Online premiere of Dismantled: A Scientific Deconstruction of the Theory of Evolution
Watch for free here between 12 AM October 9th - 11:59 PM October 11th EDT!

Feedback archiveFeedback 2019

Creation isn’t ‘science’?

Published: 25 May 2019 (GMT+10)

CMI receives many emails from skeptics. While we respond to every email that follows our submission rules, we thought that a fuller answer to this particular message would be edifying for our readers, and would help to equip others to answer similar arguments. Vince A. writes:

United States National Academy of Sciences building, in Washington, D.C.
Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) is where Darwinian Evolution defeated Christian-Creationism (Intelligent Design) in a federal court. Creation Science is not real science, according to The National Academy of Sciences.

Lita Cosner, CMI-US, responds:

Dear Vince,

Thank you for writing in, but there was no need to inform us that the National Academy of Sciences has defined creation science as a pseudoscience. This is nothing new. But, if true, I guess we will have to tell Raymond Damadian, inventor of MRI, that he is not a real scientist. Also, John Sanford, the Ph.D. geneticist who invented the gene gun, sure fooled me. And we will have to let John Hartnett, who co-developed the world’s most precise clock, know that he is, according to the National Academy of Sciences, not a real scientist.

One wonders how a body like the National Academy of Sciences can dictate to us that the men and women who hold Ph.D.s in biology, chemistry, zoology, geology, and more on our creation scientists list are not real scientists, despite the fact that they went to the same universities as ‘real’ scientists, did the same work as ‘real’ scientists, and are otherwise indistinguishable from ‘real’ scientists.

And if being a creationist disqualifies you from being a scientist, I’m afraid we will have to reappraise those who are no longer with us. After all, if the 21st century has taught us anything, it has shown us that living a few centuries ago is no justification for holding inexcusable beliefs! So Newton, Mendel, Bacon, Galileo, Steno, and Pasteur—scientists famous enough to be referred to by one name—are not scientists!

Can we agree that anyone defining ‘science’ to mean ‘adherence to a belief’ is silly and destructive to true science? This is because, historically speaking, scientific orthodoxy has been wrong more often than it has been right. 100 years ago, eugenics was ‘good science’. Not too long before that, humoral theory ruled medicine. 500 years ago, geocentrism. Who knows what we will discover tomorrow?

We rightly discount the views of the people who used Aristotelian philosophy to oppose heliocentrism, because, by all accounts, they were wrong. At the same time, we rightly vilify those leaders in the evolution movement who once taught eugenics, because it is a horrific ideology. But both geocentrism and eugenics used to be scientific orthodoxy to the people of the day. People who were willing to challenge that orthodoxy using good scientific methods advanced science. If we freeze science by defining a particular theory as necessary to be a scientist, that idea, by definition, cannot be challenged by scientists. Imagine if that had happened with geocentrism!

Thus, we reject efforts like this. They are counterproductive and contrary to the very nature of science, which is to challenge ‘orthodoxy’. We will continue to defy Darwinism, naturalism, and belief in long ages, and we will seek to find more and better ways to be a goad under the saddle of the gatekeepers and power controllers in high places. We are called to do this through the Bible, and we are motivated to do this because of what science is telling us. So now that we have explained our reasons, why not join us?


Lita Cosner

Helpful Resources

Busting Myths
by J Sarfati & G Bates, edited
US $17.00
Soft Cover
Evolution's Achilles' Heels
by Nine Ph.D. scientists
US $17.00
Soft Cover

