpretation of accurate scientific data will never
conflict the correctly interpreted (2 Timothy 2:15) Word of God.
The Word of the Creator God explains how the existence of consistent laws of
science only makes sense in the context of a universe created by God. God created
the laws of nature; they did not create themselves. Without those God-created
natural laws, the scientific method would be useless because experiments could
never be trusted to yield consistent results.
Predictions
In another Cosmos-related interview back in March, Tyson said: “If you start using
your scripture, your religious text as a source of your science, that’s where you
run into problems, and there is no example of someone reading their scripture and
saying ‘I have a prediction about the world that no one knows yet because this gave
me insight let’s go test this prediction and have that theory turn out to be
correct.’”2
Tyson, perhaps due to his prejudicial attitude toward biblical belief or perhaps
due to personal ignorance on the matter, was here discounting the extensive body of
scientifically confirmed predictions based on the Bible. Not only did many great
scientists of the past draw from a biblical worldview to discover scientific laws
and make great discoveries, modern scientists continue to do the same. A sampling
of Bible-based predictions that have led to scientific discoveries are discussed in
“Can Bible-Based Predictions Lead to Scientific Discoveries?”
Critical Thinking and Critical Motivation
While Answers in Genesis does not advocate requiring creationism be taught in
public schools, we do maintain that students and teachers who are allowed the
academic freedom to critically examine the claims of evolutionists will better
understand the distinction between worldview-based assumptions and observable
facts. Such critical thinking skills may, evolutionists fear, lead some students to
discern the opinion-based foundation of claims.
This understanding of science should make students better scientists. Perhaps they
will be equipped to avoid mistakes such as the presumption that certain human
organs are useless evolutionary vestiges of no use. Perhaps they will be better
equipped to see that a human embryo is not just an unborn animal to be culled at
will through abortion.
These are clearly academic advantages to allowing “a divine foot in the door”3 of
the science classroom rather than arbitrarily assuming that science cannot have had
a supernatural agent involved at the foundation of the orderly natural universe in
which we live. But the ultimate answer to Tyson’s question about the motivation of
Bible-believing Christians in caring about science education reaches beyond the
classroom to life, and beyond life in this world into eternity.
We believe all people should be allowed to hear the truth about how the biblical
account of our history actually fits the facts of observable science. We speak out
and write reviews and answer questions because evolutionary scientists loudly
proclaim that the Word of God is false, that the God of the Bible is nonexistent or
a liar, and that people who believe in them are intellectually inferior. They thus
place stumbling blocks (John 5:46–47) in the path of those who would eternally
benefit from faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, our Creator (Colossians 1:16–
17) and the Savior of all who repent and put the trust in Him for salvation from
sin and guilt.
Further Reading
* Two Kinds of Science?
* Should We Reject Science?
* Does Science Need God?
* Biblical Faith is Not “Blind”—It’s Supported by Good Science
* What Is Science?
* The Unbelievers Plan to Rid the World of God
* Cosmos Review: “When Knowledge Conquered Fear”
* Principles of Laws of Nature
* Evolution: The Anti-Science
* Evolution and Medicine
For More Information: Get Answers
________________

Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know
about it! (Note: if the story originates from the Associated Press, FOX News,
MSNBC, the New York Times, or another major national media outlet, we will most
likely have already heard about it.) And thanks to all of our readers who have
submitted great news tips to us. If you didn’t catch all the latest News to Know,
why not take a look to see what you’ve missed?
Footnotes
1. Though in this interview Tyson uses a general term, “religious philosophy,”
in many of the episodes he specifically targets Bible-believers with emphasis on
those who believe the earth is about 6,000 years old, i.e. young earth
creationists.
2. Billy Hallowell, “‘Cosmos’ TV Host Says Scripture Isn’t a Scientific Source:
‘Enlightened Religious People . . . Don’t Try to Use the Bible as a Textbook’,” The
Blaze, March 11, 2014, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/11/cosmos-host-says-
scripture-isnt-a-scientific-source-enlightened-religious-people-dont-try-to-use-
the-bible-as-a-textbook.
3. Evolutionist Richard Lewontin wrote:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the
key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its
constructs in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of
health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for
unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment
to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow
compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the
contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create
an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that
materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
From Richard Lewontin (Harvard University geneticist), “Billions & Billions of
Demons,” New York Times Book Reviews (9 Jan. 1997), p. 31 (italics in the
original). The review is of Carl Sagan’s book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as
a Candle in the Dark (Random House, 1997).
Science of Uncertainty
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on September 8, 2014
Share:
* *
*
“Science Is Not About Certainty” a noted theoretical physicist writes. For many
people that might be a startling claim.
Rovelli makes clear that the essence of science is gathering data and interpreting
that data in ways that are often insufficient, limited, and changeable.
Dr. Carlo Rovelli—one of the originators of “loop quantum gravity theory”—recently
published an article discussing the nature of science. The piece, called “Science
Is Not About Certainty,” makes some points that biblical creationists have been
pointing out for a long time.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
Physicist Rovelli is an evolutionist and does not in the piece explore his personal
religious beliefs (though he does disparage religious claims regarding certainty
and truth), but he makes some refreshingly honest points about science. For one
thing, Rovelli makes clear that the essence of science is gathering data and
interpreting that data in ways that are often insufficient, limited, and
changeable:
We have observations, we have data, data require organizing into theories. So then
we have theories. These theories are suggested or produced from the data somehow,
then checked in terms of the data. Then time passes, we have more data, theories
evolve, we throw away a theory, and we find another theory that’s better, a better
understanding of the data, and so on and so forth.
The data scientists observe must be interpreted, and Rovelli makes clear that a
scientist’s philosophy will affect the interpretation. “Since theories change, the
empirical content is the solid part of what science is,” he says. After bombastic
statements by so many evolutionists—such as Bill Nye in the Nye-Ham Debate or
representatives of the National Center for Science Education, who declare that
students should never be taught that “theories” like molecules-to-man evolution and
the big bang are at all controversial—the admission that scientific interpretations
of data are fallible, changeable, and influenced by philosophical understanding is
refreshing.
“The deepest misunderstanding about science,” Dr. Rovelli writes, “is the idea that
science is about certainty. Science is not about certainty. Science is about
finding the most reliable way of thinking at the present level of knowledge.
Science is extremely reliable; it’s not certain.” He then makes a statement that
runs contrary to the declarations of many evolutionary drumbeaters and media
pundits:
The very expression “scientifically proven” is a contradiction in terms. There’s
nothing that is scientifically proven. The core of science is the deep awareness
that we have wrong ideas, we have prejudices. We have ingrained prejudices.
Dr. Rovelli indicates that a scientist’s preconceived notions—prejudices about the
nature of reality—typically not only influence but even limit his interpretation of
data, even causing him to overlook important scientific truths, including
undiscovered major scientific principles.
When it comes to understanding the nature of the unobservable past, the
presuppositions or prejudices of scientists affect how they interpret data relevant
to our origins. If a scientist presupposes that nothing supernatural exists and is
willing to accept only naturalistic explanations for our origins, then that
scientist ignores an important part of reality—the Creator God—who created all that
exists, including the laws of nature—those laws of science that make experimental
science logical, repeatable, and predictable in the first place.
Evolutionary scientists, for instance, try to come up with naturalistic
explanations for the existence of diverse, complex forms of life and for life
itself even though biological science does not provide observational evidence to
support either abiogenesis or molecules-to-man evolution. By ignoring the role of
our Creator in the origin of life and all things, they are ignoring the reality
that makes origins make sense.
The Importance of Seeing the Big Picture
Dr. Rovelli also writes about the importance of being willing to change one’s
prejudices and how so doing can enable a scientist to see the big picture.
Scientists who thought “outside the box” like this included Einstein and Newton.
Rovelli indicates that their philosophy—their willingness to think outside the
normal understanding of the world—enabled them to discern hitherto unthought-of
scientific truths. Author of a book about Greek philosopher Anaximander—perhaps the
first scientist on record to describe correctly the earth as a sphere in space—Dr.
Rovelli points out that Anaximander had to change the way he thought about the
physical world in order to correctly understand it.
When Dr. Rovelli tries to explain the apparent conflict between “science” and
“religion,” he unfortunately forgets that evolutionary scientists are sadly not in
the habit of admitting that “scientific thinking is a constant reminder to us that
we don’t know the answers” (emphasis Rovelli’s). How often do we hear evolutionists
declare that they know molecules-to-man evolution (and abiogenesis, and the big
bang, and millions of years, and so forth) to be true? That only the details of how
these processes played out in the past remain to be discovered? Rovelli points out
that “religion” claims to “know” whereas science admits that it doesn’t know. By
that criterion, evolutionary science is much more religion than science.
For all his refreshing insight about the uncertainty of scientific theories and
interpretations, Dr. Rovelli seems to misunderstand the nature of the certainty
available in religion, or rather in biblical Christianity. The Bible is the
revelation of our Creator God to mankind. The eternal God of the Bible, our
Creator, was the eyewitness to all of history. Nothing that He has told us in His
Word contradicts the information, the data, gathered by experimental science. In
fact, it was faith that our Creator was wise, logical, and consistent that
motivated many Bible-believing scientists like Isaac Newton to search for the laws
of science, or the laws of nature, that God created to govern the universe He had
made.
The Bible Is Not a Science Textbook, But It Is True and Reliable
That is not to say, however, that biblical Christianity claims to supply all
scientific knowledge; such a claim would be silly. The Bible is not a science
textbook, and there is a vast amount of scientific knowledge to be gained about
ourselves, our world, and our universe. In fact, the scientific method is effective
because God created an orderly universe that functions in accord with the
scientific laws He put in place. Science works because God created! A biblical
understanding of Creation can even help scientists make predictions and avoid
erroneous thinking, such as the mistaken notion that some organs are useless
vestigial remnants of our supposed evolutionary past.
The history in the Bible—information concerning the Creation, the global Flood, and
the age of the earth, for instance—is a reliable yardstick by which to evaluate
many scientific theories and eliminate those that clearly violate God’s account of
our past. Worldview does affect how scientists interpret what they observe, and Dr.
Rovelli seems to recognize that, at least within limits.
“To sum up, science is not about data; it’s not about the empirical content,” Dr.
Rovelli writes. He encourages scientists to embrace philosophy, to allow their
“vision of the world” to expand. To acknowledge that “they [as scientists] have a
head full of ideas about what philosophy they’re using” whether they realize it or
not. He adds, “They’re taking a position without knowing that there are many other
possibilities around that might work much better and might be more interesting for
them.”
God . . . has left us an eyewitness account of our origins and the early history of
the earth in Genesis, a history that is consistent with the observable facts of
science.
The only true account of our origins is that provided by God in the Bible.
Therefore, the only worldview that can reliably guide scientists to conclusions
about our origin and nature that are actually true is one that does not violate
biblical history—the yardstick by which to assess ideas relevant to the
unobservable past. If only all scientists wishing to explain our origins would
allow their vision to include an understanding that the physical universe was
brought into being by a Creator God, a God who has left us an eyewitness account of
our origins and the early history of the earth in Genesis, a history that is
consistent with the observable facts of science.
National Geographic Accuses AiG of Doubting Science
by Avery Foley on March 3, 2015
Also available in Español
Share:
* *
*
The well-known international science magazine National Geographic mentioned the
Creation Museum in the March 2015 issue, though not in a flattering way. The
article, “The Age of Disbelief,” bemoans, “Skepticism of science is on the rise,
and polarization is the order of the day. What’s causing reasonable people to doubt
reason?” Although this article mocks those who do not accept conventional
scientific interpretations—including biological evolution—what such an article
shows is that Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum are being noticed enough
to put us in an international publication! But how accurate are the claims made in
this article?
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
Science vs. Uninformed Belief?
National Geographic sent a world-class photographer to the Creation Museum for two
days to take photos of our exhibits. For the print edition of the magazine, only
one of these photos was used. Under this glossy full-page photo of one of our
Garden of Eden exhibits it says the following:
At the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, Adam and Eve share Paradise with a
dinosaur. Young-Earth creationists believe the planet was created with fully
functioning adult humans less than 10,000 years ago. Science holds that Earth is
4.6 billion years old, that all life evolved from microbes, and that modern humans
first appeared 200,000 years ago—65 million years after dinosaurs died out.1
The article seems to stage the debate as science versus uninformed belief. But the
debate is not science versus belief—it’s one interpretation of the evidence versus
another interpretation! The article itself actually hints at this later on when it
quotes the editor of the journal Science: “Science is not a body of facts. . . .
Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in
the laws of nature or not” (40). Most people view science simply as a set of facts
that can only lead to one conclusion. But this is simply not true. When we talk
about science, we usually mean a method of looking at the data and drawing a
conclusion from it. Sometimes this conclusion is straightforward and fairly self-
evident. But the presuppositions of the researcher may determine how they interpret
the evidence, especially when trying to understand how things happened in the past.
This is because there are actually two different kinds of science.
Adam, Eve, and a Dinosaur

This photograph of a Creation Museum exhibit, similar to the photograph in National

Geographic, depicts Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden with a dinosaur.
Two Different Kinds of Science
Science can either be observational or historical. Observational science deals with
the present and involves the use of the scientific method where a process or
condition can be tested, observed, and repeated. It’s observational science that
put man on the moon, developed vaccines, and made computers and cell phones
possible. Historical science, on the other hand, deals with the past—things like
the origin of life and the age of the universe. Since the past is now in the past
we can’t directly test, repeat, or observe what happened. We can only observe what
we have in the present. So what you believe about the past makes a huge difference
in how you interpret the evidence in the present through historical science. The
evidence doesn’t speak for itself; it must be interpreted.
Two Views of the Past
There are only two views about the past: man’s ideas and God’s Word. Secular
scientists and, sadly, even many Christian scientists, start with man’s ideas about
the past. By far the most popular version of man’s ideas about the past is
evolution over millions of years. This evolutionary history begins with the
theoretical big bang, which led to the evolution of stars and planets, continues
through the evolution of Earth itself, and follows to the biological evolution of
life on Earth. This history is written by fallible scientists, who weren’t there
when these events happened, trying to understand what happened in the past. But the
Bible contains an entirely different account of history. According to the Bible,
God created the entire universe, including Earth and life on it, fully formed and
functioning in six, literal, 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago. This original
world was destroyed by a global Flood about 4,350 years ago because of man’s
wickedness. Because they start with radically different ideas about the past,
biblical creationists and evolutionists will reach entirely different conclusions
when they examine the evidence. This idea is confirmed by Dan Kahan, a Yale
researcher, who is quoted in the article saying that people “use scientific
knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their worldview”
(44). This is as true of scientists as it is of the general public.
Climate Change Deniers?
This article demonstrates the importance of worldview in science in a discussion of
climate change. Achenbach, the article’s author, states that drastic and
potentially devastating man-made climate change is a reality but that many people
deny this. He also writes in his article that “scientists love to debunk one
another,” but he then goes on to bemoan that, in relation to climate change, “the
news media give abundant attention to such mavericks, naysayers, professional
controversialists, and table thumpers” (41). Many of these “mavericks” are
scientists who are just following the scientific process of falsification.
Shouldn’t they be allowed to present their research without being labeled
“mavericks” for simply disagreeing with the radical claims of some climate change
scientists and government leaders? He is being hypocritical in his contention that
scientists can and should continue to do research and debunk each other, but that
they can’t do this if it goes against what Achenbach accepts as truth. The reason
for this contradiction is because the battle is not over the evidence—it’s over the
interpretation of the evidence!
Now, creationists do not deny climate change, but since we start with a completely
different picture of Earth’s past we reach an entirely different conclusion about
the causes, severity, and dangers of climate change.
The Worldview Battle Rages On
Achenbach then goes on to say, “Scientific results are always provisional,
susceptible to being overturned by some future experiment or observation.
Scientists rarely proclaim an absolute truth or absolute certainty. Uncertainty is
inevitable at the frontiers of knowledge” (41) and “scientists can be as dogmatic
as anyone else—but their dogma is always wilting in the hot glare of new research.
In science it’s not a sin to change your mind when the evidence demands it.” (47).
This is generally true unless, of course, you are overturning major tenets of
biological evolution or the interpretation of millions of years in the rock layers.
The article states, “ . . . evolution actually happened. Biology is
incomprehensible without it. There aren’t really two sides to all these issues”
(47). What Achenbach and many secular scientists are saying is that if you question
evolution or long ages, then you aren’t a scientist regardless of your credentials
or the quality of your research.
This highlights that the creation versus evolution debate is not about the
evidence. It’s a battle between two differing worldviews. The predominant worldview
in the scientific community is that of naturalism and materialism—only natural
explanations involving matter and energy can be accepted as true. Many scientists
will outright reject any interpretation of the evidence that doesn’t fit into their
naturalistic beliefs, beliefs held with religious fervor. Because their
naturalistic presuppositions automatically discredit any supernatural
interpretation of the evidence for events like the origin of life, they discount
the biblical explanation of such events from the past. Science is not an unbiased
undertaking. What you believe about the past and whether you start with man’s word
or God’s Word determines how you interpret the evidence.
They Have No Basis for Science!
Ultimately, there are only two worldviews. So which worldview, man’s ideas or God’s
Word, best explains what we see in the world around us? Certainly God’s Word! In
fact, in order for anyone to even be able to do science, the Bible has to be true.
Without the Bible, it isn’t even possible to do science! You see, in order to do
science we have to assume that the universe is logical and orderly and that the
laws of nature and logic will operate the same way tomorrow as they do today. But
in a completely material, purposeless universe (like evolutionists propose) why
should there be any order and why should immaterial laws of nature govern an
entirely material universe? In a naturalistic worldview, there is no reason why
this should be!
But, when you start with the Bible, you get a completely different picture. The
universe is not entirely material. Immaterial laws of nature and an orderly
universe can exist because the universe is not random. It was purposefully designed
by the Creator, the triune God of the Bible, who does not change (Hebrews 13:8; cf.
Malachi 3:6) and who upholds the universe in a consistent manner (Genesis 8:22;
Hebrews 1:3). Since He does not change, we should expect the creation that He
upholds to remain orderly. In order to even do science, we have to assume the Bible
is true!
Also, while this National Geographic article says “modern biology makes no sense
without the concept of evolution” (35) and that “biology is incomprehensible
without it,” what we know from biology actually confirms a biblical worldview and
creates significant problems for an evolutionary one. For example, the law of
biogenesis states that life only comes from life. Everything that we have ever
observed in biology supports this idea—that’s why it’s a scientific law. And, yet,
according to naturalistic biological evolution, life had to arise at least once
from non-living chemicals. The evolutionary idea of the origin of life goes
completely against what we observe in biology. But the law of biogenesis is
perfectly consistent with a biblical worldview. Life came from the Life-Giver and
therefore there never was a time when life had to arise from non-life. Scientific
observations from biology confirm biblical creation—not evolution.
So Do Creationists Deny Science?
Creationists don’t deny science. We love science! Our Creation Museum is full of
scientific ideas and applications, including high-tech animatronic dinosaurs! What
we do deny is the worldview-based assumption that the universe and life are the
result of chance, random processes over millions of years. Instead of starting with
man’s fallible, changing interpretation of historical science, we start with God’s
infallible, unchanging Word. And when we interpret the evidence through the lens of
God’s Word, what we see in the world makes sense. Science confirms the Bible!

Mystick Mystery: Scientists Investigate Connecticut’s Pequot War Battlefield

News to Know
by James J. S. Johnson on July 8, 2015
Featured in Answers in Depth
Share:
* *
*
The Pequot War in New England, during 1636–1637, climaxed in a morning firefight at
Fort Mystick, in Connecticut.1 What really happened there? The explosive battle
began and ended quickly, with many dead or wounded, some captured (and enslaved)—
and many questions linger about who did what, when, where, how, and why.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick Answers to Common Questions about the Bible.
DOWNLOAD NOW
The historic battle of Fort Mystick involved Puritans, Pequots, Narragansetts, and
Mohegans.2 The site still bears silent witness to the triumphant yet tragic events
of that day, providing physical evidence that forensic scientists can analyze for
demonstrative clues.
The most extensive [forensic/archeological] work undertaken by the Battlefields
Project has involved retracing the fateful events of May 25 and 26, 1637,
surrounding the fortified Pequot settlement at Mistick (modern Mystic,
Connecticut). When English forces stormed the village’s wooden palisades, it was to
be the major turning point in the Pequot War, shifting the balance of power in
southern New England permanently in English favor.3
Mystick Battle Engraving

Examining the battlefield of Fort Mystick, almost 400 years later, can illustrate
both the value and limitations of forensic science, showcasing some apologetics
lessons relevant to origins science and the Genesis record.
Scientific Approach #1: Guessing at Causation Events by Examining Only Physical
Evidence
Suppose the battlefield was observed using the fundamental empirical science
technique: observation. Indeed, observation is the heart of the so-called
“scientific method.” What could be learned, by careful inspection and measurements,
on the Fort Mystick battlefield? What kind of inspection can be done, at this late
hour, to know what transpired during the conflict involving hundreds of English
colonists and various local native tribes? What artifacts (physical items) remain,
that help us to understand what occurred that morning in May?
Mystick Map

Archeologists use various investigative methods to analyze historic sites, such as

military battlefields. A complete “walkover” supplemented by satellite maps (and
topographical maps, if elevation differences are significant), can provide an
introduction to the land where the events occurred. The specific property where the
battle took place is micro-mapped into a grid system, so that each square foot of
property can be analyzed as to what is found (or not found) there. Invasive methods
(such as excavation) can be minimized by remote sensing and metal detection
technology, to locate the wood-in-soil remains of the Pequot tribe’s “fortress
fence” palisade—and to locate miscellaneous items under the soil, such as buried
arrowheads or musket balls.4 Soil testing may also reveal clues of past
activities.5
Mystick Metal Detection

The physical topography of the site is relevant to the actions of that fateful day.
Did soldiers move uphill or downhill? Would troop movements be affected by the
presence of rivers, streams, woods, or jagged rock formations? Assuming military
movements, what were the key terrains, strategic observation points,
cover/concealment places, obstacles to movement, and avenues of approach (such as
palisade openings for ingress and egress)?6
Mystick Woods

What artifacts were found in the soil? Round musket balls and deformed
(“mushroomed”) musket balls are miniature monuments to the shooting activities of
the Connecticut Puritans. Arrowheads, spearheads, and tomahawk fragments are
artifacts evidencing the actions of Pequots, Narragansetts, and Mohegans. Sometimes
fragments of muskets, such as broken trigger mechanisms, are found in the soil. Why
would muskets get broken like that?
More questions invite answers—such as why would arrowheads be found all over the
battle site, both inside and outside the fort’s palisade walls? In reconstructing
the history of the battle, does it make sense to infer that the Pequot Indians (who
fought from inside the fort) were both shooting arrows at the attacking English
Puritans and being shot by arrows as well? Surely English Puritans were not
shooting arrows at Pequots! Yet the location of arrowheads appears to indicate that
the Pequots inside (and sometimes exiting from) the fort’s palisade walls were
being shot by arrows.7 What was going on back then?
If only physical evidence is available—observable in the present—we cannot make
much sense (i.e., have a reliable understanding) of what really happened there on
May 26, 1637.8
Mystick Fort

What was going on back then?

