A Common Misconception among Evolutionists Re: Creation Science

Casey casem at pangea.ca
Sun Oct 4 21:41:28 EST 1998

[This posting was originally made to B.W. Tague in response to his/her
posting to me]
       Though the issue of creation science in your opinion has been
flogged to death in the newsgroups,  the very fact that you and many, if
not most, evolutionists continue to misunderstand the essential nature of
this position, this is reason enough to discuss it further in the public
arena.   As creationists I think we're seeing that the misunderstanding is
willful because creationists have stated their position many times but
still continue to be misunderstood.
         If it were true that creation scientists were attempting to prove
the existence of God or the veracity of the Scriptures then yes this is not
science and you and your colleagues would be justified in asserting that
creation science is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.   However, this
does not at all describe what creationists do, at all.    I've been
acquainted with this area for over a decade now and I'm not aware of any
creationist who is using science to prove the existence of God or any such
thing.  Can you give us a concrete example?
           Neither is it fair to level the accusation that the scientific
endeavors of creationists are faulty because they  attempt to prove a
theory or idea that is apriori held to be true. I know of no creationist
who is doing this.   Again, can you furnish us with a concrete example?
            But perhaps these charges which have been leveled for years and
are being repeated by yourself are less based in fact than on a dislike for
the position held by creationists.
           One thing that has earned my respect for fellow creationists,
and I did not always consider myself among their number, is their hard work
in science and their willingness to consider the facts before arriving at
I have found that this is not always true among evolutionists.  In fact in
my experience evolutionists have lost my respect by and large because of
their faulty scientific procedures and reasonings, and , yes, because of
their willful ignoring of important data.    And I do not level idle
charges because examples for sure abound and I would gladly supply you with
a few. We could start with Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man, one a hoax and
the other a case of making too much of a pig's tooth, respectively.
           Creation Scientists understand well the difference between the
scientific method and theology and this has been the case from Newton and
Galileo's  time to the very present with such outstanding creationists as
George Washington Carver and Raymond V. Damadien.
And there are many others who are making quite significant contributions to
today's science and technology.
        However, their science is informed by their faith in a way that
evolutionists and other humanists still fail to  understand. Perhaps this
misunderstanding might clear up if the advice of Francis Bacon were headed:
to dwell long among the facts before drawing a conclusion.


More information about the Bioforum mailing list