Readers’ comments

John C.
I also wonder, perhaps with others, what would have been NAS's response to the court's finding, if it said that creation science was indeed a legitimate scientific approach to the universe. Would they have said, 'Well, that settles that,' and accepted YEC's as equals, or would they (as I suspect) have appealed that decision to the United States Supreme Court? And if THAT august body had decided that creation had merit, what then? Civil war? Science, although subject to the laws of the universe, is not subject to the laws of the land, insofar as its ability to uncover truth is concerned.
Nathan G.
Oh, please. The National Academy of Sciences is the same crowd that decries Intelligent Design as pseudoscience, then turns around and supports the SETI project searching for intelligent messages from aliens! No consistency whatsoever in their logic. Anyone who takes the time to read the closing summary by the judge in Kitzmuller immediately recognizes that the very definiton of science that was set down in the trial is ignored by the judge. This is OK if you work for The National Academy of (Pseudo)Sciences or Eugenie Scott's merry band of science eradicators, but not if you are a "neutral, objective" judge. The comments reveal that the judge was firmly on the side of secular humbug. That is even more disturbing, since judges and lawyers are supposed to know that the US goverment is not allowed to establish a mandatory state religion. Yet here we are. Humanism has been given protection under the Constitution as a secular religion, the vast majority of evolutionists call themselves humanists, and evolution is the sole idea taught in "science" class using your tax dollars. Ergo, there IS a state religion: evolution. That's ironic. Christians pay tax dollars to propagandize their own kids away from their constitutionally-guaranteed and protected faith. But if we turn the tables and teach real science in the schools or even compare evolution to any alternatives, the evos will hit speed-dial to the Anti-Christian Liberties Union (ACLU) in a hot second. And our jolly troop of Supreme Court legislators rules on with the aid of judicial fiat. Seems fair and legal to me. Not! Such hypocrisy on the side of evolution...
Ajn B.
John N.B.
As an engineer and a 100% believer in a created world and universe, I'm a little confused by the whole Creation Scientist debate. To me a 'creation scientist' isn't a special person who bends over backwards trying to fit creation into their work but rather, their observational, honest, repeatable findings in their work, just happens to keep pointing to a creation based model. And, regarding this discussion thread, I'm not sure that the lead-off court case example was making the point that a believer in creation cannot be a scientist (this would be an absurd stand) but rather, that It cannot be labelled as 'science' if the research work that is done in determining how something works, turns out in the end, to logically and to strongly point at a creation. And also, the article's lead-off court case example would not be the first time that lawyers have been able to deceive and to manipulate a court, so as to result in a dishonest outcome. There seems to be basically two primary attack approaches used by today's indoctrinated evolutionist; 1) To hold a belief in creation is a non-scientific, irrational, and an illogical (a total falsity) position; and also, 2) The vilifying of current scientists who believe in creation as being non-scientists (absurd given historic individuals). These attacks could not be sustainable with our modern understanding of sciences if it were not for... The only way evolutionary 'theory?' has been able to remain dominant in our government school systems, has been by rigorously forbidding any questioning of evolution and/or allowing analysis of intelligent design. Thank you for you excellent publication with its topics related to Creation.
Kevin D.
I think you're missing the point somewhat. Firstly I agree that intelligent design needs to be able to be considered because it is a known agent of creation in the universe. Anyone who labels "intelligent design" as "non-science" had better be prepared to defend such a position, and I know they can't. The alternative to intelligent design has no precedent or supporting evidence whatsoever, its pure philosophy and virtually the only default position those who are anti-theist can cling to. However to argue that the Bible is a scientific book, or that it takes greater rational weight than empirical science is something not even the bible claims for itself. It is in fact so full of allegory and parables that even Christian denominations are divided on how to interpret it. Claims about how to interpret the Bible are one man's opinion on another man's writings. We all see through a glass darkly, our understanding is imperfect, and the scriptures contain many things difficult to understand that the unstable twist to their own purposes. They may be good for moral instruction or reproof, but nowhere does it claim to be an infallible text book on biology or cosmology. Any such claim is the greatest creation of creationism.
Lita Cosner
