3 Reasons Creation Science is not Ignorant or Dangerous

Aug 1, 2017 | Apologetics, Article, Creation

The Bible’s authority is at stake in our culture. This is not to say that its degree of actual authority is dictated by our culture, but the truth is, we’re losing “Christians” to naturalism today despite its bankrupt condition, and something must be done about it. I believe this speaks to the importance of creation science.

Now, that’s all well and good.

However, most apologetics organizations, in our country at least, have adopted the “day-age” theory of Genesis 1. In fact, most of these organizations claim that Christians have just been interpreting the text completely wrong for thousands of years, and we must shift our understanding of God’s Word to match what secular scientists have written in their papers.

I, for one, refuse to do so.

God’s Word can be trusted. And, furthermore, when using the recent creation interpretation of Genesis and following the evidence where it leads, there is a MULTITUDE of scientific evidence! In fact, way MORE than you will find for naturalism.

And yet, despite the multitude of evidence, “scientists” like Bill Nye claim that creationists are not only ignorant, but to teach children that “God created the heaven and the earth” is downright dangerous.

That is quite an accusation, and frankly, one that warrants a bit of discussion. I realize that culture will always disagree with the Bible, but it’s nothing more than religion bashing (and intolerance, mind you) to say that creationism is dangerous.

Nye claims that children who are taught about creation will not be able to participate in the scientific future because they will have a lack of knowledge of the fundamentals of science, but this just isn’t true.

Many of the greatest scientific advancements in our day were made by, you guessed it, creationists! And not only that, but every creation scientist I know is FULLY aware of evolutionism and the role it plays, and they would claim that the opposite is true—that evolution is the dangerous idea. More on that in a minute.

Here are three good reasons NOT to believe the lie that creation science is ignorant (and even dangerous):

#1. The Truth Matters


I find it very interesting that the most educated country in the world—the country that touts prestigious Universities such as Harvard and Yale—also leads the charge against objective truth.

We spend THOUSANDS (usually HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS) of dollars per student on education, only to teach them that there is no such thing as truth. Why then, may I ask, should we believe anything they are taught?

The reason is quite simple:

The world these purveyors of relative truth think they live in does not exist.

The fact is simply that it is an impossible standard to live up to. The moment you make the claim, “There is no truth,” you are claiming that your statement is true! You are then reduced to utter absurdity and cannot possibly live in that condition.

It’s the same reason why college professors who teach evolutionary biology don’t come home at night and treat their kids as if they are just re-arranged pond scum. Deep down, they know their children have value as human beings, and so they treat them as such.

The only difference is that they can’t explain why, but we can!

This makes it impossible for the denier of truth to live a consistent life.

So the question I have is, why is it dangerous to teach creation science if the truth doesn’t really matter anyway? Seems to me that if life for everyone is all a matter of preference, there would be no issue with this.

Again, we see the product of secular inconsistency.

It is precisely because the truth does matter that we teach creation science! We have extremely good reason to believe in a recent creation from a scientific perspective. This is not some conspiracy theory to be conflated with the flat-earth model, as others have claimed.

And while yes, religion has a major part to play in a recent creation, that should not matter if creationism is true. See, if our society cared about truth, it wouldn’t matter whether or not a recent creation was proof that God created.

But to paraphrase apologist Frank Turek, people are not on a truth quest (even if they claim to be), they’re on a happiness quest!

So no, creation science is not ignorant or dangerous—simply because the truth matters! The evidence is too overwhelming to dismiss it as a hoax, and not ONE scientific “advancement” in the last two millennia have disproved it.

#2. Scientific Progress is at Stake


I realize the contradictory nature of this claim, seeing as how this is Bill Nye’s railing accusation against creationists.

Nevertheless, I, along with many creation scientists, argue that the acceptance of creationism by the greater scientific community would actually do wonders for our progress as a country.

There are at least three reasons I believe this is true:

