Myth: ‘No real scientist believes in creation’
30 Ph.D. scientists help bust this old canard
Published: 16 July 2015 (GMT+10)
The myth that no real scientist believes in creation has probably been around longer than most reading this have been alive. It should have died a death a long time ago given the wealth of creation material produced by the various creation organizations and the qualified scientists who work for them, let alone the thousands of Bible-believing scientists who work in industry and universities around the world. But it’s a sound bite that the atheists like to use to discredit anyone who attempts to defend the biblical account of creation. Unfortunately, in the age of the Internet, where anyone can post anything at anytime, whether true or false, the myth has found new life. But this is actually a case of playing the man instead of the ball and avoiding the facts that blatantly reveal otherwise.
The real problem is that most Christians have never heard sound evidences or arguments defending Genesis creation and so they are often caught off guard by such ‘elephant hurling’. This is one of the reasons that CMI, in all of its offices around the world, primarily visits churches. Thanks to these visits, many Christians are made aware of, and have access to, the preponderance of creation information.
In late 2014, CMI took the offensive when we launched our Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels project. This resulted in a book and DVD that featured up to 15 Ph.D. scientists who were actual specialists in the very fields that supposedly underpin evolution theory. They showed that the real evidence from the fossil record, genetics, radiometric dating, the origin of life (chemistry), cosmology, etc. were fatal weaknesses for evolutionary dogma. This project has proved hugely popular and has created awareness among Christians like never before, due to its high production quality, but most of all due to the strength of the arguments being presented. For example, Vera B., felt that she now had a tool she could simply share with others. She wrote:
“Have just watched this DVD and am speechless. No, no—I just want to talk, talk, talk about it. What a superb production. Now I have something I can send to my brother who thinks everything to do with creation and God is fairy tale rubbish! He is a scientist and can’t believe there are any decent scientists who would believe this stuff. Thanks × 1000.”
Note how Christians are surprised when real science can support the Bible. How much more might the atheist/evolutionist be surprised when he/she discovers that such science that they defer to actually undermines their own cherished belief system.
‘Real’ science flourished under a Christian worldview
The argument that no real scientist believes in creation is also shown to be false when one considers the history of scientific endeavour itself. In Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s classic article The biblical roots of modern science he demonstrated how a Christian world view, and in particular a plain understanding of Scripture and Adam’s Fall, was essential for the rise of modern science, while it was stillborn in the non-Christian world. For example, Rodney Stark affirmed:
“[S]cience was not the work of western secularists or even deists; it was entirely the work of devout believers in an active, conscious, creator God.”1
And any evolutionist learning his scientific trade in university whether it be in the areas of chemistry, physics, or cosmology would also learn about Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and Johannes Kepler (respectively), for instance. They learn that these were some of the greatest scientists who ever lived, but probably do not learn that they were also creationists. How can evolutionists honestly claim that creationists don’t do real science, particularly when CMI has attempted to keep a list of the Ph.D. scientists we are aware of on our own site? See Scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of Creation.
Busting Myths—an encouraging new book that is great for witnessing
Busting Myths—30 Ph.D. scientists who believe the Bible and its account of origins is CMI’s latest resource. It’s a beautiful, full colour, magazine-style publication (but 230 pages!) that features interviews with 30 Ph.D. creation scientists. Their areas of expertise include astronomy and astrophysics, biochemistry and biotechnology, biological research, chemistry, genetics, geology and palaeontology, human biology, and physics and engineering. Moreover they affirm that science supports a straightforward reading of Genesis, and why they believe that evolution contradicts both science and Scripture. These modern scientists stand in the long tradition of the biblical creationists who were the founders of most branches of modern science. And some of them have made outstanding contributions such as Dr Raymond Damadian, who discovered the vital signal difference without which the life-saving MRI would not be possible.
For many years each edition of our Creation magazine has also featured an interview with a Ph.D. scientist. Many of the interviewees tell their own stories on how they survived the pressure of being Bible believers in higher education and the scientific workplace. In Busting Myths, editors Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Gary Bates have updated these interviews and compiled them into a resource that would certainly make excellent ‘waiting room’ or coffee table reading. It would also make a great teaching tool for young ones to encourage them in the faith and to also ‘shore them up’ if they are about to enter higher education where they will undoubtedly hear the aforementioned urban legend about creation scientists. Imagine the surprise on the lecturer’s face when presented with such a resource to demonstrably refute his statement.
Busting Myths is available now by clicking on the links to the right of this article.
References and notes
- Stark, R., For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery, Princeton University Press, p. 376, 2003. Return to text.
In this article, CMI is using several of its standard devices. You start off with your version of the “No true Scotsman” argument from both sides of the issue. You invoke both the “No true scientist…” along with the equivalent of “No true Christian…” Let’s just take your assertion that a literal reading of the first eleven chapters of Genesis is supported by modern scientific knowledge. A scientist who can accept this notion is very confused about physics, geology, biology, astronomy, etc. Or this scientist is willing to allow all necessary miracles required to dispose of the thermal consequences of the Flood, the physical integrity of the ark and its inhabitants, the imagined volcanism and plate tectonics, and a host of other problems that creationist hand-waving airily dismisses. Or this scientist has so thoroughly partitioned science (in his own mind, at least) into multiple independent categories that are logically and physically independent of each other so that things impossible in physics become possible in biology or geology. Finally, your use of Rodney Stark’s absolutist ‘affirmation’ takes advantage of your readers’ lack of knowledge of both history and science. It dismisses, without equivocation, the contributions of Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, and a host of others. Putting other authors’ words in your own mouth does not make them any more true.
Richard, you constantly seek to comment on our articles but your willing ignorance is breathtaking. As such, you typify the 'garden variety' atheist who elephant hurls by saying creationists ultimately deny the real sciences. The whole point of this article (and the book) was to show that creationists have indeed made real contribution to the sciences and got their degrees in the same secular universities as their secular colleagues. As such, if they've 'passed their exams' I fail to see how they can be confused. You also appeal to unknowns by suggesting that naturalistic processes must be deferred to. But such a deference invokes a Darwin of the gaps mentality, as the very sciences you profess must be violated for naturalism to create the universe out of nothing, or indeed, created complex living organisms from simple chemicals. Instead, you continue to elephant hurl and appeal to authority arguments. The exact same thing you accuse us of. It appears you are a very religious person!
A hardy Amen to this article. I am a retired technical writer and I'm now learning how to be a screenwriter. It is on my heart to write dialogue for screenplays to make real science an everyday conversation that exposes all the misconceptions in science and to elevate the real science that supports creation. Thank you for your professional approach to science.
Evolutionists conflate historical and operational science. Creationists can do proper operational science and get their degrees from secular universities like evolutionists. When it comes to historical science, "what maybe happened in the past," creationists have real history in Genesis, which helps interpret the facts better than evolution, whose sole purpose is to deny God and say everything made itself, at the expense of truth. They will also say creationists in the past had no alternative, even though atheism existed long ago—David through the Holy Spirit, called atheists fools.