The Cons of "The Cons of Creationism" | The Institute for Creation Research

The Cons of "The Cons of Creationism"

A recent New York Times online editorial titled “The Cons of Creationism”1 is a typical example of the way the secular media routinely mischaracterize creation science. Let us critique the editorial’s claims, one item at a time.

[Creationists] believe that students who are taught a creationist view of biology—or who are taught to disregard the Darwinist view—are not being disadvantaged.

So creationists believe that it is best to teach students to be ignorant about Darwinian biology? Actually, for decades informed creationists have advocated a two-model approach,2 where students are taught the pros and cons of both views and then permitted to evaluate the situation for themselves.

[Teaching] the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution…is code for teaching creationism.

We beg the reader to consider that teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution is actually code for “teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution.” The idea that creationists are being subversive is without merit, a mere smear. It is likely that the author has not bothered to consider that there actually are weaknesses to evolution.3

The trouble is, a creationist system of science is not science at all. It is faith. All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator.

What is “a creationist system of science”? The author seems to think that creationists invoke God to explain every empirical phenomenon. That may be animism, but it is certainly not creationism.

Adequate clarity on these important issues requires more precise definitions. We must distinguish between historical science and empirical science. Both creation scientists and evolutionary scientists practice the same kind of empirical science—observing the repeatable. Just like creation scientists, Darwinists typically use naturalistic interpretations to explain the operation of observable and repeatable phenomena. However, Darwinists mistakenly, and by faith, presume exclusively naturalistic causes to explain the origin of phenomena. There are no “gods” causing light to refract or masses to gravitate, but that does not mean that there was no God responsible for the origin of lights and masses!

The New York Times editorial ends with “The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms.” Of course science belongs in science classrooms—that is our point! The religion of evolutionary atheism does not belong, nor does evolutionary history or methodological naturalism philosophy.4

References

  1. The Cons of Creationism. The New York Times. Posted online and accessed June 7, 2008.
  2. Bliss, R. 1978. A Comparison of Students Studying the Origin of Life from a Two-Model Approach vs. Those Studying from a Single-Model Approach. Acts & Facts. 7 (6).
  3. Morris, H. 2000. The Scientific Case against Evolution: A Summary Part 1. Acts & Facts. 29 (12); and 2001. The Scientific Case against Evolution: A Summary Part 2. Acts & Facts. 30 (1).
  4. This philosophy is a kind of “hyper-naturalism” that excludes by definition any supernatural cause for origins. We agree that the operation of phenomena should be described in "natural" terms, but it is error to insist, given a theistic worldview, that the origin of phenomena be described only within the limits of nature.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

Article posted on June 13, 2008.

The Latest
NEWS
Binary Star Pair Detected Near Supermassive Black Hole
Astronomers have detected a likely binary star pair, designated as D9, orbiting the supermassive black hole Sag A* at the center of our Milky Way galaxy.1,2...

NEWS
The Jaw Drops an Evolutionary Explanation
The lepidosaurs are a large and diverse group of land vertebrates that include the snakes and lizards. There are almost 12,000 species of these animals....

NEWS
''Super-Puff'' Exoplanets: Evidence of Youth?
Astronomers have inferred the presence of a fourth exoplanet in the Kepler-51 star system.1,2 They made the discovery when the third exoplanet...

NEWS
A Fresh Start
"That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit...

NEWS
January 2025 ICR Wallpaper
"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind." (Isaiah 65:17 NKJV) ICR...

NEWS
All Things New
"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful."...

ACTS & FACTS
Creation Kids: Neptune
by Renée Dusseau and Susan Windsor* You're never too young to be a creation scientist and explore our Creator's world. Kids, discover...

ACTS & FACTS
Theodore Roosevelt National Park: Testimony to the Receding Flood
by Tim Clarey, Ph.D., and Mike Mueller, M.S.* Nestled next to Medora, North Dakota, and 45 miles east of Glendive, Montana, Theodore Roosevelt National...

ACTS & FACTS
A Great Year of Development! 2024 Year in Review
The Institute for Creation Research had another outstanding year advancing creation science in 2024! We’ll use this opening issue of Acts &...

APOLOGETICS
Mice That Prey on Scorpions and Tarantulas
Don’t underestimate the ferocity of a humble-looking little mouse—especially if it lives inside Grand Canyon. Although various mice...