  1. Creation is a reflection of the Creator. Think about it. IF this is true—that is, if God really did create the universe like He said He did, can you imagine what discoveries could be made by more scientists attempting to understand origins from a Biblical perspective? Honestly, I believe God would allow us to advance even further. If we, as a country (and the larger scientific community), would start giving GOD the glory for the world we live in—there’s no limit to what could be accomplished.
  2. We’d finally come to terms with the nature of humanity. “Scientists” like Nye claim that one of the exciting things about progress is our ability to grow in knowledge, but if the Bible is true (and I believe it is), there is simply a limit to what humanity can accomplish. We can never be gods. So far, our experience seems to reflect this. We have come a long way scientifically, but we still cannot create life in a test tube. And, even if we could, that would not prove that it happened on its own 14 BILLION years ago. Sometimes, limitations are good.
  3. It would finally expose the bankruptcy of evolution. I really have a hard time understanding how evolution is still accepted as a theory today. Philosophically speaking, it seems to violate the Law of Entropy. Despite the claim that information is added to the genome, scientists have only ever observed a loss of information within an organism, and at best, lateral mutation. I know doctors who have become Christians because in one class they learned evolution, and in other science classes, they were taught things that totally contradicted it. Evolution, as sound a theory as it may be, seems bankrupt with respect to the big picture—a stronger creation science community would help more people to see that.

Furthermore, I think this issue speaks to the true nature of secular intolerance.

We’re willing to dialogue with mainstream scientists and make our case, but I don’t see the olive branch extending the other way. It seems that evolutionists and secular scientists resort to name calling (“cave men” is my favorite) when referring to creationists.

But why is that?

I’ll tell you: when your fundamentals are flawed, all you can do is attack those who oppose you. Real dialogue is impossible.

Now I know that my writing this is not going to convert a crowd of people to considering creation science—it may not convert anyone! But please, I beg you, have another look at the evidence.

Start with asking yourself how in the world you know anything at all, can expect tomorrow to be reasonably like today, and know the difference between right and wrong.

If the Lord will open your eyes and your heart, I believe you will begin to see that if we’re going to make real scientific progress, we must consider creation.

#3. The Evidence is Quite Compelling


Finally, I would be willing to bet that many who dish on creation scientists have never really considered the evidence–many may never have even looked at it!

Something you may find interesting, however, is that I don’t argue with unbelievers about the evidence for creation. This might seem kind of silly considering this blog and what I do, but let me explain.

The way we interpret evidence doesn’t have to do with how we were taught, per se. Formal education has nothing to do with it.

In fact, plenty of creation scientists have a formal education from secular universities–the best in the nation!

The difference is not in the kind of education they have received, rather, it is because of their worldview.

See, there are two primary worldviews or paradigms competing for attention in the sciences–naturalism, and creationism. Sure there are small offshoots and variations, but they are not in view right now.

The reason why a creationist can receive a secular education and remain a creationist is because this person understands that evidence is always filtered through the worldview lens.

Getting real practical concerning the evidence, the struggle is between Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism.

Uniformitarianism says that all of the natural processes we observe today have been constant throughout the distant past. Therefore, when we take a look at, say, the Grand Canyon, and transpose what we know about erosion, scientists make an educated guess about the amount of time that may have taken. In this specific case, close to 5 million years is the current guess. This view can be summed up in this statement–“The present is the key to past.”

Catastrophism, in contrast, maintains that in order for a structure like the grand canyon to have formed, a major catastrophe must have occurred. We also know that erosion can happen very rapidly–ESPECIALLY when it results in fossilization–and suddenly, it starts to look like a major catastrophic flooding event took place at some point in the past. Conveniently, the Bible tells us about one around 4,000 years ago! This view can be summed up–“The past is the key to the present.”

So what do we make of all this?

Well, first of all, the Bible tells us that in the last days, the leading philosophy would be Uniformitarianism! See 2 Peter 3:4.

Secondly, and at the very least, catastrophism deserves a fair shake in the scientific community. Though some scientists have admitted signs of catastrophe, many have not made it all the way to the Biblical flood–but it’s a start!

Though not all evidence can be summed up by the “Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism” classifications, the subscribers on either paradigm are generally happy to be associated with the larger picture–naturalism vs. creationism.

In order for the scientific community to have a worldview change, they must first have a heart change. I know Someone who specializes in that.

We better get busy sharing the gospel!

Creationism makes sense and yes, does stand on its own scientifically. But as long as Satan blinds the eyes of those who see it as nothing more than religious hokum, we are going to have our work cut out for us.

So I leave you with this question:

What on earth are YOU doing for Heaven’s sake?

Questions? Feel free to comment below and start the discussion, or click the blue button on the right (desktop only) to ask a question with a voicemail. We will do our best to answer in an upcoming post. Thanks!

Meet Steve

Meet Steve

Hi, I’m Steve, an author, speaker, and Bible teacher with a heart for exploring God’s Word and God’s world.

I’m interested in the surprising connection between creation, theology, business, and storytelling. We explore those themes and more on this blog.

Be sure to browse the site for faith-affirming articles, book reviews, and podcasts!

The Podcast

The Podcast