|
|
|
A Few Words About Creation Science
By David Glück
Posted on: 4/17/2002
|
Several observations about scientific creationists, and the people who lead them.
|
As a regular in the “Atheists” room I am less than surprised that many people of faith visit our room. It is a nightly occurrence. Their motives for visiting us are varied. Some want to know what an atheist or agnostic is. Some wish to engage in a theological debate. Some are just curious. Others want to share their beliefs with us in hopes that we might see the light… This is a public forum after all.
What I find increasingly disturbing, however, are the number of visitors who challenge our lack of faith in God with what they believe is scientific proof that we are mistaken. Of course, none of these people have anything that even remotely resembles proof. What is offered are some silly arguments cooked up by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) or the Creation Research Society (CRS). What I find particularly appalling is the lack of understanding these “challengers” have about science. Their naïveté and lack of education in science basics have made them perfect targets for these groups’ publications.
The arguments in publications by the IRC and CRS are intended to prove, scientifically, that a literal interpretation is the only correct interpretation of the Bible. One method they employ to that end is to force scientific evidence into compliance with their beliefs. Their use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is an example of that. (In this case they must insist that the Earth is a closed system and totally ignore the Sun’s energy and how it effects life on Earth.) Another method they use is to attack existing scientific theories in hope of proving the biblical version of creation by default. Their favorite target, in this case, is evolution. But they are not adverse to attacking any scientific theory that is at odds with their way of thinking…
To be a member of one of these “research” groups one must have an advanced degree in some field of science and sign a statement of faith. The statement begins as follows:1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To students of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. The statement concludes with other points, involving God’s direct creation of the Earth and all things in six days, Noah’s flood, Adam and Eve, sin and salvation through Christ.
The members include mostly engineers, chemists, technicians, aerospace workers and such… Not many biologists, geologists or anthropologists would be willing to sign such a statement of faith. A degree in engineering or computer science hardly qualifies an ICR member to speak with knowledge about biology, geology, astronomy or anthropology.
In a scientific context, creationist claims can hardly be taken seriously. Scientific creationists have no data of their own to prove their assertions. They pursue no research of their own other then culling through often out-of-date scientific literature for an out-of-context quote. Their scholarly publication record is nonexistent. No empirical, experimental, or theoretical evidence for Scientific Creation has been published in peer-reviewed science journals. Nor are they offered for publication. They prefer in-house publications that avoid the messy ordeal of peer review that real scientists must endure. So much for science…
In a political sense, however, the creationists must be taken seriously. Their goal is to have fundamentalist beliefs taught in science classrooms. And to that end they have had some success. This would seem to violate the separation clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. But having failed in the past at having evolutionary theory banned from the classrooms, these fundamentalists (unlike most Christians and Jews) have adopted the strategy of calling what is essentially religion, science. They have dressed up their religion with scientific terminology. Since they have no persuasive arguments of their own, their plan is to attack selected particulars of science and pretend to a science of their own…
Read or Add Comments about this Article
|
|
|
Back to The Kil Report
|
