Creation Science Rebuttals -
Teaching True Science
Review by Greg Neyman
First Published
2006
In an article on the Creation, Dinosaurs
and the Flood website, young earth creation science advocate and pastor Dave
Snyder talks about the bankruptcy of evolution.1
This article goes by the title "Teaching the Evidence."
However, Snyder gives none. The entire article appears to be an emotional
tirade against evolution, and I could barely get through its negative
approach. His very first sentence says "I am not a vindictive person." He
then proceeds with his anger against evolution, proving his first sentence
false.
He presents no scientific arguments that I can rebut, but he
does say a number of things that are false. Throughout the article, it is
apparent that he believes his young earth viewpoint represents true science.
However, young earth science is not science at all, for it does not fit the
definition of science. For more on the scientific method, see
Creation Scientist?
Here are a few of his choice words.
Others of us find the scientific evidence to be so devastating to fundamental naturalistic evolutionary claims as to show it to be an utterly unsuccessful hypothesis that has been falsified and overhauled so many times as to be embarrassing. The issue of theism aside for a moment, the science of Evolutionism is DOA.
If he were to care to look at science, evolution is stronger
than ever. If all you ever listen to is young earth arguments against
evolution, of course you would believe evolution is dead. Raise your head up
and look around at reality. Evolution has a counter argument for every claim
of the creationist! All you have to do is examine the web to find this out.
But we all know in reality, it's a dead end. It is on artificial life support and under continual protection by its supporters. They are trying to sustain some life in a corpse. Sadly it will not see a decent burial by those who have invested their lives and careers with it.
Again, evolution is far from being a "corpse." You don't have
to agree with evolution, but you should at least try to understand it. Get
your head out of the young earth only books and look around!
What can be done (or should be done), is to create an awareness that
Darwinian evolution as currently dominating the scene is now proven to be
unworthy of its monopoly. Just as "WorldCom", and "Enron" are unacceptable
monikers in the public domain, so also must be "Darwinian Evolution".
Young earth creationists have been arguing against evolution
in this manner for at least the last 45 years, ever since they organized
under the leadership of young earth ministries. Have they had any success?
Not a bit. If anything, they are the ones in danger of being proven
unworthy.
I do agree with Snyder that it would be good for our schools
to openly discuss all options...to critically evaluate the evidence. Too bad
young earth creationists will not reciprocate. They teach their children the
close-minded young earth approach, protecting them from the data of science.
In many cases, when these children reach college, they learn the truth and
reject creation. This is because it is taught to them as an either/or
choice. Either you believe the earth is young, or you don't (you deny God).
Millions have been driven from the church in this manner.
It does not have to be this way. Evolution is a theory, and
whether or not it is true makes no difference to creationism (see the words
of Billy Graham on this issue). You
can be a Christian, and believe in an Inerrant Word of God, and a literal
translation of Genesis, and believe that the earth is old...with or without
evolution.
Snyder says that teachers should teach the evidence and
empirical data on evolution. I have no problems with this. Teaching the data
on the age of the earth would clearly win these children over to long ages.
Teaching the data on evolution would also not be a problem. The problem is
in deciding what data to present. Young earth criticisms of evolution are
not all valid, as they rant and rave about everything under the sun. Which
do you pay attention to? This is an impossible question. School standards
are not about to be based on young earth criticisms of evolution.
Evolution may not be true, but its a whole lot more
scientific than young earth creation science! Judging by Snyder's article,
young earth science runs purely on emotions, and not on facts.
1 Teaching the
Evidence, originally published on the web at sixdaycreation.com/facts/creation/science/oct2003.html
If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth. Click here for more.
Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life? If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here.
Creation, Dinosaurs and the Flood Review Homepage
Related Articles
To learn more
about old earth creationism, see
Old Earth Belief,
or check out the article
Can You Be A
Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?
Feel free to check out more of this website. Our goal is to
provide rebuttals to the bad science behind young earth creationism,
and honor God by properly presenting His creation.