Basic HTML Version
AND CREATION SCIENCE?
C
AN CREATION
qualify as a le–
gi tirnate scientific theory? Or
does it involve, as its critics
claim, a denial of objective evidence
in favor of a thinly disguised reli–
gious dogmatisrn?
The Question of Origins
When scientists enter the study of
origins, they should realize that the
scientific method is not capable of
answering all the questions. Fur–
thermore, there is
no requirement
that truth in the rea/m of origins lies
exclusive/y in the scientific domain.
Many evolutionists insist that
science and science classes, when
studying origins, can only examine
theories which are totally scientific
- temporarily forgetting that evolu–
tion itself does not meet this re–
quirement. The insistence that
science cannot consider theories which
include the existence of a Creator
or miraculous acts is an arbitrary
restraint on the search for truth.
In reality. many aspects of scien–
tific theories of origins are techni–
cally outside empirical science. Yet,
if any part of a theory of origins can
be studied by science, then that por–
tien of the theory is a legitimate
field of scientific discussion. The re–
jection of creation because it
in–
volves the supernatural - which is
ouside empirical science - is noth–
ing more than evolutionary dogma–
tism.
The possibility of a Creator is a
proper question within tbe study of
origins. The considera!ion of the sci–
entific implication of this possibility
ought to be part of science instruc–
tion. Especially in view of the in–
adequacy of the theory of evolution,
the exclusion of a scientific creation–
ist theory frorn science instruction
PLAIN TRUTH
June
1973
prejudices young minds against tbe
impartía! evaluation of scientific
data. AU logical concepts of origins
should be considered in science, or
scientists should withdraw from any
consideration of origins.
The Scientific Limits
of Creation
Creation. by its very nature, can–
not derive conclusive evidence from
the sciences. Yet it is supported by
evidence from biology. genetics,
biochemistry. And it accounts for
evidence from comparative anat–
omy, paleontology, and geology.
Also, the creation concept fulfills
two of the requirements of a scien–
tific theory of origins. It is supported
by the available data, and it corre–
lates the relevant disciplines of
science in a conceptual framework.
Tbe creation concept can also
supply a stimulus for scientific re–
search and the formation of scien–
tific questions - an important factor
to scientists.
But even more importantly,
cre–
ation has definite scientific implica–
tions.
If the natural world was
created, then the relationships be–
tween living organisms, the history
of life, and many other scientific is–
sues can only be fuiJy understood
within a creation rnodel. Creation,
therefore, is a proper subject for sci–
entific investigation and scientifi.c
theorizing.
Sorne complaints of evolurionists.
however, have often been true.
Many creationists have ignored cer–
tain scientific facts or twisted them
to fit their preconceived religious
views. Truth in religion does not re–
quire the perversion of science.
The foremost example of religious
doctrine dictating the unwarranted,
unscientific conclusions of many
modero creationists is the belief of
sorne creationists that the earth is
only a few thousand years old. Its
corollary is the belief that the vast
majority of the fossiliferous strata
were deposited in Noah's Flood.
The scientists who are creationists
and hold this "flood" view of geol–
ogy have not been able to explain
the abundan! evidence which mili–
tates against their theory. Their "sci–
entific" views have been based
mainly on views of theologians who
themselves are in confusion about
what the Bible teaches. (Ironically
the Bible nowhere requires this
"flood" view of geology nor the be–
liefthat the earth is only a few thou–
sand years old.)
Scientists have every reason for
rejecting such unsubstantiated, non–
scientific beliefs.
The modero creationist concept
does not have to be an irrational
belief - a faith accepted without
evidence or logical proof. Its com–
plete understanding should be prop–
erly based on factual scientific data,
on logic, and on the proofs which
are available frorn a true under–
standing of the bíblica! record.
Within science, a proper and scien–
tific creation model can correlate
scientific knowledge of the natural
world within the frarnework of cre–
ation.
As a scientific theory, creation has
a great deal of promise, yet it has
been investigated by only a few sci–
entists. Jt's worthy of the attention
of the entire scientific comrnunity.
And as a basis for the conduct of
one's personallife and the organiza–
tion of society, the implications of
creation are even greater.
- Cliff
C.
Morcussen
29