Why were some musket balls round, yet others deformed? Why are broken bits of
muskets left in the soil? Why were defending Pequot warriors being shot by arrows?
If the only evidence available is presently observable physical evidence, the
limitations of empirical science provide a dead-end to most of these causation
questions.9
But forensic science methodology, when applied to analyze no-longer-observable
events of the past, is not so limited, because forensic science analysis
incorporates reliable eyewitness testimony. And the reports of past events, by
reliable eyewitnesses,10 are what provide a trustworthy framework for recognizing
the logical connection between present effects and past causes.
Scientific Approach #2: Matching Physical Effects to Causation Reports by
Eyewitnesses
Unlike the prior investigation, limited to physical evidence only, now consider a
forensic approach where the physical evidences are analyzed to corroborate (i.e.,
“fit”) the eyewitness accounts, and thus compared with the physical evidence at the
scene to see if the eyewitness reports are buttressed or impeached by the physical
evidences.
Using [Captain] Mason’s written journal, the boundaries of the fort, and the
artifact distribution pattern and analysis, archaeologists have been able to
ascertain the sequence of events of the Battle of Mystick Fort.11
Consider how participants in the Fort Mystick battle reported the events that
occurred there, noting the excitement and duress of shooting muskets while being
showered with countervailing arrows and spears. Some musketeers spilled musket
balls, while trying to load them for shooting. Those musket balls fell to the
ground, still round in shape. Musket balls that were shot, however, and entered
human bodies, deformed on impact, so eyewitness accounts of Pequots being shot
provide a logical explanation for the causation of “mushroomed” musket balls.
Mystick Musket Balls

But what explains where arrows were found? Battle participants all concur that the
battle was not limited to English Puritans versus Pequot tribesmen. Rather, the
Pequots had many enemies, so the attacking force was composed more of Narragansetts
and Mohegans than it was of Englishmen.12
It is this integration of eyewitness reports and physical evidence that provides a
forensic picture of the past.
In other words, Narragansett arrows and Mohegan arrows were being shot at Pequot
defenders, and vice versa, in addition to English musket balls. Eyewitness reports
also account for the broken musket parts, which became soil debris recovered
centuries later. When ammunition was exhausted, hand-to-hand combat occurred—
tomahawks chopping muskets, as muskets were swung as clubs or as defensive staffs
(to ward off tomahawk chops and dagger jabs). It is this integration of eyewitness
reports and physical evidence that provides a forensic picture of the past.
Mystick Musket Part

Mystick Arrowhead

The position of the English forces could be gleaned, in part, by the presence of
intact musket balls, which were frequently dropped [as eye-witness accounts
indicated] as soldiers attempted to reload and fire quickly under duress.
Additionally, the direction of the attacking volley could be identified by
concentrations of melted or impacted shot, which deform as they hit targets. In
similar fashion, by analyzing the pattern of Pequot projectile points [e.g.,
arrowheads or spearheads, that remain in the soil centuries after those projectiles
were launched], the archaeologists were able to surmise the direction and movement
of the Pequot forces. Large concentrations of metal artifacts other than musket
balls, such as broken gun parts or armor, indicated areas where hand-to-hand combat
likely took place [which “fit” the action described later by battle
participants].13
Apart from divine intervention, eyewitnesses’ perceptions and memories are finite
and fallible, so their reports can be flawed (or, if dishonesty complicates the
reporting) even fabricated. Accordingly, comparing controversial witness reports
with physical evidences—without automatically trusting every detail in an
eyewitness report—is a worthwhile endeavor to reconstruct how a series of
sequential events occurred in the past.14
In short, the eyewitness reports provide a potential explanation of cause-and-
effect happenings, and that explanation either fits the physical effect facts or it
doesn’t.
According to trail-blazing forensic scientist Edmond Locard, “every contact leaves
a trace” although caused effects can be obliterated by later “contaminations” of
the physical evidence.15 However, without an eyewitness report, as a testimonial
framework to match physical effects (as either “fit” or “misfit”) to, the physical
evidences themselves become mere fodder for unscientific speculations.16 Physical
evidences are especially helpful for testing the reliability of a witness report,
by corroborating or impeaching the plausibility and accuracy of the reported facts,
because physical facts (like fingerprints or DNA) can serve as an “inferential
rebuttal” (e.g., disproving an alibi story).17
Mystick Burning Huts

Mystick Battle

Forensic Science Lessons, Relevant for Studying Origins Science and the Genesis
Record
If a closed-Bible approach is taken to studying origins, unscientific speculations
run riot.
This need for (and value of) eyewitness testimony applies to investigating and
understanding our origins. If a closed-Bible approach is taken to studying origins,
unscientific speculations run riot.18 After all, the physical creation—including
complex life-forms that die—can confuse the present-day observer, who tries to
reconcile designed beauty and complexity in living things (which exhibits
intelligent engineering beyond human imaginations, much more so beyond human
capabilities) with the tragic and ugly realities of parasitism, predation, and
death.19
In short, the atheist and the deist—both of whom try to explain the physical
effects of Earth’s origin (as well as the origins of life-forms, and even our own
origin) apart from Scripture—are guaranteed to err on major cause-and-effect
questions, such as how was physical stuff made to exist; how was life caused to be;
how did humans become male or female; how did death originate; how did the habit of
observing a seven-day week begin; how did the reports of a universal Flood get
started; how did human languages come into being; and so on.20
Your origins matter. And you cannot know your origins without studying Genesis
(which is the perfectly reliable eyewitness report of our origins, provided by the
divine Eyewitness Himself)—and believing—its report about the no-longer-observable
past.21 It is only an open-Bible approach to studying physical evidences that makes
sense of both the big-picture and the details of our origins.
Mystick Putting Ashore

