Creation Science Rebuttals

     Summarizing the chapter by Ken Ham, she says that the proof is out there, in the scientific evidence.  The difference is in the interpretation of the evidence.  Ham is right in that we all have the same evidence, and people interpret it based on presuppositions, or starting assumptions.  However, this is misleading.

    Scientific evidence is obtained from observation, and experimentation.  From this, you reach conclusions.  When the secular (or old earth) scientist examines the evidence, he reaches the conclusion that it (the earth and universe) are old.  By examining the evidence first, and then reaching a conclusion, the scientist is using the scientific method, without any presuppositions.

     By contrast, the young earth creation scientist does not start by examining the evidence.  He presupposes, from his interpretation of the Bible, that the science will show that the earth is young.  He has already reached a conclusion, prior to his ever examining the evidence.  Thus, his presupposition is applied, even before he examines the scientific data.  Then, he manipulates that scientific data, to make it fit his notion that the earth is young.  This is not science...it is something else.

     Since the young earth creation scientist does not use the scientific method, he cannot be rightly called a scientist.  I would call him a theorist.  

     Myers continues her summary by giving several evidences that are seen as the best proof of creation.  She starts with the T-Rex blood issue from ten years ago.  Although creationists have touted this as proof of the T-Rex being recent, in reality there was no T-rex blood cells recovered...only the remnants of the blood cells (For more, read T-Rex Blood).  Even after later research proved this, the young earth creationists still claim T-Rex blood was recovered.  

     Ham then gives suggestions for Christians to follow when discussing creation/evolution with non-Christians.  I agree...one must realize the starting point (presuppositions)...especially those of young earth creationist theorists.  His second point...hold fast to the Bible's account of the history of the universe.  I agree.  But since the Bible does not say how long it took, we are free to interpret it as millions of years.  The Hebrew word for day, Yom, can easily be interpreted as long ages.

     His third suggestion is to look at the scientific facts through your Biblical presuppositions.  However, this is not true science.  Scientific facts should be examined without presuppositions, like true scientists do.  Presuming that the earth is young, and then looking at the scientific evidence, is not science.

     Interestingly, Ham and other young earth proponents always argue that scientists approach the evidence with the presupposition that it is old.  Not true.  The evidence has already been examined, and it is old.  Thus, to assume that something is old is based upon past scientific observations, and not presuppositions.

     Ham says that the "Bible is confirmed by science."  Only if you look at it from an old earth perspective.  The scientific evidence is clearly in favor of an old earth, and the Bible supports this view.  It is only when you twist and distort the scientific data, that you can get a young earth viewpoint.  And even then, much of the data must be ignored, because it is contrary to a young earth.

   In closing, they say "we must try to understand the right way to think about that evidence."  The scientific evidence is what it is.  Think about it in a straightforward manner, and you receive a straightforward answer.  You don't have to come up with a "right way" to think about it, to make it fit a young earth.  By itself, without presuppositions, the evidence is clearly old.