Is Teaching Creation a “Huge Disservice” to Students and the Sciences?

Want to stir up some controversy? Post about science, God, and the Bible on social media! Recently I posted a blog that Ken Ham, CEO of Answers in Genesis, kindly wrote about Camp Infinity on our Facebook page. He wrote:

A recent article by a secular blogger claimed that children who aren’t taught evolution won’t get that spark of interest that propels them to become scientists. Well, at Answers in Genesis we don’t believe that you need to be taught and believe evolution in order to be passionate about discovering more about what God has made. And this certainly bears true throughout history—many of the greatest scientists of all time were Christians who studied nature for God’s glory (and many of them lived at the time of Darwin)! We want more scientists like that.

The phrase I put in bold particularly attracted attention and I thought I would respond to some of the negative feedback this blog post received. One Facebook user replied to Ken’s blog with this statement:

Geologists, paleontologists, astronomers, biologists of all branches, and most scientists in the medical profession use information and concepts gained from the study of evolution in their work. These people who are exposed to false science will either not choose these sciences as careers or become so disillusioned with the theories taught in Universities that they will drop out or transfer to other disciplines. That would be a huge disservice to both the students and those sciences that need young professionals to advance their field of study for the benefit of all mankind. (emphasis added)

What this user fails to recognize is that there are many scientists who study science from a biblical worldview and there are also over 1,000 scientists—many of whom are not creationists—who question evolutionary ideas. When it comes to observational science (more on that below) what you believe about origins has little to no direct impact on how you do your science. For example, this commenter mentions the medical field. Medicine and evolution have very little to do with one another as medicine works, studies, and practices in the present in a testable, repeatable way while evolution deals with the past and is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable.

Evolution Holds Back Science

Indeed, on the few occasions evolution has been applied to medicine it has held science back! The debunked (but still repeated!) idea of vestigial organs (that certain organs are useless leftovers from evolution) held back research because no one bothered to figure out what the appendix, and other organs, did because they were considered useless evolutionary leftovers. We’ve now found important uses for every single “vestigial” organ in our bodies.

Another example is so-called “junk” DNA. The areas of the DNA that do not code for proteins—about 98%—were considered leftovers from our evolutionary past and were largely ignored. Recently research is showing that this “junk” has important regulatory functions. Evolution has actually held back science and medicine!

Most sciences have nothing to do with evolutionary ideas and children, and young adults, do not need to believe in evolution in order to have a successful science career. One example of a creation scientist doing great science is Dr. Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the MRI. He has spoken to our Ci campers before and also filmed a brief clip that was played during the Ken Ham and Bill Nye, “the Science Guy,” debate in 2014 about his work.

Only Use the Scientific Method?

Another commenter claimed that only results determined through the scientific method should be taught. If that is the case, then all evolutionary ideas must be thrown out. Evolution is not testable, repeatable, or observable. You can’t directly test, observe, or repeat the past so you cannot use the scientific method when it comes to evolutionary ideas.

Above I mentioned observational science and said I would get into more detail. Well, observational science is the kind of science that is directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s the kind of science that put man on the moon, develops vaccines and other medical advances, and continues to improve AI (artificial intelligence). Both creationists and evolutionists can do this science with little disagreement.

Historical science is very different. It deals with the past (fossils, rocks, etc.) and is therefore not directly testable, observable, or repeatable so what you believe about the past will determine how you interpret the evidence. The worldview (long ages or a young earth, evolution or special creation) that you come to the evidence with becomes the lens through which you look at the world. That’s why creationists and evolutionists can both look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions.

Do Creationists Publish?

Another person claimed no creationist has even published a paper regarding creation science. Well, that is demonstrably untrue. Creationists frequently publish in journals such as Answers Research Journal, Creation Research Society Quarterly, and others. Some would argue that, since these are creation publications, that somehow “doesn’t count,” even though papers are all peer-reviewed by other scientists in the field. But that merely reveals the bias of the person making that argument.

Furthermore, creationists would willingly and gladly submit their research to a secular journal for consideration but anything that even so much as mentions a Creator or any hint of a biblical worldview is immediately reject out of hand, making such a thing impossible.

No “Creation Related Evidence” Used for “Real Scientific Work”?

I believe most evolutionists make claims like the following comment because they are ignorant of creationist literature.

And not a one of those creationist believing scientists use any created related evidence for their real scientific work basically because there isn’t an creation based evidence to use.

The many creation scientists working in their fields would beg to differ! For example, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, who holds a PhD from Harvard, is currently studying mutations rates in human DNA and seeking to determine if he can trace historical events, such as the slave trade, in our DNA, with promising results. His research starts with the belief that our DNA is young and therefore we should be able to read history in our DNA.

Back in the 1980’s Dr. Russel Humphreys accurately predicted the strength of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before they were known, starting with his belief that their magnetic fields had only been decaying since creation, a few thousand years ago.

Dr. Andrew Snelling, a geologist, is currently studying rock layers from the Grand Canyon that have been folded onto one another to determine how this happened. His research, which will be published when it is finished, is pointing towards rapid folding when the layers (which are supposedly separated by millions of years) were all still soft.

And these are just a few examples of creationists doing real scientific work, starting with the history in the Bible as their foundation.

Do Your Research!

These accusations lobbied against creation are simply unfounded. I would encourage those who made those comments to look into the work of creationists to find out what we actually believe and how our worldview explains the evidence. A great place to start is with The New Answers Book 1, which is available to read for free (or to purchase) on the AnswersinGenesis.org website.

Want to join the conversation happening on social media? Like us on Facebook at Facebook.com/campinfinity

Camp Infinity

Where Science & Technology Meet Truth