Previous Article
Trillions of “Artifacts”—Who’s Really Got the Problem?
Next Article
Rewinding Evolution from Bird Beak to Dinosaur Snout
Answers in Depth
2015 Volume 10
2015 Volume 10
BROWSE VOLUME
The author expresses thanks to Matthew Hughes for his contribution to the accuracy
of the historical details in this article.
Footnotes
1. Jason Urbanus, “America’s First War: Uncovering Evidence of a Little Known
Colonial-Era Conflict that Forever Altered the Dynamics of Native American and
European Relations in North America” Archaeology, January–February 2015, 32–37.
2. Ibid.; John Winthrop, The Journal of John Winthrop 1630-1649 (Harvard
University Press, 1996 abridged ed.), 122–123; William Bradford, Of Plymouth
Plantation 1620-1647 (Alfred A. Knopf, 1989), 295–296, 396–398. See also Henry R.
Stiles, The History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor, Connecticut – 1635-1891
(Picton Press, 1992), I:69 & II:50; Donald S. Barber, The Connecticut Barbers, 2nd
ed. (n.d.), Part 1, entry for First Generation, Sgt. Thomas Barber (“The Pequot War
in 1637”). Donald Barber (of ICR) contributed much to this historical research.
3. Urbanus, “America’s First War.”
4. Ibid.
5. Jennifer Bonetti and Lawrence Quarino, “Comparative Forensic Soil Analysis
of New jersey State Parks Using a Combination of Simple Techniques with
Multivariate Statistics” Journal of Forensic Science, 59, no. 3 (May 2014): 627–
636.
6. The Military Terrain Analysis model uses the acronym KOCOA: Key terrain,
Observation, Cover and concealment, Obstacles, Avenues of approach.
7. Urbanus, “America’s First War.”
8. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 401-403. See also James J. S. Johnson,
“Genesis Critics Flunk Forensic Science 101” Acts & Facts, 41, no. 3 (March 2012):
8–9, especially at endnote 9, posted at www.icr.org/article/Genesis-critics-flunk-
forensic-science; James J. S. Johnson, “Tonsils, Forensic Science, and the Recent
Fabrication Rule” Acts & Facts, 41, no. 6 (June 2012): 8–9.
9. Ibid.; Urbanus, “America’s First War.”
10. Ibid.
11. Urbanus, “America’s First War.”
12. See footnote 2.
13. Urbanus, “America’s First War.”
14. See footnote 8.
15. Jim Fraser, Forensic Science, A Very Short Introduction (Oxford
University Press, 2010), 2.
16. Unlike the usual need to test the verisimilitude of eyewitness reports,
the Bible is perfect and inerrant, so there is no excuse for committing what Dr.
Jason Lisle has aptly labeled the “two-book fallacy” because the Scripture always
provided accurate and undistorted coverage of the history it reports. See Jason
Lisle, “The Two-Book Fallacy” Acts & Facts, 42, no. 1 (January 2013): 9, posted at
www.icr.org/article/two-book-fallacy. See also James J. S. Johnson, “What Good Are
Experts?” Acts & Facts, 41, no. 11 (November 2012): 8–10, posted at
www.icr.org/article/7073. See also footnote 8.
17. The forensic relevance of “inferential rebuttals” is analyzed in
Richardson I.S.D. v. Watkins, TEA Docket # 025-LH-1207 (Texas CIHE decision, 2-1-
AD2008), Part IV. Regarding impeachment exhibits, see Dallas I.S.D. v. Gali, TEA
Docket # 029-LH-1205 (Texas CIHE decision, 2-17-AAD2006), applying Texas Evidence
Rule 901.
18. Bill Cooper, “The Calendar and the Antiquity of Genesis” Acts & Facts,
38, no. 6 (June 2009): 19, posted at www.icr.org/article/calendar-antiquity-
genesis; James J. S. Johnson, “Is the Present the Key to our Past?” Acts & Facts,
43, no. 6 (June 2014): 19, posted at www.icr.org/article/8165; James J. S. Johnson,
“The Failed Apologetic of the Wedge Strategy” Acts & Facts, 40, no. 8 (August
2011): 10–11, posted at www.icr.org/article/failed-apologetic-wedge-strategy. See
also footnotes 8 and 16.
19. James J. S. Johnson, “Human Suffering; Why This Is Not the ‘Best of All
Possible Worlds,’” Acts & Facts, 40, no. 11 (November 2011): 8–10, posted at
www.icr.org/article/6415; James J. S. Johnson, “People Yet to Be Created” Acts
&Facts, 43, no. 11 (November 2014): 20, posted at www.icr.org/article/8377. See
also footnotes 8 and 16.
20. See footnote 18.
21. See footnote 19.
Evolution Won’t Heal
Apologetics
by Dr. Tommy Mitchell on October 1, 2013; last featured January 31, 2016
Featured in Answers Magazine
Also available in Español
AUDIO VERSION
Share:
* *
*
Today we constantly hear warnings that evolution is necessary for science. Without
evolution, modern medicine wouldn’t be possible. Oh, really? Rather than speaking
in generalities, let’s consider some specific examples.
Do you need to believe in evolution to be a good physician? Some claim that belief
in evolution is necessary to truly understand science. They assert that evolution
is the basis of biology and therefore of medicine—the ultimate in applied
biological science. And they claim that acceptance of amoeba-to-man evolution is
the key to understanding disease and the foundation of medical breakthroughs.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
Experimental science, however, involves making observations, developing and testing
hypotheses, and devising possible solutions for the world’s medical and
environmental challenges. These activities do not rely on acceptance of untestable
beliefs about the origin of life. In fact, evolutionary beliefs historically have
led many doctors astray. The belief that some organs are useless vestigial
leftovers, for example, resulted in removal of countless healthy appendixes despite
evidence that the appendix serves as part of the immune system.
Evolution also does not help us combat bacterial disease. Antibiotic resistance is
falsely touted as evolution in action. Ordinary genetic mechanisms are at work when
antibiotic-resistant bacteria become dominant in populations exposed to
antibiotics, but the bacteria do not evolve into non-bacteria or even into new
kinds of bacteria. The survival of resistant bacteria is not evolution. The
mistaken notion that bacteria are evolving and producing new genetic material has
not helped physicians in their fight against the infections that ravage humanity.
Treating birth defects is another area where evolution does not help. The respected
Johns Hopkins surgeon Benjamin Carson, who does not accept evolution, is an expert
in craniofacial defects. Attributing embryological processes that produce birth
defects to some sort of evolutionary aberration would not improve Dr. Carson’s
ability to treat them at all.
In fact, understanding why there is disease requires acceptance of biblical truth.
Disease and death entered God’s perfect creation because Adam and Eve sinned.
Destructive mutations, degenerative processes, developmental abnormalities, and
deadly accidents are the legacy of sin, not allegedly “bad designs” by God or
“wrong turns” in evolution.
A physician who truly understands that God is the author of life is best equipped
to make ethical decisions rooted in the sanctity of human life. In contrast,
evolutionary dogma extols “survival of the fittest,” so from an evolutionary point
of view, doctors aren’t doing humanity any favors by helping the weak to survive.
The concept of helping the infirm is, however, consistent with Christianity, a
manifestation of Christian morality and Christian love. Thus not only is belief in
evolution not needed to be a good physician, evolutionary dogma stands in
opposition to the heart of good medical practice.
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, a fellow of the American College of Physicians, earned his MD
from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and practiced medicine for over 20
years. He is now a speaker for Answers in Genesis–USA.
Is Scientific Research Flawed?
by Callie Joubert on July 22, 2016
Share:
* *
*
We tend to think of science as a dispassionate (impartial, neutral) search for
truth and certainty. But is it possible that we are facing a situation in which
there is a massive production of wrong information or distortion of information? Is
it possible that certain scientific disciplines are facing a crisis of credibility?
Mounting evidence suggests this is indeed the case, which raises two questions: How
serious is the problem? And what could explain this?
FREE Bible Guide
Quick Answers to Common Questions about the Bible.
DOWNLOAD NOW
How Serious Is the Problem?
Recent articles in First Things,1 The Week,2 and New Scientist3 present evidence
that warrants the conclusion that flawed scientific research results are
widespread.
The title of an editorial in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, dated
April 6, 2002, asks the question, “Just How Tainted Has Medicine Become?”4 The
article states, “Heavily, and damagingly so, is the answer.” Among other things, in
2001, researchers completed experiments with biotechnology products in which they
had a direct financial interest and doctors did not tell their patients that others
had died using these products when safer alternatives were available. In the same
journal, dated April 11, 2015, Dr. Richard Horton stated the gravity of the problem
as follows: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific
literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue . . . science has taken a turn
towards darkness.”5
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature,
perhaps half, may simply be untrue . . . science has taken a turn towards darkness.
In 2004, under the heading of “Depressing Research,” the editor of The Lancet had
this to say about antidepressants for children: “The story of research into
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) use in childhood depression is one of
confusion, manipulation, and institutional failure. . . . In a global medical
culture where evidence-based practice is seen as the gold standard for care, these
failings [i.e., of the USA Food and Drug Administration to act on information
provided to them about the harmful effects of these drugs on children] are a
disaster.”6 After being editor of the New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years,
Dr. Marcia Angell stated that “physicians can no longer rely on the medical
literature for valid and reliable information.”7 She referred to a study of 74
clinical trials of antidepressants that indicates that 37 of 38 positive studies
were published. In contrast, 33 of the 36 negative studies were either not
published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome. She also
mentions the fact that drug companies are financing “most clinical research on the
prescription drugs, and there is mounting evidence that they often skew the
research they sponsor to make their drugs look better and safer.”
In 2011, researchers at Bayer decided to test 67 recent drug discoveries on
preclinical cancer biology research. In more than 75 percent of cases, the
published data did not match their attempts to replicate them.8 In 2012, a study
published in Nature announced that only 11 percent of the sampled preclinical
cancer studies coming out of the academic pipeline were replicable.9
In the prestigious Science journal, in 2015, the Open Science Collaboration10
presented a study of 100 psychological research studies that 270 contributing
authors tried to replicate. An astonishing 65 percent failed to show any
statistical significance on replication, and many of the remainder showed greatly
reduced effect sizes. In plain terms, evidence for original findings is weak.
A discovery in physics, the hardest of all hard sciences, is usually thought of as
the most reliable in the world of science. However, two of the most vaunted physics
results of the past few years—“cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the
BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal
neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border—have now been retracted, with far less
fanfare than when they were first published.”11
These examples are just the tip of the iceberg,12 and they indicate, in the words
of Dr. Horton (quoted earlier), “that something has gone fundamentally wrong with
one of our greatest human creations.”13 So let us turn to the next question.
What Could Explain This?
First, although replication (confirmation) is essential for maintaining scientific
credibility, there are many reasons that studies fail to replicate (for example,
when there was a difference in initial conditions [experimental set-up] and
theoretical understanding between the original investigators and the failed
replication, or when the original discovery and interpretation was false). The
problem becomes exacerbated when, “in most scientific fields, the vast majority of
the collected data, protocols, and analyses are not available and/or disappear soon
after or even before publication.”14 It is often forgotten that small errors can
have large effects. In 2013, three years after two economists from Harvard
University published research showing that when a country’s debt reaches more than
90 percent of GDP there is an associated plunge in economic growth, a student from
the University of Massachusetts ran into trouble when he tried to replicate their
findings. He found they “had made several mistakes including a coding error in
their spreadsheet.”15 Nevertheless, the observations of the economists had a major
impact on the public policy debate.
Second, career aspirations and yearning for prestige, competition between
researchers and for limited resources, commercial gain (the profit motive) that
leads to selective reporting, the fixing of “small errors” so that it appears to
have a more favorable result, and deliberate fraud are impossible to deny.16 One
well-known problem with statistical analysis, the practice commonly known as “p-
hacking”—collecting or selecting data until non-significant results become
significant—is especially rife among the biological sciences.17 Another problem is
the “tuning” of models that scientists use to explain the phenomena they observe.
For example, “According to some estimates, three-quarters of published scientific
papers in the field of machine learning are bunk because of this ‘overfitting’.”19
Taken together, these problems make it difficult to decide what to accept as
evidence and what not to accept.
A third explanation relates to the peer review process. It is “deadly effective at
suppressing criticism of a dominant research paradigm.”19 It means, among other
things, that results that contradict previous results may be suppressed and the
dissemination of false dogma perpetuated. But can science enlarge our understanding
of phenomena when transparency, critical thinking, and questioning of central
tenets are rigorously restricted?
Evidence does not “speak for itself”; research results are not interpreted from a
neutral point of view.
A fourth way to explain flawed scientific results relates to the researcher’s
presuppositions that influence their interpretation of research results. This is
hardly ever discussed in the official research literature, and when it is
acknowledged as a problem, the reader is left in the dark as to what exactly that
means. Dr. Horton is illustrative when he states that “scientists too often sculpt
data to fit their preferred theory of the world [i.e., worldview].” This means that
we think about the world and ourselves against a background or on the basis of some
conceptual scheme or framework of beliefs. This has at least one implication:
evidence does not “speak for itself”; research results are not interpreted from a
neutral point of view.
There is another “background assumption that almost all practitioners in the
biomedical sciences agree upon and that is naturalism.”20 Naturalism is problematic
because human problems are often reconceptualized and subsequently described in
terms that are consistent with the evolution story but otherwise in conflict with
alternative perspectives. The following is just one example.
According to Laurence Tancredi,21 psychiatrist/lawyer and professor of psychiatry
at New York University, “Morality begins in the brain." He says that "new
developments in neuroscience” have altered our concept of deception, abuse,
manipulation, uncontrollable sexual desires, greed, murder, theft, infidelity—of
every possible sin and immoral act related to the Ten Commandments—“into problems
of brain biology.” What we consider as sins or moral transgressions actually
“created an evolutionary advantage during certain early phases of man’s
development.” For instance, “The compulsion to eat . . . had the advantage of
holding people over during periods of famine. Women having ‘extramarital’ affairs
resulted in children, which increased genetic diversity. Even homicide, during
periods of limited resources, ensured the survival of some over others.” In sum, he
says, “Morality in humans evolved from other primates and depends on the brain.”
In the first place, chimps often deceive, manipulate, and kill one another, but no
neuroscientist has ever suggested they suffer from “problems of brain biology.”
Thus, what we are presented with is a bizarre form of logic: chimps that deceive,
manipulate, and kill have no brain problems, but humans who do these things have
these problems. Yet by the same logic, the cannibalism, infidelity, and murder that
were not sins of our alleged ancestors are also now not sins for us because these
things are brain problems. Tancredi’s evolutionary and neuroscientific explanation
of immoral conduct has the next bizarre implication: those who will one day “appear
before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in
the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10)
will be people with brain problems.
Tancredi’s account of morality may have two unintended consequences. On the one
hand, it may lead Christians to think anew the Bible's teaching, the causes of
wrongdoing, the place of praise, blame, responsibility in their moral practices,
and the treatment of wrongdoers. On the other hand, if morality “begins in the
brain,” then it may lead researchers, who falsify and suppress negative evidence in
order to deceive others, to think that they have brain problems. And if that is
science, then it is ludicrous, to say the least.
Concluding Remarks
To conclude this brief overview of the explanations of flawed scientific results, I
wish to make four points. Firstly, it is always good to ask whose interest the
research would serve, when, for example, a scientist claims that “the soul is dead”
and that it “is what modern neuroscience promises to deliver.”22
Secondly, the aim of a conceptual analysis is to show that the articulation of a
scientific explanation is in some way incoherent, that it is logically and
conceptually unintelligible, that an explanation of some property is inappropriate,
or that a question being asked of the object being investigated is unintelligible.
Thus, when empirical problems are addressed without adequate conceptual clarity,
misconceived questions and goals are bound to be raised, and misdirected research
is likely to ensue.
Thirdly, many scientists are able to see that the goal of science is the seeking
and presentation of truth, and that any deviation from this goal adversely affects
our lives; but they refuse to accept that the scientific method is only one source
of truth among others. What need serious reevaluation are the naturalistic
materialist and the biological reductionist worldview that dominates the academia;
it is a wholly misguided conceptual framework for the articulation and explanation
of human origins, personal and interpersonal problems, and how it may be rectified.
Finally, if scientific evidence is the basis of scientific authority, then critique
of that authority is unavoidable to those who are able to see through the
interpretations and explanations of the research results. Close scrutiny of
interpretations and explanations is, therefore, imperative when trust in scientific
authority is to lead to ontological, epistemological, and moral guidance in our
lives.
You May Also Like
* Is Historical Science Useful?
* Is Historical Science Useful? * Galileo & Creation in Early Modern
Science
* Galileo & Creation in Early Modern Science * Doesn’t Science
Disprove the Bible
 * Doesn’t Science Disprove the Bible Footnotes
1. William A. Wilson, “Scientific Regress,” First Things,
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress.
2. Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, “Big Science is Broken,” The Week, April 18,
2016, http://theweek.com/articles/618141/big-science-broken.
3. Sonia van Guilder Cooke, “Why So Much Science Research Is Flawed—and
What to Do About It,” New Scientist, April 13, 2016,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030690-500-why-so-much-science-research-is-
flawed-and-what-to-do-about-it/.
4. “Just How Tainted Has Medicine Become?,” The Lancet 359, no. 9313
(2002): 1167.
5. Richard Horton, “Offline: What Is Medicine’s 5 Sigma?,” The Lancet 385,
no. 9976 (2015): 1380.
6. “Depressing Research,” The Lancet 363, no. 9418 (2004): 1335.
7. Marcia Angell, “Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research: A Broken System,”
JAMA 300, no. 9 (2008): 1069–1070.
8. William A. Wilson, “Scientific Regress.”
9. C. Glenn Begley and Lee M. Ellis, “Drug Development: Raise Standards
for Preclinical Cancer Research,” Nature 483 (2012): 531–533.
10. Open Science Collaboration, “Estimating the Reproducibility of
Psychological Science,” Science 349, no. 6251 (2015): 1–8.
11. William A. Wilson, “Scientific Regress.”
12. John P. A. Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are
False,” PLoS Medicine 2, no. 8 (2005): 696–701.
13. Presumably Dr. Horton is referring generally to scientific research.
Richard Horton, “Offline: What Is Medicine’s 5 Sigma?”
14. John P. A. Ioannidis, “Why Science Is Not Necessarily Self-
Correcting,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, no. 6 (2012): 646.
15. Sonia van Guilder Cooke, “Why So Much Science Research Is Flawed—and
What to Do About It.”
16. William A. Wilson, “Scientific Regress.”
17. Sonia van Guilder Cooke, “Why So Much Science Research Is Flawed—and
What to Do About It.”
18. “Trouble at the Lab,” The Economist, October 19, 2013,
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-
correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble.
19. William A. Wilson, “Scientific Regress.”
20. James A. Marcum, Humanizing Modern Medicine: An Introductory
Philosophy of Medicine (London, United Kingdom: Springer, 2008), 23.
21. Laurence Tancredi, Hardwired Behaviour: What Neuroscience Reveals
about Morality, (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2005), ix, x, xi,
2, 4, 6, 8.
22. Joshua D. Greene, “Social Neuroscience and the Soul’s Last Stand,” in
Social Neuroscience: Towards Understanding the Underpinnings of the Social Mind,
eds. Alexander Todorov, Susan Fiske, and Deborah Prentice (New York, New York:
Oxford University Press, 2011), 264.
Is Science Secular?
by Bodie Hodge on May 17, 2013; last featured September 16, 2016
Share:
* *
*
Many people today insist that science can only be done by people who have a secular
worldview. Such statements are blatantly absurd and are a type of arbitrary fallacy
called an “ignorant conjecture.”
Many people today insist that science can only be done by people who have a secular
worldview—or at least by those who are willing to leave their religious views at
the door as they enter the science lab. Several popular atheists and evolutionists
have contended that people who reject the big bang and the evolution of living
things are so backward that they cannot even be involved in developing new
technologies.1 But is this really the case, or are these opponents of a biblical
worldview simply making assertions that cannot be supported with facts and
substantial arguments, having an incorrect understanding of true science?
FREE Bible Guide
Quick Answers to Common Questions about the Bible.
DOWNLOAD NOW
A friend of the ministry was recently challenged by the comment that science can
only be done through a purely secular evolutionary framework. We have decided to
publish a response for the sake of teaching. Such statements are blatantly absurd
and are a type of arbitrary fallacy called an “ignorant conjecture.” In other
words, these people simply do not know the past, nor are they familiar with what
science really is.
Examples of Scientists Operating from a Christian Worldview
If science is a strictly secular endeavor without any need for a biblical
worldview, then why were most fields of science developed by Bible-believing
Christians? For example, consider Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur,
Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Robert Boyle, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, James
Joule, Joseph Lister, and James Clerk Maxwell. Were these “greats” of science not
doing science? Francis Bacon developed the scientific method, and he was a young-
earth creationist and devout Christian.
These are but a few examples of people who held to a biblical worldview and were
quite capable as scientists and inventors of new technologies.
Even in modern times, the inventor of the MRI scanning machine, Dr. Raymond
Damadian, is a Christian working with Christian principles. The founder of
catastrophic plate tectonics, Dr. John Baumgardner, is also a devout Christian. And
those who recently founded the scientific field of baraminology are also
Christians. Also, I (Bodie Hodge) developed a new method for production of
submicron titanium diboride for the materials science and ceramics industry.
Professor Stuart Burgess developed a new mechanism for the two-billion-dollar
European (ESA) satellite Envisat. Dr. John Sanford developed the gene gun. And
let’s not forget Werner Von Braun, the young-earth Christian who was the founder of
rocket science and led the U.S. to the moon. These are but a few examples of people
who held to a biblical worldview and were quite capable as scientists and inventors
of new technologies.
The Foundation for Science Is Biblical Christianity
Furthermore, science comes out of a Christian worldview. Only the God described in
the Bible can account for a logical and orderly universe. God upholds the universe
in a particular way, such that we can study it by observational and repeatable
experimentation (see Genesis 8:22). Because God upholds the universe in a
consistent manner, we have a valid reason to expect that we can study the world we
live in and describe the laws that God uses to sustain the universe (Colossians
1:17).
In the secular view, where all matter originated by chance from nothing, there is
no ultimate cause or reason for anything that happens, and explanations are
constantly changing, so there is no basis for science. Though many non-Christians
do science, like inventing new technologies or improving medical science, they are
doing it in a manner that is inconsistent with their professed worldview. On what
basis should we expect a universe that came from nothing and for no reason to act
in a predictable and consistent manner? When non-Christians do real science by
observable and repeatable experimentation, they are actually assuming a biblical
worldview, even if they do not realize it.
The U.S. will lose out in “science” when its education system limits science in the
classroom exclusively to the religion of secular humanism.
It Is Not “Science vs. Religion”
So, the debate is not “science versus religion.” It is really “religion versus
religion.” Sadly, science is caught up in the middle.
The battle is between the religion of secular humanism (with its variant forms like
agnosticism, atheism, and the like), which is usually called secularism or humanism
for short, and Christianity. They both have religious documents (e.g., the Humanist
Manifestos I, II, and III for humanists, and the Bible for Christians); both are
recognized religions by the Supreme Court;2 and both receive the same 501(c)(3)
tax-exempt status. Both have different views of origins.
Humanism has astronomical evolution (big bang), geological evolution (millions of
years of slow gradual changes), chemical evolution (life came from non-life) and
biological evolution (original, single-celled life evolved into all life forms we
have today over billions of years) in its view of origins. In other words,
evolution (as a whole) is a subset of the dogma of the religion of humanism in the
same way as biblical creation (as a whole, with six-day Creation, the Fall, global
Flood, and the Tower of Babel) is a subset of the dogma of Christianity. It is a
battle over two different religions.
In recent times the state and federal governments kicked Christianity out of the
classroom, thinking they kicked religion out; but instead, they just replaced
Christianity with a godless religion of humanism. This was done as a designed
attack by humanists. Consider this quote in the magazine The Humanist that outlines
the plan they had already been striving toward in the early 1980s:
I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the
public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the
proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects
the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers
must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist
preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom
instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach,
regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university.
The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new
—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and
misery, and the new faith of humanism.3
An Evolutionary Worldview Equals Science?
There is a misconception that this evolutionary subset of humanism is science.
Science means knowledge and scientific methodology that is based on the scientific
method (observable and repeatable experimentation). However, evolution (whether
chemical, biological, astronomical, or geological) is far from scientific. Consider
the following facts:
1. No one has been able to observe or repeat the making of life from non-
life (matter giving rise to life or chemical evolution).
2. No one has been able to observe or repeat the changing of a single-
celled life-form like an amoeba into a cow or goat over billions of years
(biological evolution).
3. No one has been able to observe or repeat the big bang (astronomical
evolution).
4. No one has observed millions of years of time progressing in geological
layers (geological evolution).
The reason some people are confused about the religion of humanism—and specifically
its subset of evolution—as being science is a bait and switch fallacy. Let me
explain. One of the key components of humanism is naturalism. Basically, it assumes
a priori there is nothing supernatural and no God. In other words, nature (i.e.,
matter) is all that exists in their religion (only the physical world).
As a clarifying note, Christians also believe in the natural realm; but unlike the
naturalist or humanist, we believe in the supernatural realm, too (i.e., the
spiritual, abstract, conceptual, and immaterial realm). Logic, truth, integrity,
concepts, thought, God, etc., are not material and have no mass; so those holding
to naturalism as a worldview must reject logic, truth, and all immaterial concepts
if they wish to be consistent since these are not material or physical parts of
nature.
Those holding to naturalism as a worldview must reject logic, truth, and all
immaterial concepts if they wish to be consistent since these are not material or
physical parts of nature.
This is very important because naturalism or natural science has been added as one
of the dictionary definitions of science. For example, it was not found in the 1828
Webster’s dictionary, but it was added in one form in the 1913 edition. And,
interestingly, they removed the definition that “the science of God must be
perfect” in the 1913 edition.
So, although many appeal to observable and repeatable science through methodology
to understand how the universe operates, another definition has been added to
muddle this.4 Science is now defined as “knowledge or a system of knowledge
covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and
tested through scientific method.”5
For example, evolutionists have continued to popularize Darwin’s scientific
observation of the changes in beaks of Galapagos finches as proof for the evolution
of one animal kind into another. This is a great example of the bait and switch
fallacy where scientists present real scientific evidence (the difference in finch
beaks) but stretch the truth to say it gives validity to the Greek mythology of
microbes to man evolution (the “switch” part of the fallacy). This trick leads many
to believe that evolution is real science. The only real science in this example is
the observation of the difference in finch beaks.
People are baited with this good methodology of science (again developed by a
Christian named Francis Bacon) and then they are told that evolution is science
while subtly appealing to another added definition: that of “natural science” or
“naturalism.”
This is like saying another definition of science is “Nazism.” Then Nazis could say
they are “scientists” and get into a classroom! This is what has happened with
humanism. The religion of humanism (with its founding principle of naturalism) has
been disguised as science by adding another definition to the word science. But it
is not the good science we think of that makes computers, space shuttles, and cars.
It is a religion. To call evolution science is a bait and switch tactic.
So, Is Science Strictly Secular?
No. In summary, science can never be strictly secular for these reasons:
* Real science is observable and repeatable experimentation that only
makes sense in a biblical worldview where God’s power keeps the laws of nature
consistent. In other words, science proceeds from a biblical worldview.
* Secular humanism, with its subset of evolution, is in reality a religion
and not science.
* Many of the greatest scientists were Bible-believing Christians whose
biblical worldview motivated their scientific studies, showing that a strictly
secular view is not necessary for performing science.
Final Note: Where Humanism Leads
Christians will continue to conduct scientific inquiry and invent things,
processes, and science fields as we always have. If the U.S. and other places
neglect our accomplishments and inventions and continue to push the religion of
humanism on unsuspecting kids in the classroom (usually unbeknownst to most) by
limiting its definition of science to the humanistic worldview, then my humble
suggestion is that they will continue down the same road where humanism leads. That
is, people who are consistent in their naturalistic worldview shouldn’t care about
true science or the world, since nothing ultimately matters in that worldview.
You May Also Like
* Is Historical Science Useful?
* Is Historical Science Useful? * Galileo & Creation in Early
Modern Science
* Galileo & Creation in Early Modern Science * Doesn’t Science
Disprove the Bible
* Doesn’t Science Disprove the Bible Footnotes
1. As an example of this dismissive attitude, Eugenie Scott of the
National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a leading religious humanist, says,
“Like other pseudosciences, ‘creation science’ seeks support and adherents by
claiming the mantle of science.” (http://ncse.com/rncse/23/1/my-favorite-
pseudoscience)
2. The U.S. Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins, 81 S.Ct. 1681 (1961),
stated the following: “Among religions in this country which do not teach what
would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God, are Buddhism,
Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.”
3. J. Dunphy, “A Religion for a New Age,” The Humanist, January–
February 1983, p. 23, 26.
4. There is also the issue of operational science versus historical
science. For more, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science.
5. Merriam-Webster Online, s.v. “science,” http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/science (accessed March 8, 2013).
Atheists Agree: Truth Is a Moral Issue
Biblical Worldview
by Mark Ward, Jr. on October 1, 2015; last featured October 14, 2016
Featured in Answers Magazine
AUDIO VERSION
Share:
* *
*
Even atheists admit that people who err about origins aren’t necessarily “ignorant,
stupid, or insane.” There is a fourth option—and God’s Word would agree with them.
Our most prominent global-village atheist, Richard Dawkins, said a few years ago,
“If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is
ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”1
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
That’s us creationists. And despite his coy demurrals, his subsequent public
statements suggest that he is all too ready to consider us not just stupid but
wicked.
I’ll let Dawkins’ four adjectives structure my article, but I’ll reveal my main
point up front: I actually agree with Dawkins on something very important, the idea
that knowledge is a moral issue.
Ignorance
First let me take up the charge of ignorance. My field is New Testament studies,
not science. I admit, therefore, to being comparatively scientifically ignorant—
though I wonder how much I differ in that respect from most believers in evolution.
Along with the great majority of Westerners, my formal science training ended the
last day of high school (or perhaps a few weeks before . . . ). I hold to
scientific postulates that were handed to me, just as they were handed to most
people, from trusted authorities.
It is, in Dawkins’ view and my own, immoral to deny the truth.
I do have a liberal-arts graduate level of knowledge of the Copernican revolution,
and I’ve read a few science books along the way. But it would be impossible for me
to “prove” via formal scientific methodology any of the fundamental tenets about
the natural world I accept, such as the reality of the force of gravity and of the
earth’s revolution around the sun.
Likewise, I have a basic understanding of the mechanics of evolution. I’m aware
that it is not exactly a new idea. Darwinism has undergone this or that revision
but has, in the main, swept the biological field. Like most readers of this
magazine, I know about the Galápagos finches and the HMS Beagle. I’ve read about
gene mutation and natural selection. I’ve also examined in some detail the olive
branch proffered to me by evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, the idea of Non-
Overlapping Magisteria.
There surely is much I don’t know in every field of human endeavor, but concerning
evolution, at least, I can’t plead ignorance.
Stupid
But stupidity? How can I deny this charge without sounding self-congratulatory and
arrogant—something a Christian like me considers immoral? I don’t think I’m stupid.
I have enough intellectual facility, at least, to write prose my mother admires.
Since “stupid” is only a pejorative form of “ignorant,” I won’t say more.
Insane
As for insanity, I’m reminded of C. S. Lewis’ classic, The Lion, the Witch and the
Wardrobe. When little Lucy comes back through the cloak closet in which she’d
hidden for only a few moments, telling tales of a wintry land with talking animals,
her older siblings are concerned precisely for her sanity. Highly logical Professor
Kirke tells them, “One has only to look at her and talk to her to see that she is
not mad.”2 So, well, do I sound crazy?
Wicked
Dawkins has left us with only one option: I (along with countless other apparently
sane, educated young-earth creationists) am “wicked.” This charge, which he says
he’d rather not consider, grants that important point about knowledge that I
mentioned earlier, namely that knowledge is a moral issue. It is, in Dawkins’ view
and my own, immoral to deny the truth, especially when you have adequate access to
that truth and sufficient intelligence and opportunity to process it.3
Dawkins’ view accords well with the Bible. King Solomon, the Bible’s only recorded
naturalist, says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs
1:7). The wisest man in the Bible (1 Kings 3:12) says you can’t really know
anything in all its right relations until you lay one fundamental building block.
At your heart’s deepest level there must lie a fear of the one true God.
So we’re left with what liberal Enlightenment secularism fears most. One of my
favorite epistemologists (students of knowledge), Stanley Fish, calls it “the
irreducibility of difference.”4 We’re left with dueling authorities.
Authority #1:
The God of the Bible says that you can’t really or truly know anything unless you
are rightly related to Him. The Bible calls people who don’t fear the Lord “the
wicked” (Psalm 36:1).
Authority #2:
Most Western scientists affirm that “the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in
favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry.”5 Dawkins calls
those who don’t accept this overwhelming evidence “the wicked.”
Evidence
At this point, Dawkins is sure to claim that authority has nothing to do with it.
He believes he is even-handed, objective, and consummately neutral, simply pointing
to the evidence—notwithstanding creationist conspiracy theories.
It may surprise some readers that I know how he feels. I know what it’s like to
play whack-a-mole with a conspiracy theorist. You patiently and cogently answer
some nonsensical argument he offers, only to see him pop out of another hole
spouting more of the same. Every counterargument you make becomes, in his twisted
world, an unassailable proof of his position. I can understand why the scientific
in-crowd feels this way about me.
Yet I would say to my dear secularist, evolutionist, materialist (or deist),
mainstream, well-educated Western friends: to put it a bit indelicately, that is
the way I feel about you. I admit that you might appear to have me on my heels with
regard to some important questions, such as the question of starlight and time.6 I
do not have a fully satisfactory way of reconciling the biblical account with our
ability to see supernovae that, by our best lights, happened millions of light-
years away. I even feel your pain when “the Bible says so” only sounds like a non-
answer.
Yet I get something worse than a non-answer when I ask evolutionists which turtle
the big bang is standing on.7 One obviously intelligent person told me on the
question-and-answer website Quora, “Asking what happened before the big bang is
like asking, ‘What’s north of the north pole?’” A search of Quora reveals that many
intelligent, educated people find this argument compelling; it’s popularly
attributed to Stephen Hawking himself.
What makes them think that directions on a sphere are a good analogy to the
creation of the universe? And what scientific principle permits them to exclude the
most important event in the universe’s history from its most basic law (without
which science as we know it would be impossible): namely, effects always come from
causes?8
The north pole argument doesn’t sound like a scientific description of nature; it
sounds like a religious appeal to the supernatural. It’s a non-answer. It sounds
like Terence McKenna’s tongue-in-cheek description of modern secular science: “Give
us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.”9 They are flipping open an
alternate Bible. I just don’t have enough faith to join that religion.
I’m all for science. But there is no agreed-upon definition of science that can
solve all disagreements. Science is not a neutral arbiter, as Stanley Fish would
say, “that sits above the fray, monitoring its progress and keeping the combatants
honest.” Science is, instead, “an object of contest.”10 Which authority gets to
determine what counts as science? Will it be God, or not-god?
Back to Wickedness
Whereas I’m willing to admit to being a non-expert who is uncertain about the
correct scientific answer to some important questions (though qualified Christians
have proposed various answers), most lay evolutionists I encounter seem self-
assured in a faith they refuse to see as a faith. But I won’t call them ignorant,
stupid, or insane.
That leaves one option, according to Dawkins: wickedness. Why would so many
educated, apparently rational people refuse to face up to the inherent weaknesses
in their materialist cosmology? Why are they so willing to speak as if the big bang
is a settled result of modern scientific research when the big bang model is built
on such an inherent flaw?
I’ll let an evolutionist answer that question. Brian Clegg, Cambridge-educated
science writer, spoke to Time magazine about the big bang a few years back. He
asked,
Why did it happen at all? There is no sensible answer for the Big Bang unless you
move over into the religious side and say, “Well, it began because God began it.”
That’s why quite a lot of scientists are nervous about the Big Bang. They quite
prefer having something that doesn’t require somebody sort of poking a finger in
and saying, “Now it’s starting.”11
I’m not a member of the scientific community, so I cannot comment from experience
why some scientists might or might not want to leave room for God. But I am a
student of the Bible. I have always found it very interesting that the Apostle Paul
spoke with clarity and precision on the issues raised in this article. Paul used
moral terminology (italicized below) to describe those who reject the evidence of
creation:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may
be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the
creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are
without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God,
nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts
were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools. (Romans 1:18–22)
It is wicked to suppress the truth when we who are made in God’s image have
sufficient intelligence and opportunity to process it. Paul reveals that we all
have those things, and so he joins Richard Dawkins and me in seeing truth as a
moral issue.
I say this not triumphantly but compassionately, from sinful human to sinful human.
The Bible says all scientists know deep in their hearts that there is a Creator of
eternal power.
What is wickedness anyway, in an atheistic, materialist worldview? It’s an
arrangement of atoms—perhaps a mugger’s fist hitting your skull—that you don’t
happen to prefer. But your preferences are only another atom-arrangement, this time
inside your skull.
You know this argument doesn’t work. You know that morality is really real; and,
more important, God says it is real. There is a right and there is a wrong, and the
triune God ultimately defines both. Some things are true and others are false.
Majority rule does not determine truth, but again, God does. Truth is not plastic,
differing radically among cultures. Truth is moral. It is right, and falsehoods are
wrong.
Scientists do a great deal of good in this world. But the scientific model of
materialistic evolution is—I’m compelled to say it—wicked.
Atheists on Morality
“Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life.”
Ayn Rand (1905–1982), Russian-born American novelist who founded objectivism
“The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and
legislation.”
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), British philosopher who founded modern utilitarianism
“No species, ours included, possesses a purpose beyond the imperatives created by
its genetic history.”
Edward O. Wilson (1929–), American biologist, father of sociobiology
“Outside human desires there is no moral standard.”
Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), British logician who helped found analytic philosophy
“Morality is a collective illusion, genetic in origin, that makes us good
cooperators.”
Michael Ruse (1940–), British philosopher of science
“Modern science directly implies that there . . . is no ultimate meaning for
humans.”
William Provine (1942–2015), American historian of science, leading opponent of
Intelligent Design
Dr. Mark L. Ward Jr. received his PhD in New Testament Interpretation from Bob
Jones University Seminary in 2012. He writes and edits Bible curriculum materials
for 7th–12th grade students and aids in promoting the Christian worldview-shaping
vision of the Bible Integration Department at BJU Press.
Can Forensic Science Trace the World’s Origins?
by Dr. Jennifer Hall Rivera on January 19, 2017
Featured in Answers in Depth
Share:
* *
*
News Source
* The Verge: “Forensic Techniques Sending People to Prison May Not Be
Scientifically Valid”
At-a-Glance
One of the most popular facets of science right now is forensics, made a household
term thanks to crime shows like CSI. But no investigative science is more accurate
than an eyewitness account.
In the debate over creation vs. evolution, we can use both forensics and eyewitness
account to defend the biblical origins of the world:
* The forensic scientist must distinguish relevant facts from random
ones, conduct appropriate testing measures, and interpret these results in an
attempt to reach a conclusion or opinion regarding the evidence while remaining
unbiased and neutral.
* Historical science involves the study of current processes to
interpret past events. The term interpret is used primarily because the scientist
was not privy to a first-hand, observable account of the event in question.
* A certain level of personal and systematic bias influences a forensic
investigator’s educated assumptions.
* Since the forensic investigator did not observe the act of the
initial crime, he or she cannot state with 100% certainty how the crime occurred or
that the physical evidence directly relates to the crime.
* Observational science provides the investigator with items of
possible evidentiary value, which through the use of the scientific method may
provide a logical connection to the historical act of the crime.
* In the same way that a forensic investigator is not capable of
observing a criminal act first-hand, neither are evolutionists or young-earth
creationists able to observe the beginning of life.
* Christians who view creation through a biblical worldview are blessed
to have a perfect, reliable, eyewitness account of the origin of life—revealed to
us in the Bible.
Introduction
There are multiple scientific disciplines, but there has not been one in recent
years that has captured the attention of the general public like the investigative
research of forensic science. Forensic science gained popularity in the early 2000s
due to several crime-related TV shows, which have dramatized the realistic
framework upon which forensic investigation operates. This phenomenon called the
“CSI effect” continues to foster the whimsical interpretation of this scientific
discipline; however, forensic science provides police agencies and the community a
realistic medium upon which to investigate past crimes and review current evidence.
Forensic science requires trained personnel to evaluate evidence for intrinsic
value and to make educated hypotheses as they attempt to reconstruct past crimes.
Eyewitness testimony works in conjunction with the physical evidence and can be
used to corroborate or invalidate the reasonable conclusions about the evidence’s
relationship to the crime.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick Answers to Common Questions about the Bible.
DOWNLOAD NOW
When considering the origin of the earth and mankind, one must consider two major
and conflicting viewpoints: creation by a perfect God or naturalistic evolution.
The creation account in Genesis is not only supported by the evidence found in
creation itself (Romans 1:20), but is internally consistent throughout Scripture as
an infallible eyewitness testimony of a perfect God (Proverbs 30:5). Secular
evolutionists assume that the origin of life occurred by chance and that, through
random occurrences, life continues to evolve with no purpose. Most importantly,
evolutionary explanations for life have never been observed and there is no
eyewitness account to support the claims. As a forensic investigator searches for
clues to past crimes, evolutionists, particularly since Darwin, continue the
exhaustive search for evidence to support their ideas.
Forensic Science Investigation: A Primer
A forensic investigative team has been dispatched to a crime scene. Upon arrival,
the team, comprised of crime scene personnel and detectives, begins a challenging
task. This task requires the investigation, processing, and discernment of key
questions: Was a crime actually committed? Who may be involved in the crime? What
physical evidence is relevant to the crime? Is there eyewitness testimony? Dr.
Richard Saferstein a recognized expert in the field of forensic science, defines
the primary role of CSI personnel as the ability to use their trained expertise to
identify and process physical evidence which “can establish that a crime has or has
not been committed or can link a crime and its victim or its perpetrator.”1 The
American Academy of Forensic Sciences outlines the roles of the forensic scientist
as the ability to distinguish relevant facts from random ones, to conduct
appropriate testing measures, develop hypotheses and to interpret these results in
an attempt to “reach a conclusion or opinion” regarding the evidence’s relationship
to the crime.2 In addition, the forensic scientist is expected to remain unbiased
and neutral.3 The combined efforts of the detectives reviewing eyewitness testimony
and the CSI personnel collecting relevant evidence provide a workable medium for
collaboration to establish inferences, and create reasonable conclusions about the
events occurring in the past.
Forensic Science: A Historical Science
When most people think of the word science, they imagine an individual in a white
coat with goggles examining an unidentified substance in a test tube. However,
scientific research is far more complex, encompassing a wide range of disciplines
from subatomic to macroscopic (visible to the naked eye). To assist researchers in
organizing the knowledge gained through scientific study, it is helpful to
categorize science into one of two areas: historical science (a type of which is
origins science) and operational science (also called observational or experimental
science).4 Scientific disciplines categorized as historical science involve the
study of current processes to interpret past events. The term interpret is used
primarily because the scientist was not privy to a first-hand, observable account
of the event being investigated. Since the incident already occurred, the scientist
is relying upon a predisposed set of ideas or assumptions defined by the
investigating scientist’s personal bias and belief system.5 In contrast,
operational science involves the use of the scientific method through direct
observation and application of ongoing events, though there is still interpretation
of results and bias of the investigator.6 Operational science has led to numerous
inventions and technological advances. In forensics, examination of DNA for
individual identity, the development of the forensic facial reconstruction software
programs, and the use of fluorescence to highlight latent fingerprints are all
considered the practice of operational science, particularly when the samples are
recent and in situ.
However, historical science relates to describing events and conditions which are
not observable in their original form and often not in their original location. The
very definition of historical science reflects the nature of forensic science
investigation, considering the investigator studies the remnants of an event that
has occurred in the past. Forensic science is a science that focuses on the
reconstruction of past events, as investigators present clues and make educated
guesses about what may have occurred at a previous point in time.
The ability of the forensic scientists to interpret the evidence and construct
probable explanations for past events necessarily involves assumptions about past
events since the CSI personnel were not present when the crime occurred. The
forensic investigator is not able to apply a first-hand, observable account of what
occurred during the criminal act. Therefore, their assumptions rely on historical
evidence to support their forensic identifications. Considering mankind is
fallible, their assumptions are subject to human error and misinterpretation.
Doyle, in his article “CSI and Evolution,” clarifies this distinction between
historical and observational science when he states, “Between the science of
present processes and the ‘science’ of figuring out what happened in the past . . .
there is generally a greater potential for uncertainty in the science of past
events than there is in the science of present processes”.7 This is further
supported by Young,8 who provides four distinct reasons why forensic science is
inherently a historical science in practice, despite using some methods and
procedures considered observational science:
1. The past is not observable: it “cannot be seen, smelled, heard,
tasted, or sensed in any way.”
2. The past is not predictable and is therefore retrodiction (or
stating inferences about the past).
3. It is impossible to recreate the past in the present: “one cannot
design an experiment that will replicate the complex variety of conditions that
existed in the past—conditions that are often not known in full detail.”
4. Forensic science incorporates the use of existing theories but does
not form new theories.
Assumptions or Science?
Influencing a forensic investigator’s educated assumptions is a certain level of
personal and systematic bias. Scott and Manzanero discussed the philosophy existing
within the criminal justice system by recognizing the process is “essentially human
act and as such is not without bias.”9 Assumptions and bias effect the application
of the scientific method to the use of observational science. Further, they affect
how an investigator interprets the historical evidence at crime scenes. In the
famous 2014 creation vs. evolution debate, Bill Nye and Ken Ham focused on the
question, “Is creation a viable model of origins?” Nye (an evolutionist) attempted
to validate the use of historical science as equivalent to observational science.
Nye supports the theory that current scientific processes are sufficient to explain
events of the past (unobservable) with absolute certainty.
Nye discussed this belief during the debate when he stated,
I say this is something that we in science want, we want the ability to predict.
And your assertion that there’s some difference between the natural laws that I use
to observe the world today and the natural laws that existed 4,000 years ago is
extraordinary and unsettling.10
This is not an unsettling concept for young-earth creation researchers, since new
scientific evidence clearly shows that some natural processes may have been
accelerated in the past. Current research by Dr. Andrew Snelling on polonium
radiohalos, found in granites around the world, indicates uranium decay had to be
grossly accelerated in the past to account for the large numbers of uranium and
polonium radiohalos found alongside one another.11 For this type of phenomenon to
occur, uranium and polonium halos must have formed at the same time through rapid,
accelerated decay at rates we do not see operating in present processes. This rapid
decay of uranium in the past would have been a product of a cataclysmic global
Flood, which would have not only systematically accelerated many current natural
processes, but rapidly formed fossils and coal deposits.12 Dr. Henry Morris
reiterates this point when he states, “Any deposits formed before the Flood would
almost certainly have been profoundly altered by the great complex of hydrodynamic
and tectonic forces unleashed during the Deluge period.”13 Therefore, it is
imperative a scientist evaluate the evidence in context, while considering the
effect of past (historical) processes on current observable findings.
The equivalency of historical science to operational science is foundational to
evolutionary ideas, considering there is no evidence for molecules-to-man evolution
though this is often conflated with natural selection and change in general, for
which there is evidence. For example, evolutionary scientists have never observed a
species changing from one taxonomic kind (or family) to another (i.e., a dog to a
cat), or identified a species gaining new genetic information of the type needed
for molecules-to-man evolution. However, when Nye attempted to relate the use of
forensic investigation (historical science) to operational science, he clearly
recognizes it as the study of past events. Nye stated, “When you go to a crime
scene and find evidence, you have clues about the past, and you trust those clues.”
Even Nye14 admits that studying events of the past demands a level of trust to
develop assumptions about the evidence. It is within this context that Nye, and
other evolutionists, apply the current nature of scientific processes to
unobservable events in the past. They assume the present is the key to the past, a
method that primarily relies on uniformitarianism.15 Further examination of the
validity of historical science has the potential to lead to misinterpretation,
misidentification, and erroneous conclusions that lie outside the realm of
observable, operational science. Misinterpretation and misidentification have
become a concern within the judicial system and forensic science community.
Observational Science and Human Error
Considering the forensic investigator did not observe the act of the initial crime,
he or she cannot state with 100% certainty how the crime occurred or that the
physical evidence directly relates to the crime. Their theories, whether accurate
or skewed, are based on at least some assumptions. This is not to say that the
forensic science does not contribute to crime resolution when conducted properly
and accurately using the scientific method.16 Using operational science on physical
evidence does yield results. For example, after the observable comparison of
millions of fingerprints, it is a statistical certainty that no two individuals
have identical minutiae patterns.17 Latent fingerprint processing, an observable
method, has the capability to provide clues to the past as to who was present at
the crime and can be matched to fingerprint databases.18 The forensic discipline of
ballistic analysis allows the investigator to match visible striations on bullets
to the original weapon from which it was fired.19 Forensic odontology provides the
uniqueness of an individual’s previous dental work (fillings, crowns, orthodontics)
to the physical comparison of bite-mark impressions.20 Hair strand and follicle
analysis have the capability of providing identifiable protein markers, DNA
profiling, and patterns unique to human and animal kinds.21 Therefore, the
distinction can be made that operational forensic science has the ability to
provide factual data regarding present samples but is only able to construct
inferences about what may have occurred in the past.
As efficient as each of these processes appear to be, they each have the capacity
to be corrupted through human error, erroneous conclusions, or faulty analysis.
These sources of error in identification and processing have led the judicial
system to question the authenticity of forensic techniques. According to guidelines
provided by the court system, there are set criteria for judging forensic
evidence:22
1. Is the technique testable?
2. Has the technique been subject to peer review and publication?
3. What is the potential for error in the use of the technique?
4. Is the technique widely accepted by the forensic community?
Although these criteria provide a filter for inaccurate processes and faulty
conclusions, there remain multiple instances where wrongful convictions due to
human error have occurred. A report issued by the National Academy of Sciences in
2009 brought to the forefront an important claim against forensic practices, which
concluded that “substantive information and testimony based on faulty forensic
science analyses may have contributed to wrongful convictions of innocent
people.”23 On September 21, 2016, the White House’s Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology brought into question the accuracy of forensic processing
techniques, stating they “may not pass scientific muster,” thereby calling for
stricter guidelines.24
Deeper probing into the effectiveness of forensic processes occurs after yearly
exonerations continue to escalate. An exoneration occurs when a guilty individual
is later found innocent of all charges due to improved science processes or new
evidence.25 The following graph, monitored by the National Registry of
Exonerations, depicts the number of exonerations between the years 1989 and 2015.
The data clearly reflects the fallible nature of man to develop assumptions about
events that were not observable.
Exonerations by Year and Type of Crime

