From the time of the Scopes Trial in 1925 to the present, evolutionists and atheists have spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours fighting the teaching of biblical creation. The main argument they use in their many court cases over the years is that creationism is religion not science. They claim that no credible scientist would believe in a young universe and young earth biblical creation.
Yet one of the principle philosophies of academia and scientific research is to put forth a theory and then investigate all possible solutions or explanations to support or disprove the theory. Most universities and high schools boast that they encourage their students to explore all possibilities when conducting research.
I have sat in classes at Arizona State University and have had professors tell our class that we were to be open to any and all conclusions to our hypothesis. After hearing that in my geology class I offered an explanation of the Genesis Flood for the massive sedimentary layers in the Grand Canyon, I was told that was not an acceptable conclusion. In a number of my other classes such mammalogy, entomology, botany, parasitology, ichthyology, plant ecology, ornithology, wildlife biology, fisheries biology, genetics and Arizona flora; I would claim that speciation is not evolution as it goes in the wrong direction required for evolution and every one of my professors would tell me that my arguments were nonsense because it did not fit into what they already claimed to know.
These professors were not open to any other possible interpretation, while at the same time they professed to encourage students to be open to any possible solutions. When I would point out the inconsistency of what they taught and what they believed, they grew angry and threatened to fail me.
Ever since the 1968 Supreme Court case of Epperson v. Arkansas, evolutionists have fought long and hard against a view that they claim has no validity.
Organizations such as the National Center for Science Education, headed by Eugenie Scott, exist for the sole purpose to refute biblical creationism at every level of education. Scott has openly admitted that they will only accept a naturalistic and materialistic explanation: Creationists…claim that the rejection of the supernatural in modern science is a function of “naturalism” (materialism), a philosophy that defines reality only in terms of material causes. Because evolutionary scientists supposedly are caught up in a metaphysical viewpoint that rejects the possibility of a creator, creationists contend that evolutionists are unable to countenance evidence for supernatural intervention in the history of life. Actually, modern science has omitted the supernatural for methodological, not philosophical, reasons….[W]e simply get better explanations by ignoring the possibility of supernatural intervention or causation. Much confusion exists between materialism as a philosophy, and the methodological materialism that informs all of modern science. It is logically possible to decouple philosophical and methodological materialism, and individual scientists who are believers do it all the time. Gregor Mendel was certainly not a metaphysical naturalist, but he developed his understanding of the rules of heredity using methodological materialism….I stress methodological materialism as a tool to understand the natural world better….1
In 1998, Scott again reiterated her stand on naturalism and materialism when she wrote: Most scientists today require that science be carried out according to the rule of methodological materialism: to explain the natural world scientifically, scientists must restrict themselves only to material causes (to matter, energy, and their interaction). There is a practical reason for this restriction: it works. By continuing to seek natural explanations for how the world works, we have been able to find them. If supernatural explanations are allowed, they will discourage – or at least delay – the discovery of natural explanations, and we will understand less about the universe.2
Incidentally, Scott is a professed atheist and was one of the signers of the Third Humanist Manifesto. She is a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and in 1998 was the recipient of the Isaac Asimov Award presented by the American Humanist Association.3
The National Academy of Sciences is one of those institutions that say one thing and do the opposite. In 1998, they published Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. In that publication, they state: One of the most characteristic features of science is this openness to challenge. The willingness to abandon a currently accepted belief whenever a better one is proposed is an important demarcation between science and religious dogma… Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from confirmable data—the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science.4
However in Chapter 3 of that document, they purposely disallow any influence of theology upon science when they state: The demarcation between science and theology is perhaps easiest, because scientists do not invoke the supernatural to explain how the natural world works, and they do not rely on divine revelation to understand it. Another feature of science that distinguishes it from theology is its openness. Religions are characterized by their relative inviolability…5
I find it interesting that they state that religions are relatively inviolable and science is open, but is science as open as they claim to be?
I have often asked them to ponder what if God did create as He said He did. Wouldn’t that make all of their interpretations and conclusions erroneous? What if there was a worldwide flood some 4500 years ago and the vast layers we see are the result of that flood; wouldn’t that completely change all of their geological conclusions? I get the same response every time and that is that they cannot allow those possibilities because they are not naturalistic or materialistic and cannot be tested or observed. My usual response to that is tell me who observed all of the millions of years of evolution they claim to be scientific fact or how can they empirically repeat the test the processes? They can’t, so shouldn’t it also be disqualified from the realm of science as defined by both the NCSE and the National Academy of Sciences?
I could go on and on with the bias, but I covered a lot of this in my earlier article on the Bias of Unbiased Scientists.
Seeing all of the money and effort put forth to fight biblical creation, a theory that they claim has no scientific credibility, wouldn’t the best way to disprove it be to compare it to something better that makes more sense? One would think that it would be to their advantage to teach both evolution and creation side-by-side and allow the best theory to win, especially if they are so sure that their theory is right?
Their refusal to do so leads one to ask: “What are they so afraid of?”
They know that when all fields of science involving both evolution and creation, are compared side-by-side that evolution will not stand tall and erect as they claim it will. Eugenie Scott said it best when she said: You can’t win this by scientific arguments…6
And if evolution cannot withstand a fair comparison, it would result in a total upheaval of academia and many research facilities. NASA would be forced to re-evaluate the purpose behind the space program. Institutions like the Large Hadron Collider in Europe would have to rethink their research dealing with the Big Bang.
They not only will have to completely shed all of their apriori foundational scientific philosophies, but it also means that they will have to admit that there is a Creator God. Admitting the existence of the God of the Bible will also mean that they will be held accountable to God which will scare the Hades out of them and many will fight against it tooth and nail. They will have to change their foundations for morality, truth, and purpose for living.
Accepting the biblical account of Creation will also put them face-to-face with Jesus Christ. To realize that the only way to the Father and eternal life is through the Son, will be more than many of them will want to embrace.
I have long contended that evolution is nothing more than man’s attempt to hide from God, kind of like the old image of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand to hide from predators. They may think they are hiding, but the only thing they are really hiding from is themselves. Without evolution, they will have to stand up and look at their Redeemer and Savior.
What do they have to lose? They think it’s their freedom to be their own god. In reality, they have everything to gain, mainly a saving faith and relationship with Jesus Christ and the promise of eternal life: That whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have eternal life. (1 Peter 3:15).
- Scott, Eugenie C., 1996, “Creationism, Ideology, and Science,” in Gross, Levitt, and Lewis, p. 514-515.
- Scott, Eugenie C., “’Science and Religion’, ‘Christian Scholarship’, and ‘Theistic Science’: Some Comparisons,” National Center for Science Education, March 1, 1998, www.NCSEweb.org.
- Sources include the NCSE website, Creation.com, and various other sources.
- Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy of Sciences, 1998, www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5787.
- Scott, Eugenie C., in her opening statement at the AAAS Conference: “The Teaching of Evolution in U.S. Schools: Where Politics, Religion, and Science Converge” Sept. 26, 2000.