The Facts on Creation vs. Evolution (Harvest House, 1993), pp. 28-29


What is the real problem with a materialistic approach to science? Why can creationism be good science?


The problem with materialism is its inherent limitations which tend to skewer the interpretation of scientific data. The bon mot that evolution is “1/10 bad science and 9/10 bad philosophy” has more truth to it than many scientists are willing to concede.

Evolutionary belief is deficient philosophically because it attempts to address the issue of origins on the basis of an inadequate approach. The issue is argued exclusively at the level of naturalism. It is forgotten that theology itself is a legitimate discipline of knowledge that should also be considered in the debate on origins. Approaching the issue of origins materialistically leaves too many major problems for explaining the data; data that everyone agrees is there. Thus, meaning or interpretation that is assigned on the premise of materialism alone will be deficient because the data is incapable of organizing itself adequately solely on this basis. This is why many scientists are currently unhappy with the nature of the case for evolution.

The components of science itself—classification, theory, experiment, etc.—reflect a framework of concepts which transcend scientific data. All attempts to explain or interpret are to some degree impositions on the data. So are attempts to disprove or disallow alternate explanations. In other words, because the data of science does not automatically organize itself, interpretive structures which themselves transcend the data must be imposed upon it. Again, the question is whether or not a solely materialistic structure is adequate.