Image from the National Registry of Exonerations.26

Validity of the Eyewitness Testimony
Observational science provides the CSI with items of possible evidentiary value,
which through the use of the scientific method may provide a logical connection to
the historical act of the crime. Physical evidence, though of value alone, is
further supported through a credible eyewitness testimony, and has the potential of
solidifying forensic assumptions and conclusions. The validity of eye-witness
testimony has been under scrutiny over the past decade as multiple false
identifications have surfaced,27 but new research points toward the importance of
confidence levels and validity of eye-witness testimony. Confidence levels are
defined as the probability that a test performed multiple times will fall within
certain parameters. Research conducted by the Marshall Project discovered a
significant relationship between initial confidence in a victim’s eyewitness
identifications and accuracy.28 Simply stated, the more confident the witness is
regarding his or her personal testimony, the more accurate the information.
Concerning Origins
Similar to the historicity of forensic science is the study of the age of the earth
and the science of origins. Like a forensic investigator is not capable of
observing a criminal act first-hand, neither are evolutionists or young-earth
creationists able to observe the beginning of life. Each side begins with a
worldview or bias from which they evaluate the evidence. Evolutionists must rely on
their faith in a secular worldview. This belief system is founded upon the study of
current, naturalistic processes to develop assumptions of how the origin of the
earth and mankind originated. Evolutionists rely exclusively on the ability of man
to interpret science and formulate assumptions regarding processes they have never
observed. Further, they have no eyewitness testimony to consult for observational
details. As seen above in the exoneration rates of criminal misidentifications,
mankind is often flawed in their assumptions and conclusions. Therefore, when
evaluating evidence, an individual should consider the source. Was there an
eyewitness to the event? And more specifically, is the eyewitness confident in
their observation?
Christians who view creation through a biblical worldview are blessed to have a
perfect, reliable eyewitness account to the origin of life. The Bible, the inspired
Word of God, clearly describes the creation of the world in Genesis 1, in addition
to referencing God as the Creator in over eighty passages outside of Genesis. Psalm
33:6 and 9 state, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And by the breath
of His mouth all their host. . . . For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and
it stood fast.” Isaiah 45:18 further describes creation: “For thus says the Lord,
Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has
established it: ‘I am the Lord, and there is no other.’" Also, in the New
Testament, Hebrews 11:3 further discusses the creator God: “By faith29 we
understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.”
Believing in the truth of God’s Word does require faith and trust. But remember
that Nye30 described the belief in historicity of forensic science requiring
“trust.” The difference between Nye’s faith and a Christian’s faith is the
existence of an infinitely powerful Creator, an accurate and confident eyewitness
who created life as a reflection of His glory. Current observational science
definably points to the historical account of creation in the Bible. As stated by
Ham during the 2014 debate, “Creation is the only viable model of historical
science confirmed by observational science in today’s modern scientific era.”31
God’s eyewitness account in Genesis can be considered valid, accurate, and without
error, as stated in Proverbs 30:5 (NIV): “Every word of God is flawless.” (See also
Psalm 12:6 and 18:30).
The complexity and beauty of the earth provides evidence of creation. From the
operation of the human cell, the intricate beauty of a rose, to the wonders of the
deep sea, the evidence is abundant and clear for all mankind. “For since the
creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are
without excuse” (Romans 1:20). The evidence for creation is so immense and complex
that a CSI investigator would be overwhelmed by this volume of information. Mankind
is privileged to have both an infallible eyewitness and supporting evidence to
support the case for the Creator God of the Bible.32 Therefore, when considering
the veracity of origins, an individual must ponder an important question:
Are we trusting man’s imperfect and changing ideas and assumptions about the past?
Or are we trusting God’s perfectly accurate eyewitness account of the past,
including creation of the world, Noah’s global flood, and the age of the earth?33
As Psalm 118:8 states, “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in
man.”
Historical sciences, including forensic science investigation, will never be
capable of providing the level of accuracy a perfect God provides through His
inerrant eyewitness testimony and prolific evidence throughout all avenues of
creation.
For More Information: Get Answers
________________

Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know
about it! (Note: if the story originates from the Associated Press, FOX News,
MSNBC, the New York Times, or another major national media outlet, we will most
likely have already heard about it.) And thanks to all of our readers who have
submitted great news tips to us. If you didn’t catch all the latest News to Know,
why not take a look to see what you’ve missed?
(Please note that links will take you directly to the source. Answers in Genesis is
not responsible for content on the websites to which we refer. For more
information, please see our Privacy Policy.)
Dr. Jennifer Rivera Ed.D. is a forensic science educator, speaker, and author. She
has educated high school students in the study of forensic science for over five
years. Dr. Rivera has been published in the Journal of Forensic Identification and
has been a guest speaker at the Georgia Division of the International Association
for Identification state conference in both 2015 and 2016. Prior to teaching, Dr.
Rivera was employed as a fingerprint examiner in a crime scene unit, where she
received extensive training in the field of forensics. She is currently completing
her doctoral dissertation and is researching undergraduate college students
enrolled in forensic science coursework.
Previous Article
What Would a Monkey Say If It Had a Mind to?
Next Article
A Linguistic Argument for God’s Existence
Answers in Depth
2017 Volume 12
2017 Volume 12

BROWSE VOLUME
Footnotes
1. Richard Saferstein. Forensic Science: An Introduction (3rd.
edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2016.
2. “What Do Forensic Scientists Do?,” American Academy of Forensic
Science, http://www.aafs.org/students/choosing-a-career/what-do-forensic-
scientists-do/.
3. Ibid.
4. See Roger Patterson, “What is Science?” in Evolution Exposed:
Biology, Petersburg, KY: Answers in Genesis, 2006,
https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/what-is-science/; and Josh Rosenau,
“‘Historical Science’ vs. ‘Experimental Science’,” National Center for Science
Education, September 24, 2008, https://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/historical-
science-vs-experimental-science.
5. “What Do Forensic Scientists Do?”
6. Ibid.
7. Shaun Doyle, “CSI and Evolution,” Creation Ministries International,
November 29, 2012, http://creation.com/csi-evolution.
8. Thomas Young, “Forensic Science and the Scientific Method,”
Heartland Forensic Pathology, LLC,
http://www.heartlandforensic.com/writing/forensic-science-and-the-scientific-
method.
9. M. Teresa Scott and Antonio L. Manzanero, “Analysis of the Judicial
File: Assessing the Validity of Testimony” (Papeles del Psicólogo, 36, no. 2
[2015]: 139–144, http://www.papelesdelpsicologo.es/english/2569.pdf), 139.
10. Bill Nye and Ken Ham, “Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham,” Answers in
Genesis, February 4, 2014,
https://answersingenesis.org/countering-the-culture/bill-nye-debates-ken-ham/.
11. Andrew A. Snelling, “Radiohalos: Evidence of Accelerated
Radioactive Decay and Catastrophic Geological Processes,” Answers in Genesis
(video), March 3, 2015,
https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/science/radiohalos-accelerated-decay-and-
catastrophic-processes/.
12. Ibid.
13. Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood, 124.
14. Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge. A Flood of Evidence: 40 Reasons Noah and
the Ark Still Matter. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2016.
15. Jason Lisle, “Is the Present the Key to the Past?,” Answers in
Genesis, April 4, 2008, https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/is-the-present-the-
key-to-the-past/.
16. “The Scientific Method,” Harvard University,
https://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic265890.files/Critical_Thinking_File/
07_The_Scientific_Method.pdf.
17. See Francis Galton, Finger Prints (London, England: MacMillan and
Co., 1892); and Saferstein, Forensic Science.
18. Ibid.
19. “Firearms/Toolmarks,” Federal Bureau of Investigation,
https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/scientific-analysis/firearms-toolmarks.
20. I. A. Pretty and D. Sweet, “A Look at Forensic Dentistry – Part 1:
The Role of Teeth in the Determination of Human Identity,” British Dental Journal
190 (April 14, 2001): 359–366, doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4800972.
21. Alicia M. Haines and Adrian Linacre, “A Rapid Screening Method
Using DNA Binding Dyes to Determine Whether Hair Follicles Have Sufficient DNA for
Successful Profiling,” Forensic Science International 262 (May 2016): 190–195,
doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.03.026.
22. Saferstein, Forensic Science.
23. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences
Community, “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward,”
National Research Council of the National Academies, 2009,
https://www.nap.edu/read/12589/chapter/1.
24. Colin Lecher, “Forensic Techniques Sending People to Prison May Not
Be Scientifically Valid: A New Report to the White House Questions the Validity of
Some Techniques,” The Verge, September 21, 2016,
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/21/13000148/white-house-science-advisors-forensic-
techniques-report.
25. “Exonerations by Year and Type of Crime,” The National Registry of
Exonerations, https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/Exoneration-by-
Year-Crime-Type.aspx.
26. Ibid.
27. John Bohannon, “How Reliable Is Eyewitness Testimony? Scientists
Weigh in,” Science, October 3, 2014, http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/how-
reliable-eyewitness-testimony-scientists-weigh.
28. Benjamin Ryan, “Eyewitness Testimony Is Unreliable . . . Or Is It?
A New Study of the Data Says It Depends on Timing,” The Marshall Project, October
30, 2015, https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/10/30/eyewitness-testimony-is-
unreliable-or-is-it.
29. A Christian’s faith is inspired by the Holy Spirit through a
personal relationship with Jesus Christ (1 John 2:20). A relationship with Christ
enlightens the mind to the truth of God’s inherent Word (Luke 24:45).
30. Nye and Ham, “Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham.”
31. Ibid.
32. Intelligent Design is an argument simply for a Creator who
initiated, oversees, and cares for His design. The orderly function of the universe
coincides with the Scriptures and points soundly to the only God. See Jason Lisle,
“God & Natural Law,” Answers1, no. 2 (October 1, 2006),
https://answersingenesis.org/is-god-real/god-natural-law/.
33. Ham and Hodge, A Flood of Evidence.
Is There Really a War on Science?
by Avery Foley on October 12, 2017
Share:
* *
*
Popular science advocates often throw around the phrase “science deniers” and refer
to a supposed epidemic of science denial sweeping America and other Western
nations. Earlier this year thousands of people gathered in Washington, DC, for the
March for Science to take action against these supposed deniers and support science
and evidence-based policy in the White House. They claim,
FREE Bible Guide
Quick Answers to Common Questions about the Bible.
DOWNLOAD NOW
We face a possible future where people not only ignore scientific evidence, but
seek to eliminate it entirely.1
Is the future of science really headed in such an extreme direction? Is the
collective body of knowledge and the methodology we call “science” really teetering
on the precipice of extinction or, worse, about to be pushed off?
What Does “Science” Mean?
Science, in its most basic definition, means “knowledge.” Science is usually
defined as knowledge gained by using the scientific method or perhaps knowledge
derived from observations made by our five senses. Is there really a “war on
science,” a war on knowledge?
Those who claim America is brimming with science deniers usually point to the
“denial” of two things—evolution and man-made climate change.
Those who claim America is brimming with science deniers usually point to the
“denial” of two things—evolution and man-made climate change. Denying, or even
questioning, these is considered a denial of science, as if somehow denying these
models is equivalent to denying all of the scientific knowledge from a wide variety
of scientific fields from particle physics to immunology to chemistry to forestry
to obstetrics to space exploration to computer programming. This is a ludicrous
claim.
Testable, Observable, and Repeatable
Those who cry foul at creationists or those who deny (or are skeptical of) man-made
climate change display their own ignorance of the nature of science. There are two
kinds of science: observational and historical.
Observational science deals with the present. It is directly testable, observable,
and repeatable. It’s this kind of science that develops medical innovations, put
man on the moon, and invented WiFi. A chemist in Canada can mix two chemicals
together and record a result, and, under the same conditions and using the same
methods, a chemist in Chile can repeat the experiment and get the exact same
results.
Observational science is usually not contentious with the public or, in many cases,
even among scientific circles (though, of course, how the observation should be
applied or what it means is often the subject of debate). There are exceptions of
course, most notably observational science that involves cloning, editing genes
(particularly human germlines), or embryonic stem cell research. Your worldview
regarding the nature and uniqueness of human life influences your view on the
morality of these issues. But even here the question is not on the methods—it’s the
morality of those methods.
Looking at the Past
The second kind of science is historical science. This science deals with the past
and is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable. Fields like paleontology,
paleoanthropology, or paleoclimatology fall into this category. You can’t directly
test or observe past organisms or climates. So what you believe about the past
determines how you interpret the evidence. Scientists will often use the same
methods of study and the same evidence, but come to completely different
conclusions about the evidence’s age, origin, or relationship to living things
because of their different starting points.
An Assumption of Naturalism
Many scientists today start from the assumption of naturalism—the belief that
nature is all there is. This is not a scientific statement—it cannot be tested
using the scientific method or our five senses. It is a philosophical assumption
that underlies the worldview of many scientists. Creationists and others reject
this assumption and start with a different set of beliefs about the past. In the
case of biblical creationists, the starting point is God and his Word. Therefore,
the battle is not over the evidence; it’s over two different interpretations of the
exact same evidence because of two different starting points.
The battle is not over the evidence; it’s over two different interpretations of the
exact same evidence because of two different starting points.
Equating a denial of biological evolution or man-made climate change with a denial
of (or ignorance of) science is simply inaccurate. You can question certain
scientific models or philosophical presuppositions (which aren’t even science)
without a wholesale dismissal of science. Many scientists, or even lay people, who
reject evolution are very educated about evolution yet chose to reject it on
scientific, philosophical, or biblical grounds (or a combination of these
rationales).
Study: Those Who Reject Evolution Still Interested in Science
A recent study from Newman University, in partnership with marketing research firm
YouGov, found that in Canada and the UK
of those who did say it was difficult to accept aspects of evolutionary science, a
significant majority still expressed an interest in science based subjects,
including new ideas and discoveries in genetics and genomics (59% in the UK and 57%
in Canada). And curiously, whilst only a minority in this group said experts in
evolutionary science were reliable (28% in the UK and 38% in Canada) many in this
group also felt that experts in all other areas of scientific research were
reliable. Even more unexpectedly, 70% in the UK and 69% in Canada who expressed
some personal difficulty with evolution also said they felt experts in genetics
were reliable.2
What the authors of this study were surprised to find was that a rejection or
questioning of evolution did not mean an all-inclusive rejection of “science” or
even a disinterest in or distrust of science and scientists. Of course, those who
understand the worldview nature of the evolution question aren’t surprised by this.
Many creationists love science and get excited about new discoveries and
innovations. We simply stand opposed to a worldview-based, naturalistic
interpretation of historical science.
Dr. Fern Elsdon-Baker, the principal investigator of the study, writes,
We clearly need to be careful not to assume that when people say they are rejecting
“evolutionary science,” they are rejecting all scientific research or indeed all of
what we might think of as evolutionary science.3
Here she is tying in an earlier statement about genetics: “Genetics is a
fundamental part of evolutionary scientific research.” She was surprised that those
who reject evolution are still interested in genetics, which she sees as a part of
evolutionary research. Why are creationists and others still interested in
genetics? Because genetics is a fascinating field that magnificently shows the
handiwork of God through a complex language system. Genetics is only part of
evolutionary science when an evolutionary interpretation is imposed on the
evidence. Indeed, evolution can’t even explain how a complex language system could
arise through random, chance processes. Information can only come from an
information giver!
Dr. Elsdon-Baker finds these survey results curious because she fails to
acknowledge the worldview issue. The battle isn’t science vs. religion; it’s a
battle of one interpretation of the evidence versus another, which is based on
different starting points concerning who has told us the truth about the past—God’s
infallible Word or man’s fallible ideas?
Even Atheists Question Evolution
Interestingly, when people were asked “about evolutionary explanations for the
existence of human consciousness,” the researchers found
Just over half of religious or spiritual people in both countries thought human
consciousness could not be explained by evolutionary processes. Astonishingly . . .
over 1 in 3 of Canadian atheists, and nearly 1 in 5 UK atheists felt the same.4
Even atheists question some aspects of evolutionary ideas! Dr. Elsdon-Baker writes,
It seems rejection of, or doubts about, aspects of evolution are not necessarily
just an issue of religious belief versus evolutionary science. People across all
faiths and none seem to have universal questions about what it means to be human,
what human consciousness even is, or indeed the ability of science as a whole to
answer these kinds of questions. In many cases, a rejection of aspects of
evolutionary science does not mean a rejection of the whole of science.5
We Love Science!
This whole idea of a “science denial” epidemic is really just a disingenuous way of
trying to make those who reject evolution and catastrophic man-made climate change
look foolish, backward, and opposed to new ideas and progress. Creationists don’t
deny science. We love science! But we seek to study and research to honor God and
uphold the authority of his Word. This difference in starting philosophies results
in a difference of interpretation.
“Overwhelming Evidence in All Fields of Science Supports Evolution.”
Argument 3
on December 16, 2017
Featured in Refuting Common Evolutionist Claims
Share:
* *
*
Explore the 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid series to prepare yourself with
answers to common yet faulty assertions by evolutionists.
The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the
Origin of Species, the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true: the
“evidence” supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting
point changed (i.e., moving from the Bible, God’s Word, to humanism, man’s word).
Creationists continue to see everything in light of God’s Word and all evidence as
supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no “neutral” starting point;
everyone—whether they acknowledge it or not—interprets the “facts” according to a
particular way of thinking (i.e., worldview).1
Creationists could respond to this argument with their own “overwhelming evidence”
in support of creation, such as this impressive list. However, creationists must
beware of building their case on the basis of evidence alone. The common assertion,
“The evidence speaks for itself,” is a logical fallacy of reification. A fossil
dinosaur won’t speak up and tell its age. So unless God allows the rocks to cry out
(Luke 19:40), no one can claim that the evidence argued and won the case. It isn’t
about the amount of evidence each side can dig up in its favor. Since both sides
interpret the evidence according to their opposing worldviews, the debate centers
on which side correctly interprets the evidence.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
Secular History vs. Biblical History

A worldview is how a person views the world based on his presuppositions (starting
beliefs), which in turn affect the way he behaves. Two of the major worldviews
today are the biblical worldview and secular humanism. Dictionary.com defines
humanism as “any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests,
values, and dignity predominate.” This sounds noble, but secular humanism excludes
God and His Word. Instead, secular humanists rely on man’s reasoning alone with
beliefs such as naturalism, evolution, relative truth, and cultural or individual
morality. Voddie Baucham contrasts secular humanism and the biblical worldview
through five different elements:2

