Feedback 30 May 2003
I was pleasantly surprised by today’ article, "Standing Firm" In it, Don Batten and Carl Wieland ask Dr. Raymond Jones “How would you react to people who say that evolution must be right because most scientists agree with it?” I have recently been discussing evolution with a person who says science rejects creation because most scientists accept evolution. He admits that a few scientists believe in creation, but "Very, very few—not enough to allow creationism to be regarded as science." His whole argument of evolution being correct is based purely off of acceptance, not proof. " The question is not do we have metaphysical proof, the question is what is and what is not science. Science can and does reject creationism, it can and does accept evolution as fact."
Dr. Jones’ answer basically was the same that I gave this person, that science can advance through proving an accepted idea wrong. He didn’t see it that way, though. I used Pasteur as an example, but he simply called it irrelevant.
It goes to show that evolution is a belief system that can cloud a person’s mind so much that they refuse to acknowledge what actually drives science.
Is creationism a pseudoscience?
[Editor’ note: This idea (creation is pseudoscience) has been addressed elsewhere on our website, so we would not normally publish this in our weekly feedback column, but we used it because of a shortage of suitable negative feedback.]
Is creationism a pseudoscience?
Thank you for contacting us. We have been trying to get people around the world to evaluate the foundation of their belief because we believe that if you are on the wrong foundation, no matter how good your methodology is, you will draw the wrong conclusions.
By definition pseudoscience is: ‘A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.’1
Our foundational belief is based on the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God, Who is the Author of universe and Creator of science. He is an Eyewitness to the account of origins and an Expert in the knowledge of its processes and design. From the Bible, we develop our foundation. Please see the following comparisons of foundational beliefs.
How did time begin?
Bible: God created it.
Evolution: ‘Nothing’ created from nothing.
‘Nothing’ violates the principle of causality that all science is derived. It says that all things that have a beginning have a cause. ‘Nothing’ violates this law where God doesn’t. The Bible has a better foundation. Please see: Loving God With All Your Mind: Logic and Creation; Argument: Evolution is true science, not ‘just a theory’.
Where did matter come from?
Bible: God created it.
Evolution: Nothing created a singularity from nothing and it expanded.
Once again ‘nothing’ violates the principle of causality. This is violation of scientific law whereas God wouldn’t be. Please see the above two references.
What is the age of the universe?
Bible: From earth standard time approximately 6 thousand years.
Evolution: 8-24 billion years depending on the latest Hubble constant and distant starlight travel.
The Bible uses an eyewitness account of the only One who was present during Creation who stated in the Bible [E.g., Isa. 40:22, Ps. 104:2, etc.] that the rate of expansion of the universe has not been constant (Hubble constant has changed).
The evolutionists use guesses based on distant starlight passing though the universe as constant time and assume the universe expands at a constant rate (Hubble constant). We know the scientific measuring of the Hubble constant has had major problems. Also, we know from Einstein that time is not constant throughout the universe. It changes via gravitational and velocity time dilation. Evolutionists have a horribly unscientific approach.
Dr Russell Humphreys suggested a solution to the distant starlight problem with foundation in the Bible in the book Starlight and Time. Please see: Which is the recent aberration? Old-Earth or Young-Earth Belief?; How can we see distant stars in a young Universe?; What about the ‘big bang’?.
How do you explain the fossil record?
Bible: The Flood of Noah caused geologic layers of sediment rapidly and caused the formation of many fossils about 4500 years ago.
Evolution: The fossils were formed by slow gradual processes over millions of years. Layers often represent millions of years.
We know that fossils only form from a rapid burial and this process is easily testable and has been verified. Any slow, gradual process ever tested has resulted in the decay of a life form instead of its fossilization. Anyone who has ever been to a flood area can see layers of sediment. The layers are better explained by the rapid flood as opposed to millions of years. The deeper layers simply settled from the flood water earlier.
According to evolution there should be hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils that easily show the change from one kind of life form to another. What we have found is the opposite. Many fossilized life forms are very close to the same as the modern kinds. There are only a few ‘highly questionable’ transitions that evolutionists themselves disagree about their transitional status. Every alleged human ancestor has been debunked as either fraud or a non-transition. Please see: Geology and the young Earth; Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up!; The Fossil Record: Becoming More Random All the Time; Q&A: Anthropology; Q&A: Fossils.
What about dating methods?
Bible: Dating is best done by written account of eyewitnesses as recorded in the Bible.
Evolution: Dating should be done by uniformitarian methods (only some of them).
Uniformitarian methods make the assumption that the rate we measure now has always been the same. It also makes the assumption that that weathering effects did not affect the sample. It also makes the assumption that the initial conditions are known.
Problems with this is that we know from experimentation the rate does change due to weathering. We also know that no one knows the initial amount. We also know that many uniformitarian dating methods yield a young earth (Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Russell Humphreys). The few methods used for long ages (radiometric) have been proven to be wrong over and over again. Why, scientifically, would anyone keep using them?
Is it easier to get the age of book in a library by looking when it says it was printed or taking a sample from the book and subjecting it to uniformitarian dating? An eyewitness account of the Bible is still the best, and most scientific method for arriving at an age. Please see: What about carbon dating?; Radioactive ‘dating’ failure.
Do the observations in living things fit according to evolution or the Bible?
Bible: Living things are under a curse and thus should not get better over time. They should be subjected to natural selection that causes a filtering of traits (loss of information) and mutations that cause defective traits in the DNA (loss of information and possibly in an extremely rare instant maybe an increase of information).
Evolution: There should be millions of mutations that cause new previously non-existent traits to build up on the DNA strand and those traits should be naturally selected as dominant. Thus all life forms will be on their way to the next level of evolved life with better, new information.
We observe that life forms can naturally select and filter out traits (dogs that go to colder climates will eventually have only longer hair to keep warm because the ones with shorter hair will die off and the genes—alleles—for that short hair will be lost or filtered out). Mutations occur and have always been a loss of information in the genome. There has never been a single instance where a DNA strand has ever been built up with new, previously non-existent information by mutations or other means, ever. Without this, evolution cannot happen.
The video Frog to a Prince shows the world’s leading atheistic evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, unable to provide even one example of an increase in information. In a follow-up article in an Australian magazine, he failed to produce any either—there are none. Please see: The evolution train’s a-comin’; Information, Science and Biology.
What about dinosaurs?
Bible: Dinosaurs are in the Bible.
Evolution: Dinosaurs died out over 65 million years ago.
How can dinosaurs be in the Bible if they died out 65 million years ago and weren’t rediscovered until the 1800’s? Simple, men saw them and wrote about them. This means that they lived at the same time as the Bible says. There are hundreds of evidences that show that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Please see: What about dinosaurs?.
The answer should be obvious, creationism is founded on a firm foundation by the Creator of science where evolution is based on a false science, a pseudoscience. Evolution is founded on the changing ideas of fallible men and the ideas keep having tremendous errors. They just don’t fit. It is not that many of these scientists are doing bad work, but they are starting with bad foundations that lead to the wrong answer.
I sincerely pray that this information helps, God bless.
- The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Return to text.
- Hawking, Stephen, A Brief History of Time, p. 45, 1996. Return to text.