Evolution Versus Creation Science

Part one of this essay touched briefly upon the history leading up to the dominant position evolutionary thought holds in the US today, including key legal decisions that institutionalized evolutionary teaching in US classrooms.  It also discussed differences in the way Christians understand Creation and it introduced the topic of present-day attacks on creation science.

This installment explores some of the reasons evolutionists say that creation science is fake science.  It also discusses organizations in the US on both sides of the ongoing war between evolutionists and creationists.

 

SCIENCE AND FALSIFIABILITY

 

Many anti-creationists claim that creation science is a pseudo-science because they say it lacks falsifiabity.  Falsifiability is a relatively recent concept that some use to judge whether a field of study is genuinely scientific or not.

Here, in a nutshell, is what falsifiability means:  If a proposition could be proven wrong by an observation, then it is considered to be falsifiable.  A couple of examples may help to clarify.  Let’s say there is a theory that there is no oil in Texas.  If anyone can find oil in Texas, even a little oil, the theory will be proven wrong.  Therefore, the theory that there is no oil in Texas is falsifiable.  A theory that all wolves howl at the moon could be falsified by finding a single wolf that doesn’t.  Accordingly, the theory that all wolves howl at the moon is falsifiable.

The term falsifiability is nearly synonymous with testability and refutability.  Generally speaking, if a theory can be tested, some say it may be considered scientific.  If it cannot be tested, they say it must be considered unscientific or pseudo-scientific.  Evolutionists should be careful when they say creation science is unscientific because it lacks falsifiability.  This is because aspects of their own theory are not falsifiable.

The concept of falsifiability can be abused, but it can also be a useful way of looking at things.  For example, if a theory holds that there is no gold in California, it is not necessary to dig up every square inch of California to either validate or falsify the theory.  One only has to find one piece of gold there to prove the theory false.  Likewise, it may be easier to devise an experiment that falsifies a scientific theory than it is to make enough observations to validate it.  Therein lies the value of the concept of falsifiability.

The idea of falsifiability was introduced by philosopher Karl Popper in his 1934 book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery.  Prior to 1934, nobody called anything pseudoscientific because it lacked falsifiabilty.  Since that time, especially in recent decades, evolutionists have used the concept of falsifiability against creationists.  The fact is, however, that falsifiability is not the only measure of true science.  New theories may lack falsifiabity but be scientifically valid nevertheless.  Moreover, there are well-established disciplines that are not falsifiable, yet nobody would dare call them pseudo-sciences.  Logic and mathematics, for example, are generally not falsifiable but they are absolutely foundational to science.

 

FALSIFIABILITY AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

 

The basics of the scientific method involve just a handful of steps.  These include (1) establishing a defined question, (2) gathering as much evidence as possible to answer the question, (3) establishing a theory or hypothesis to answer the question, (4) testing the theory, (5) logically analyzing the test results and (6) drawing conclusions.  There is much more to it, of course, but these are the fundamentals.

Scientists can’t always follow the process exactly.  They may have to skip steps or alter test methods, for example, as circumstances dictate.  They often have to repeat steps over and over again in an iterative process.  If a test doesn’t work as it should, for example, the procedure for conducting that test may need multiple revisions before the test yields usable results.

Critical to this discussion is the fact that there are long-established branches of science that do not always allow for theories to be tested at all.  Astronomy is an example of such a science.  If a concept cannot be tested it is not falsifiable, yet nobody would say that those theories of astronomers that are un-testable are automatically unscientific.

Falsifiability, in fact, is not even a part of the scientific method.  If it were, there would be an extra step in the scientific method that says, “If the hypothesis cannot be tested, it must be rejected as unscientific.”  Much of today’s valid science would have to be discarded as pseudo-science if a falsifiability test were included in the scientific method.

Evolutionary scientists and creation scientists alike use the scientific method in their work.  Not all the theories in either school of thought can be tested and not all of the tests that can be conducted are conclusive.  It is unscientific to reject creation science simply because some aspects of it may lack falsifiability.

 

TRUTH BY CONSENSUS

 

In recent decades more and more people who should know better argue that a positive consensus of opinion demonstrates the validity of a truth claim.  Evolutionists often imply that because so many scientists subscribe to the theory of evolution it must be true.  Science, however, is supposed to be objective.  Scientists are supposed to have open minds and no biases.  Scientists are supposed to go wherever the evidence takes them and have the courage to question accepted theories.  Science is often advanced by the work of individual scientists and independent thinkers, but never by opinion polls or voting.