Secular Humanism
Christian Theism
View of God
Atheism
Theism
View of Man
Evolution
Special Creation
View of Truth
Relative
Absolute
View of Knowledge
Scientific/Materialism/Naturalism
Scientific/General/[Special] Revelation
View of Ethics
Cultural
Absolute
 According to Baucham, Secular Humanism (and its component, Naturalistic
Materialism) is based on the assumption that matter is all there is, and therefore
all knowledge is derived from the study of the universe through reason and the
scientific method. Christian Theism, on the other hand, holds that God created the
world and everything in it; therefore, our pursuit of knowledge must balance reason
and revelation.3
A secular humanist may paint himself as neutral and challenge the creationist to
leave the Bible out of a discussion of the evidence. But there is no neutral
ground. Secular humanism is a worldview based on man’s opinion, whereas the
biblical worldview is based on the infallible Word of God. So if an evolutionist
claims “religion” is clouding the creationist’s view, the creationist must show how
secular humanism blinds the evolutionist to the truth (Ephesians 4:18).
First of all, the secular humanist has no basis to argue his case because reasoning
would be meaningless and futile in a naturalistic world without abstract laws, like
the laws of logic. Second, absolute moral standards against wrongs like stealing or
murder don’t apply in a world of the survival of the fittest. Third, the practice
of science presupposes that the universe is orderly and predictable, following the
laws of nature, which cannot be explained in a random chance universe made up only
of the material.
Therefore, in order to reason, expect absolute moral standards, and practice
science, secular humanists must stand on biblical ground. AiG calls this the
ultimate proof of creation. The laws of logic, absolute morality, and uniformity of
nature stem from the immutable Creator who upholds the universe through orderly
physical laws and created man with a conscience and intellectual capacity (i.e., in
His image).
People who understand and trust God’s special revelation of the Bible can correctly
interpret God’s general revelation of the universe and marvel at how the evidence—
from DNA and coral reefs to mountain ranges and the solar system—displays God’s
glory (Psalm 19). Furthermore, the Bible shows how to interpret the evidence of
death and disaster as results of the Curse and the Flood and as a warning of God’s
judgment to come on sinners. But the Bible also gives hope of a new, perfect heaven
and earth for sinners who turn to Jesus—the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord:
Knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing,
following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his
coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they
were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact,
that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and
through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then
existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and
earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment
and destruction of the ungodly.
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill
his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any
should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will
come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the
heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that
are done on it will be exposed.
Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to
be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the
day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the
heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!But according to his promise we are waiting
for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. (2 Peter 3:3–13)
Two Very Different Looks at the Role of Evolution in Medicine
by Dr. Tommy Mitchell on June 20, 2006
Share:
* *
*
Well-known NBC-TV reporter Robert Bazell suggests that the evolution debate adds
little to the education of physicians. He also ridicules those who are proponents
of intelligent design and creation.
In a commentary entitled “Stop whining about intelligent design,” 1 well-known NBC-
TV reporter Robert Bazell (the US network’s chief science and health correspondent,
who has advanced degrees in biology/immunology) suggests that the evolution debate
adds little to the education of physicians. In claiming this, however, he still
seems bent on pursuing the tired old mantra that serious medicine can’t ignore
evolution. While proposing that values should be given greater emphasis in medical
education, he also finds time to ridicule those who are proponents of intelligent
design and creation.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
Mr. Bazell’s initial premise is a reasonable one. As a practicing physician, I
would wholeheartedly agree that learning about molecules-to-man evolution is not
necessary for doctors. Also, I agree that we should spend more time dealing with
moral issues and ethics in medical school—with the advent of genetic engineering,
the explosion of new technologies and medications, and a society constantly aging
and presenting us with a greater population of chronically ill patients,
compassionate and ethical physicians will be needed to deal with the many
ramifications of these issues. Even Mr. Bazell admits, “Teaching evolution properly
in secondary school will have little impact on these difficult issues.”
Curiously, he goes on to express his belief that evolution and natural selection
are as “true as anything in our understanding of the natural world.” The thread of
the article then changes course to an attack on intelligent design and creation.
Creation is contrasted with evolution as an “attempt to undermine science with
arguments that can sound scientific but are not.” No evidences are put forth to
support a statement of this type, yet evolution is called real science and creation
is not. Yet Pasteur, Maxwell, and Newton, all giants in the history of “real
science,” contributed greatly to the sciences, including medicine, and they were
believers in the Bible’s Genesis account as literal, straightforward history. A
lack of understanding evolution did not hinder their ability to contribute to “real
science.”
Mr. Bazell’s commentary suggests, “Serious efforts in biology and medicine can no
more ignore evolution than airplane designers can ignore gravity.” This amazing
statement is challenged by AiG’s Dr. David Menton, Associate Professor Emeritus of
Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, who indicates: “If evolution
were thrown out of consideration, it would have no negative impact [in medicine]—it
plays no necessary role in either the teaching or practice of medicine.” He also
notes: “If you remove evolution, there’s nothing in the whole realm of empirical
science that you can’t pursue.”
While Mr. Bazell sets forth his opinion that evolution must take a predominant
position in science, he also acknowledges its damaging effect in the historical
arena. The principal force of evolution is the cruel and wasteful process of
“survival of the fittest.” This concept of the weaker or lesser evolved being
expendable was used as the justification for Hilter’s atrocities before and during
World War II.
Unfortunately, the author does not take the next logical step and explore how
belief in evolution might affect the value judgments of young physicians. He says,
“Science can never help us make moral or value judgments like those the new
physicians will face.” However, an evolutionary worldview will affect moral
decisions regarding such issues as embryonic research, abortion and euthanasia.
Mr. Bazell would have us believe that science is science and values are values, and
these concepts are separate. After 20 years of medical practice, I can attest that
science and values are not so easily compartmentalized. If evolution is true, then
there is no moral authority. A belief in the truth of the Genesis account—which
actually is consistent with observational science—provides a basis both for a
scientific understanding of the world and our moral values.
A God of Suffering? (DVD)
A God of Suffering?
“Why would a loving God allow death and suffering?” This eye-opening DVD was shot
on-location in the hurricane-ravaged community of Ocean Springs, Mississippi. Find
out more.
While evolutionary concepts have no impact on the actual practice of medicine, the
value judgments of physicians can be molded by this false worldview. Physicians
face critical moral dilemmas every day, even beyond the issues of what is
permissible and right. For example, why do we suffer? And why is there death? How a
doctor deals with these questions is dependent on his view of origins. The
evolutionist has few answers to these questions. The creationist has answers and
can counsel those under his care. Perhaps these are the value judgments Mr. Bazell
feels are lacking in our present medical education system in America and other
westernized nations.
(Dr. Mitchell, with an MD from Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, is an
exceptional communicator on the relevance of Genesis to the church and society. To
bring one of his well-illustrated programs to your area, go to our Request an event
page.)
Pseudoscience: More or Less?
on February 24, 2007
Share:
* *
*
AP: “American Belief in Pseudoscience on the Rise”
Head for the hills! American belief in pseudoscience is on the rise! A recent study
by Jon D. Miller of Michigan State University reveals interesting developments in
the U.S. populace’s familiarity with science and beliefs about alleged
“pseudoscience.”
While Miller discovered an increase in scientific literacy over the past two
decades, his research has caused concern due to its indication that “people are
giving increasing credence to pseudoscience such as the visits of space aliens,
lucky numbers and horoscopes.” Lumped in with that trio is creation-”ism”:
FREE Bible Guide
Quick Answers to Common Questions about the Bible.
DOWNLOAD NOW
In addition, these researchers noted an increase in college students who report
they are “unsure” about creationism as compared with evolution.
Naturally, the article lumps creation beliefs along with beliefs in “visits of
space aliens, lucky numbers and horoscopes,” presumably trying to indicate all
these beliefs are equally pseudoscientific; however, are the survey-takers who
believe in creation the same as those who believe in visits by space aliens, lucky
numbers and horoscopes? We doubt it (and hope not!)-especially when considering the
results of a similar survey, conducted at an unnamed U.S. university by Raymond
Eve, who is typically found working at the University of Texas. (These results were
also reported in the linked AP article.)
The share that believed aliens had visited Earth fell from 25 percent in 1983 to 15
percent in 2006. There was also a decline in belief in “Bigfoot” and in whether
psychics can predict the future.
But there also has been a drop in the number of people who believe evolution
correctly explains the development of life on Earth and an increase in those who
believe mankind was created about 10,000 years ago.
Very interesting, indeed! Of course, the AP story makes this sound like a
contradiction (belief in alien visits and Bigfoot declines while creation belief on
the increase-what!?). But, in reality, it’s perfectly consistent: as students’
knowledge of science rises, their willingness to believe pseudoscience drops,
whether the pseudoscience is alien visits, Bigfoot, psychics, or-you guessed it-
evolution.
Selling Science to the Public
by Dr. Georgia Purdom on November 28, 2007
Featured in Answers in Depth
PDF DOWNLOAD
Share:
* *
*
Abstract
In a recent swath of articles and letters, evolutionists have been examining how
they frame “science” to the public—though ignoring their own presuppostions.
Keywords: science, framing, presupposition, creation evolution controversy,
operational science, historical science, influence, public, culture, media
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
What comes to your mind when I say the word framing? I personally think of the
process of framing a house in which a wood “skeleton” is built that will be the
support for all the remaining structural elements. In the field of social sciences,
framing means “presenting information either positively or negatively in order to
change the influence is [sic] has on an individual or group.”1 In some ways this is
similar to the framing of a house, as it provides the framework which supports the
interpretation of information. Keep in mind, however, that framing is dependent on
the foundation being used to support the frame and that a faulty foundation will
lead to a collapsed frame. Both The Scientist magazine and Science magazine have
recently published articles and letters to the editor on “framing” science.2, 3, 4
One article further defines framing as, “Frames organize central ideas, defining a
controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions. . . . They allow citizens
to rapidly identify why an issue matters, who might be responsible, and what should
be done.”3 I would agree with this definition. As a speaker for Answers in Genesis,
I often construct my presentations to help people understand the controversy over
Genesis. I want them to understand why Genesis is relevant, that they are
responsible for knowing that, and what they can do to help others understand this
important issue. My frame is further dependent on the audience I am speaking to. A
talk I give to children would not be appropriate for adults, and a talk I give to
scientists would not be appropriate for laypeople. An evolutionist might construct
their talks similarly, although from an opposing viewpoint. The difference is the
foundation or presupposition being used to support the frame—is it God’s Word or
man’s word?
Let’s look at the topic of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) to see how framing
is used by both those for and against it. Those for ESCR use phrases like
“scientists racing to find a cure” and “it is pro-life to be pro-research.”2 Those
against ESCR use phrases like “scientists are playing God” and “experiments on
young humans.”2 Those for ESCR have been successful (to a degree) by using the
frames of “social progress” (meaning this will cure many people) and “economic
competitiveness” (meaning they do not want the U.S. to be behind in research) to
further their cause.3 Unfortunately, this appears to have resulted in increased
advocacy for ESCR as measured by surveys conducted between 2001 and 2005.3 Of
course, the main reason the framing by supporters of ESCR has been so successful is
their presupposition that God’s Word is not the basis for truth, thus devaluing
human life. This resonates well with our secular society.
Framing the Creation/Evolution Controversy
The articles and letters to the editor mentioned above discussed framing as it
pertains to the intelligent design (ID) movement/creation/evolution controversy.2,
3, 4 It became apparent that there were two basic viewpoints concerning framing the
creation/evolution controversy.
The Subtle Approach
Matthew Nisbet and Dietram Scheufele state,
The facts are assumed to speak for themselves and to be interpreted by all citizens
in similar ways. If the public does not accept or recognize these facts, then the
failure in transmission is blamed on journalists, “irrational” beliefs or both.2
They believe the problem is that science is not “framed” appropriately, and if it
were done properly, there will be no controversy over issues like ESCR and origins.
They recognize that evidence does not speak for itself: scientists and others do,
so their frames are important. They go on to discuss the ID/evolution controversy:
The Discovery Institute [think tank for the ID movement], through careful crafting
and targeting of their message, created a public perception wedge, casting
intelligent design as the “middle way,” the scientific compromise between teaching
“atheistic evolution” and constitutionally unacceptable biblical doctrine.2
Nisbet and Scheufele believe that, “. . . if scientists don’t evolve in their
strategies, they will essentially be waving a white flag, surrendering their
important role as communicators.”2 The authors apparently think that those in the
ID movement are not scientists or that their message is unscientific. It becomes
apparent that the real issue is the foundations or presuppositions of the
scientists. In the authors’ minds allowing for an intelligent designer (like those
of the ID movement) is wrong and only “atheistic evolution” is correct.
Nisbet and Chris Mooney discuss how atheistic evolution should be “framed” in order
to increase its acceptance:
. . . the scientific theory of evolution has been accepted within the research
community for decades. Yet as a debate over “intelligent design” was launched,
antievolutionists promoted “scientific uncertainty” and “teach-the-controversy”
frames, which scientists countered with science-intensive responses.
. . . the public likely tunes out these technical messages. Instead frames of
“public accountability” that focus on the misuse of tax dollars, “economic
development” that highlight the negative repercussions for communities embroiled in
evolution battles, and “social progress” that define evolution as a building block
for medical advances, are likely to engage broader support.3
While all of these “frames” are worthy of comment, I will restrict my comments to
the last frame of “social progress.” The authors fail to distinguish between
operational science and historical science. Operational science does not require an
understanding and acceptance of evolution, as exemplified by many great scientists
who believed in the Creator God such as Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, etc. On the
contrary, operational science actually requires a biblical worldview in order to
make sense.
Nisbet and Scheufele encourage scientists to “facilitate incidental exposure” of
the science they are trying to relay to the public.2 For example, “. . . carefully
framed information about the value and utility of evolutionary biology could be
made relevant to blogs about farming, gardening, or fishing.”2 A farm local to the
Creation Museum, Sunrock Farm, hosts a program called “Evolution on the Farm” that
“shows how the key principles of evolution—variation, selection, heredity and time—
apply to farming.”5
The authors also want scientists to partner with churches by speaking at churches,
giving tours of research facilities to churches, and getting religious leaders to
support certain viewpoints on scientific issues.2 Nisbet and Mooney state,
“Messages must be positive and respect diversity . . . . many scientists fail to
think strategically about how to communicate on evolution, but belittle and insult
others’ religious beliefs.”2 One example of how this is being done is The Clergy
Letter Project and Evolution Sunday. The authors, however, are being inconsistent.
If they truly believe that godless evolution is fact, then what is their basis for
wanting to “respect diversity” when they do not think such diversity has a basis in
reality?
These “frames” remind me of how Satan tricked Eve in the Garden of Eden: “But I
fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your
minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” (2 Corinthians
11:3, KJV).
The Not-so-subtle Approach
Robert Gerst, in a letter to the editor, encapsulated the opinions of many who
disagreed with Nisbet and Mooney. Gerst states, “Science has credibility with the
public precisely because the public believes that science is neutral, that it
doesn’t take positions or adopt particular frames.”4 Yes, many people do seem to be
under the impression that science is “neutral.” But in reality, it is not.
Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence but different interpretations
based on presuppositions.
Gerst then moves to the Dover, Pennsylvania, trial, which centered on the
controversy of teaching intelligent design in the public school classroom. (Note:
Gerst incorrectly lumps together the beliefs of the ID movement with those of
biblical creationists). He states:
The antievolutionists lost [the Dover trial]. I think one reason why is that the
creationists adopted “scientific uncertainty” and “teach-the-controversy frames”
while science and evolution refused to adopt any frame at all.
. . . Rather, they stuck to the science. In so doing, they built their arguments on
a rich intellectual tradition that, more than any other in our society, is seen as
unbiased and credible.
. . . those testifying for the antievolutionary camp were tainted. They destroyed
their own credibility and diminished the power of any countering arguments.4
Gerst either fails to recognize that evolution is built on atheistic
presuppositions or believes those presuppositions are the only possibility. The
reason those of the ID movement failed had little to do with their arguments and
more to do with the apparently atheistic presuppositions of the judge presiding
over the trial. Evolutionists and creationists are both “tainted.” Either God does
not exist or He does exist, respectively. Only one can be correct.
Gerst thinks that respecting religious beliefs (as Nisbet and Mooney suggested) is
incorrect. He says:
The scientific community has been much too respectful of the religious beliefs of
others. When someone claims that the world is 6,000 years old, that is belittling
and insulting the work of science, and just plain dumb. Scientists have to say
that, and say it more often.4
At least Gerst is being consistent. To him, godless evolution is fact, so other
religious beliefs should not be tolerated.
What Are They So Worried About?
After reading the articles and the letters to the editor, I got the impression that
the evolutionists are really worried that “science” is losing. Their belief seems
to be that scientists are always right, and they are the final authority. Stephen
Quantrano, in a letter to the editor states, “But we should be concerned if the
dominant frames in the media omit the authoritative basis of science in empirical
observation, experimental methods, and rational argument, for example. We’re left
with science ‘facts’ in an alien frame.”4 Again, the line between operational
science and historical science is blurred. I also wonder what his basis is for a
“rational argument.” If he is to be consistent in his belief in the authority of
naturalistic science, which excludes immaterial entities such as God, then he must
also reject the immaterial laws of logic. This does not provide him any logic for
making a rational argument. As biblical creationists we know God’s authority is
supreme to man’s, but this would be seen as an “alien frame” to him.
Nisbet and Mooney believe that while science should be the supreme authority, most
people do not regard it as such, and that is why framing is so important. “However,
many scientists retain the well-intentioned belief that, if laypeople better
understood technical complexities from news coverage, their viewpoints would be
more like scientists’, and controversy would subside.”3 They also state, “Ideology
and religion can screen out even dominant positive narratives about science, and
reaching some segments of the public will remain a challenge.”3 Again, they
apparently fail to recognize their own “ideology and religion” (humanism,
naturalism, atheism, etc.) affects how they interpret science.
Nisbet and Scheufele try to equate knowledge with science and again assert its
supreme authority:
. . . citizens prefer to rely on their social values to pick and choose information
sources that confirm what they already believe, often making up their minds about a
topic in the absence of knowledge.
. . . In place of knowledge, the public has relied heavily on their social values
in combinations with the most readily available interpretation featured in the
media.2
The authors fail to acknowledge that everyone, including themselves, interprets
knowledge and science in light of their social values, which are based on their
presuppositions.
Framing Is Important
Working for Answers in Genesis as a scientist, I fully appreciate the importance of
“framing” science, so long as the framing is not deceptive. It should be
understandable and relevant to people I am speaking to. Jesus saw the importance of
this when He spoke to His disciples and the people of His day. In the agricultural
society in which He lived, it made sense to compare faith to a mustard seed
(Matthew 17:20). It would not have made sense to compare it to something as small
as a bacterium or virus, of which they would have no knowledge.
The most important thing to remember is that the frames used to “frame” science are
sitting on a foundation. For biblical creationists the foundation is the Word of
God; for evolutionists the foundation is human reason that rejects the revelation
of the Creator. “Crusading” evolutionists, such as these, use their interpretation
of science in an attempt to prove that mere human reason is true. In a similar way,
biblical creationists also use their interpretations of science to confirm the
Bible is true. However, neither can “prove” anything about origins. Yet God and His
Word are true: the supreme authority and self-authenticating. When Jesus returns,
the foundation of human reason will fail, and the “frame” of evolution will
collapse.

Must Science Exclude the Supernatural?

by Dr. Jason Lisle on May 30, 2008
Featured in Feedback
Share:
* *
*
A reader claims that “natural” phenomena are the only valid scientific
explanations. Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG–U.S., examines this often repeated claim.
Jason Lisle wrote in regard to the distant starlight problem: “It is ridiculous to
argue that a supernatural explanation is wrong because it cannot be explained by
natural causes.” For this to be true we would have to redefine astronomy in a way
that it would no longer be a natural science. The advantage of retaining it as a
purely natural science is that there are observations we can make that allow us to
choose between competing theories. When the CBR [cosmic background radiation] was
discovered in 1965, it allowed astronomers to determine that the Big Bang was a
better explanation for the Cosmos than the Steady State Theory. If supernatural
explanations are allowed, which would we use? There are Buddhist, Hindu, and many
other supernatural explanations, in addition to the one found in the Bible, for
astronomical phenomenon and no observation we can make or experiment we can perform
that would favor one over the other. Natural explanations may or may not represent
reality but they are testable.
Creation & Family Entertainment
Need answers? Live & on-demand video content from Answers in Genesis, the Ark
Encounter, Creation Museum, and more.
FREE TRIAL
—Dr. S.K., U.S.
________________

The Differences
Just wanted to thank God and AiG for the Creation Museum. A couple of our Sunday
school classes recently visited the museum and loved it. It is truly an inspiration
and comfort to have a biblical-based Creation model to both educate and evengelize
the world. It was such a blessing to discuss with the youth at various displays the
difference between our biblical theology and the world’s view. We continue to
support you in all ways and look forward to returning again soon. Many teachers
picked up materials in the bookstore for their classes. We will be using your VBS
material in June.
—Pastor B.V., U.S.
How Could They Not Believe?
Praise God for the work being done through the Creation Museum! Answers in Genesis
is precisely the explantion needed by so many doubters. I already believe
regardless of substantiated evidence, but how wonderful to be vidicated through
science. Biology and chemistry are my passions. I am so often questioned on how I
can be a “scientist” and a Christian. It’s nice to know I’m not alone. Now I can
with confidence ask non-believers how they can be a scientist and not believe in
the one true God. Thank you. I look forward to visiting your museum in the future.
—C.M., U.S.
What about you?
Let us know how AiG has impacted your life.
Jason Lisle wrote in regard to the distant starlight problem: “It is ridiculous to
argue that a supernatural explanation is wrong because it cannot be explained by
natural causes.”
All I’m pointing out is that a vicious circular argument is bad reasoning. I would
hope that most people would immediately realize that is true.
Consider the argument I’m critiquing: “(A) A supernatural explanation is wrong
because (B) it is not explained by natural causes.” Since (B) is essentially
synonymous with (A), the argument is circular. It concludes that all things must be
explained by natural causes (A) by simply assuming that all things must be
explained by natural causes (B). This is not a good argument. So, my assertion that
such an argument is ridiculous is valid.
For this to be true we would have to redefine astronomy in a way that it would no
longer be a natural science.
Not at all: astronomy is a natural science in the sense that astronomers study
nature. However, there is nothing in the definition or methods of astronomy that
requires it to be “naturalistic.” There is nothing in astronomy that precludes the
possibility that God created the universe in six days as He said He did in Genesis.
In fact, if God were not constantly upholding the universe in a consistent way,
science would not be possible as shown here: Evolution: The Anti-Science.
Your email implies that you believe that astronomy should be approached with the
philosophy of methodological naturalism. Naturalism (metaphysical naturalism) is
the belief that nature is all there is; it assumes that there is no God—at least
not a transcendent Creator. Methodological naturalism is the belief that we should
approach science from the perspective of naturalism—regardless of whether or not
naturalism is actually true. In other words, a methodological naturalist might
believe in God, but he or she believes that we should restrict our conclusions to
natural explanations—that we should essentially pretend that God does not exist
when we approach science.
Such an approach is arbitrary and irrational. Why should we dismiss the possibility
of creation before any investigation of evidence? The notion makes even less sense
for those who are convinced that God does exist. Why would a theist assume in
practice the exact opposite of his conviction? Unless it is possible to prove that
God does not exist (which it isn’t), to simply assume that He does not (if only in
methodology) would be arbitrary—without justification. Methodological naturalism is
irrational.
As an analogy, consider people studying the construction of a car. Can you imagine
one of them arguing, “We must assume this car came about by the forces of nature
acting over time with no designer as we study how it works, even though we know
this isn’t true.” Such an approach would be absurd. Yet some people use effectively
the same approach when studying God’s creation.
The advantage of retaining it as a purely natural science is that there are
observations we can make that allow us to choose between competing theories.
The advantage of assuming that the universe is completely empty is that it makes
the math a lot easier. But it would be ridiculous to assume such a thing, since we
have evidence to the contrary!
Likewise, simply arbitrarily dismissing a supernatural explanation for the origin
of the universe may make it easier to choose between the remaining ones. But it’s
not at all rational, since we have evidence to the contrary.
When the CBR [cosmic background radiation] was discovered in 1965, it allowed
astronomers to determine that the Big Bang was a better explanation for the Cosmos
than the Steady State Theory.
This is the fallacy of bifurcation (false dilemma). Some secular astronomers argue
that there are only two options: steady state and big bang; steady state cannot
justify the cosmic microwave background, so they conclude the big bang must be
true. But, of course, there is a third alternative: the Bible is true. Neither the
big bang nor the steady state can account for the uniformity of nature upon which
science depends, but the Bible can.
If supernatural explanations are allowed, which would we use?
How about the one written by the God who actually created the universe, knows
everything, never makes mistakes, and never lies? Only God’s account of origins
makes sense of scientific observations and provides rational justification for the
methods of science and reasoning.
There are Buddhist, Hindu, and many other supernatural explanations, in addition to
the one found in the Bible, for astronomical phenomenon and no observation we can
make or experiment we can perform that would favor one over the other.
Actually, every experiment we perform demonstrates the truth of the Christian
worldview, and the falsehood of others, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. Scientific
experimentation relies on the principle of uniformity—the notion that the future
will resemble the past. However, only the biblical worldview can account for
uniformity. That is, without the Bible, there would be no basis for uniformity and,
hence, no possibility of science. This is explained in my article: Evolution: The
Anti-Science.
Other worldviews cannot make sense of science. As one example, Hinduism teaches
that the universe is Maya—illusion. But science would be impossible if the universe
were merely an illusion. How could we study something that does not actually exist?
Hinduism teaches that there are no distinctions, and that all is one. But science
presupposes distinctions; if there is no difference between the stars, planets,
galaxies, and quasars, then astronomy would be meaningless.
Natural explanations may or may not represent reality but they are testable.
Any philosophy that arbitrarily dismisses possibilities that are potentially true
is a bad philosophy. Naturalism arbitrarily dismisses the possibility of a
supernatural origin and is thus a bad philosophy.
The Bible teaches that in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge (Colossians 2:3), and therefore, we should not be robbed of such
treasures by secular philosophies like naturalism. Such philosophy is “after the
tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
(Colossians 2:8).
To be clear, we have nothing at all against the idea of natural law. Natural law is
simply the name we give to the normal way God accomplishes His will and upholds the
universe. One of the problems with the big bang is that it assumes that the origin
of the universe can be explained by natural law. However, the Bible tells us
implicitly that God created the universe by a different method than the way He
currently upholds it (because Genesis 2:2 says that God finished His work of
creation by the seventh day—so He is no longer doing what He was during the
Creation Week). Therefore, it is anti-biblical to argue that the universe was
created by the same laws of nature that it currently exhibits.
I hope this clears up the confusion.
Jason Lisle, Ph.D.
The Cost of Skepticism?
on January 10, 2009
Featured in News to Know
Share:
* *
*
“Questioning theories is usually a healthy pursuit”—except when life and death are
concerned, or when the “theory” in question is evolution.
News Source
* Los Angeles Times: “Christine Maggiore and the Price of Skepticism”
The recent death of HIV/AIDS skeptic Christine Maggiore was fodder for a Los
Angeles Times editorial last weekend on when one should question the prevailing
scientific consensus, and then took a swipe at our supposedly unscientific Creation
Museum.
Creation & Family Entertainment
Need answers? Live & on-demand video content from Answers in Genesis, the Ark
Encounter, Creation Museum, and more.
FREE TRIAL
Maggoire, who was diagnosed with HIV in 1992, founded an organization that disputed
the connection between HIV and AIDS. Maggoire and her followers refused to take the
recommended anti-HIV medication; Maggoire’s breast-fed daughter died at the age of
three for what the coroner determined were AIDS-related causes, though Maggoire
refused to believe it. The Times opines:
Her challenge, however, continues, as Maggiore’s argument—that scientific
consensus, no matter how established, remains subject to objection—runs through
debates with profound public policy implications. Does smoking cause cancer? Do
human activities contribute to climate change? . . . In some instances, these
debates are interesting but not terribly consequential. But sometimes they are of
staggering significance.
Okay, we agree so far; challenging the laws of physics would matter a lot more for
someone walking a tightrope than for someone sitting in theoretical physics class.
The Times also declares:
Still, science is a discipline of questions, and rarely is a fact established so
firmly that it will silence all critics. At the Creation Museum near Cincinnati,
the exhibit guides visitors “to the dawn of time”—just 6,000 years ago. That makes
for some startling conclusions, not the least of which is that dinosaurs and humans
were created by God on the sixth day and lived side by side. Call it the
Flintstones theory.
The Times kindly abstains from outright ridicule, for they’re asking a serious
question: “How . . . to judge when a theory becomes fact, when it slips beyond
legitimate objection?” The editors conclude that “[t]hose who contest [the
preponderance of] evidence must demonstrate the plausibility of alternatives and
produce evidence to support them.”
We agree, actually, though something else that the Times fails to recognize matters
a great deal: what type of science we’re talking about. When it comes to operations
science, valid experiments will yield objective support for one hypothesis or
another. One scientist declares that water always boils at 100˚C; another contends
that atmospheric pressure plays a role in determining what temperature boils water.
The two scientists could then conduct a carefully controlled experiment to validate
one hypothesis and invalidate the other; this experiment could be repeated and
tweaked for other hypotheses. The same goes for questions about, e.g., whether the
earth revolves around the sun, or the role of viruses in causing disease (though
only when scientists can create a valid, controlled experiment).
Determining what happened in the past “scientifically” is a whole ’nother story.
What objective experiment can prove that dinosaurs didn’t live alongside mankind—
without first making untestable assumptions about, e.g., the fossil record? That’s
why, when it comes to history, documents take precedent over experiments—and
evidence is interpreted through what one already believes.
Does Science Need God?
by Dr. Jason Lisle on April 3, 2009
Featured in Feedback
Share:
* *
*
Could science operate if the biblical God didn’t exist? Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG–U.S.,
shows why even atheist scientists unwittingly depend upon a God they don’t believe
in.
The Bahnsen article made the statement “The Bible provides the only possible
presupposition for all thought and science.” The ancient Greeks, with no knowledge
of the Bible, determined that the Earth is a sphere with a radius of about 6,000 km
rather than a two dimensional circle with no dimensions given. The Greeks also used
scientific methods to correctly determine the approximate diameter of the moon and
estimate its distance from the Earth to a high degree of accuracy while the ancient
Hebrews with their scripture achieved essentially nothing in Astronomy. The Greeks
also concluding that the Sun was larger than the Earth, were able to hypothesize
the Earth orbited the much larger Sun. The Greeks also devised a means to determine
the distance to the Sun that failed only because the instruments of the day lacked
the capability of measuring very small angles. Clearly human reasoning proved far
more valuable than divine revelation in the realm of Astronomy to the ancients.
Creation & Family Entertainment
Need answers? Live & on-demand video content from Answers in Genesis, the Ark
Encounter, Creation Museum, and more.
FREE TRIAL
—S.K., U.S.
________________

