Seriously, this is NOT a creation science website.

It is the website of a creationist, but that’s not the same thing. My goal here is not so much to promote creationism as it is to point out that evolutionism should not be part of science, although (unofficially) it is. Don’t be surprised if I get around to pointing out that creation science theories are also outside of the natural realm  of science as well. I will be lampooning (or mildly questioning, depending on the case) evolutionism mostly, mostly because it’s the biggest (in many ways) transgressor of the proper limits of science.

It’s true that I see this as just a first step, the recognition of the difference between the kind of science that can be demonstrated and truly can’t be denied without direct consequences in cases where it is applicable, and the newer sciences that include claims (hypotheses, theories, and sometimes pontification) which can’t be demonstrated to be true and can be denied without any problem — unless it gets you censored, blacklisted, or fired. And believing in creation rather than evolution is just a step toward eventually acknowledging Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah/Christ, God manifest in the flesh, repenting of your sin and receiving eternal salvation by calling on the Lord in faith, being redeemed by His sacrifice and justified by His resurrection. 

BUT, that’s not going to happen for a lot of people as long as they’re convinced that “Science” has made it undeniably clear that the universe (or the multiverse) is all there is, and no intelligent being above and beyond the laws of nature was needed to bring about life, the universe, and everything. Not only does this belief keep people from spiritual salvation, it discourages and confuses believers, it has been involved in some of the worst cases of bad science, scientific errors and false leads, and it has been applied (or misapplied, if you insist) to society with horrific consequences. Again, the area of biological evolutionism has been the most guilty party in such ways.

SO, let’s see if we can calmly discuss the philosophy of science without jumping ahead and getting into all that other stuff. Nancy Pearcey, in her excellent book Total Truth correctly points out that all truth is unified, and to fully understand the world, you need to include faith in God in everything. I disagree with her on several points, though, and one is that science can (and should) be carried out without reference to philosophy or religion. I mean by that, the actual practice of scientific investigation. I agree that the foundation and reason for existence of science is the belief that the universe was created by one, unchanging, super-intelligent, supernatural  God. This is why we can proceed to investigate the world around us in the assurance that it’s not going to change at the whimsy of “an invisible magician in the sky;” the competition, conflicts, or conjugations of a pantheon; or for that matter the surprises and interplay of cycles of a reality that condensed from the chaos of raging energies. But once we’ve agreed to proceed with scientific investigation, there are some things which can’t be safely or applicably denied, no matter what one’s religious belief or philosophy, and it was those things which science was meant to study, illuminate, and put to good use.

SO, that’s what this website is about.  I could sum it up by saying I intend to disprove the proposition, “I don’t BELIEVE that the evolutionary changes we’ve observed and the fossil record and other evidences show that all life evolved from microbes, I just ACCEPT it.” Things that you “just accept” are either things which truly can’t be denied safely or without causing failure in some application, experiment, or observation; or on the other hand they are accepted by faith, even if the faith is bolstered by some evidence. The second option makes the acceptation the equivalent of belief, so what we need to look at is if evolution is really needed to understand the world.  Is Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’ true? I think it’s easy to show that it is not.

Mind you, I’m not trying to stamp out evolutionary science. I like to think I’m an evolutionist myself, going by several definitions of evolution I’ve seen. I figure it is too late and not worth the effort to try, as some creationists do, to eliminate the word “evolution” from biology or deny natural selection. Furthermore, the leading creationists and creation organizations that I know do not deny that speciation occurs. The real problem is evolutionism: believing that evolution can and did account for the existence of all creatures that ever lived. Actually, that’s just the highest-profile part of the larger, underlying problem: philosophical naturalism. Naturalism in this sense (or Scientism) is the belief that basic natural forces and processes can (and did) account for everything. EVERYthing. Science can’t actually determine this, as its method assumes that what is being studied is natural — so of course all the evidence appears to support the proposition.

So here’s the bottom line: the “mounds of evidence for evolution” amounts to two things: real evidence for natural inheritable variations, and evidence that is interpreted through the preconceived belief that such variations actually produced all living things from microbes. There are many observations of the natural world, and then there is faith that nothing else is required to make everything as it is. Fundamentalist science sticks with things that can be repeatedly observed, and explanations that can be decisively tested to prove they definitely account for what they purport to explain. This technically leaves the question of how all this stuff got here outside the range of science, but it appears to me that what we really know from science that sticks to the fundamental method weighs heavily against the conclusions of science done as applied philosophical naturalism.

Still, this is my own, personal blog, so I will be taking opportunities to deal with other subjects, from serious Bible studies to things that are just weird, strange, and odd, and some things just for the fun of it. Feel free to comment if you have something short, serious, and substantive to contribute and you can do it sweetly, or at least civilly. If you would like to engage in a longer civil exchange, please go to the companion Facebook page.

2 thoughts on “Seriously, this is NOT a creation science website.

  1. Actually, you lost me there at the very end, but otherwise I’m glad to see you understand and express in your own words so well what I was trying to communicate!

    As to that end bit, well, facts are true and the truth is made of facts, but fundamental science sticks to facts we can establish about the world around us at the time we apply the method. We can use the records of scientific studies to assess the probabilities of things in the past (as in forensic science), but the farther back (or forward) in time and the less similarity in events, the more uncertain our assessment gets.

    I think there’s a sharp dropoff in the applicability of this approach after about 3,000 years ago (1,000 BC), because there are so few written records before that date (and not a lot until a long time afterwards, and what we have are later copies…), and it was only later that we have records discussing anything like scientific studies: mention of Solomon’s wisdom including [1st Kings 4:33] “And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. ” and of course the ancient Greek philosophers, although they tended to avoid “getting dirty” studying physical nature, preferring “pure” reason.

    Before that, if God or some other supernatural entity or force, or just some weird fluke of nature, interrupted the course of nature, we might never be able to detect it or realize it was throwing off the circumstantial evidence that we have about the past.

    Charles Babbage, the man who envisaged how computers could work, before the electronics had been invented to make them practical, wrote of a thought experiment (excuse me if my memory goes from a paraphrase to something less accurate) in which a computer would output a series of numbers which would seem to have a regular rule, but the programming would actually cause the output to change, because it was using a different, more complex, rule that didn’t diverge from the simpler one until that point — and indeed, if someone not knowing that program thought they had figured out the new rule, they might be wrong and the output would yet again produce a surprising output.

    That’s why I think science should stick to the fundamental method — it is clearly illuminating and (eventually, usually) practical for our day-to-day lives, but it doesn’t venture off by pure induction, pure deduction, both combined in pure reason, or by extreme extrapolations about the constancy of things back in the mists of time. We can still have all the practical benefits of science without setting up scientists to be the final arbiters of all that’s true and the providers of the explanations for everything that ever existed. It’s not surprising that a lot of people want to keep that last part.

  2. I like this. And I see where you’re coming from. True science is something that can be seen over and over again with the same results each time its observed. The origins of life cannot be seen. No one was there when it all began. God was, and He told Moses what to write down, but then, one must believe that to be true before they accept that as fact. Just as one must believe that what Darwin wrote is true before they can accept it as fact. Fundamental science cannot prove either way as truth, because the beginning of everything was not seen by mankind and can not be repeated by man out of nothing. Therefore, it really does boil down to faith. What one believes is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth becomes fact in ones own mind. Fundamental science can only show repeatable truths. For those truths to become a fact one must rely on what they believed brought about those truths. ( or should I be saying “those facts to become truths…” I think you know what I mean. )

Comments are closed.