Search This Blog

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Creation and the Rules of Science

Some folks get on the prod when it's pointed out that science is not some kind of monolithic entity, but rather, is a philosophical system of interpreting evidence in the natural world. There are people who feel the need to protect what they consider science (especially common-ancestor evolution) from outside influence and scrutiny. This task is expedited by self-serving definitions.


One way secularists protect "science" from scrutiny and creationary scientists is to control the definitions of science itself and the methodology. This has actually hindered scientific research.
Generated at Add Letters
By presupposing both methodological and philosophical naturalism exclusively, evolution has actually hindered scientific progress — especially in medical science. Creationary viewpoints from credentialed scientists are rejected out of hand, and the saying, "Follow where the evidence leads" does not apply when the logical conclusion is God the Creator.



A common falsehood spread by Darwin's Cheerleaders™ is that creationists do not use actual science, relying only on the Bible or saying, "God did it" as a catch-all explanation. In reality, creationary scientists are fully credentialed and active in various scientific disciplines. One's view of origins does not preclude the performance of observational science. I'll allow that biblical creationists have the Bible as our starting point, but secularists often deny that they have materialism as their own starting point. At any rate, they try to make the rules and control the definitions, thereby keeping creationists out in many cases. This is definitely not the true spirit of scientific inquiry, it's just circling the wagons against those they consider enemies. It all comes down to worldviews.
‘Creationism isn’t science.’
‘They don’t understand the rules of what science is, or they deliberately ignore them.’
Comments such as these flow readily from the pens of the many critics of the modern creationist movement. Why are such comments so widely and passionately believed? I believe that the only rule creationists are ‘breaking’ is one which cannot be said to properly belong to a scientific inquiry into origins, and which effectively imposes a religious dogma upon science.

Rhonda Jones (Professor of Zoology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia) is one who has reacted with what she calls ‘stunned indignation’ to the suggestion that science students should have evidence for creation presented to them along with evidence for evolution (Quadrant, August, 1988).

She gives two criteria which she feels are universal to all definitions of science. She insists that evolutionary theory meets both requirements, but creationism meets neither. Let’s examine these.
This is a "classic" article from 1988, but the material is still relevant today — if not more so, since many recent illustrations could be added. To finish reading, click on "The rules of the game — As the ‘rules’ of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion—even if true". Also, I suggest you check out the Related Articles at the end.

One way secularists protect "science" from scrutiny and creationary scientists is to control the definitions of science itself and the methodology. This has actually hindered scientific research.