One of the most common attacks made by evolutionists against creationists is to claim that creation science is not actually science. In fact, this claim has been used by atheists in court to silence both creation science and intelligent design in public school classrooms. They are effectively doing science by judicial decree. This is not how scientific questions are supposed to be answered, but it is the way it is done on the topic of origins. This list is a side-by-side presentation of the top 10 reasons critics claim that Creation Science is not science, followed immediately by a creationist's response to each claim.
1. Creation Science Starts with a Religious Conclusion
Evolutionists claim that Creation science begins with the Bible and then interprets evidence to fit that conclusion, rather than following evidence wherever it leads.
This ignores the fact that all worldviews begin with presuppositions. This includes pointing out that naturalism itself is a philosophical assumption, not a scientific one. Furthermore, those starting assumptions do not invalidate scientific investigation, as long as evidence is examined consistently.
One of the things that evolutionists are ignoring in this claim is that evolutionists also have a pre-existing narrative, and they interpret all evidence in a way that makes it fit. One of the big parts of this is insisting on absolutely naturalistic explanations for everything. This results in them trying to force a naturalistic explanation on all evidence, whether it fits naturally or not.
2. Creation Science Is Not Falsifiable
Evolutionists claim that ideas such as divine creation cannot be tested or falsified, making them unscientific.
This claim is based entirely on the unfalsifiability of a divine creation as a general concept rather than individual theories that include this concept, particularly as a starting point. It ignores the fact that naturalism is also unfalsifiable. This is because, as it is frequently claimed, there is always the possibility that a naturalistic explanation simply has not been found yet. Both perspectives are actually philosophical starting points for the development of scientific theories. In and of themselves, neither of them is actually a scientific concept.
The claim also ignores the fact that many historical sciences, such as cosmology and origins biology, also deal with unrepeatable and ultimately unfalsifiable past events. Creationists maintain that specific models dealing with creation are testable by their predictions, such as limits to mutation, entropy trends, and irreducible complexity. Furthermore, there are several specific theories, such as the accelerated nuclear decay theory and the dynamic decay of planetary magnetic field theory, that have made successful predictions. Furthermore, they are not the only ones; they are just two examples. There are many others.
3. Creation Science Lacks Predictive Power
Evolutionists claim that Creation science explains observations only after the fact and does not make novel predictions.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Successful creation science predictions in general include genetic limits to variation, functional DNA beyond “junk,” and rapid formation of geological features.
More specific examples include helium diffusion rates in zircon crystals from the raid project, relatively cold material deep within the mantle by catastrophic plate tectonics, and the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune by the Dynamic Decay Theory of planetary magnetic fields, while the Dynamo theory missed Uranus’ field as just a few examples. Even more directly, the Biblical account of creation successfully predicted the mitochondrial evidence that all human beings are descended from a single woman, and the Y chromosome evidence that all human men are descended from the same man. In every single one of these cases, evolutionists have either not explained it or have invented a just-so story after the fact. This means that evolutionists are the ones explaining things after the fact, not creationists.
4. Creation Science Is Not Accepted by the Scientific Community
The overwhelming majority of scientists reject creation science, indicating it is not legitimate science.
Whether or not something is science is not determined by its acceptance by scientists. There are plenty of hypotheses throughout the history of science that were proposed, tested according to the scientific method, and quickly rejected without ever being widely accepted. It does not mean that all the research that was done in that regard was not science. Theories do not magically become science just because they have become widely accepted. Whether or not a line of study is science is based on adherence to the scientific method, not a popularity vote among scientists.
There are many historical examples where minority positions were later vindicated, and dissenting views are often excluded for philosophical, not evidential, reasons. A perfect example of this is Geocentrism, which was generally accepted by scientists of the day because of its connection with Greek philosophers. Heliocentrism was initially rejected for philosophical reasons, despite being the most practical model. Another example is that up until the discovery of cosmic background radiation, the scientific community assumed that the universe was eternal, based on atheistic assumptions, although it violated the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The point is that the acceptance or rejection of a line of research by the general scientific community does not determine whether or not that research was scientific or not. Even if the research proves to be wrong, it is how the research was conducted, not its acceptance, that makes it science.
5. Creation Science Relies on Supernatural Explanations
Evolutionists claim that science must explain phenomena solely by natural causes and that invoking God halts investigation.
First of all, this is placing an artificial philosophically atheistic limit on science. There is nothing in the scientific method that says that a hypothesis must be an exclusively naturalistic explanation. Furthermore, invoking God does not halt investigation as long as the hypothesis is specific enough to produce testable predictions.
