0707 History not Science
What is it about creationists claiming science for their cause that rankles evolutionary scientists?
After all, ethical science is simply the discipline of structured discovery and application. In theory convictions should be of little or no consequence. The scientific method should not be considered tainted simply because the practitioner does not cower to established opinion but works from an “out of bounds” worldview.
In reality however, evolutionary prejudices have led to professional snobbery and ridicule of anyone outside their ivory citadels. This explains the problem creationist scientists have in getting published by peer-reviewed journals. Just as in middle school, if initiates have the wrong peers or don’t share like allegiances, they are not allowed in the club. If they do manage to get in, but don’t walk the club walk, they are ignored or ostracized. A perfect example of such contrived openness, aside from some of the links, is talkorigins.org.
Snobbery and ridicule are key weapons in evolutionist circles. Normally, the attacks on creationism are short on substance and long on inflammatory misrepresentations. Shamefully, this even holds true with religious evolutionists who resort to publicly defaming those who oppose them and publicly caricaturing scholar-validated literal acceptance of the Christian Scriptures.
These are not the only problems. Evolutionary “science” commits the very crimes of which it so freely accuses the other side. Contradictions of “established” science (spontaneous generation), circular reasoning (the geologic table), biased thinking (naturalism), and acceptance of miraculous processes (genetic leaps) are just as much a part of evolutionary systems as anyone else’s. They reject the obvious for the sake of trusting in the obscure.
George Wald, a prominent evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel laureate), wrote, “When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!”
The law (yes, “law”) of biogenesis, that life only arises from life, and the principle of irreducible complexity, that critical biological systems cannot function without all components being simultaneously present, fully interactive and completely operational, have been sidestepped but never invalidated. Only in evolutionary circles can an established law, biogenesis, be circumvented by shifting the debate away from origins or by establishing a new contradictory field of study, abiogenesis. Only in evolutionary circles can a principle such as irreducible complexity be “answered” by unsubstantiated theories of multiple, random mutations and unregulated, half-functioning intermediate processes.
In a real sense, the evolutionary sciences are a kind of applied history with a heavy dose of faith. They can only describe evidence left behind and speculate about what may have happened (history). They thereby lack the ability to finish the tasks of genuine science. Such men as Wald deserve a great deal of credit for being honest, even while less forthright colleagues peddle as “facts” conclusions based on fractured systems and tortured logic.
On the other hand, the Bible claims to simply tell the truth and places it before all mankind. In so doing it provides a complete structure for governing scientific endeavors. It presents God’s direct instruction concerning the who, why and how of creation. Man’s scientific mandate begins in literally understood Genesis. Biblical faith includes all of reality. God is jealous of his glory and will not give it up to the mechanics of nature, even if a theory allows him to fire the starting gun and then cheer from the sidelines.