Scientific Creationism is Not Just a Religion – Part 2

By: Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon; ©1999
We end this series with a look at the contrast between what creation asserts, what evolution predicts, compared to what the data confirms. You may begin to understand why evolutionists are “increasingly on the defensive.”


False Assumptions About Evolution: Assumption 6 – Part 2

False Assumption Six: Scientific creationism is only a religion and has no scientific merit whatever. (continued)

Dr. Wilder-Smith presents a scientific alternative to Neo-Darwinism in his A Basis for a New Biology and The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory: Information Sources and Structures.[1] The scientific case for creation is also ably marshalled by leading scientists in J. P. Moreland’s (ed.), The Creation Hypothesis (InterVarsity, 1995). For example, consider what one leading evolutionist said of this volume. Dr. Arthur N. Shapiro is with the Center for Population Biology at the University of California, Davis. Although an atheist writing in Creation/Evolution, a journal with certainly no love lost for creationists or creationism, he nevertheless closes his review in the following words:

I can see Science in the year 2000 running a major feature article on the spread of theistic science as a parallel scientific culture. I can see interviews with the leading figures in history and philosophy of science about how and why this happened. For the moment, the authors of The Creation Hypothesis are realistically defensive. They know their way of looking at the world will not be generally accepted and that they will be restricted for a while to their own journals. They also know that they will be under intense pressure to demonstrate respectability by weeding out crackpots, kooks and purveyors of young-earth snake oil. If they are successful, the day will come when the editorial board of Science will convene in emergency session to decide what to do about a paper which is of the highest quality and utterly unexceptionable, of great and broad interest, and which proceeds from the prior assumption of intelligent design. For a preview of that crisis, you should read this book. Of course, if you are smug enough to think “theistic science” is an oxymoron, you won’t.

He also noted, “In reasonably objective fashion the chapters…demonstrate how regu­larly we have prematurely proclaimed victory on each and every front. A certain humility on our part seems called for. At the least, we should be candid in admitting that if we consider material solutions to these problems inevitable, that is a matter of faith on our part. We can point with great pride to tremendous advances in the past, but we of all people should know the limitations of inductive generalization.”[2]

If scientific creationism is really religion masquerading as science, i.e., pseudo-sci­ence, and evolutionary theory alone is true science, which alone should be taught in sci­ence classes, why is it that literally thousands of first rate scientists worldwide have aban­doned evolution as a scientific theory and become scientific creationists? For so many reputable scientists to accept creationism as legitimately scientific, means that evolutionists who claim it is only religion must be wrong.

Further, evolutionists have often claimed that no qualified scientist having academic Ph.D.’s from accredited institutions believes in creation. But those who argue in this man­ner are also wrong. Collectively, thousands of creationists have Ph.D.’s in all the sciences, some from the most prestigious universities in America and Europe. They have held honors, positions and appointments that are equal to the best of their evolutionary colleagues. There are also thousands of non-creationist scientists who reject evolutionary theory, some of whom have also admitted that creationism can be scientific.

As one indication of the scientific nature of creation, consider the following chart com­paring the predictions of creation and evolution with the scientific data:





c. Eternal omnipotent Creator

e. eternal matter

Universe began; matter degrades; life highly ordered
c. Natural laws and character of matter unchanging

e. Matter and laws evolve

Laws constant; matter constant; no new laws
c. Trend toward degradation

e. Trend toward order

Second law of thermodynamics
c. Creation of life the only possibility

e. Spontaneous generation probable

Biochemical improbabilities
c. Life unique

e. Life-matter continuum

Life-matter gap; biochemicals formed naturally from nonlife
c. No current creation

e. Continual creation

First law of thermodynamics
c. Life eternal

e. Life began

Law of biogenesis
c. Basic categories of life unrelated

e. All life related

Law of biogenesis; reversion to type; fossil gaps; heterogeneity; similarities
c. World catastrophe

e. Uniformity

Fossils; sedimentary strata; frozen muck; present uniformity
c. Organs always complete

e. Gradual evolution of organs

Organs always fully developed; Natural selection culls
c. Mutations harmful

e. Mutations can improve

Mutations vitiate; laws of information science
c. Language, art and civilization sudden

e. Civilization gradual

Archeology and anthropology show civilization sudden
c. Man unique

e. Man an animal

Man-animal similarities, also gap: art, language, religion
c. Design manifest

e. Naturalism

Life complex and highly ordered; Natural synthe­ses [3]

The above chart indicates that the scientific facts support the theory of creation far better than they support evolution. Finally, if creationism is really only a religion, why do evolutionists consistently lose their scientific debates to creationists?[4]

Perhaps all this helps explain why polls indicate most people favor the idea of schools teaching the theory of creation in addition to the theory of evolution. This includes the vast majority of the national public (85%+), two thirds of lawyers nationally, (who also find it constitutional); most university presidents at secular universities and two thirds of public school board members. One poll indicated even 42% of public school biology teachers now apparently favor the theory of creation over the theory of evolution.[5] Yet how few schools actually allow their teachers the option of a two model approach?

Regardless, perhaps our discussion to date helps explain why so many evolutionists are increasingly on the defensive. Those philosophically and psychologically committed to materialism to the exclusion of all else, can hardly be expected to be happy with the current state of evidence for evolution, let alone be happy with the increasing acceptance of cre­ationism.


  1. Arthur N. Shapiro, Review in Creation/Evolution, Vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 36-37.
  2. A. E. Wilder-Smith, A Basis for a New Biology and The Scientific Alternative; cf., p. v.
  3. Wysong, p. 422.
  4. cf., The Wall Street Journal, June 15, 1979; Dennis Dubay, “Evolution Creation De­bate,” Bioscience, Vol. 30, January 1980, pp. 4-5.
  5. Bird, Vol. 1, p. 8.


Leave a Comment