The argument for Creation Science is ‘WOW, life is so incredible, there just has to be a designer.’ That is not science, that is awe. Awe is good, but it isn’t the end of an investigation, it’s the beginning. However, if you start your investigation with a foregone conclusion then you are, of course, forbidden to reach any other conclusion at the end of your investigation.
Can anyone honestly say that Creation Science is open to follow the evidence wherever it may lead? I think the answer is pretty obviously no. It can’t and it won’t. Because it starts with the statement that there has to be a specific type of conscious being as a creator, it can never freely look at evidence that might contradict that. It might give the appearance of a neutral look at the evidence, but it will always be forced to squeeze whatever is found through the filter of a conscious designer. That in turn will both skew the evidence and skew the direction any further investigation will take.
Now, it is true that legitimate science can, on occasion, also skew evidence. But the great thing about legitimate science is, in spite of individuals wanting to push a certain theory, it is ultimately self-correcting. A theory that can’t be backed up over time is eventually discarded and replaced with one that is more in keeping with the evidence.
Creation Science can’t, and never will be, ultimately self-correcting because it can never allow for evidence that threatens its foregone conclusion.
Drawing and commentary by Marty Coleman of The Napkin Dad Daily
Quote by Judith Hayes
One year ago today at the NDD – It is a test of a good religion