The Real Pseudoscience
Atheists and other anti-creationists are known for using labels in their attacks on biblical creationists, but those are ad hominems and used for building straw man arguments. They call us "science deniers", which is based on equating evolution with all science. (One rancorous tinhorn says certain creationists "hate science" despite being shown that his claim is completely false.) Many also like to say that biblical creationists use pseudoscience. Actually, the opposite is true!
To fully appreciate this question, we need to lasso ourselves some important definitions. Science is a system of knowledge using a scientific method. However, there is other knowledge to be had that is not scientific. Pseudoscience is a false claim that knowledge is gained by scientific principles. Astrology uses scientific approaches and appears scientific, but that is not the case.
Also, these owlhoots rely on appeals to emotion, not logic. You are unlikely to find a cogent argument based on an accurate representation of what biblical creationists actually believe and teach, nor about what the Bible really says. While it is acceptable to refer to public schools using the suppression of facts refuting evolution and presenting false claims as "education", when Christian parents want their children to know the missing facts, we are "indoctrinating." See how that works? It is an appeal to emotion based on misrepresentation. To be blunt, they are lying to provoke negative emotions for their side.
Both evolutionists and creationists use knowledge, and interpret it based on their presuppositions. However, there are fundamental differences between the claims that both camps make. Creationist maintain that Genesis is historical, and factual. Evolution cannot be supported by science, but the biblical basis makes science itself possible. Darwin's disciples use circular reasoning, assuming evolution to prove evolution, and call it scientific.
 |
| Original image: The Angry One by Ferdinand Hodler |
Also, these owlhoots rely on appeals to emotion, not logic. You are unlikely to find a cogent argument based on an accurate representation of what biblical creationists actually believe and teach, nor about what the Bible really says. While it is acceptable to refer to public schools using the suppression of facts refuting evolution and presenting false claims as "education", when Christian parents want their children to know the missing facts, we are "indoctrinating." See how that works? It is an appeal to emotion based on misrepresentation. To be blunt, they are lying to provoke negative emotions for their side.
Both evolutionists and creationists use knowledge, and interpret it based on their presuppositions. However, there are fundamental differences between the claims that both camps make. Creationist maintain that Genesis is historical, and factual. Evolution cannot be supported by science, but the biblical basis makes science itself possible. Darwin's disciples use circular reasoning, assuming evolution to prove evolution, and call it scientific.
Evolutionists sometimes call biblical creation a pseudoscience. Is such a claim defensible? Could it be that evolution is in fact pseudoscience while creation makes science possible?That's all the excerpt I'm going to provide. I'd be much obliged if you'd read the entire article, "Science vs. Pseudoscience". The fan-made music video below was done by ApologetiX. Note how well the video of Rush matches the music.