Point- Counter Point

I found a website with anti-creationist claims and creationist answers. My last blog was on the arrogance of evolutionists. It seems that many in this camp are not out to prove that evolution is a viable theory, but to eradicate any mention of creationism in the public arena. So much for the free market of ideas in science or education for that matter. Below is a copy and paste job so I want to give credit where credit is due. I found this on the following website: http://www.icr.org/article/anti-creationist/



It is from The Institute for Creation Research, one of the premier creationist organizations, along with Answers in Genesis.

CHARGE: "The creationist model does not have the same kind of scientific validity as the theory of evolution. This is not to say that it cannot be a true account of the origin of life. It could be." (Today's Education, Apr-May 1981, p. 58G)

FACT: The evolutionist's definition of "scientific" is "mechanistic" or "naturalistic," but this is misleading. Science means knowledge, and the essence of the scientific method is observation and repeatability.

Evolution is not "scientific" since macro-evolution is neither observable nor repeatable. Evolutionists admit creation may be "true," so it is appropriate—indeed essential—to include it in the educational process if teachers sincerely desire their students to search for truth, as they claim.

CHARGE: "The basic premise, the basic dogma, is the existence of a divine creator. What they espouse as academic freedom to teach creationism is the academic Freedom to teach the flatness of the earth." Discover, Oct. 1980 p. 94.

FACT: No creationist scientist teaches a flat earth nor, for that matter, is such a notion taught in the Bible. The "dogma" of the existence of a divine creator is not one bit more "dogmatic" than the evolutionist's assumption of "no creator" and of the preexistence of matter as the source of this marvelous universe and its infinite array of complex systems.

CHARGE: "The creationist movement boasts a number of adherents who have been trained in science. Significantly, few are biologists. Creationists have done almost no original research." (Time, Mar. 16, 1981, p. 81)

FACT: There are thousands of well-qualified creationist scientists today, a large percentage of whom are in the life sciences. Over half of the present and past members of the Board of Directors of the Creation for Research Society, for example, are in biological fields. In addition, of the 29 scientists associated directly with ICR (including the ten staff members, plus trustees, advisory board members, and regional representatives), 17 are in the life sciences. At least 15 scientists in these two groups have regular Ph.D's in Biology from leading universities, and the others all have terminal degrees in closely related fields (biochemistry, medicine, etc.). As far as research is concerned. the ICR staff may be typical. These ten scientists (H. Morris, Gish, Bliss, Barnes, Slusher, Parker, Cumming, J. Morris, Austin, and Rybka) have published at least 150 research papers and ten books in their own scientific fields—all in standard scientific refereed journals or through secular book publishers—in addition to hundreds of creationist articles and perhaps 50 books in creationism and related fields.

CHARGE: "If the world view of fundamental Christians is presented as science, why not that of the Hindus or the Buddhists?" (American School Board Journal, Mar. 1980, p. 32

FACT: There are only two world views, evolution and creation. Each of these has many variants. Hinduism and Buddhism are variants of the typical evolutionary world view, beginning as they do with an eternally self-existing universe (the same is true of Confucianism, Taoism, and all the other ancient pagan pantheistic religions).

Creationists do not want the Biblical record of creationism taught in the public schools, but only the general creation model as a viable scientific alternative to the general evolution model.

CHARGE: "(Creationists) have shown a certain genius for couching their arguments in scientific terms ... But their viewpoint remains dogmatically fundamentalist and profoundly anti-scientific." (The Sciences, Apr. 1981, p. 18)

FACT: Whether or not the scientific creation model is compatible with the Biblical record is irrelevant to the question of whether the actual scientific data fit the model. Most creationist scientists do believe that the tenets of Biblical creationism are compatible with the tenets of scientific creationism, but it is only the latter that we believe should be taught in the public schools. The fact that the scientific model of creation can be used to support Christian theism is parallel to the fact that the scientific model of evolution can be used to support Marxist atheism or Religious Humanism or Theological Liberalism. All this is irrelevant to the fact that creation and evolution can both be discussed and compared simply as scientific models.

Again, these are direct quotes from "The Anti-Creationist" by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

My Thoughts

I have come across several science educators in my 16 years of teaching who are so venomously opposed to the view of creationism that they often become emotional and almost violent when arguing against it. My initial reaction is to wonder if their positions are actually rooted in objective scientific reasoning or in a deep emotional wounds experienced at the hands of organized religion. Let us remember that we battle not against flesh and blood. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph 6:12). We should remember to pray for all of these people who are so blinded. Lord, please open their eyes.