|By: Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon; ©2000|
|A third distortion frequently used in the arguments against creation is assuming that creationists cannot possibly be good scientists. Read quotes from leading educators and journals about the problems they claim this will cause.|
(from Darwin’s Leap of Faith, Harvest House, 1998)
In light of our previous discussion, we will simply list these without comment. Such declarations reveal the unfortunate depth of misinformation on this subject.
When Russell L. French, one of America’s leading educators, read W. R. Bird’s 1,100- page critique, The Origin of Species Revisited, which covers almost everything important in the creation-evolution controversy (including scientific, educational, and legal aspects), he commented as follows: “This book is frightening to me because it clearly demonstrated to me how much I did not know until I had read it. If that was my condition, what about others, perhaps a majority, in our society?”
Regrettably, most people in our society are ignorant on this subject, including the prestigious organizations listed below:
Upon reflection, such statements are incredible. The falsehood of all the above statements is either documented in our Darwin’s Leap of Faith or in other scientific and philosophical literature. But we would be remiss not to point out two additional statements from this book. First, according to the National Association of Biology Teachers, “science is a constantly self-correcting endeavor to understand nature and natural phenomena” and second, from the Iowa Academy of Science on Pseudoscience, “in contrast to pseudoscientists, scientists seek out, expose, and correct any logical fallacies or other errors which could weaken their theories or interpretations. To assure complete scrutiny open criticism is not only tolerated but often rewarded, particularly when it results in significant revisions of established views.”
If this were true, first, science would be teaching a proper definition of science. Second, it would not be teaching evolution as a fact. Third, creation would not be falsely ridiculed and rejected out of hand on the basis of solely naturalistic presuppositions or other bias. Fourth, creation scientists would not be subject to the extreme prejudice they are currently subject to. Fifth, creation scientists would be rewarded for their research, which has not only advanced science by correcting the deficiencies and errors in evolutionary theory, but has presented quality evidence for a more believable theory of origins.
Even though the definition of science is a philosophical one, scientists should know the definition of science—what it is, what it isn’t, and what it involves or doesn’t involve. This is part of their responsibility as scientists. If American university life isn’t educating them properly on this subject, then so much worse for the state of modem American education.
We can clearly see how and why science suffers today—its own biases and prejudices force it to deal unfairly with the scientific data and to distort the truth. To portray evolution as science fact (and therefore sacrosanct) while portraying creation as merely faith (and therefore suspect) is a reversal of reality. As we will see later, it is evolution that rests on faith, and creation that employs good science. When the American Institute of Biological Sciences says that “creationism is based almost solely on religious dogma stemming from faith rather than demonstrable facts” it is not looking at the issues fairly. And when the American Civil Liberties Union apparently deliberately distorts the nature of true religious faith, which is based on logic and sound evidence as we demonstrated in Ready with an Answer, it can hardly expect sympathy from those who know better. Consider this statement for example: “Creationism necessarily rests on the unobservable; it can exist only in the ambiance of faith. Faith—[i.e.,] belief that does not rest on logic or on evidence—has no role in scientific inquiry.”
Unfortunately the majority of Americans have no idea of the unjustifiable abuse that creationism is subject to by the evolutionist establishment. It would be unfair of us not to point out that even though this establishment claims to function according to the principles of objectivity and fairness, this is simply not the case.