Dismissing Creation Science with Fake Definitions

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

When I confronted Rusty Swingset, foreman at the Darwin Ranch near Deception Pass, about why they refuse to consider evidence from biblical creation science, he had a simple reply: "It is not science". I was amazed, and argued that those scientists did not get their degrees from Billy Joe's Bible Church Academy and Bait Shop.

In addition, many of them work or previously worked in science professions. To dismiss them out of hand is ridiculous and even cowardly. How can they justify this attitude? Through arbitrary definitions in defense of the General Theory of Evolution.

Ashokan Reservoir from Glendord Dike, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen (modified with FotoSketcher)

Some years ago, I wrote about a new "Golden Rule" where whoever controls the definitions in a debate or discussion makes the rules. People can "define" science in any way that suits their agenda. Many internet atheists I have encountered try to slap leather with creationists and fire off the "not science" thing, followed by self-serving definitions and circular reasoning.

Some even say that evolution is science, therefore, to deny evolution is to deny science! One of my favorites is when someone was denying that creationists are scientists, I learned that his personal definition of scientist is evolutionary biologist. Oh, boy.

It is said that science must make predictions (which is very close to the fallacy of reification and making science into an entity instead of using it as a figure of speech). Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ erroneously insist that evolutionist make successful predictions about their beliefs, but they have actually made a number of galactically stupid errors — which have essentially falsified evolution in that area alone.

Going further, some secularists insist that science must be naturalistic (atheistic), and that creation science is religion. Biblical creationists are direct about our metaphysical presuppositions. We know that science is impossible without God and that atheism is self-refuting. Data are interpreted, and people do so according to their worldviews. Instead of being intellectually honest, secular scientists are married up with naturalism, so they will not consider arguments and evidence from biblical creationists — they will not "follow where the evidence leads" because of spiritual (metaphysical) concerns.

There are some other important matters to examine and are covered in the article below. The author also develops some of the things mentioned previously.

Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ‘good scientific theory’. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of ‘prediction’ of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of ‘science’, it is therefore ‘religion’, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored.

I'd be much obliged if you'd read the rest at "‘It’s not science’." You can also listen to the "video" here.