Those who argue for truth by consensus should remember that the majority opinion used to be that the earth was flat.  Most scientists used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth.  Copernicus, an independent thinker, was vilified for theorizing that the earth revolves around the sun.  Galileo was severely persecuted for using his telescope to verify Copernicus.  Clearly, consensus is not a reliable indicator of truth.  The majority is not always right.  Beware of anyone who talks about “settled science.”  The very nature of science is that it is never settled.    

 

CONFIRMATION BIAS

 

When presented with entirely new concepts, most people are capable of weighing various viewpoints rationally, logically and fairly.  Once they form an opinion, however, it becomes more difficult for them to process new information impartially.  The stronger the opinion is, the greater the difficulty.  Pre-conceived notions cause people to seek out information that supports their positions and pass over information that doesn’t.  When evidence supports more than one point of view, people with previously formed opinions tend to interpret that evidence in a way that favors their opinion to the exclusion of all others.  This phenomenon, a normal human tendency affecting most people, is called confirmation bias.

A person operating with confirmation bias ordinarily is not conscious of his own bias.  It is not a deliberate act of self-deception.  Confirmation bias causes a perfectly rational person to give unequal weight to evidence and to process information in an illogical fashion.  This can and often does result in a distorted view of reality.

Nobody is immune from the effects of confirmation bias.  Highly trained professionals such as medical doctors, attorneys and scientists, can and do fall victim to confirmation bias, sometimes with disastrous consequences.

Everyone should be on guard against the trap of confirmation bias.  The Bible offers this advice in Proverbs 12:15:

 

“The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.”

 

We should be prepared to hear and ponder views that differ from our own.  No man has a corner on knowledge and to close one’s mind to the ideas of others is unwise.  That is not to say that one should not have the courage of his convictions.  It is to say that considering the positions of others can lead to new information, greater understanding and sometimes even a change of opinion.

Evolutionists accuse creation scientists of confirmation bias.  Given that confirmation bias is a common and completely natural human tendency, there may be some truth to the charge.  If that is true, however, it is equally true that evolutionists also suffer from confirmation bias.  All scientists should strive for objectivity in evaluating evidence.  Worldviews, however, play an important and undeniable role when it comes to evaluating ancient evidence.  Often, the question boils down to, “Which one of the possible explanations of this phenomenon makes the most sense?  Which model best fits the evidence?”  Evolutionary scientists and creation scientists frequently disagree.

In such cases, open debate can advance the cause of finding truth.  Finding truth should be the aim of all true scientists.  Truth, of course, is that which corresponds to reality.  Through open debate, a preponderance of evidence favoring one view of reality versus another may emerge.  Or one or more theories may be falsified.  When open debate is prevented from taking place, however, competing ideas may be suppressed for ideological instead of scientific reasons.  Scientific theories that become dominant in the absence of open and robust debate do not necessarily reflect reality, even if they represent the majority opinion.

 

ANTI-CREATIONIST ORGANIZATIONS

 

One of those organizations leading the charge against creationists is the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).  This group combines the promotion of evolution with “climate change” teaching.  From its web site (https://ncse.ngo) come these statements:

 

“We help individuals and communities resist threats to accurate and effective science education.”

“NCSE vigilantly monitors efforts to interfere with the accurate teaching of climate change and evolution and strategically mobilizes local communities and educators to respond effectively when problems arise.”

 

Note that NCSE classifies those who teach science it considers inaccurate (creation science) to be “threats.”  It “vigilantly monitors” efforts it considers to be interference with its views on the accurate teaching of climate change and evolution.  NCSE calls what it considers interference to be “problems” against which it will “strategically mobilize.”

Another online resource called the TalkOrigins Archive (www.talkorigins.org) describes itself as “exploring the creation/evolution controversy.”  On its homepage is this mission statement:

 

“The primary reason for this archive’s existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the TalkOrigins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.” 

 

Notice that TalkOrigins, like other anti-creationist groups, refers to creationism as pseudoscience.  Here is what the TalkOrigins Archive has to say about the NCSE:

 

“In the United States there is only one national organization whose sole purpose is to support evolution and oppose creationism.  It is the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).  If you need help against creationist activity in your local area then this is the organization to contact.”

 

TalkOrigins minces no words when it says that the sole purpose of the NCSE is to “oppose creationism.”  It should be clear to Christians that there is active, organized and specific opposition to creationist thought in the US today and that it is genuinely hostile to Christianity.  Those who have made it their business to oppose creation science consider it to be a “problem” against which there is a need to “mobilize.”  While the NCSE appears to have a special focus on educators, it specifically mentions that it “helps” individuals and communities as well.

 

PRO-CREATIONIST ORGANIZATIONS

 

While there are many anti-creationist organizations operating in the US today there are also many creationist ones.  One of these is the Creation Research Society (CRS).  This is a membership organization founded in 1963 by a group of ten scientists who believed in creationism as opposed to evolution.  From their web site comes this brief statement of their mission:

 

“The CRS pursues and supports original research verifying the creation model of origins as a means to reveal the Creator.”