We have never claimed that the Bible is a scientific book. Rather, we claim that it is a historical book. And our claims about how to interpret that historical book aren't mere opinion, but based on sound exegetical techniques. And if the Bible's statements about real-world history are false, then it is not good for moral instruction or anything else, because its moral statements are founded on the claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. And if that is not true, then forget about the whole book. You cannot separate the historical and moral teaching of Scripture.
Kim B.
Re the court case mentioned at the top of this article. I wonder if anyone who was called to give evidence had to swear on the Bible that they were telling the truth. Oh the blessed irony :-)
Richard P.
It's probably important to understand WHY they don't consider Creation to be Science. There's a spiritual answer to that, as found for example in 1Cor 1:21 and 2Cor 4:4. But there's also a philosophical answer. The dominant paradigm for modern science is that everything must have a natural explanation. Anything supernatural is not repeatable, testable, and measurable, so by their definition it can't be science. Yet that says nothing at all about whether it's TRUE! To proceed from a PRESUPPOSITION that everything can be explained naturalistically to a CONCLUSION that there is no supernatural is invalid: it's blatant circular reasoning. Yet the majority of scientists, and others, use it as a justification for why they won't even consider the evidentially-based scientific reasoning of those who are creationists, because our belief in a supernatural is, to them, a mere superstition.
We can understand them, even while disagreeing with them. We know of many totally false superstitions adhered to by people today: lucky mascots, crossing fingers, astrology, etc. We rightly regard these as nonsense, indeed dangerous nonsense. Most of those who disingenuously give the same regard to our cherished Biblical beliefs are so confident in doing so, that they refuse to contemplate the evidence. Thank God for this website and other such resources, whereby perhaps some will have their eyes opened to see that there is a sound case to be made for the Truth of God's Word after all.
Search creation.com, people! Refute its arguments with reasoning, not derision, if you can! Be conscious of your presuppositions (for we all have some) and willing to challenge them. Better still, pray to God to aid you in your search.
Bill P.
We should be pointing out the gaping holes in the house of atheistic materialism. Can the materialist explain where all the matter/energy, time, space, and laws of physics came from? How information-rich life arose from dead chemicals? How our minds developed from a chaotic stew of inorganic atoms? George Wald on the spontaneous generation of life: “ … given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once …. Time is in fact the hero of the plot …. Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.” (The origin of life, Scientific American 191(2):44–53, August 1954, p 48) Carl Sagan, in his introduction to his movie Cosmos: "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." "Obviously that is a truth claim, but it does not come from science. Truth claims that do not come from science are nothing new. What is new, however, is the presentation of such truth as science. And so while there is nothing wrong with evolutionists proclaiming what they believe, there is everything wrong with their insistence that it is what everyone else must believe as well - that their personal religious beliefs, not open to scientific scrutiny, are scientific facts. Evolutionists may be correct about origins, but they are not scientific." – Cornelius Hunter ([link deleted per feedback rules]) The faith of the materialist is in a creator with no intelligence, mind, brain or purpose. The faith of the Biblical creationist is in a creator with a mind. Is it rational to assume a religious faith in a brainless creator is scientific, while faith in an intelligent designer is pseudoscience? 2 Thes 2: 9-12
David K.
I'm actually excited that we live in a time when more and more scientists are questioning the false assumptions of the geologic timescale, evolution, uniformitarianism, and chemical evolution (life coming from non-life). I am a lay-scientist, and love reading books that show how evidence and logic both point to God. God's "fingerprints" are all over Creation. God has graciously pulled the veil from my eyes and allowed me to see His Glory and Majesty all around me. No wonder the National Academy of Sciences and other such groups react so strongly to Creationists...They are very concerned that their house of cards will fall. Who would want their life's work to be based on a lie? For me, it's a form a worship, to walk in the woods and see God's handiwork. To be grateful every day as I see the incredible design in Creation. Thanks, CMI, for reflecting God's glory out via real Science.
Bill B.
Good response, Lita. Another good resource is a book I have recently come across, "Let there be science", by David Hutchings & Tom Mcleish. Hutchings is a Physics teacher at a school near York, UK, and McLeish is Professor of Physics at Durham University. The title is an echo of the "Let there be" commands in Genesis 1.

