Is Creation Science A Science?

A common ploy used by evolutionists to discredit creation science and keep it from being taught in public schools is to say that creation science is not a science. With this essay, I wish to explore and answer the question,"Is creation science a science?"

What Is A Science?

Science is a process where we use what is called the scientific method. The scientific method is a system which uses a series of steps to study our existence and answer questions. Its definition varies from one text book to the next but, basically, you make observations to gather information, interpret the meaning of that information, test the explanation whenever possible, and develop conclusions. It involves a lot of educated guessing about what gathered information means.

If we use the scientific method to study our existence and the ideas related to that existence, then it is a science. For example, Biology (bio - life & ology - to study) is the study of life and is a science because we use the scientific method. Physics is the study of the non living part of our existence and is a science because we use the scientific method.

Therefore, if we use the scientific method to study information in relation to the idea of creation as an origin, then it would be Creation Science and would be a science. Yet, evolutionists argue that creation science is not a science in spite of the fact that there are thousands of scientists using the scientific method to study information in relation to the idea (hypothesis) of creation as an origin. What do they base their determination on?

Their determination is based solely on the idea that creation cannot be a science because the idea has its origins in religion instead of in science. Is this a valid reason for saying that modern creation science cannot be a science even though creation science is the use of the scientific method to study information in relation to the idea of creation as an origin? To find out, let's look at evolution.

Deceitfully, many evolutionists either state or infer that evolution had its beginning with Charles Darwin instead of religion so that evolution can be called a science. The truth is that Charles Darwin did not invent the concept of evolution. It turns out that his father used to teach Charles the concept of evolution when Charles was a young man. The elder Darwin got the idea of evolution from studying Greek writings from thousands of years ago.

It seems that the Greeks got the idea of evolution when Alexander the Great conquered Asia. As Alexander conquered Asia, he traveled with a small mobile city of people including families, merchants, craftsmen, philosophers, and religious leaders. As they conquered new people, his philosophers and religious leaders studied the ideas of the religions they encountered often incorporating some of these ideas into their own. In India, they studied Hinduism which believes in the upward evolution of the spirit or soul to higher levels with each new incarnation until an ultimate high is earned or achieved. This was the first form of evolution and was purely religious.

When the Greek philosophers returned to Greece, they applied the concept of spiritual evolution to the physical world. This new concept of physical evolution was based on the idea that the black man was a evolutionary link between the Gorilla and white man. This idea persisted until very recently and well past the time of Charles Darwin. Since the elder Darwin got his evolutionary ideas from the Greek writings, he probably also believed it. Today, we know that it is not true. The black man is not an intermediate species but is actually a homosapien just like the rest of us. He is just a different race or breed of man but he is still a man.

It was this concept of physical evolution that the elder Darwin taught to his son, Charles. Therefore, evolution also has its roots in ancient religion and, according to their own determination, cannot be considered a science. But is this true?

Of course not. The real reason evolutionists insist on classifying creation science a religion and not a science is because they don't want to believe it and don't want anyone else to believe it. They don't even want you to know the evidence proving creation and disproving evolution. They have lied, committed fraud and perjury, and deceived as many people as possible in an attempt to force everyone to believe what THEY want you to believe. Their classifying creation science as a religion is hypocrisy and a lie meant to censor and silence the truth about evolution and creation.

Creation science fits the scientific definition of a science and is, therefore, a legitimate science. To classify something to be a religion or science based on what you want to believe is not science but is itself religion and oppressive. We must classify everything equally and fairly. Since creation science fits the definition of a science, it must be classified as a science. As long as scientists are using the scientific method to study the hypothesis of origin by creation, then creation science is a science. Since both evolution and creation have their roots in religion, they must either both be classified a science based on using the scientific method or both be classified a religion based on their roots.

Home Page

The Earth's Magnetic Field Is Young