Creation science is often attacked by evolutionists for numerous things most of which are just attacks that have no bases, but yet they form an opinion about creation science in general that simply gets repeated. Most people who are convinced that the Big Bang to man evolutionary story is true do so not because of any actual evidence but because that is what they were taught to believe in school, and they simply never questioned it but believe it on 100% blind faith. In most cases what such people think they know about creation science is based entirely on the criticism that they hear from evolutionists. Furthermore, a lot of these people will not even look at creationist material to get an honest perspective about creation science. Here are astounding facts about creation science that you will learn if you take such an honest look.
- Involves people with actual degrees in many fields of science.
Contrary to the claims made by evolutionists, creation science is not just the work of a bunch of Bible thumping rednecks. On the contrary it includes people with degrees including doctorates in many fields of science. In many cases they were actually led in the direction of creation science and Christianity because of what science was telling them not in spite of it.
Are there people online talking about creation science who don't know what they're talking about? Yes, there are, there are plenty of them, however there are also plenty of evolutionists that fall into this category. A good example of this is that recently I had a guy claim to beat me in the discussion we were having by posting a couple of evolutionary lists that he copied and pasted from ChatGPT. He then completely ignored the fact that I was able to respond to every one of the points. He then summarily dismissed any references that were from creationists and ridiculed my use of those that weren't. On any topic you are going to have those that are knowledgeable and really know how to discuss it, but it is inevitable that there are going to be those who think that they know more than they really do, particularly if they do so because of the position that they take.
There are, however, plenty of creationists not only who have degrees but have also studied topics to the point where even without a degree in that field they understand the topic well enough to discuss it and provide strong arguments in support of creation science.
- Includes actual field and laboratory research.
Contrary to what evolutionists often claim, creation science includes field research. Have there been some wrong conclusions drawn from time to time of course. However, there have been plenty of mistakes made by evolutionists as well. The simple fact of the matter is that on both sides of this issue there are those that are too eager to find evidence for their side in they overlook problems when they think they find it. In most such cases, on both sides the person was looking honestly, but was simply so eager that they missed some issues with their claim.
Creation science also includes laboratory research where the theory necessary to do so exists. The measurement of healing retention and diffusion rates and zircon crystals is a good example of creation science including laboratory work in this case the measurements that were made supported the creation science theory.
The excuse that evolutionists always come up with when forced to admit that actual laboratory or field research has been done by creationists is to claim that the quality was poor or otherwise inaccurate even though they cannot demonstrate an actual area where was wrong or their claimed explanation does not work.
- Includes falsifiable scientific theories.
There are several theories within creation science that have made successful predictions before measurements were ever made. One of the most notable ones is helium diffusion rates in zircon crystals. In this case we had a group of zircon crystals that were measured to have retained significant amounts of helium produced by alpha particles. The radiometric age for these crystals was about 1 1/2 billion years but based on creation science they would be about 6000 years old with two periods of accelerated nuclear decay. This is a difference that would produce radically different helium diffusion rates. Fortunately, at the time the diffusion rates had never been measured for zircon crystals. So, researchers made two different models, one assuming the radiometric date and constant decay rates, and one assuming young earth creation and accelerated nuclear decay. Calculations were made based on these models producing a prediction for the measured helium diffusion rates. The two models were different by a factor of 100,000, meaning that one or both models could have been falsified by the measurement results. When the measurements were actually made, the results matched the young earth prediction perfectly. Furthermore, the rocks would have had to be impossibly cold for them to have had any chance of having the needed, slow diffusion rate for billions of years.
- Includes theories that have made successful predictions.
Contrary to claims made by evolutionists, creation science has several theories that have made successful predictions. Besides the example described above we also have dynamic decay theory of planetary magnetic fields.
This theory starts with a Biblical description that suggests that the Earth and possibly the other planets as well as the sun started out as balls of water. Starting with the assumption that the water molecules were magnetically aligned, this is used as a starting point for planetary magnetic field decay. This model could have been falsified if any of the planets had a magnetic field greater than the maximum predicted by the model. From there not only was it capable of producing all present planetary magnetic fields, but it accurately predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before the Voyager 2 flyby. For the record, Dynamo theory, missed Uranus is magnetic field.
This model is also capable of explaining the unusual orientation of both Uranus’ and Neptune’s magnetic fields. Which are not only off center but more closely aligned with the equator than the poles. Something that has yet to be explained within the context of Dynamo theory.
- Has answered most major objections to Biblical models.
As with every other category on this list I could provide a lot of examples here. However, probably the biggest objection to creation science and the Biblical time scale that has been proposed is being able to see distant Starlight. After all, if the universe is only 6000 years old how can we see light from stars greater than 6000 light years away. Well, it turns out that Special and General relativity offer not just one but two different solutions. Furthermore, they are not mutually exclusive, but could both be correct.
The first assumes our solar system is near the center of the universe, which at least observationally it is. Calculations show that when it was smaller there could have been sufficient time dilation to get distant starlight from every corner of the universe in hardly any time here on Earth. This model is supported by the fact that there would be a residual blue shift effect consistent with the type 1A supernova data interpreted as an accelerating expansion. In other words, this model could do away with dark energy, something for which there is no real evidence.
The second possibility results from the fact that according to relativity there is no absolute now. Not only does any framework for saying that two events occur simultaneously vary with relative motion, but you can set this framework as anything from your past light cone to your future light cone. In other words, you can set now has anything from events that can affect you to events that you can affect. From this perspective, the distant starlight problem is solved by setting now as your past light cone such that the travel time for the light is effectively 0. By the way, this is consistent with the perspective of a photon, in that it does not experience any time or space.
These are just two of many examples of how creationists have answered objections to creation science with science. In both cases well-established science is being used to provide a solution to what in the past has been considered a problem. There are many other examples and it's because Creation Science has way more going for it than most people realize. Furthermore, most of them will not even check but simply blindly accept what they are taught by teachers and other science popularizers.
This list is not all that can be included but it is a good starting point, showing facts about Creation Science that most people don't get to see because they are not presented with it. Sadly, in many cases some of these people are so brainwashed by the education system that they will not even look at what creationists have to say on the topic. This is bad enough, but I have even seen cases where someone rejects creationist material as a legitimate reference to actual creationist positions on a topic. These kinds of attitudes show the level of propaganda against creation science that is out there.