A good example of this is that if you simply claim that God created human beings without any additional detail, then not only would that be unfalsifiable, but yes, it would halt investigation because there would be nothing to investigate. However, the Biblical statement that God made a single human couple, produces the prediction that our mitochondrial DNA should show that all humans are descended from a single woman, and that our Y chromosome DNA should show that all men are descended from a single man. That prediction has actually been demonstrated to be correct, and evolutionists have to explain that away because it is actually contrary to what common descent evolution predicts. Allowing intelligent causation does not stop investigation but can guide it, as in archaeology or forensic science.
On the flip side, if all you are doing is making the broad statement that there must have been a natural explanation, it is also unfalsifiable. This is because it can always be claimed, as often is, that we may simply not have discovered the naturalistic explanation yet. Ultimately, the point is not natural versus supernatural, but rather whether or not the hypothesis is narrow enough to produce testable predictions. You can have a supernatural hypothesis that is narrow enough to make testable predictions, and a totally naturalistic hypothesis that is so broad that it is unfalsifiable. In such a case, based on the scientific method, the supernatural hypothesis would be scientific, while the naturalistic hypothesis would not.
6. Creation Science Does Not Produce Peer-Reviewed Research
Evolutionists claim that most creationist research appears in religious or alternative journals rather than mainstream scientific publications.
The first thing to note is that peer-review is not a fundamental part of defining science, but the scientific method is. While it includes reporting the results, it does not specify exactly how. The reporting of a lot of science in the early days was by the scientist writing and publishing a book. Certainly, being peer-reviewed and published in pre-approved journals that are accepted by atheists is also not a requirement.
It also needs to be noted that with many mainstream journals, it is extremely hard to even get a paper peer-reviewed. A lot of these journals will summarily reject papers without review, unless you are from the right institutions or other sources. Part of this is for the legitimate reason that they get way more papers than they can review, but there is probably also some philosophical protection in where they will accept papers from. This presents the additional problem that peer-review can be gatekept by worldview bias, such that rejection often occurs due to philosophical objections, not poor data. Furthermore, creationist journals use peer-review, and that peer-review is as good as in any mainstream journal.
Regardless, this is not even an issue on which science itself is defined. Research, and any resulting reporting of it, does not magically become science upon passing peer-review. This is particularly true if you are limiting legitimate peer-review to mainstream journals that hold to philosophical naturalism. Finally, some creationists have published in mainstream journals.
7. Creation Science Confuses Science with Theology
Evolutionists claim Creation Science blends theology with science, violating methodological boundaries.
Such a strict separation is artificial; not only was science historically developed within a theistic framework. There is nothing within the scientific method that naturally keeps theology out of science or prevents God from being considered as a possible explanation. The only requirement, whether natural or not, is that the explanation be specific enough to make testable predictions. This can occur from a totally naturalistic perspective as well. A good example of this is Dark Energy, which is actually nothing but a vague concept label invented to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe within the Big Bang.
Consequently, the insistence on the total separation of theology and science, which is often proposed, is actually fundamentally atheistic. This is clearly evident from the burn-the-heretics attitude that has shown up in relation to Intelligent Design, which is not directly theistic. Furthermore, worldview neutrality is impossible, and the integration within creation science is honest rather than deceptive. Atheists, on the other hand, are deceptive in the fact that they pretend to have a neutrality that does not exist. As a result, they literally tried to force a naturalistic atheistic worldview on science, resulting in naturalistic explanations being forced, regardless of what the evidence actually says.
8. Creation Science Misuses or Selects Evidence
Evolutionists claim that creationists cherry-pick data, ignore contradictory evidence, or misrepresent mainstream science.
First of all, this is an extremely broad claim, and there is a huge difference between cherry-picking and misrepresentation, and pointing out anomalies and other issues with the data that do not fit a particular storyline. This is particularly the case if they would naturally tend to invalidate that storyline such that it requires multiple untestable just-so-stories. When dealing with the past It may be necessary to fill in uncertainties in the model with things that cannot be directly tested. However, in that case, as long as the overall model can be tested, it is not a scientific problem. It becomes a problem, however, once such untestable additions, particularly in the form of just-so-stories, are introduced and become a regular part of protecting the model from reality. Pointing out the evidence for these problems is neither misrepresentation nor cherry- picking. There is also a difference between cherry-picking data and highlighting anomalies often ignored by evolutionists that actually demonstrate flaws in modeling. Very often, it is a small anomaly that cannot be accounted for by a model that ends up being its ruin. A good example of this is Ptolemy’s geocentric model; for most applications, it was adequate. However, there were small anomalies that strongly indicated that a better model was necessary. It resulted in Copernicus coming up with the heliocentric model, which ultimately works best with gravity. Now you do have Tyco’s Geocentric model, which is essentially a heliocentric model, from the Earth’s Frame of reference. The irony is that this particular model is actually legitimate within General Relativity from within the Earth's frame of reference. The point ultimately is that it is often the anomalies that do in a theory; therefore, if you are trying to show a widely held theory wrong It is the anomalies that you need to focus on.