 

The CRS website also describes the group with these words:

 

“A professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation.”

 

The primary activities of the CRS are research and publishing, but it occasionally participates in or sponsors conferences, seminars and field trips.  It produces a quarterly publication, Creation Research Quarterly (CRSQ), the first issue of which was published in July, 1964.  In addition to CRSQ, the organization has an online bookstore that sells creationist books, audio recordings and DVD videos.  Their web address is www.creationresearch.org.  Some online content requires membership for access.

CRS is a Michigan non-profit organization.  It is independent of all other creationist groups and is not affiliated with any religious denomination.

Another creationist organization is the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).  This group publishes Arts & Facts, a bi-monthly science news magazine and operates the ICR Discovery Center, a museum in Dallas, Texas.  It maintains a web site at https://www.icr.org with an online store offering creation science books and DVD’s.  Excerpted from the mission statement found on their web site are these objectives:

 

“Oppose the deification of nature by exposing Darwinian selectivism as an idolatrous worldview.”

“Help pastors lead, feed and defend their flocks by providing scientific responses to secular attacks on the authority and authenticity of God’s Word.”

“Counter objections to the gospel by equipping believers with Scripture-affirming science.”

 

Also from the ICR website comes this description:

 

“ICR scientists have spent more than 50 years researching scientific evidence that refutes evolutionary philosophy and confirms the Bible’s account of a recent and special creation.”

 

ICR does not publish a list of employees or scientists currently affiliated with the organization.  The November/December, 2024 (Vol. 53, Number 6) issue of Arts & Facts magazine, however, contains articles by these ICR authors:

Dr. Randy J. Guliuzza (M.D., University of Minnesota)

Dr. Brian Thomas (Ph.D., Paleobiochemistry, University of Liverpool)

Dr. Jeffrey P. Tomkins (Ph.D., Genetics, Clemson University)

ICR offers an online educational program called the ICR School of Biblical Apologetics.  All ICR courses are web-based and completed online.  Course materials consist of online study texts, DVD’s and tests.  Grades are emailed to students after each exam.  ICR degree programs are not accredited.

Another Christian creationist group is Creation Moments.  The Lutheran Pastor Walter Lang founded this organization in 1963 as The Bible Science Association.  It is a non-denominational Christian outreach organized as a non-profit 501 (c) (3) organization.  It promotes Bible-based creationism, primarily through radio broadcasts, video productions and printed material.  It may be best known for its 2-minute radio broadcasts called, “Creation Moments.”  This ministry has an outreach program in nine languages.  Its board of directors consists of six members, including:

Mark Cadwallander (MS, Chemical engineering)

Donald Clark (Ph.D., Physical Biochemistry)

Bruce Henne, (Master of Diviniity and Master of Theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Associate in Religious Arts, Lutheran College of the Bible and Liberal Arts; Batchelor in Fine Arts, The School of Visual Arts)

The mailing address of Creation Moments is P.O. Box 839, Foley, MN  56329.  Their telephone number is (800)-422-4253.  Their web site is found at https://creationmoments.com/.

Perhaps the best-known creationist organization in the US at this time is Answers in Genesis (AiG).  Founded in 1994, AiG publishes Answers magazine, a quarterly publication, and the Answers Research Journal, which AiG describes as “a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal.”  AiG also publishes a newsletter, has an online bookstore and schedules speakers for creationist events.  The organization provides curricula for teachers and online courses on creationist topics.  From their website, https://answersingenesis.org, comes this mission statement:

 

“Answers in Genesis (AiG) exists to proclaim the authority of the Bible – from the very first verse – without compromise by using apologetics in its world-class attractions, dynamic resources, and creative media to communicate the message of God’s Word and the gospel so that believers are equipped to defend the Christian faith and non-believers are challenged with the truth of the Bible and its message of salvation.”

 

AiG is perhaps best known for an attraction known as Ark Encounter.  This is a life-size, 510-foot long reproduction of Noah’s Ark in Williamstown, Kentucky.  First opened in 2016, it contains educational exhibits about the flood of Noah and a wide range of creationist topics.  The organization also operates another attraction in Cincinnati, Ohio called Creation Museum.  Like the Ark Encounter, the Creation Museum, which opened its doors in 2007, features educational exhibits related to Creation.

 

Part three of this essay will explore ideas on what constitutes real science, what the roll of worldview is in science and why there isn’t more open debate about the theory of evolution.  It concludes with reasons why the conflict between evolution and special creation matters and what ordinary Christians can and should be doing about it.