An Eternal Difference
Hello Mr. Ham,
I am a second year ministry student training to one day become a pastor. My parents
and I visited the Creation Museum [recently]. I was expecting to be impressed, but
I was blown away. Everything was so impressive from the exhibits to the theater
presentation. This museum is making an eternal difference in the lives of many
people because of people like you and those that work with Answers in Genesis. I
pray every day for this ministry and that people will come to the Savior because of
AIG’s efforts. . . . Thank You and God Bless.
—P.I., U.S.
Have Something to Add?
Let us know what you think.
Dr. Bahnsen is exactly right. “The Bible provides the only possible presupposition
for all thought and science.” Only a biblical worldview can logically account for
those things necessary for scientific inquiry, such as uniformity in nature (as
shown in Evolution: The Anti-Science) and laws of logic (as shown in Atheism: An
Irrational Worldview). Without these things, science could not proceed. And yet,
these things are contingent upon the biblical God.
Did the ancient Greeks believe in laws of logic? Yes. Did they believe in
uniformity in nature? Yes. So, the Greeks were borrowing from the biblical
worldview (without acknowledging this, of course). Although they denied the
biblical God with their lips, they were relying upon the biblical God with their
actions. This is a behavioral inconsistency quite common in our modern world, too.
Just like the Greeks, many scientists today rely upon the truth of the Bible while
simultaneously verbally denying the truth of the Bible.
How did the ancient Greeks know about the biblical God that they might rely upon
His laws of logic and His uniform sustenance of the universe? The answer is found
in Romans 1:18–21. God has revealed Himself to everyone, and, so, everyone knows
the God of creation. But because people have a sin nature, we are inclined to
suppress our knowledge of God (Romans 1:18). The Bible tells us that there is no
excuse for this (Romans 1:20). Everyone knows God and relies (to some extent) on
biblical presuppositions, but not everyone acknowledges this (Romans 1:21).
So, the argument is not that people must profess a belief in the Bible in order to
do science. The argument is that the Bible must be true in order for anyone to do
science (whether people acknowledge it or not). Science rests upon the truth of
Scripture. So, the fact that the ancient Greeks were able to do science
demonstrates that the Bible is true! If the Bible were not true, the methods of
science would not make sense; they would have no rational foundation. In other
words, “The Bible provides the only possible presupposition for all thought and
science.”
Dr. Jason Lisle
Are We Hiding Other Views?
by Bodie Hodge on May 8, 2009
Featured in Feedback
Share:
* *
*
A reader claims that AiG is surpressing other viewpoints that do not agree with us.
However, as Bodie Hodge, AiG–U.S., explains, there is hardly a lack of other views
on our site and in the world.
Your website discourages discussion of your views. For example, I had to search
through several links to find this feedback page. The name of your organization is
revealing. You appear to take the view that you probably already have all the
answers, which is hardly the case.
It seems that AIG has little interest in the exchange of views, especially views
that don’t support AIG’s. Do you feel there is no need to discuss them? Do you
think you know or speak for God? If so, how arrogant!
I have to state that your contention that the interpretation of the evidence for
evolution depends on one’s world view is laughable. In fact, what I see with each
and every claim is that AIG simply asserts that the evidence supports their case
when by any rational measure it clearly does not. Worldview does not cancel
gravity. For AIG, it seems, dogma trumps all. I suggest that you simply reject
science and relax. That, at least, would be a morally defensible, if misguided,
position to take.
—S.G., Canada
Family Entertainment + Creation
Need answers? Live & on-demand video content from Answers in Genesis, the Ark
Encounter, Creation Museum, and more.
FREE TRIAL
________________

No Greater Purpose
Ken
Please tell Ken Ham that it was because of his teaching on Genesis that my young
son Rory has returned to the Lord. God gets the glory . . . love you all
—H.M., U.K.
Have Something to Add?
Let us know what you think.
Thank you for contacting us. Please see my comments below and note the sincerity
with which they are said.
Your website discourages discussion of your views. For example, I had to search
through several links to find this feedback page.
Discussion of our views takes place all around the Internet—on forums, blogs,
Twitter, and other social networks. In fact, we often encourage our visitors to
share the articles they read (with the ShareThis button at the top of each page).
What we don’t have the resources for, however, is to take on forums and discussions
on our own site. We address as many questions and thoughts as we can, and then we
encourage our supporters to carry those discussions to other websites, as there are
many more of them than there are of us. This is not an attempt to dissuade
discussion; it is understanding our role and limitations.
The name of your organization is revealing. You appear to take the view that you
probably already have all the answers, which is hardly the case.
This is misrepresentation fallacy. The name of our ministry, Answers in Genesis, is
revealing though. It is an effort to direct people to the foundation for what
Christians should believe: the Bible. But to apply this name to a view that AiG
either has or thinks it has “all the answers” is grossly misleading. But God,
indeed, does have all the answers, and we merely intend to ultimately point
everyone to His Word (the Bible) as the only source of Truth and answers.
It seems that AIG has little interest in the exchange of views, especially views
that don’t support AIG’s. Do you feel there is no need to discuss them?
Since you apparently feel so strongly about exchange in views, we wonder if you
have contacted schools and universities about an exchange in views—other than that
of evolution, as it is very unlikely that they would agree to entertain any other
view than evolution. (Note that AiG does not advocate the teaching of creation in
schools—especially by those not qualified, but we do wonder why the evolutionary
religion of humanism gets free reign in the classroom, whereas other religions have
been kicked out.) And we do, in fact, discuss views contrary to our own in a number
of places. For example, we usually address a challenge to our views each Friday in
Feedback responses, and we specifically quote a number of anti-creation views in
our News to Note column each week (and in other articles).
Also, we openly offer to debate various matters of science and theology. AiG is
happy to engage in equal time formal debates—preferably among two candidates who
are qualified such as PhD vs. PhD. In fact, AiG issues a call for such a debate:
Debate topic: “Creation or Evolution: which view is the most consistent with
science?”
The debate will be on equal time for both positions and equal time for cross
examination. A moderator, acting as neutral as possible, will be involved to keep
the debate on time and in format. And we want to have non-exclusive rights to
distribute the recording (of course, the opposing person/organization is welcome to
copy and distribute as well). If there are any takers, please contact us.
Do you think you know or speak for God? If so, how arrogant!
Yes and no. As Christians, of course, we know God (to the best of each of our
abilities to get into God’s Word), and have repented of our sins and received
Christ as Lord and Savior. As Christians, we have been instructed to be ready to
give a reason for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15). We can know God
because He knows us and indwells us and leads us in His Truth. We would encourage
you to get to know Him as well—at least consider the claims of Christ with an open
mind. We encourage you to also consider the straightforward reading of Scripture,
putting aside any interpretation that you’ve heard or think.
Do we speak for God? No. God speaks for Himself in His Word—the Bible. If we ever
present a view that is contradictory to Scripture, and then place it above the
scriptural view, then that would be not only arrogant, but blasphemy.
I have to state that your contention that the interpretation of the evidence for
evolution depends on one’s world view is laughable.
How so? It is sad that many really think that evolutionists do not interpret
evidence in light of their evolutionary worldview. When evolutionists dig up a
dinosaur bone, they don’t announce it was created on the 6th day of creation!
In fact, what I see with each and every claim is that AIG simply asserts that the
evidence supports their case when by any rational measure it clearly does not.
Such as? Besides, I’ve heard creationists assert the same basic thing about
evolutionists: “In fact, what I see with each and every claim is that evolutionists
simply assert that the evidence supports their case when by any rational measure it
clearly does not.” Why would we point this out? Because evidence does not support
or refute. It is inanimate. It is not a rationally thinking being. Hence, this
reveals the fallacy of reification—where people try to give humanlike qualities to
something that doesn’t have it. So we are back to interpretations of evidence,
based on one’s worldview. Our News to Note articles regularly show how a recent
scientific discovery is bald of evolution until it is applied by the scientists—and
then shows how one can reasonably do the same thing with a creationist viewpoint.
Worldview does not cancel gravity.
Of course not, but only the Christian worldview can account for gravity’s
existence. In an evolutionary worldview, why would the laws of science be uniform?
So, to do science, the Bible must be true. Additionally, you’re misunderstanding
what a worldview is and does. Gravity is a physical constant that we can repeatedly
test in the present. The present effects of gravity are not up for debate. Instead,
a worldview informs our beliefs about the past, such as why there is the uniformity
of gravity that we do observe. An evolutionist could give no reason why there is
uniformity, but a Christian would say that the universe behaves in a uniform
fashion because it reflects God’s nature and this uniformity makes science
possible. Worldview differences are not about observations of the present; they are
about the unobservable past and origins.
For AIG, it seems, dogma trumps all.
False. God and His Word trumps all, as God is the ultimate authority. To challenge
this is to raise oneself up to be greater than God. This is essentially the
religion of humanism. But for the non-Christian, dogma trumps logic, science, and
so on.
I suggest that you simply reject science and relax.
Considering science comes out of a Christian worldview, there is no need to reject
science. Since we’re being logical, rational, and calm—resting in the peace of God
and His Word (Philippians 4:7)—why would we need a suggestion to relax?
That, at least, would be a morally defensible, if misguided, position to take.
To assume that morality exists, is to assume the Bible is true, as morality
originates from God. Considering morality comes from a Christian worldview, this
statement is also false and undermines the position taken in this email.
May we suggest that you consider the truth of God and His Word and begin with God
being the authority—not me or anyone at Answers in Genesis. The issue is between
you and God. Consider the God of the Bible, and consider His free gift of salvation
and restoration to man.
With kindness in Christ,
Bodie Hodge and editors
Science or the Bible?
by Ken Ham and Dr. Terry Mortenson on June 14, 2007; last featured July 5, 2009
Featured in Answers Magazine
Also available in Español
Share:
* *
*
Ever heard one of these claims? Perhaps you’ve even said one yourself. Over the
years, we’ve heard them all—but they’re all false, or at least they imply a
falsehood.
Common claims by non-Christians:
Creation & Family Entertainment
Need answers? Live & on-demand video content from Answers in Genesis, the Ark
Encounter, Creation Museum, and more.
FREE TRIAL
Science proves the Bible is wrong.
Evolution is science, but the Bible is religion.
Evolutionists believe in science, but creationists reject science.
Common claims by Christians:
I believe the Bible over science.
Creation is religion, but evolution is religion, too.
Creationists believe in the Bible and reject science.
The Bible’s account of beginnings cannot be tested in a laboratory, so secular
scientists—and even some Christians—believe it is not science and must be
classified as religion.
Secular scientists claim that their view of beginnings (evolution) can be tested in
a laboratory, so their view is scientific. For instance, they point to mutated
fruit flies or speciation observed in the field (such as new species of mosquitoes
or fish).
But this is where many people are confused—what is meant by “science” or
“scientific.”
It is helpful to distinguish between operational science and origin science, and
compare how each one seeks to discover truth.
Before we get caught up in a debate about whether the Bible or evolution is
scientific, we have learned to ask, “Could you please define what you mean by
science?” The answer usually reveals where the real problem lies.
Defining Science
People are generally unaware that dictionaries give a root meaning, or etymology,
of science similar to this one from Webster’s: “from Latin scientia, from scient-,
sciens ‘having knowledge,’ from present participle of scire ‘to know.’”
And most dictionaries give the following meaning of the word: “the state of
knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.”
Although there are other uses of the word, the root meaning of science is basically
“knowledge.” In fact, in the past, philosophy and theology were considered
sciences, and theology was even called the “queen of the sciences.”
But over the past 200 years, during the so-called Scientific Revolution, the word
science has come to mean a method of knowing, a way of discovering truth. Moreover,
many people assume that modern science is the only way to discover truth.
Operational science uses observable, repeatable experiments to try to discover
truth. Origin science relies on relics from the past and historical records to try
to discover truth.
To help people clear up the confusion, we have found it helpful to distinguish
between two types of modern science, and compare how each one seeks to discover
truth:
* Operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt
to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled
environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical
universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe
speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this
kind of science, which has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for
diseases.
* Origin science attempts to discover truth by examining reliable
eyewitness testimony (if available); and circumstantial evidence, such as pottery,
fossils, and canyons. Because the past cannot be observed directly, assumptions
greatly affect how these scientists interpret what they see.
So, for example, how was the Grand Canyon formed? Was it formed gradually over long
periods of time by a little bit of water, or was it formed rapidly by a lot of
water? The first interpretation is based on secular assumptions of slow change over
millions of years, while the second interpretation is based on biblical assumptions
about rapid change during Noah’s Flood.
Can a Creationist Be a Real Scientist?
Both creationist scientists and evolutionist scientists have religious (or faith)
components to their scientific models about origins. Yet both types of scientists
are equally capable of doing both operation science and origin science.
Operation science, whether done by an evolutionist or a creationist, has benefited
mankind in many ways, particularly through technology. Creationists have
contributed greatly in this area of science, including nineteenth-century
physicists Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell, and more recently Dr. Raymond
Damadian, who invented the MRI imaging used by medical doctors (see here).
In origin science, creationists are discovering many things that honor the
Creator’s wisdom and confirm biblical history.
See a list of creation scientists.
Dr. Raymond Damadian

Dr. Raymond Damadian is a young-earth creationist who is also credited by many as

“the man who invented the MRI scanner.” He has received numerous awards for his
work and in 1989 was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame. Photo
courtesy Fonar Corp.
The Nature of the Debate
At this point, most people realize that the debate is not about operation science,
which is based in the present. The debate is about origin science and conflicting
assumptions, or beliefs, about the past.
Molecules-to-man evolution is a belief about the past. It assumes, without
observing it, that natural processes and lots of time are sufficient to explain the
origin and diversification of life.
Of course, evolutionary scientists can test their interpretations using operation
science. For instance, evolutionists point to natural selection and speciation—
which are observable today. Creation scientists make these same observations, but
they recognize that the change has limits and has never been observed to change one
kind into another.
Until quite recently, many geologists have used studies of current river erosion
and sedimentation to explain how sedimentary rock layers were formed or eroded
slowly over millions of years. In the past few decades, however, even secular
geologists have begun to recognize that catastrophic processes are a better
explanation for many of the earth’s rock layers.
Also during this time, creation geologists have been identifying evidence that
points to the catastrophic formation of most of the rock record during the unique
global Flood of Noah’s day.
These present-day observations help us to consider the possible causes of past
events, such as the formation of the Grand Canyon. But operation science cannot
tell us with certainty what actually happened in the past.
After we explain these two types of science, people usually begin to recognize the
potential problems with the statement “evolution is science, but the Bible is
religion.” Molecules-to-man evolution is not proven by operation science; instead,
it is a belief about the past based on antibiblical assumptions.
The Bible, in contrast, is the eyewitness testimony of the Creator, who tells us
what happened to produce the earth, the different kinds of life, the fossils, the
rock layers, and indeed the whole universe. The Bible gives us the true, “big
picture” starting assumptions for origin science.
Different Histories
Thus, creationists and evolutionists develop totally different reconstructions of
history. But they accept and use the same methods of research in both origin and
operation science. The different conclusions about origins arise from different
starting assumptions, not the research methods themselves.
So, the battle between the Bible and molecules-to-man evolution is not one of
religion versus science. Rather, it is a conflict between worldviews—a
creationist’s starting assumptions (a biblical worldview) and an evolutionist’s
starting assumptions (an antibiblical worldview).
The next time someone uses the word science in relation to the creation/evolution
controversy, ask him first to define what he means. Only then can you begin to have
a fruitful discussion about origins.
Proven Facts
Let us be clear. Accurate knowledge (truth) about physical reality can be
discovered by the methods of both operation science and origin science. But truth
claims in both areas may be false. Many “proven facts” (statements of supposed
truth) about how things operate (in physics, chemistry, medicine, etc.), as well as
about how things originated (in biology, geology, astronomy, etc.) have been or
will be shown to be false. So, as best we can, we must be like the Bereans in Acts
17:11 and examine every truth claim against Scripture and look for faulty logic or
false assumptions.
Which Worldview Is Correct?
There are many ways to test the accuracy of the biblical worldview against
naturalistic atheism (the worldview that controls most origins research). When our
research is based upon biblical truths about the past, we find that our
interpretations of the biological and geological facts make sense of what we see in
the real world, whereas evolutionary interpretations don’t really fit what we see.
Let’s look at an example. The Bible says that God created distinct groups of
animals “after their kind” (see Genesis 1). Starting with this truth of the Bible
as one of our assumptions, we would expect to observe animals divided into distinct
groups, or kinds. Creationists postulate that our creative God placed phenomenal
variability in the genes of each kind, so there could be considerable variety
within each kind. But the preprogrammed mechanism for variation within the kind
could never change one kind into a different kind, as evolutionists claim and their
belief system requires.
The Limits of Science
by Bodie Hodge on July 3, 2009
Featured in Feedback
Share:
* *
*
What does “science” prove? As Bodie Hodge, AiG–U.S., shows, science is not the same
as naturalism and can prove nothing without interpretation.
In response to “Dinosaurs and the Bible”
I do not intend this as an attack on any of you, I simply wish to comment on many
of the flawed accusations you throw at “evolutionary scientists” Evolution is not a
belief...it is a fact. Religion is a belief. While good science offers us a way to
study the natural world and our surroundings in an objective imperical
way...religion is a great partner (not alternative) to explaining our lives
spiritually. There is no need to attack evolution as false when the most well
acclaimed scientists and associations such as the National Academy of Science is
doing nothing to dismantle the foundations of religion. And the reason for that is
because science is not able to enter the realm of the meta-physical and anyone who
says they can is not practicing science. There is no conflict between science and
religion. period. I would appreciate that you read more literature and get your
information from less biased sources. Science will never be able to explain
empirically religion. And on the other foot religion is not science and creationism
is not science because it is not based on scientific fact. If you do not “believe”
in evolution you should do some research on anti-biotic resistence and let me know
how to explain what happens. I won’t hold my breath.
—F. E.
Creation & Family Entertainment
Need answers? Live & on-demand video content from Answers in Genesis, the Ark
Encounter, Creation Museum, and more.
FREE TRIAL
________________