This claim also ignores the fact that some selective emphasis of data exists in all models. This is particularly the case when a model is overly simplified to make for an understandable situation. For example, a simple model of the moon's orbit around the Earth ignores the relatively small effects of the other planets, and often even the sun. In doing this, it emphasizes the larger data in connection with the moon's actual position; they ignore smaller bits that are not significant enough to make an important difference in the calculations. Finally, it needs to be noted that the disagreements stem from differences in interpretation, not data rejection. In fact, I have frequently seen evolutionists summarily reject data presented by creationists. In many cases, they summarily reject anything that does not fit their model. Furthermore, evolutionists tend to interpret evidence within the framework of the Big Bang to man evolutionary story, and then confuse that interpretation for the evidence itself. The result is that they see any rejection of their interpretations as the same as rejecting the evidence, even though this is not the case.
9. Creation Science Lacks a Mechanism for Biodiversity
Evolutionists claim that creationists do not adequately explain the diversity of life without evolution.
This is completely false. If anything, it is the evolutionists who cannot adequately explain the diversity of life on Earth with evolution. They need to start with a single-celled organism that not only thrives but can also reproduce, but it needs to evolve into every living thing we see in the world today, mainly by random mutations and natural selection. They need natural selection to consistently provide upward pressure, resulting in not only diversification, but also completely new organs and systems.
Creationists, on the other hand, start with created “kinds,” which provide built-in initial diversity. Furthermore, following the flood, there would have been a rapid post-flood diversification. Unlike universal common descent, this could have occurred while genomes were deteriorating and losing information. Hence, there is no need for the strong selective pressure necessary for universal common descent to even have a chance. Furthermore, epigenetics and other built-in adaptive systems provide additional preprogrammed mechanisms for diversification. Unlike what is necessary for universal common descent, these mechanisms are empirically observable.
10. Creation Science Is Not Practiced as a Research Program
Evolutionists claim that Creation science does not function as an ongoing, progressive scientific research program.
First of all, the term “Creation Science” is simply a general term for creationist research in general. It is not a specific theory or group of theories. Furthermore, creationists do engage in active research programs. These different research programs are spread over multiple fields, including genetics, geology, thermodynamics, and information theory. The problem is one of limited funding and institutional exclusion restricting output, not a lack of scientific potential. It's amazing what you can produce when you have an unlimited budget and institutions that are willing to spread whatever you come up with, regardless of alternatives and conflicting evidence.
Conclusion
The disagreement over whether Creation Science is “science” ultimately rests less on evidence than on philosophical definitions of science itself. Most critical in this discussion is whether science must be limited to naturalistic explanations or may include intelligent causation and even supernatural explanations, when evidence warrants it.
The major Problem with limiting science to exclusively natural causes is that if there was indeed any intelligent and or supernatural causation, it would not only produce falsehood in science by forcing a naturalistic explanation regardless of the evidence, but it would also artificially exclude certain possible explanations. For example, you cannot legitimately say that there is no evidence for the supernatural or for intelligent design if they are not even allowed to be considered.
Part of the problem is that most arguments against the inclusion of intelligence or supernatural causes assume a hypothesis that stops not only with that conclusion, but also with such conclusions that are so broad that even a naturalistic explanation would be unfalsifiable. The simple fact of the matter is that as long as the hypothesis is narrow enough to produce testable predictions, including an intelligent designer such as God, or even some other supernatural explanation can produce such hypotheses. Not only are there several creation models that produce successfully tested predictions, but the Biblical account also does so. Most notably among these are the mitochondrial DNA evidence that shows that we are descended from a single woman, and the Y chromosome evidence that shows that all men are descended from a single man. Both of these were actually predicted by the Bible. Furthermore, direct measurements of the rate of change in each of these results in an age consistent with the Biblical time scale. Evolutionists have to use indirect methods to calculate the rate of change that presuppose a common ancestor with chimpanzees to get the figures that they often cite.
