Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science-Part 3

By: Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon; ©2000

A third distortion frequently used in the arguments against creation is assuming that creationists cannot possibly be good scientists. Read quotes from leading educators and journals about the problems they claim this will cause.

Truth in Advertising—Part Three

(from Darwin’s Leap of Faith, Harvest House, 1998)

Distortion Three: Errors as to the Scientific Status of Creation and Evolution

In light of our previous discussion, we will simply list these without comment. Such declarations reveal the unfortunate depth of misinformation on this subject.

When Russell L. French, one of America’s leading educators, read W. R. Bird’s 1,100- page critique, The Origin of Species Revisited, which covers almost everything important in the creation-evolution controversy (including scientific, educational, and legal aspects), he commented as follows: “This book is frightening to me because it clearly demonstrated to me how much I did not know until I had read it. If that was my condition, what about others, perhaps a majority, in our society?”^[1]

Regrettably, most people in our society are ignorant on this subject, including the presti­gious organizations listed below:

American Society of Parasitologists: “The 123-year history of creationism clearly shows it to… be overwhelmingly rejected by the majority of Christian denominations and by scien­tists of all faiths.”^[2]

The National Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberties: “Teaching creationism is impermissible as a matter of law; either in lieu of scientific evolution or as a ‘companion theory.’”^[3]

Louisiana Academy of Sciences: “… organic evolution is amenable to repeated observa­tion and testing.”^[4]

National Academy of Sciences: “[Teaching creation science] would be contrary to the nation’s need for a scientifically literate citizenry and for a large, well-informed pool of scientific and technical personnel…. Special creation is neither a successful theory nor a testable hypothesis for the origin of the universe, the earth, or of life thereon. Creationism reverses the scientific process.”^[5]

National Academy of Sciences: “Its documentation is almost entirely limited to the special publications of its advocates. And its central hypothesis is not subject to change in light of new data or demonstration of error. Moreover, when the evidence for creationism has been subjected to the tests of the scientific method, it has been found invalid.”^[6]

New Orleans Geological Society: “Creation-science data almost invariably are of ques­tionable quality, obsolete, or taken out of context from the scientific literature. Even well-known creation scientists such as Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research have readily admitted that creation science is not at all scientific…. Creationism, as a scientific concept, was dismissed over a century ago and subsequent research has only confirmed that conclusion. Scientific creationism threatens to do great damage to the credibility of legitimate scientific research….”^[7]

New York Academy of Sciences: “Scientific creationism is a religious concept masquer­ading as a scientific one.”^[8]

American Humanist Association: “There are no alternative theories to the principle of evolution… that any competent biologist of today takes seriously.^[9]

Society for the Study of Evolution: “The study of evolution is an empirically based science which employs the scientific process of hypothesis testing.”^[10]

Society for Amateur Scientists: “None of the arguments which scientific creationists make against evolution withstands scrutiny and most were first refuted nearly a century ago. And the creationists have never been able to martial quality evidence that strongly supports their ideas.”^[11]

West Virginia Academy of Science: “Their claim that scientific creationism is indepen­dent of biblical creationism, which they admit is religious, is demonstrably false.”^[12]

Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal: “… Virtually no active scientist challenges the fact that evolution has occurred…. There is no scientific evidence supporting the instantaneous creation of the earth and all the creatures on it….”^[13]

Freedom from Religion Foundation: “The only ‘evidence’ creationists present is the story in Genesis, or other religious texts, that must be accepted by faith, not by rational principles of verification.”^[14]

Institute for First Amendment Studies: “By faith [creation scientists] begin with belief in creationism—then they search for evidence to back that belief. True scientists study the evidence, drawing their conclusions from that evidence.”^[15]

Upon reflection, such statements are incredible. The falsehood of all the above state­ments is either documented in our Darwin’s Leap of Faith or in other scientific and philo­sophical literature.^[16] But we would be remiss not to point out two additional statements from this book. First, according to the National Association of Biology Teachers, “science is a constantly self-correcting endeavor to understand nature and natural phenomena” and second, from the Iowa Academy of Science on Pseudoscience, “in contrast to pseudoscientists, scientists seek out, expose, and correct any logical fallacies or other errors which could weaken their theories or interpretations. To assure complete scrutiny open criticism is not only tolerated but often rewarded, particularly when it results in signifi­cant revisions of established views.”^[17]

If this were true, first, science would be teaching a proper definition of science. Second, it would not be teaching evolution as a fact. Third, creation would not be falsely ridiculed and rejected out of hand on the basis of solely naturalistic presuppositions or other bias. Fourth, creation scientists would not be subject to the extreme prejudice they are currently subject to. Fifth, creation scientists would be rewarded for their research, which has not only advanced science by correcting the deficiencies and errors in evolutionary theory, but has presented quality evidence for a more believable theory of origins.

Even though the definition of science is a philosophical one, scientists should know the definition of science—what it is, what it isn’t, and what it involves or doesn’t involve. This is part of their responsibility as scientists. If American university life isn’t educating them properly on this subject, then so much worse for the state of modem American education.

We can clearly see how and why science suffers today—its own biases and prejudices force it to deal unfairly with the scientific data and to distort the truth. To portray evolution as science fact (and therefore sacrosanct) while portraying creation as merely faith (and therefore suspect) is a reversal of reality. As we will see later, it is evolution that rests on faith, and creation that employs good science. When the American Institute of Biological Sciences says that “creationism is based almost solely on religious dogma stemming from faith rather than demonstrable facts” it is not looking at the issues fairly.^[18] And when the American Civil Liberties Union apparently deliberately distorts the nature of true religious faith, which is based on logic and sound evidence as we demonstrated in Ready with an Answer, it can hardly expect sympathy from those who know better. Consider this statement for example: “Creationism necessarily rests on the unobservable; it can exist only in the ambiance of faith. Faith—[i.e.,] belief that does not rest on logic or on evidence—has no role in scientific inquiry.”^[19]

Unfortunately the majority of Americans have no idea of the unjustifiable abuse that creationism is subject to by the evolutionist establishment. It would be unfair of us not to point out that even though this establishment claims to function according to the principles of objectivity and fairness, this is simply not the case.

Notes

1. ↑ Russell L. French, preface in Bird, Vol. 2, p. xviii.
2. ↑ The National Center for Science Education, Inc., Voices for Evolution, p. 38.
3. ↑ Ibid., p. 174.
4. ↑ Ibid., p. 51.
5. ↑ Ibid., p. 54.
6. ↑ Ibid., p. 59.
7. ↑ Ibid., pp. 61, 63.
8. ↑ Ibid., p. 65.
9. ↑ Ibid., p. 161.
10. ↑ Ibid., p. 75.
11. ↑ Ibid., p. 74.
12. ↑ Ibid., p. 82.
13. ↑ Ibid., p. 128.
14. ↑ Ibid., p. 168.
15. ↑ Ibid., p. 171.
16. ↑ See Recommended Reading in Darwin’s Leap of Faith.
17. ↑ The National Center for Science Education, Inc., Voices for Evolution, p. 48.
18. ↑ Ibid., p. 33.
19. ↑ Ibid., p. 159.