Inspiration and Edification

Just wanted to say how much I love your site. I’ve spent half my life studying
apologetics and using that information to present the gospel to friends, family,
and co-workers, with mixed results.
Your site has been a constant source of inspiration and edification. Your use of
logic, coherent arguments, and abosolute commitment to the infallability of God’s
Word is second to none. My faith is strengthened every time I visit your site.
Please continue to wear the full armour of God, as I’m sure you know the attacks
will go on. Stand firm in His Word and keep your hearts inclined toward Him and you
will prevail.
Bless you all and your ministry. In His honour and for His glory.
—S.J.H., Australia
Have Something to Add?
Let us know what you think.
I do not intend this as an attack on any of you, I simply wish to comment on many
of the flawed accusations you throw at “evolutionary scientists”
Such as? What accusations are you referring to and where are the references?
Evolution is not a belief...it is a fact. Religion is a belief.
Considering that evolution is a subset of the religion of humanism as clearly
outlined in Humanist Manifesto, this puts you in a predicament. How can evolution
be a belief and not a belief at the same time and reference? This violates basic
logic. But more importantly, your definitions are skewed. Religion is a system of
practices based on beliefs about the world and the past. Evolution is a framework
about the past that can never be repeated or tested and must be accepted by
interpretation and authority. That is, by all measures, a belief.
It also seems that you labor under the misconception that beliefs cannot be facts.
So, if someone believes that computers exist, does that negate the existence of
computers being a fact? Who determines what is “factual” and what is not? If
something violates the laws of nature that we know but is accepted by most people,
does that make it factual or not? (Evolutionary belief violates some basic laws of
nature.) Christians accept fact because they believe in an objective Creator who
does not lie. Where, then, does the humanist find a basis for fact?
While good science offers us a way to study the natural world and our surroundings
Creationists agree here, and this methodology was developed by a creationist named
Francis Bacon. But note that good science is observable and repeatable—unlike
evolution and its historical postulates.
in an objective imperical way
But for objectiveness to be valid requires a correct worldview with which to
interpret empirical facts. There are two worldviews competing here. Science is a
useful tool for examining the universe, but humans are not objective. We all have
basic foundational concepts through which we interpret evidence—some starting with
the Bible and some assuming naturalism. Few realize that the
evolutionary/humanistic worldview must borrow from the biblical worldview to even
begin its case. So, this undermines an evolutionary position right from the start.
Also empiricism (that all knowledge must be obtained by experience), is self
refuting. In other words, empiricism can never be proven empirically.
. . . religion is a great partner (not alternative) to explaining our lives
spiritually.
Creationists would agree as well, as correct religion is foundational to looking at
any aspect of the world around us. Your argument here is self-refuting. That is,
you define science naturalistically and then claim that naturalism and
supernaturalism (religion) are partners. This is impossible, as naturalism does not
allow supernatural beings or causes and supernaturalism requires them. On the other
hand, science (as in, observational science) is truly a partner in understanding
the world—when we begin with God’s Word, since science is predicated on
Christianity. So, for good science to even be a possibility is further confirmation
of the truth of the Bible.
There is no need to attack evolution as false
But it is false. It contradicts Scripture in Genesis and Christ Himself and leads
many astray from the truth of Scripture:
“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” (Mark
10:6)
See also Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11. Also, Christians are commanded to demolish
these false arguments:
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the
knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
(2 Corinthians 10:5)
Third, we are warned not to succumb to such false beliefs:
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the
tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according
to Christ. (Colossians 2:8)
when the most well acclaimed scientists and associations such as the National
Academy of Science is doing nothing to dismantle the foundations of religion.
First, this is the fallacy of appeal to majority. The majority of Germans at WWII
either allowed or participated in the persecution of the Jews—but this doesn’t make
it right.
Second, the NAS has aligned itself with the religion of humanism and has a history
of attacking the truthfulness of the Bible. They promote the religion of secular
humanism and naturalistic philosophies that deny the power of God through numerous
articles and publications. This is hardly “nothing.” In addition, the president of
the NAS openly recommends a leading humanist organization called the NCSE.1
And the reason for that is because science is not able to enter the realm of the
meta-physical and anyone who says they can is not practicing science.
And yet, evolutionists claim to transcend the metaphysical millions of years in the
past to know for a “fact” what happened? This means evolutionists are not
practicing science according to their claimed worldview. Scientific methodology
cannot repeat the past. Evolutionary thinking is unrepeatable historical science,
not operational science:
For more, see “What Is Science?”
Let’s face it: there has never been a single experiment run over millions years—not
even one—nor is this possible. Where is the science here? And scientists look for
“God spots” on the brain and alternate universes to explain away how finely tuned
our universe is, and the “evolutionary history” of religion. All of these are
attempts to explain the metaphysical aspects of the universe (poorly) using
naturalistic assumptions.
There is no conflict between science and religion. period.
You would be surprised to know that we agree, but I suggest you have tried to use a
bait-and-switch fallacy here by calling science “evolution.” Evolution is not
science. We all have the same science. The difference is the worldview by which we
interpret scientific facts.
I would appreciate that you read more literature and get your information from less
biased sources.
This is the pretended neutrality fallacy. You are assuming that you and other
humanists are less biased, i.e., neutral, all the while trying to argue for the
evolutionary worldview. By “less biased,” do you mean scientific sources that agree
with naturalism? We do, in fact, get a great deal of our news and information from
mainstream journals and media sources. One of our goals is to reveal that there is
no neutrality and that there are underlying assumptions upon which such papers and
articles are written.
“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me,
scatters.” (Luke 11:23)
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” (Luke
9:50)
God makes it clear in His Word there is no such thing as neutrality. You are either
for Christ or against Him. I want to encourage you to reconsider the claims of
Christ and what it means to be saved.
Science will never be able to explain empirically religion.
Science doesn’t explain things; this is the fallacy of reification. Science is a
methodology to determine observable and repeatable facts and is predicated on
biblical Christianity. In other words, it would be impossible to do science without
the Bible being true.
And on the other foot religion is not science
With this statement, you have no choice but to agree that interrelated religions
like humanism, naturalism, and evolutionism are not science. Additionally, belief
in the One true God of the Bible who is logical and cannot lie means that
scientific inquiry makes sense. Science is possible because the universe exhibits
uniformity. There is no reason to divorce exploring the world around us from the
eye-witness account of the Creator and Sustainer of all things.
and creationism is not science because it is not based on scientific fact.
Science in its strictest sense means knowledge. Creation and evolution have little
to do with scientific facts because we all have the same scientific facts! Creation
and evolution are both subsets of religions; biblical Christianity and secular
humanism, respectively. The worldview of biblical Christianity, from which creation
comes, is the same worldview by which science is possible. I suspect that what you
mean is that creation science is not based on naturalistic assumptions about how
the universe and life came to be. In that case, you’re correct. Facts are not in
debate.
If you do not “believe” in evolution you should do some research on anti-biotic
resistence and let me know how to explain what happens. I won’t hold my breath.
Perhaps if you did some research, you’d see that we’ve shown how antibiotic
resistance fails the test as evidence for evolution (see “Antibiotic Resistance of
Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?” and “Is Natural Selection the Same
Thing as Evolution?”). Here’s an example: how is H. pylori changing into defective
H. pylori support for the general theory of evolution? First, the resistance is
moving in the wrong direction for evolution (losses), and second, changing these
bacteria into the same bacteria is not evolution!
I want to encourage you to reconsider your faith in the evolutionary worldview.
That philosophy is a dead end logically, morally, scientifically, and obviously
religiously. I encourage you to re-consider the claims of the Bible, particularly
Christ because that is what it is all about—we are all sinners and all have fallen
short—even me. But by the grace of God, Jesus Christ, the infinite Son of God, took
the infinite punishment from an infinite God, to make a way of salvation. Jesus is
calling all people everywhere to repent. The Lord is not slack concerning His
promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that
any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). It doesn’t
matter how many steps you’ve taken in the wrong direct, it is only one step back.
With kindness in Christ,
Bodie Hodge
Dinosaur Doubts Down Under
on January 1, 2010
Featured in Answers Magazine
Share:
* *
*
An Australian national survey* reveals that one in three Australians believes
humans and dinosaurs coexisted and thus were not separated by millions of years.
Sponsors of the poll sounded an alarm that such "science illiteracy" imperils the
Australian economy. But making a connection between dinosaur beliefs and a robust
economy is simply bizarre.
The reaction to the survey is actually more noteworthy than its results:
secularists who want to promote evolutionary dogma panic when they realize that not
everyone is willing to accept their worldview.
Elaine Ecklund's Survey of Scientists
on July 24, 2010
Share:
* *
*
USA Today: “Myths Widen the Science-Religion Divide” In June we discussed the work
of Rice University sociologist Elaine Ecklund, whose survey of scientists revealed
that, among other things, “the academy seems to have a ‘strong culture’ that
suppresses discussion about religion in many areas.” Ecklund now weighs in on the
topic in a USA Today opinion piece.
Although half of scientists surveyed consider themselves religious, only a fifth
are involved in a house of worship.
“Is a dialogue between science and religion possible—or even necessary?” she asks,
adding, “If you are concerned about the advancement of science, you must ask
yourself whether a dialogue between science and religion is worthy of promotion and
engagement or staunch opposition.”
FREE Bible Guide
Quick Answers to Common Questions about the Bible.
DOWNLOAD NOW
According to Ecklund, “the conversation between science and religion is besieged by
misunderstanding and myths on both sides.” For example, she claims the religious
falsely believe that all scientists are “atheists who are interested in attacking
religion and the religious community.” Nevertheless, although half of scientists
surveyed consider themselves religious, only a fifth are involved in a house of
worship (including a church, temple, or a mosque).
She also reports that “evangelical Christians are quickly catching up and
surpassing other religious groups in terms of education levels.” However, she cites
no hard facts in her claim that “many young Americans may not be learning what they
should about science because their religious upbringing poses a barrier.”
Ecklund’s findings do help shed light on misunderstandings concerning the social
conflict between atheists, theologically liberal Christians, and others versus
conservative Christians—commonly portrayed as “science versus religion.” But her
caricature, as with so many others, incorrectly portrays science and religion as
epistemologically “horizontal”: two ways of knowing that may be substituted, in
whole or in part, for the other. Rather, a proper understanding of science and
religion juxtaposes them vertically: one’s religious foundation (worldview) forms
the logical basis for one’s perspective on science. Based on that, biblical
Christianity provides a logical justification for science, while atheism fails to
explain why we should trust scientific knowledge.
Deceitful or Distinguishable Terms—Historical and Observational Science
by Troy Lacey on June 10, 2011
Featured in Feedback
Share:
* *
*
Is there a legitimate distinction between historical and observational science, or
are we being misleading to use those terms? Troy Lacey, AiG–U.S., explains.
As a scientist, I never encountered the terms “historical” vs. “observational”
science before seeing them on your website. To my knowledge, either a field has
data or doesn’t, and it is the patterns in this data that either support a
hypothesis or don’t. By your definition, astronomy goes out the window as a
subjective “historical” science because we can’t repeat supernovas in a lab, and it
took too long for the light to hit our telescope. On your site you say, “Neither
creation nor evolution is directly observable, testable, repeatable, or
falsifiable,” and therefore neither qualifies as observational science. But in
recent articles, Ken is often saying that “observational science confirms that
millions of years and evolution can’t be true and how the Genesis account of
origins explains the evidence.” So? Which is it? Or is “historical” simply anything
which contradicts and “observational” anything that supports you? I predict you
won’t answer this question. That’s observational. . . .
–B.G., Canada
________________
Hi B.G.,
Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. The first recent major use of this
concept, contrasting operational (observational) science with origins (historical)
science, was in The Mystery of Life’s Origin (1984) by Charles Thaxton. I believe
you are referring to the article, “Your Tax Dollars at Work—Indoctrination in
Millions of Years,” from Ken Ham’s blog.
Not to try to frame things as a semantics debate, but there is some validity to
that statement as regards your question. As you pointed out, we have stated that
neither creationism nor cosmic evolution nor Darwinian biological evolution is
observational science, and they are not observable, testable, repeatable,
falsifiable events. Therefore, we would state that you cannot “empirically prove”
them. Both creationists and evolutionists have the same sets of data, the same
evidence, and often the same techniques to examine their evidence. The different
conclusions, therefore, must be based on presuppositions (or worldviews). I
understand that the following is a simplistic example, but bear with me.
A creationist astronomer sees comets in the universe and realizes they have a
limited “existence” of at most 100,000 years. He concludes that the universe must
be less than 100,000 years old. A cosmic evolutionary astronomer sees the same
thing but concludes there must be a constant source of comets, because he believes
the universe is 13.7 billion years old. He would, of course, claim that he arrived
at that date due to observational measurements of light from distant galaxies. The
creationist astronomer would then hypothesize an explanation for the distant
starlight problem, which the evolutionist would rebut, etc.
What we contend is that observational science has many evidences that line up with
a young earth or universe but seem contradictory to an old universe. Getting back
to Ken’s quote, you’ll notice that he did not say “prove” but “explains the
evidence.” I realize the semantics argument creeps in here, but Ken is trying to
stress that observational science exhibits evidence that corresponds to a recent
creation.
Historical science (creationist or secular) by its very nature is based on a
worldview i.e., religion.
* Either the universe started out as a singularity, which billions of
years ago exploded and has caused an expanding universe ever since, or God created
it ex nihilo.
* Either life evolved out of non-living chemicals, or aliens seeded the
universe (but this only raises the question of how the aliens became alive), or God
created life as described in Genesis 1–2.
Neither theory is provable (testable, repeatable, etc.). That’s why you’ll often
see our articles state something like, “We trust the Word of God who was there” or
“We accept God’s Word as a true testimony.”
We must be cautious, however, not to make sweeping generalizations, such as saying
that secular scientists do not utilize observational science to make evolutionary
models. Neither should we state that all evolutionary models are based only on
historical science.
In the example of distant starlight, we see that their model is based on
observational science—measurements of light and calculations of how far from earth
the stars and galaxies are based on the speed of light. Creationist astronomers
would rightly point out that the one way speed of light may be instantaneous, so
this would nullify the billions of years light travel assumption. What we should
(and I would contend that we do) point out is that even the observational science
methods are flawed because of assumptions, unreliable dating methods, unwarranted
speculations, etc.
For a better understanding of our viewpoint and for examples of observational
science that points to a recent creation, see the article, “Evidence for a Young
World.”
From a big picture, what you have set up as contradicting information is nothing of
the sort. These are complementary, using the worldview as a framework to view
evidences. Looking at specific evidences within this framework is indeed a
confirmation of that worldview.
I hope this has been helpful.
Troy Lacey,
Answers in Genesis
Chapter 7
Prosecution—The Philosophy and Correct Application of Science
by Dr. Jason Lisle and Tim Chaffey on February 9, 2012
Featured in Old-Earth Creationism on Trial
In this chapter we will examine the nature and role of science, as well as the
ability and limitations of scientific dating methods.
At this point, we have established that the Bible unequivocally teaches a “young”
earth. In other words, God created the universe and the earth in six ordinary days,
roughly 6,000 years ago. But what do the scientific dating methods indicate?
In this chapter we will examine the nature and role of science, as well as the
ability and limitations of scientific dating methods. It is crucial that we have a
proper understanding of how science works, and the underlying philosophy and
assumptions involved in any age-dating method before any accurate age estimates can
be made. We will then apply proper scientific techniques to the evidence. We will
find that the scientific evidence confirms the biblical age of the earth of several
thousand years.
The Bible First
The Bible must come first in our quest for knowledge; it is superior to other
sources of information, including knowledge gained from the natural sciences. This
must be the case because other sources of knowledge presuppose the Bible. In other
words, in order for us to gain knowledge about anything in the universe through any
means (including scientific analysis), we would have to already assume that the
Bible is true. People do not often realize this, so let’s briefly explore this
idea.
In order for science to be possible, what things must be true?1 What are the things
that scientists assume (presuppose) before any investigation of evidence?
Scientists presuppose that the universe obeys logical, rational laws, and that the
human mind is able to discover and understand these laws and make predictions about
how the universe will be in the future. Without these assumptions, science would be
impossible. Yet, these assumptions are exactly what we would expect from the Bible.
God is rational and upholds the universe in a logical, orderly fashion—which we
call the “laws of nature.” And since God made our minds to be able to function in
this universe (and since we are made in God’s image), it stands to reason that our
minds would have the ability to discover truths about the universe.
Worldview
A person’s underlying philosophy and assumptions about how the world works.
But without the Bible, we wouldn’t have justification for these truths. This isn’t
to say that unbelievers cannot do science; they can. The non-Christian also assumes
a rational, orderly universe, and a rational mind that can understand the universe.
But the non-Christian cannot justify these concepts within his own worldview; he
cannot account for what he is doing. Science cannot be rationally used to override
the plain teaching of the Bible, because the plain teaching of the Bible is
required in order for science to be possible.
Furthermore, since the Bible has never been wrong about anything, and since it is
the very Word of the One who knows everything, we must place our confidence in the
Bible above all other sources of information. Many old-earth creationists do not
accept this principle. Instead, they have a tendency to put the Bible at the same
level (in principle) or below the level (in practice) of the latest secular
scientific theories. This is rationalized under the premise that since God made the
universe, nature must be as truthful as the Bible. Old-earth creationists will
sometimes say it like this: “The record of nature must be just as perfect, and
reliable and truthful as the 66 books of the Bible that is part of the Word of
God.”2 As mentioned earlier, Dr. Hugh Ross has said, “The facts of nature may be
likened to a sixty-seventh book of the Bible.”3
However, there is a fundamental error with this reasoning. Nature is not
propositional truth. Propositional truth is a statement or sequence of statements
that are true. However, nature is not comprised of statements! Therefore, nature
cannot be true or false; it simply is. If I held up a rock and asked someone to
evaluate whether it was true or false, this would make no sense. True and false
apply to statements. If I made a statement about the rock (“This rock exists”),
then we could evaluate the statement as true, but not the rock itself. Likewise,
when scientists make statements about nature, we can evaluate those statements as
true or false, but not nature itself.
In fact, the “record of nature” is somewhat misnamed because a record is an account
in writing, whereas nature is not written. Again, nature is not propositional
truth. On the other hand, the Bible is propositional truth. It is a sequence of
statements, and all the statements that are affirmed in the Bible are true. In a
sense, the Bible is the “record of nature” since it records the creation of the
universe and many of the major events of history. It is simply false when old-earth
creationists talk of fossils and rocks as a “record of nature” that is supposedly
comparable to the Bible.
This isn’t to say that we cannot learn anything from nature. When evidence from the
natural world is properly interpreted, it can provide a wealth of information.
However, the way in which such evidence is interpreted depends largely on what a
person already believes about the world. Most people are unaware of how
significantly a worldview affects one’s interpretation of data. This is an
important principle, and we will revisit this in detail later. For now, it is
sufficient to say that the conclusions scientists draw from data are very strongly
influenced by their beliefs. Science is not nearly as objective as many people
believe it to be.
There are several problems with treating scientific theories about nature as if
they were at the same level as Scripture. First, as mentioned in chapter 4, nature
is cursed (Rom. 8; Gen. 3), whereas the Bible is not. This instantly places the
Bible in a higher position.
Second, scientific theories are not nature; rather, they are statements made by men
about nature. As such, they are fallible—whereas the Bible is not. It is true that
we can misunderstand the Bible and we can also misunderstand scientific claims.
However, we must remember that the Bible is never wrong, whereas scientific claims
sometimes are.
Third, the way in which we interpret nature is strongly dependent on what we
believe about the world. In order to do science at all, we must accept some of the
truths of the Bible. As such, the Bible is actually the foundation of science.
This is not to say that we should never trust scientific theories; many of them are
very well established. However, when there is a conflict between the ideas of men
and the Word of God, the Bible must be considered our ultimate authority, because
scientists can and have made mistakes. (It happens a lot—take it from me!) But God
knows everything and never errs nor lies. So, unlike human wisdom, the Bible is an
infallible source of information. Since the Bible teaches a young earth, we can
know for certain that the earth is young.
This really should be enough for a Bible-believing Christian. Sadly, it’s been our
experience that few professing Christians really believe the Bible in its entirety.
They may believe that the Bible has moral value and they may even believe much of
biblical history—such as the death and resurrection of Christ. However, when
secular scientists tell them that we know the world is billions of years old, they
crumble. Many Christians simply will not believe the history recorded in Genesis 1,
no matter how clear the text is, because they place more faith in men than in God.
They will either reject Genesis outright, or worse, they will “reinterpret” the
Bible to match the secular notion of billions of years. However, when someone
“reinterprets” the clear meaning of the words to accommodate outside notions, it
simply means he does not believe the words.
“Reinterpreting” = not believing the text
However, many of the evidential old-earth arguments are really nothing more than
unbiblical, faulty philosophy disguised as science. When we understand the role of
science, and apply it properly, we will find that it supports the biblical time
scale. We offer these two chapters to help people understand that when scientific
evidence is correctly interpreted, it will confirm what the Bible teaches.
The Nature of Science
The word science comes from the Latin scientia, which means “knowledge.” So, in its
broadest sense, science is what we know. Under this definition, all historic
events, including all the events recorded in the Bible, fall within the realm of
science.
Today, many dictionaries will define science as knowledge that has been gained
through observation and experimentation. This is the most common definition today,
and it is more restrictive than the original meaning. For example, we do know some
things that fall outside the modern definition of science. Recorded history is one
example. We know that Abraham Lincoln became president of the United States. We
know this, but not because we have observed it, or confirmed it by experimentation;
rather, we know it because we have reliable historical records.
Operational Science and Origins Science
Since science relies on observation and experimentation, it is well suited for
describing and quantifying how the universe operates today. To be clear, we’ll call
this kind of study “operational science.” Operational science would include such
branches as physics, chemistry, and biology. For example, by observing how things
fall, and by performing controlled experiments, we can deduce the formula for
gravity, as Isaac Newton did. This formula, along with other laws of physics, can
then be used to make predictions about the future—such as the positions of the
planets next year. For the most part, physics, chemistry, and biology describe the
way the world operates today, and therefore fall under the scope of operational
science.
The topics of creation, evolution, and the age of the earth do not fall under the
category of operational science. These issues pertain to the past—how and when the
universe came into existence. This is not something that can be answered directly
by observation and experimentation. That’s not to say that the methods and
processes of operational science cannot shed light on these issues. Clearly,
scientific methods can help inform our understanding of the past. However, since
the past is gone, it cannot be observed, nor can we experiment on it.
The above statement may seem obvious, but many people do not really grasp this
concept. In fact, many have objected to this concept by saying, “But a fossil is a
piece of the past.” This objection just is not true. A fossil is a piece of the
present; otherwise we would not have it! We could certainly make some guesses about
how and when the fossil formed in the past. But, could operational science ever
prove these guesses to be true? No. At best, operational science could establish
that fossils can be formed in a certain way today. For example, by creating fossils
in a laboratory, we know that they can form very quickly under the right
conditions. But operational science could never prove for certain how a particular
fossil formed if that fossil’s formation was not observed. Past events are not
accessible to operational science because they cannot be observed or experimented
upon.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with making a reasonable conjecture about how a
fossil formed by drawing on the observations and experiments of operational
science. For example, operational science tells us that fossils and rock layers can
form very quickly under flood conditions. It is therefore reasonable to conjecture
that many of the fossils and rock layers of the earth were formed during a
particularly massive flood. Applying scientific techniques of the present to answer
a question about the past is called “origins science.” Note that some branches of
study, such as astronomy and geology, include both operational and origins science.
Origins science is an attempt to answer a history question using science.
Radiometric dating is one example. The radioactive elements contained in a certain
rock are measured (in the present: this is the science part—it is testable and
repeatable), and then (along with certain assumptions that we will discuss below)
an estimation is made about how long ago the rock formed. In principle, there is no
reason why such a guess cannot be made. However, origins science is much less
certain than operational science, because it is difficult to ever prove or disprove
the conclusions. How do we really know for certain how long ago the rock formed?
Any “scientific” age estimate is really just an educated guess, and in most cases
it is impossible to know with any certainty whether that guess is actually correct.
We should also understand that questions of age and history are best answered by
consulting a history book, if one is available.
Consider the following facetious example. Suppose two students are asked to find
out when World War I started. This is obviously a history question. The first
student consults several history books written around the time and finds that they
generally agree on the date. He concludes that it began in A.D. 1914. The second
student puts on his white lab coat, and gathers a number of chemicals, beakers, and
DNA samples, and begins experimentation in a laboratory. After several weeks, he
concludes from his experiments that World War I began 3.7 million years ago. Which
student would you be more inclined to believe? What if the second student actually
held a PhD in geology and had just won a Nobel Prize? Would this change your mind?
Hopefully, you would dismiss the 3.7-million-year date as absurd since recorded
history indicates precisely when the war began. Even without knowing the details,
we can conclude that the second student was mistaken. His education and
accomplishments are irrelevant. It would be simply absurd to reject recorded
history in favor of guesswork—even “scientific” guesswork. And yet this is
precisely what many people do when it comes to the age of the earth. When we ask
about the age of something, we are not asking a science question, but rather a
history question. We are asking, “At what point in the past did something come into
existence?” Why is it that when it comes to the age of the earth, people reject the
recorded history of the Bible in favor of “scientific” guesswork? It seems that
many Christians do not have any real confidence in the Bible.
The Bible as a Starting Point for Science
 Cartoon of a man fighting without his weapons and armor