It was a revelation to read that Gideon's fleece is a very early example of a scientific experiment. The "Null Hypothesis" is that the ground and the fleece should be equally affected by the dew. If there was a difference, it could only be explained by a direct intervention by God. A good scientist repeats the experiment, in case the result of the first was a fluke, and varies the experiment, in case the result was due to a different, unknown, cause. Which is exactly what Gideon does. It turns out, then that Gideon was a scientist - and, moreover, one who is still an exemplar of someone who trusted in God. "Science" is therefore far, far older than atheists tell us.
Geoff C. W.
From Meg S's post: “I disagree entirely with what you have written, but I cannot fault your research, documentation, or the logical reasoning by which you arrived at your conclusions.”
... and there we have the evolutionist position in a nutshell. Must not let a divine foot in the door, no matter what!
We should all memorise this quote - but probably fix the grammar first ('... your research, your documentation, or ...', or '... your research or documentation, or...'
It would have been helpful had the professor given his reasons for disagreeing, since they could not have been based on research, documentation or logical reasoning, none of which he could fault.
Well done Meg on the A+, but well done so much more in seeing through the ruse.
Dan M.
Unfortunately Lita, I think you,re wasting your breath with some people although they need to be responded to for the benefit of the open minded like the previously mentioned PhD. scientist's who some were evolutionist's until they thought it out. Those who are bigoted ardent evolutionist's and close minded because of their naturalistic religious beliefs are, I think, hard to get through to. besides, If creation is not science, then why are evolutionists constantly using our, (creationist) verbage? If, as Dr. Dawkins the high priest of evolution puts it, "evolution is blind pitiless and indifferent to our suffering" then the process of evolution is non-personal. They constantly use verbs such as evolution, selected, created, produced, removed and so on. Blind chance is not capable of thought or choice so why use that type of verbage? The truth is they have replaced a loving God that holds us accountable with a Gaia type of god idol, (evolution) that allows them to do as they wish without any consequence except the suffering which they pin on our loving God. Oh and their Gaia god is an incessant gambler, not a loving creator like our God who never intended this fallen world.
The truth is on our side but unfortunately the truth rarely prevails in this fallen world with its inquisitions and prejudices. But we are to serve Christ with love and kindness no matter what.
keep up the good work.
Graham P.
Lita Cosner: Legend. Also, according to the new, (sadly mistaken) hyper-morality, which tears down statues of historical figures who somehow sinned, we ought to stop using Newton's laws of planetary motion, his differential calculus, his refraction of light theories, his refracting telescope, because they are weapons he developed in his apparently warped and bigoted Christian lifestyle. Then there's Christian fundamentalist John Napier, who codified the exponents and logarithms for us, taking twenty years to work them all out so we could have log tables to navigate the world and do astronomy.....we must get rid of logarithms then, which means no more modern computers.....(all computers use logarithms to add and subtract large numbers in their internal registers). And we can't have BEDMAS, the order of operations either, Lita, can we? Nope, that was invented by a tub-thumping fundamentalist Calvinist called Euler, who also named the three triangle sides A, B and C for us. So no more geography. Nor can we use imaginary numbers to work out complex problems...they were invented by Euler too, or was it Bournelli, the equally Christian fundamentalist from Switzerland? And we mustn't use any electrical equipment, according to the new morality on display at university, nor any electronics. Nope. It was all developed using Maxwell-Clarke's field equations. Clarke was a rabid Bible believer too. We shall have to go back to the stone age animistic polytheism of the Druids and wizards if we ditch the Christians' scientific contributions to the world. Good luck with that.
Robert S.
Thank you Lita! Great response!!
Dave E.
Ms Cosner, you continue to amaze me with your written word. I too get heavily frustrated with the declaration that “it ain’t science’ based on the scientists personal belief. I just showed one of my neighbors "Is Genesis History". He claims to be a scientist (actually a 5th grade science teacher). His reaction to this excellent and accurate synopsis of creation was, “All your experts are Christians.” Thank you for your calm, non-emotional response. Blessings. Dave Everett
Robert Carter
Note: Is Genesis History is available on our webstore.
John H.
I have three points to make. First, in so far as cosmological theories cannot be tested empirically, I doubt that cosmology meets the strict definition of a science. Second, in this era when Einstein's general theory of relativity rules the cosmological roost, I believe that any frame of reference can be translated into any other frame of reference. Thus I regard choosing between geocentrism and heliocentrism as - to some extent at least - a matter of convenience. Third, the creation account in Genesis suggests to me that Universe started with the earth at its center, and I don't see any subsequent indication in God's Word that He moved it away from there. Just some food for thought.
Robert Carter
You will see something similar to point #1 in Evolution's Achilles' Heels, which I could not recommend more highly.

