Creationism in Canada slammed by CBC

by , [now] CMI–Canada

28 November 2000

On Nov. 14, the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) aired a documentary on Stockwell Day, leader of the Canadian Alliance Party, attacking his belief in the book of Genesis.

The program contained a response from Science Professor Pliny Hayes, of Red Deer College, Alberta, who said, ‘The age of the Earth is a subject of scientific inquiry. There’s a mass of scientific data on the age of the Earth. And it all says that the Earth is between four and a half and five billion years old. And that it is not, that it could not be 6,000 years old. It is absolutely clear that humans did not co-exist with dinosaurs. And for creationism and evolution, there is a mountain of evidence which says that evolution happened.’

‘He’s either completely unaware … of science for the last 200 years, or he is aware of it but is perfectly willing to just completely discard it because it contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis,’ the professor said.

Professor Hayes appeals to ‘mountains of evidence’ and the assumption that those who hold a biblical view of history are anti-science. Such accusations typically arise whenever the creation/evolution issue is raised, but they are inaccurate.

The media and many scientists consistently fail to differentiate ‘operational’ science from ‘origins’ science. Clarity in this area is crucial to understanding the creation/evolution issue.

Operational science deals with the way the present world works, and generally concerns things that we can observe and repeatedly test. For example, we can consistently get the same undisputed temperature for the boiling point of water since we can observe and repeat the test conditions.

Origins science, however, deals with how we apply observations made in the present to non-observable events in the past. Scientific observations must be interpreted when applied to past events. This is based on the observer’s opinion of earth history and therefore involves personal philosophy and religion to a much greater extent than it involves operation science (what most people regard as ‘real’ science, i.e. the sort of science that helped put man on the moon). The formation of Grand Canyon is an example. Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence—the same Grand Canyon—but different stories about how it came to be, since the history of its formation cannot be observed once, let alone repeatedly. Evolutionists might say, ‘a little bit of water over long periods of time created this canyon’, while creationists say, ‘a lot of water over a short period of time created this canyon’. Same canyon—two different stories! Which one is correct?

The supposed events of evolution occurred in the unobservable past and are therefore not capable of being proven scientifically with certainty. Creation events are also in the past. The argument between creation and evolution is not one of science vs. religion rather of the science of one religion vs. the science of another religion. The advantage for the creationist is that he has a written record of history from an eyewitness. The Bible says that the world is close to 6,000 years old and describes a world-destroying Flood. Any opinion on the formation of Grand Canyon must fit into the biblical historical framework, by definition. And it does.

Those who exclude the possibility that God could have acted during earth history and that the world may be young must reject all ‘scientific’ evidence leading to that conclusion. Such is the case with scientists who hold to an evolutionary view of earth history. After rejecting all evidence for a young earth they then conclude that all the evidence points to an old earth! Professor Hayes’ statements reveal that he has rejected evidence for a young world.

All dating methods for the age of the earth involve assumptions about the past that are outside the realm of observational science. Nevertheless, by using the same assumptions as the evolutionists (uniformitarianism—that rates and processes measured today have operated for millions of years) more than 90% of all dating methods produce an age for the earth that is far less than that required by evolution. [Ref. Evidence For a Young World by Dr D. Russell Humphreys.]

The charge that creationists are anti-science is without basis. Many great scientists of the past were creationists. Newton, Pasteur, Pascal, Kelvin, Mendel, Kepler, Linnaeus, Faraday, and many more. Today there are thousands of highly qualified scientists around the world who believe the creation account of origins.

We need to uphold all of our political leaders in prayer that they may use their influence to return Canadian society to its biblical roots.

Published: 15 February 2006