Many times, unbelievers will ask a Christian to leave the Bible out of the
discussion when talking about the age of the earth or evolution. The foolish
response would be to accept these terms, say okay, and then proceed to throw
science evidences at the unbeliever without the Bible. And sadly, this is what many
Christians do. This approach is generally futile.
It tends to be ineffective because the unbeliever does not have the correct
worldview to properly interpret the evidence. The wise Christian never abandons the
Word of God—he must challenge the assumptions of the unbeliever rather than accept
them! Proverbs 26:4 states, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you
also be like him.”
By this, we are not implying that all unbelievers are fools, but it is most
certainly “folly” to start with the assumption that the Bible is not true or is
irrelevant to origins. Why? Because the Bible is true and is very relevant to
origins, considering it is the Word of a perfect God who has always been there and
created everything. Why would we start with an assumption that is false?
Proverbs 26:5 states, “Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his
own eyes.” Some people think that this verse contradicts verse 4, but they are
mistaken. Verses 4 and 5 together do not form a contradiction; they form a
strategy. We do not accept the erroneous, unbiblical assumptions of the unbeliever
or we would be like him (verse 4). However, we can and should, for the sake of
argument, show where his erroneous assumptions would lead if they were true. In
other words, we show how the unbeliever’s faulty assumptions lead to a ridiculous
conclusion that he does not accept. This will demonstrate that he cannot be “wise”
for starting with such fallacious assumptions (verse 5). This may sound very
abstract, so we will illustrate it with the following example.
An unbeliever might say, “I’m an evolutionist; your view is unscientific because
you believe that God created the universe. If you’re going to prove that evolution
is false then you have to use the laws of science only.” Rather than buying into
this premise, we challenge it (Prov. 26:4). We might say, “Why do you think a
belief in God is ‘unscientific’? This isn’t true; in fact, it is because God exists
that science is possible. Think about it: the reason the universe is orderly and
logical is because a logical God has imposed order on His creation. It’s because
God created our minds that we are able to discover the laws of science that He
created.” We then respectfully show the inconsistency in the unbeliever’s thinking
(Prov. 26:5). “If the universe were just an accident as you believe, then why
should it obey orderly principles? Why should there be laws if there is no
Lawgiver? You have accepted the biblical principle of an orderly, logical universe,
while simultaneously denying the God who makes such order possible.”
This same kind of approach can be used on old-earth creationists. We will show that
they accept secular, anti-biblical assumptions while simultaneously claiming to
believe the Bible. Such inconsistencies are common in old-earth creationism. In the
next few sections, we will compare and contrast the biblical and secular
philosophies of science. Note that, for the most part, old-earth creationists
embrace the secular assumptions of science rather than the biblical ones. So, we
are really contrasting the young earther’s biblical assumptions with the old
earther’s secular assumptions.
The Biblical Axioms of Science
The consistent Christian approaches science from the following perspective. Since
God created the universe, and since God is logical, we expect the universe to be
logical. We expect it to obey rational laws, since God is the ultimate Lawgiver.
Since God created our minds, and has given us stewardship of the earth (Gen. 1:26,
28), we expect to be able to understand, to some degree, how the world works. Since
God is the omnipresent sustainer of all things, and since He does not change, it
makes sense that God would not arbitrarily change the way He sustains the universe.
Granted, there have been times when God has acted in an extraordinary way to
accomplish an extraordinary purpose. But the fact that God normally upholds the
universe in a logical and quantifiable way is what the Christian would expect. The
laws of nature are descriptions of the logical, consistent way that the Lord
sustains the universe. The fact that these laws apply throughout space and do not
vary with time is a reflection of God’s omnipresent and consistent nature.
Interestingly, secular scientists also embrace the above biblical principles of
science, although they deny the biblical basis for these principles. That is to
say, secular scientists agree that the universe is logical and orderly, that it
obeys natural laws, that the mind is able to understand much of the universe, and
that the laws of nature are constant with time and space. Yet, they would have no
logical reason to believe these things if the Bible were not true. This is a very
blatant inconsistency in secular thinking, and so we will explore this in greater
detail later.
However, there are some additional biblical assumptions of science that are
embraced by the consistent Christian but are usually rejected by the secular
scientist. For one, Christians have a supernatural worldview. That is, we allow for
miracles. In fact, we insist on them. Since God is beyond the universe that He
created, we know that He is able to work outside natural law, and according to the
Bible, He occasionally does. We could define a “natural law” as a “description of
the way God normally upholds the universe.” A miracle would occur when God acts in
an unusual way to accomplish an extraordinary purpose. The resurrection of Christ
would be one example. God does not normally raise the dead today.
Another biblical axiom is that God created the universe supernaturally. During the
creation week, God was acting in a way that He does not today. God was speaking
into existence new things—the land, the plants, the sun, the moon, the stars, and
the animals. God also created Adam from the dust of the earth, and Eve from Adam’s
side. God is not doing these things today and the Bible specifically tells us this.
It states that God ended His work of creation by the seventh day (Gen. 2:2).
Therefore, the consistent Christian does not expect that the laws of nature (which
describe how God upholds the world today) can properly describe how God created the
world.
Today, for example, we have the law of conservation of energy and mass, which
states that no new energy or mass can come into existence. This law was obviously
not in effect (at least in its present form) during the creation week; new energy
and mass were coming into existence at God’s command. Likewise, the consistent
Christian expects that God will again act in a supernatural way when He brings an
end to this world and creates a new heaven and earth. Biblical miracles such as the
resurrection of Christ and the creation of the universe are historical facts. They
are true but are largely beyond the scope of operational science.
One must understand that the way God created the universe is not the same as the
way He maintains the universe today. This is absolutely clear from the Bible.
Secular scientists deny this principle, since they deny biblical creation. They are
forced to assume (not because of facts, but because of their philosophical bias)
that the creation of the universe was a natural event. They expect that the
processes that formed the universe are the same as those that are acting within the
universe today. Even though this is unbiblical, this secular assumption is also
largely embraced by old-earth creationists, as will be shown in the next chapter.
One last biblical axiom has to do with the geological impact of the Flood. After
the Flood, God promised to never again send such a devastating Flood of waters upon
the earth (Gen. 8:21, 9:11). So, we can infer from Scripture that the Flood was the
most geologically significant event since creation. Psalm 104:8 suggests that
mountains rose and valleys sank during this catastrophe. Therefore, we would expect
that many of earth’s geologic features, such as mountains, canyons, volcanoes, and
rock layers were shaped rapidly during and soon after the worldwide flood.
Secular Assumptions in Science
We have seen that most secular scientists use a number of biblical assumptions when
doing science. They assume (just as a Christian does) that the universe obeys
natural laws, that these laws do not change with time or space, and that the human
mind is capable of understanding the laws of nature, etc. However, the secular
scientist has no logical reason to believe these things if the universe were merely
an accident. He might argue that he uses these assumptions because they work—they
make science possible. But that does not explain why they are true, whereas the
Bible does explain this.
Because of his denial of Scripture, the secular scientist has several assumptions
that differ from the Christian’s perspective. These assumptions deal largely with
origins science rather than operational science. This explains why Christians and
non-Christians largely agree on matters of operational science; that is, we agree
on how the universe works today. However, we disagree about the past because the
secular scientists make a number of philosophical assumptions that are unbiblical
and unfounded. The two most obvious are naturalism and uniformitarianism.
Naturalism
The belief that nature is all that exists. Inherent in this belief is the denial of
miracles.
Naturalism is the belief that nature is all that exists. A naturalist does not
believe in miracles. He believes that everything that happens or has ever happened
has occurred within the laws of nature. This even includes the origin of nature.
The secular scientist assumes that everything that exists is the result of the laws
of nature working over time. Curiously, a number of secular scientists do believe
in God, or some version of a supreme being. However, they seem to regard this as
irrelevant to their studies. It is as if they intentionally pretend that “nature is
all that there is” when in fact they believe that to be false. Naturalism has
become the modus operandi of the secular scientist in our day. It is the guiding
principle to which virtually all secular scientists adhere. Yet, it is false.
If naturalism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything.4 Proofs involve
use of the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, which says that you
can’t have A, and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. The laws of
logic are not part of nature. They are not part of the physical universe. You can’t
stub your toe on a law of logic. So, if nature (the physical universe) is all that
exists and if laws of logic are not part of nature, then they can’t exist. But they
are required for rational reasoning. So, the naturalist view is actually self-
refuting. If it were true, it would be impossible to reason. Yet naturalism is what
secular scientists use as the foundation for their thinking. We will show why this
explains many of the incorrect conclusions drawn by secular scientists, such as
evolution and an old earth.
Uniformitarianism is the belief that nature is uniform. This term can be used in
more than one way, so let’s expand on this. First, uniformitarianism can simply
mean that the laws of nature do not arbitrarily change with time. Of course, this
is true. It is a biblical principle that God has maintained the universe
consistently since its creation.5 We part company with secular scientists when they
assume that the laws of nature have always applied—even to the origin of the
universe and life. We do this because the Bible teaches that God created the
universe and life supernaturally.
More frequently, the term uniformitarianism is the assumption that rates have
always been generally the same as they are today.6 This is summed up in the phrase
“the present is the key to the past.” Secular scientists observe that canyons are
deepening, and some mountains are slowly lifting today. They assume that these
present rates have been more or less constant throughout time. If that were the
case, then it would take a very long time for mountains and canyons to form.
Uniformitarianism assumes that the major geologic features of earth were formed
gradually over vast periods of time by the slow and gradual processes we observe
happening today. Since we do not observe a worldwide flood today, this event is
dismissed out-of-hand by the uniformitarian scientist.
We are not suggesting that it is always unbiblical and wrong to assume that a
particular process has been constant throughout time. For example, we believe the
orbit of earth around the sun has remained about the same since God created the sun
on the fourth day. However, we should always have a good, cogent reason for making
such an assumption on a case-by-case basis. In addition, we certainly would not
assume a rate is constant when we have good biblical reasons to believe otherwise.
For example, there are certainly some universal biblical events that would have
affected the rates at which some things occur. The global flood killed people and
animals at a much greater rate than is happening today. So our disagreement with
secular scientists is not that rates are never constant, but rather that (1)
secular scientists have a tendency to arbitrarily assume that such rates are
generally constant, and (2) that secular scientists ignore biblical events, such as
creation and the Flood, that would most certainly affect the rates of various
physical processes. The present is not the key to the past. The biblically minded
person should realize that the reverse is true: the Bible (which tells us about the
past) is the key to (understanding) the present.
It is clear that a belief in naturalism and uniformitarianism would lead to vastly
inflated estimated ages for the earth and its various features. If we incorrectly
assumed that the earth had formed by natural processes, then we would incorrectly
conclude that it took a great deal of time for the earth to cool from the molten
blob from which it allegedly formed. If we incorrectly assumed that there was no
worldwide flood to push up mountains and form canyons, then we would incorrectly
conclude that it took vast ages for these features to form at today’s rates. These
conclusions are not irrational; they follow logically from the starting
assumptions. However, the starting assumptions are wrong—and consequently, so are
the conclusions! We will now examine how these assumptions and others adversely
affect the unbeliever’s estimates of the age of the earth.
The Assumptions of Age-Dating Methods
Recall that questions of age are not “science” questions but history questions,
since they ask when in the past something happened. Age is not a substance that can
be measured in the present by scientific processes. Age-dating methods are applied
to a process—where something changes to something else at a known rate, such as the
radioactive decay of substances in a rock. By extrapolating backward, one can
estimate when the process began. There are several assumptions involved in this
process that cast serious doubts on such methods.
It has been our experience that very few people really understand the assumptions
involved in science—especially those of the age-dating methods of origins science.
There are three significant assumptions involved in almost all age-dating
techniques. These are the constancy of rates, the initial conditions of the system,
and the assumption that the system is “closed” (which means that no material from
the system is exchanged with the outside world). In this text, we will deal
primarily with the first two assumptions. These assumptions tie in very strongly
with the assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism.
Here is an example to illustrate these assumptions. Suppose a friend decided to pay
us a surprise visit one day. We have not seen him for a while because he moved to a
town 500 miles away several years ago. We notice that he is moving at 50 miles per
hour as he arrives. We wonder how long ago he began his trip. This is a history
question. To travel 500 miles at 50 miles per hour would take ten hours. So we
conclude he began his journey ten hours ago. Of course, this may not be accurate
because we have employed the above assumptions, which may not be true. He may have
been traveling faster than 50 miles per hour for most of the trip, only slowing
down for the last leg. In this case, our age estimate would be too high. We have
assumed the constancy of rates, when the rate was not constant.
We have also made another assumption. It may be that he no longer lives in that
city 500 miles away but now lives in a town that is only 50 miles away. So even if
his rate really were constant, it would only take him one hour to arrive rather
than ten. In this case, we have assumed the incorrect initial conditions, and this
leads us to a vastly inflated age estimate.
Secular Assumptions and the Age of the Earth
Since the majority of secular scientists believe in naturalism and
uniformitarianism, this causes them to make incorrect assumptions about the initial
conditions and constancy of rates of various earth processes. These faulty
assumptions lead to inflated estimates for the age of the earth. Here is a real-
world example to illustrate this concept.
Today it is estimated that the Grand Canyon is eroding at a rate of 168 million
tons per year.7 When we factor in the average density of material (2.0 g/cm3), this
works out to a volume of 0.018 cubic miles per year of sediment that is removed.
The Grand Canyon itself is just under 1,000 cubic miles in volume. If we divide
1,000 by 0.018, we find that it would take over 50,000 years8 for the Colorado
River to remove enough material to form the Grand Canyon at today’s rate of
erosion.
Notice the assumptions that have gone into this estimation. One assumption would be
the starting conditions. We have assumed that there was not a canyon there to begin
with—it really was cut out of pre-existing rock. This is a pretty safe assumption
since the rock layers are mostly sedimentary rocks—the kind laid down by water.
Most people would agree that the earth was not created with a Grand Canyon already
there; so the Christian and non-Christian agree on the starting conditions in this
case.
What about the rate of erosion? Have we made an unwarranted assumption here? Is it
possible that the rate at which water cuts the canyon was faster in the past?
Certainly! We know from Scripture that there was once a worldwide flood that killed
all air-breathing land animals9 and people except those on the Ark (Gen. 7:21–23).
Such a catastrophic event would lay down many successive layers of sediment,
trapping the remains of animals killed during the Flood. We would expect to find
layers of rocks containing fossils all around the world—and this is exactly what we
do find. The walls of the Grand Canyon are made of these fossil-bearing sedimentary
rock layers. So the canyon formed after the Flood.
Since all the land on earth was covered with water (Gen. 7:17), the amount of water
that rushed into the oceans after the Flood would have been staggering! Such a
massive quantity of water would have certainly cut canyons quickly. We know that
such things can happen, because we have recently observed smaller canyons forming
in a matter of days from massive flooding.
A consistent Christian would conclude that most of the Grand Canyon must have
formed rapidly by catastrophic amounts of water and mud shortly after the worldwide
flood. But since the unbeliever adheres to uniformitarianism, he denies the
biblical flood, and consequently his estimated age of the Grand Canyon is far too
old. Faulty starting assumptions have resulted in faulty conclusions. We will
examine more of these kinds of arguments in the next chapter.
Whenever we come across any age-dating technique, we need to think about what
assumptions have gone into it. When it comes to estimating the age of something,
the Christian should always examine the assumptions about initial conditions, the
constancy of rates, and whether the system was closed. This is not to say that a
creationist would always disagree with the assumptions of a particular age
estimate. Sometimes we have good reasons to think that certain rates really have
been essentially constant; however, we do not arbitrarily assume that this is so.
Moreover, we certainly do not assume constancy of rates when we have good biblical
reasons to believe otherwise, such as the rapid changes in earth’s topography
caused by the worldwide flood.
Don’t Answer, Answer
In the spirit of Proverbs 26:4, we refuse to accept the erroneous and unbiblical
philosophies of uniformitarianism and naturalism. These doctrines have caused
unbelievers to make incorrect assumptions about initial conditions and constancy of
rates. In fact, virtually all old-earth arguments assume these false philosophies.
Clearly, we cannot accept the conclusions of age estimates that are based on faulty
starting assumptions. Unfortunately, old-earth creationists generally do accept
such arguments. In some cases, they may not have realized the assumptions from
which such estimates are derived.
However, in the spirit of Proverbs 26:5, we can, for the sake of argument, show how
the secular assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism would lead to logical
inconsistencies. When creationists talk about scientific evidence that confirms the
biblical age of the earth, this is usually how the topic is approached. For the
sake of argument, we will assume naturalism (nature is all that there is) and
uniformitarianism (rates are generally constant—no worldwide flood) in the
following examples. Then we will show how the logical conclusions still contradict
the notion of billions of years.10
Science Confirms a Young Earth
Rivers are constantly removing small fractions of salt from the land and
transporting it to the ocean. The rate at which this happens has been measured. The
salt added to the ocean by all the rivers in the world is about 450 million tons
per year.11 The water at the ocean’s surface is constantly evaporating and then
falls as rain, which collects in rivers, completing the cycle. The salt does not
evaporate and only a fraction (27 percent is a generous upper limit) of the salt
added to the ocean every year can be removed (by salt sprays and a handful of other
processes). As a consequence, the ocean gets saltier every year by at least 330
million tons.
Illustration showing 450 million tons of salt per year entering the oceans and
only 27% per year leaving, with words stating, “Salt fills the sea too fast!”

Assuming uniformitarianism (that this trend has been more-or-less constant

throughout time), we can extrapolate backward to figure out when the ocean was
entirely fresh water. In fact, just to be generous to the old-earth supporters, we
will use a “worst-case scenario” rate even larger than today’s rate. When we do the
calculation, the answer we get is that the oceans cannot be older than 62 million
years. Note that we have also assumed the “worst-case scenario” initial conditions;
we have assumed the ocean had no salt in it at all when it was first created. If
the ocean did have salt in it at its beginning, then the true age must be
considerably less than 62 million years.
If we used today’s rates, we would get 38 million years. These numbers may sound
high, since they are much higher than 6,000 years, but evolutionists and other old-
earth supporters believe that the oceans are three billion years old—50 times older
than our upper limit estimate. Yet, when we use their starting assumptions, we find
that this cannot be true. The old-earth belief is inconsistent with its own
assumptions.
Likewise, rivers also carry sediment from the continents into the oceans. This mud
accumulates on the ocean floor. The rate at which this occurs is about 20 billion
tons per year. The only significant way to remove such mud is thought to be
subduction (plate tectonics), but this could only remove a maximum of one billion
tons per year at current rates. The rest just accumulates.
How long would it take to get the current amount of mud in the oceans? Assuming
uniformitarianism (no worldwide flood), and “worst-case scenario” initial
conditions (we assume there was no mud at all to begin with), it would take 12
million years to get the present amount of mud. So even when we intentionally
ignore the effects of a global flood (which would deposit a great deal of mud very
rapidly) we still find that the oceans cannot be 3 billion years old, as taught by
old-earthers.
Many people have heard of carbon dating. Without being overly technical, it is
sufficient to say that carbon dating is based on the process of carbon-14 (C-14)
changing to nitrogen.
Carbon 14 disappears over time in a bone

The amount of 14C becomes less with time.

This process happens at a known rate. By measuring the current amount of C-14 in a
dead organism and by extrapolating backward, scientists can estimate when it died.
As with virtually all age-dating methods, this technique assumes certain initial
conditions and it assumes that the rate at which C-14 decays is constant.12
The problem for old earth supporters is that C-14 always gives “young” age
estimates (a few thousand years)—even on things like coal beds that are supposedly
millions of years old. At its current decay rate, C-14 simply cannot last even one
million years. Yet, C-14 has been found in coal that is supposedly millions of
years old and even in diamonds that are allegedly more than a billion years old.13
Since diamonds are the hardest known substance, there is essentially no chance of
contamination from the outside. So this is very compelling evidence that the earth
is only thousands of years old.
Human population growth is another example. Starting with one man and one woman and
using today’s growth rate, it would take less than 2,000 years to get all the
people on earth. Of course, even the strictest uniformitarian would have to grant
that the growth rate was slightly less in the past because of famines, disease,
higher infant mortality rate, etc. Even if we use a much lower growth rate, we
still find that human beings have only been around for a few thousand years, which
is much less than evolutionists and old-earth supporters assume. In order to be
compatible with the secular time-line, the growth rate would have to be extremely
different from today’s rates, which is certainly incompatible with
uniformitarianism. In fact, the growth rate would have to be essentially zero for
hundreds of thousands of years. Of course, it is absurd to think that earth’s
population remained constant for such a long time.
In the above examples, we have used the same secular assumptions of naturalism and
uniformitarianism employed by the old-earthers and have shown how these lead to an
inconsistency. In many cases, the evidence is simply inconsistent with an old earth
—even when secular assumptions are used. Of course, if we use our own Bible-based
starting assumptions, there is no problem. We assume that the universe was
supernaturally created. We assume that the world was created fully functional from
the beginning and was similar in many respects to the way it is today14 (with some
important differences, of course), because the Bible indicates this. We assume that
a worldwide flood is responsible for much of earth’s topography today, since this
is a logical inference from the Word of God. These starting assumptions are very
consistent with scientific observations. Yet when we start with secular, old-earth
assumptions, we find that such assumptions lead to inconsistencies.
The scientific case for a young earth is very strong. In the next chapter, we will
examine scientific arguments that supposedly support an old earth.
Previous Chapter
Defense—A Local Flood?
Next Chapter
Defense—“Scientific” Arguments
Old-Earth Creationism on Trial
Old-Earth Creationism on Trial

As the modern Church struggles to find a place of relevancy for a new generation
that already has massive demands on its time and attention, more and more young
people raised in the Church are leaving it—failing to find the answers to their
questions of faith and life, beset with doubts raised by issues that the Church
chooses not to address. Opting to skirt the controversy of Genesis as literal
history, the biblical authority of the Holy Word is called into question and
reduced to a collection of mere stories.
READ ONLINEBUY BOOK
Master Books has graciously granted AiG permission to publish selected chapters of
this book online. To purchase a copy please visit our online store.
Footnotes
1. These kinds of questions concerning the preconditions of
intelligibility are a powerful way of defending the Christian worldview. The late
Christian philosopher Dr. Greg Bahnsen specialized in this kind of apologetic. A
student of Dr. Cornelius Van Till, Dr. Bahnsen was known as “the man atheists most
feared” due to his ability to destroy non-Christian worldviews (especially atheism)
on the basis of preconditions of intelligibility.
2. H. Ross, Toccoa Falls College, Staley Lecture Series, March 1997.
3. H. Ross, Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on
the Creation-Date Controversy, (Wheaton, IL: NavPress, 1994), p. 56
4. This was brilliantly demonstrated by Christian philosopher Dr. Greg
Bahnsen in the “Great Debate” on the existence of God. In this debate, Dr. Bahnsen
showed that his opponent (atheist Gordon Stein) could not even make sense of the
debate itself without presupposing the biblical God.
5. Though, at the Fall, God apparently removed some of His sustaining
power. This was certainly a change—but not an arbitrary one. God had an important
reason for doing this.
6. Uniformitarianism doesn’t necessarily mean that we assume a given
rate itself is necessarily constant, only that the trend we see today has always
applied. For example, radioactive decay is not constant; it is an exponential decay
(it happens slower as the source material is depleted). So the uniformitarianism
assumption in this case is that radioactive decay has always been an exponential
decay and that the “decay constant” (a mathematical term describing the “steepness”
of the exponential decay curve) has never changed. Another example is the recession
of the moon; this rate is not constant—it goes as the sixth power of distance. So
the uniformitarian assumption is that this has always been the case.
7. S. Austin et al., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (Santee, CA:
Institute for Creation Research, 1994), p. 87
8. Most secular geologists believe that the Grand Canyon is millions of
years old. But as we can see, this is difficult to support even if we assume
today’s slow and gradual rate of erosion.
9. Specifically, those land animals which have the “breath of life”
died. The Hebrew phrase implies that this is a subclass of animals, possibly
referring primarily to vertebrate animals (though we would not be dogmatic on this
point).
10. Henry Morris listed 68 of these processes in Appendix 5 of The
Defender’s Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, 1995), p. 1505–1508.
11. S.A. Austin and D.R. Humphreys, “The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma
for Evolutionists,” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Creationism,
Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship 1991.
12. To be precise, the uniformitarian assumption in this case is that
the exponential decay constant does not change with time.
13. L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin, Radioisotopes and the
Age of the Earth Vol. II (Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 2005), p.
609.
14. This is to say that there were stars, galaxies, plants, and animals
present right at the end of the first week.
Faith and Science: Any Absolutes?
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on September 22, 2012
Featured in News to Know
Share:
* *
*
Faith and science: are there any absolutes?
News Source
* Enrichment Journal: “Faith and Science: Interpreting God’s Word and
God’s World”
The fall 2012 Assemblies of God Enrichment Journal is devoted to helping those in
ministry reach the world for Jesus Christ in this scientific age. The issue is a
collection of articles by scientists, philosophers, and theologians debating “the
biblical and scientific evidence for the age of the earth,”1 discussing “how to
minister to a scientifically literate culture,”2 and dealing with “the New Atheist
misuses of science.”3
FREE Bible Guide
Quick Answers to Common Questions about the Bible.
DOWNLOAD NOW
An introductory message from Assemblies of God general superintendent George Wood,
“Faith and Science: Interpreting God’s Word and God’s World,” recalls his own
crisis of faith brought on not by scientific concerns but by the apparent hypocrisy
of some people who claimed to be mature Christians. His crisis was resolved, he
reports, when he realized that “Christianity was based on fact, not feeling” and
that “subjective experiences are a weak foundation for Christian faith, but
objective truth is solid ground.” (To all this, I believe most regular Christian
readers of this column would say a resounding “Amen.”)
Following this strong beginning, however, Dr. Wood then explains that in order to
equip Christians in his denomination to minister to those who find their faith
threatened by science, the journal does not take sides on the age-of-the-earth
debate. He deems this the best way to win scientifically literate people for the
gospel. That non-committal philosophy is reflected in the journal, not only by the
multiplicity of views presented but also by clear instructions that the best way to
reach people for Christ is to avoid taking sides.
Dr. Wood . . . explains that in order to equip Christians in his denomination to
minister to those who find their faith threatened by science, the journal does not
take sides on the age-of-the-earth debate.
The Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position—the view that God created the earth and
all that exists about 6,000 years ago in six literal days as described in Genesis—
is presented as a position that pastors simply should not take for fear of implying
people should check their brains at the door.
The colossal inconsistency of Dr. Wood’s position here should be apparent. The
“facts” on which Christianity is based—the “objective truths” that provide a solid
foundation for all the doctrines of Christianity—are the truths in the Word of God.
God did not provide a book with a few scattered truths and nice thoughts amidst a
morass of fairy tales from which individuals were expected to root out some
individual happy-thoughts.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, told His Father, “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17).
The ever–self-deceiving hearts of men and women described in Jeremiah 17:9 could
never determine which parts were true if God left it to us to decide which parts
were worthy of belief. Jesus Christ Himself referred to key events in the Old
Testament as factual. Those Christ-attested events include the creation of man and
woman (Matthew 19:4), the global Flood of Noah’s day (Matthew 24:38), and the three
miserable days and nights Jonah spent inside the great fish’s belly (Matthew
12:40). And Jesus made it clear that belief in the writings of Moses is
foundational to understanding and believing in Him (John 5:46–47).
Thus, while acknowledging the importance of absolute truths based on God’s Word,
Dr. Wood gives his blessing to a journal that teaches ministers to refrain from
suggesting there is a solid basis for all the major doctrines in the Bible, even
including the doctrines that explain the origin of sin, death, guilt, and the need
for a Savior. Those doctrines (and all the other major biblical doctrines) have
their roots in Genesis. Dr. Wood describes this approach as “tough sledding,
intellectually speaking.” What he is really recommending isn’t just “tough
sledding” though, but a slippery slope that starts out telling people that the
Bible might very well be wrong from its beginning. This approach encourages people
to pick and choose what parts of God’s Word they want to believe until they finally
realize that approach is so farcical they throw out the whole thing. Dr. Wood’s
“anything goes” approach to the foundational book of the Bible is no way to win
people to Christ. It is a way to build their faith on an unstable basis, destined
to crumble.
New Solar Cell: Evolutionary Advancement or Intelligent Design?
on February 9, 2013
Share:
* *
*
New solar cell design touted as a product of evolutionary understanding.
News Source
* ScienceDaily: “Evolution Inspires More Efficient Solar Cell Design:
Geometric Pattern Maximizes Time Light Is Trapped in Solar Cell”
Given dire predictions by TV host Bill Nye and others that civilization’s future
technological progress is endangered by teaching children to doubt evolution, a
headline reading “Evolution Inspires More Efficient Solar Cell Design” at first
glance appears to support such a position. But on closer inspection, the reader
should quickly see that the new solar cell’s development was not based on
evolutionary principles at all.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
solar
The developers of this new solar cell design—that traps and retains photons more
efficiently—credit their application of evolutionary principles to their success. A
little scrutiny reveals this innovation would be a far better illustration of the
process of intelligent design. Image credit: Northwestern University
www.sciencedaily.com
Solar cells capture some of the sun’s virtually limitless supply of clean energy
for our use, but current technology is inefficient and expensive. Northwestern
University researchers wanted to devise a more efficient solar cell. Their goal was
to increase the time photons of light would remain trapped in a solar cell without
simply making the solar cell components thicker. The trick was to determine the
best combination of materials and design from an almost limitless number of options
to achieve that goal.
“Our approach is based on the biologically evolutionary process of survival of the
fittest.”
Mechanical engineer Cheng Sun, coauthor of the study “Highly Efficient Light-
Trapping Structure Design Inspired By Natural Evolution,”1 says, “We wanted to
determine the geometry for the scattering layer that would give us optimal
performance. But with so many possibilities, it's difficult to know where to start,
so we looked to laws of natural selection to guide us.” Co-investigator Wei Chen
adds, “Due to the highly nonlinear and irregular behavior of the system, you must
use an intelligent approach to find the optimal solution. Our approach is based on
the biologically evolutionary process of survival of the fittest.”
Their computer algorithm sorted through all the possibilities achievable with
available design elements and came up with the combination that gave optimal
results. This computer software intelligently sorted through combinations to
determine by simulated trial and error what would work. The process demonstrated
the power of computer technology to evaluate many combinations and options rapidly.
But nothing about the process mimics the process of “natural evolution” to which
evolutionists attribute the rise of life.
The computer’s operation was intelligent and purposeful, whereas actual evolution
would have to be random and purposeless. The computer was given a pre-determined
goal to accomplish, a purposeful end toward which to direct its progress. The
researchers also supplied the computer with information—all available design
elements. Evolution offers no way to explain the origin of information.
Furthermore, the computer was also able to interpret the design elements, an
analogy to the way cellular mechanisms can read the information in DNA. But
evolution offers no way to encode or decode information. Even if a “code”
accidentally evolved, evolution could offer no way to read it.
Evolutionists consider natural selection to be the engine that drove evolution and
mutations to be the source of new information. Mutations damage genetic information
or duplicate or rearrange existing genetic information. However, they have never
been observed to produce new information. Neither did this computer algorithm come
up with any new information. Instead it already “understood” the language of the
information provided and simply sorted through the pre-existing information very
quickly.
Thus there is nothing about this project that illustrates molecules-to-man
evolution. No randomness. No purposelessness. No natural production of new
information from chaos. Those who hear Nye’s rhetoric about the necessity of our
children accepting evolution to safeguard our technological futures must be careful
to use discernment to avoid being deceived by such poor analogies that seem to
credit an evolutionary way of thinking with the advancement of technology. Nothing
could be farther from the truth.