You will find a discussion on point #2 in Refuting Absolute Geocentrism, specifically under the subheading 'Frames of Reference'. Yes, any frame of reference can be translated into any other. This is not a matter of 'belief', but of math. However, geocentrists run into a brick wall when they attempt to describe their model physically. This is what Newtonian, and now Einsteinian, physics gave us.

Point #3: The earth certainly is at an important place in the universe. It is where the Bride of Christ originates, the focal point of the Plan of Salvation, etc., etc. I have no problem saying it is the 'center of the universe' in the spiritual sense. I also have no trouble saying it might be near the center of the physical universe. This would be difficult to prove, but see here and here. Yet, there is no evidence that we are fixed in one specific position and every evidence that the earth is, in fact, free to move. Everything in space exploration supports this. See also our articles on conspiracy theory and Dystopian Science.
Sally B.
Well said. It is an outrage for the National Academy of Science to label "scientists", with earned degrees, as "pseudo-scientists". I am glad to hear that CMI will continue to point out this disparity.
Gian Carlo B.
There was totally nothing new here, sadly. Same baggage. First it was that it can’t be a tested idea. They tested that and so the creationists themselves and demonstrated that claim to be false as the creationist literature has shown, it has scientific criteria fir anyone to test out their theories and hypothesis and be able to falsify it. Next, it was that it can’t make testable predictions. This was obviously false as Humphreys did exactly that in his Cosmological Gravitational Dilation model with a spherically, galactocentric universe to predict gaseous planets’ magnetic fields like Uranus. We also have Lisle’s Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (actually ASC goes back since Einstein’s time so yeah). Same with Sanford’s Genetic Entropy and Carters co-worked mapping of H1N1 with Sanford. Now we get that it’s not real science because the same guys who said all the above says it’s not real science, but this ‘not real science’ all returns with the same package I discussed above. These are also the same guys who will diss at evolutionary psychology for its superfluous accounts. But still accept the overly flexible core theory of said field. It’s ridiculous and outright boring and not even worth paying attention to. Sadly, these same charges are also common among Christians, mostly from the theistic evolution camp but sometimes by OEC’s (when it comes to creation geology and cosmology of course).
Meg S.
Thanks once more, Lita Cosner, for your incisive, no-nonsense response. In university, in a paleontology class, I had to write a paper on the infamous, ridiculous book “The Selfish Gene” (Richard Dawkins, of course). That book was instrumental in bringing me to saving faith in our Lord Jesus ("He who sits in the heavens laughs..."). I wasn’t there yet, but the light beginning to enter my mind and soul meant I had to refute everything Dawkins said. I handed in my paper with fear and trembling, knowing I might lose the course as a result. My professor returned the paper with these words scrawled at the end: “I disagree entirely with what you have written, but I cannot fault your research, documentation, or the logical reasoning by which you arrived at your conclusions.” And he gave me an A plus on the paper. How great our schools could be it there were more teachers with that kind of courage and integrity. They would turn out thinking, reasoning graduates--but, oh dear, such people might actually see what a house of cards Darwinism really is, and be unafraid to challenge the status quo in education and research.
Neil O.
Excellent article, Lita Cosner. Well put and to the point. It will make a an effective 'share'. Thank you, CMI, for your ongoing sustenance.
Geoff C. W.
So scientists have got it wrong in the past. It may also be suggested that courts of law have not always been on the money, as well. So saying that a court found in favour of evolution over Creation is not saying anything helpful.
Lita, I guess you're saying that those scientists you list would be considered 'not real scientists' in one area of their belief, according to the (errant) Academy, but they could still be (and are) real scientists in other areas.
Richard G.
God bless you Lita. You have done an excellent job showing up Vince's gross error. And I assume he's not even blushing let alone repenting before God. (Hope I'm wrong re Vince's obstinacy.) Then you excelled Lita by inviting Vince to join us Christians. The love of God will ultimately triumph over Satan completely and victoriously. Note how the world's best selling Book informs us that the number of those ending up on God's side will ultimately be so big that no man can count it. Even the number of one portion of Christians alone, that is the ones who 'come out of (the) Great Tribulation ' is uncountable! (Rev 7:9 ).
What an invincible glorious conqueror Jesus will show Himself to be with all that number saved by His painful Cross and His resurrection! If we can't convince Vince to join us we still love him. (We were once like him.) I'm biased too in Vince's favour because my brilliant doctor niece Rebekah Lamb met a Vince just before she left as a missionary doctor. It looks as though they'll marry. Share my joy over this and over being a happy disciple of Jesus.
Daniel J.
Good answer.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.