Without evidence of benefit, an intervention should not be presumed to be beneficial or safe.

- Rogue Medic

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VI

In the comments to Part V, Jon Kavanagh writes –

Creationism science, if I were to define it, would be simply that life was created, versus the “it just happened one day, a billion years ago, when all was quiet and well in the…universe which just happened to have already been there…”

Cosmology (where the universe came from) has nothing to do with evolution, so why bring an irrelevant topic into the discussion, when the topic is evolution (how life developed)?

For Creationism science to be real science would require at least a scientific theory.

Where is scientific theory in Creationism science?

This is a scientific theory –

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
The contention that evolution should be taught as a “theory, not as a fact” confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

Creationism science is just non-scientists looking for things to criticize as improbable, or even as impossible, rather than attempting to understand what science has already demonstrated to be true. Creationism science is not providing any answers that would meet the standards of being a scientific theory.

If you view things through secular eyes, you will only see secular answers. If you view things through a Creator’s eyes, you will see the Creator.

You are stating that your religion demands denial of evolution, yet evolution does not demand any denial of religion.

You cannot just claim that religion is science. You need to show your work.

Image credit.

If you need to use miracles (divine intervention) to get the answers you need, that is religion, not science.

Using the Bible to prove the truth of the Bible is not science. Circular logic is not science.

If religion wants to be science, then religion needs to meet scientific standards, not demand that science lower its standards to let religion pretend to be science.

Evolution is not taking a position on religion. Evolution is neither religious nor atheistic.

If you teach pseudoscience in science classrooms, you should expect criticism from scientists.

Biology has no position on religion, except for those religious sects which insist on claiming that their literal interpretation of their religious books is science. For example, evolution.

Astronomy has no position on religion, except for those religious sects which insist on claiming that their literal interpretation of their religious books is science. For example, the heliocentric solar system.

Geology has no position on religion, except for those religious sects which insist on claiming that their literal interpretation of their religious books is science. For example, the Earth is millions of years old.

Is this any different from homeopathy claiming to be medicine, even though there is no valid science supporting homeopathy? Water has a memory that produces miraculous cures, which only work for minor ailments that eventually go away on their own and homeopathy is not any more effective than placebo. A major goal of homeopathy is to change the standards of science, so that they can pretend to be scientific.

Magic water, that defies the evidence, is not science.

Creationism, that defies the evidence, is not science.

*Could* one organism, if given enough time and stressors, change into something? Not sure, since we have only been tracking the appearance of man for a handful of thousands of years, but we haven’t sprouted an eye in the back of our head or antenna or anything, so it is hard to say.

Not hard to say. Flies have evolved eyes that look in almost all directions.

Would the evolutionary cost to humans, or any other primates, of developing an eye in the back of the head be offset by a greater survival benefit to be worth the cost? Would an eye in the back of the head really be useful?

Why assume that there is any choice by the species in what mutations occur and which survive?

But, if one looks at nature, the incredible diversity of the complexity should simply boggle the mind.

That is not in any way science.

Diversity is to be expected with evolution in many diverse environments.

Almost every species that ever existed is currently extinct. That does not suggest intelligent design, especially not an omniscient designer.

Survival of only a small fraction is to be expected with an imperfect mechanism. Evolution is imperfect. Life is imperfect.


A kangaroo has a pouch.

As do other marsupials that adapted to the same environment.

The cavefish that develops pigments or eyes depending on where it lives.

Blind fish develop eyes that do not see. this makes sense, if they have evolved from fish that had eyes. The eyes are something that evolved, but is no longer favored by natural selection. As such, eyes in blind fish are just atavistic.

An atavism makes no sense without evolution.

An atavism is an example of how evolution works.

Why would a fish have the remnants of eyes, if it never sees the light? Only if it evolved from something with eyes.

How a hawk can see a little field mouse from hundreds of feet away or a kingfisher can plop into the water and snag a fish.

How is man so blind to the visual spectrum. All we can see, without the aid of science, is from red to violet.

No X-rays, except with science.

No infrared, except with science.

No ultraviolet, except with science.

No radio, except with science.

We are blind us to so much of the danger of the universe, as well as so much of the beauty of the universe.

The sodium-potassium pump joining forces with calcium influx. A sperm’s joining an egg, and the resultant new life formed.

And so on.

None of these are irreducibly complex. they certainly do not approach the complexity of an all-perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful Creator.

http://thedragonflywoman.com/2011/11/07/giant-water-bug-mating/ Good thing both water bugs evolved simultaneously as to allow this to happen. Can’t have z without an x and a y, right?

Then it would have been just another example of a variation that was not an evolutionary advantage.

Evolution does not produce perfection.

Evolution produces monstrosities, but some of these are not lethally monstrous. Some of these monstrosities do produce an advantage.

Rare advantageous adaptations produce new species.

Evolution is not the norm. Failure is the norm.

I look at it logically, albeit through creationist eyes. Evergreens vs deciduous. Multiple ways a leaf attaches to a stalk or leaves are patterened on a branch. A blue whale eats zillions of plankton–what ate the plankton before the behemoth came along, or vice-versa?

Plankton only exist to feed whales?

http://www.umass.edu/ent/faculty_staff/hollingsworth/ExtremePollinators-fromNaturalHistoryMarch05.htm discusses the theory of how a plant’s evolution forces an insect’s evolution. Yet, without pollination, the plant (and all its traits) dies out, and without nourishment, the bug faces the same demise, and demise of its traits. Or a dinosaur comes and squishes one of the two parties and the outcome is the same.

Extinction is the norm.

Evolutionists uses evolution to explain themselves, as above. People with a faith in a creator use their holy text as explanation. Creationism doesn’t nullify any of the sciences, it simply frames them. Just as you can’t understand how “with all the scientific ‘evidence’” of evolution a person can believe in a deity, there are plenty who cannot fathom seeing nature and believing it just happened. Both views hold dramatic consequences–one places a creator and a purpose (and a responsibility?) in our way, while the other places no purpose, other than occupying a time and a place in the universe. One day, our bodies will turn to worm food and we will learn who was correct, and who was not. Until then, we both keep smelling the roses

Using a holy text as an explanation is not science. Provide scientific evidence.

And, should you ever desire to go to the Creation Museum, if even to laugh at the foolishness of the concept, I’ll buy the tickets and lunch.

There are so many more valid museums to attend. Why would I want to further the big business of Creationism misrepresented as science?

I have no objection to your company, but an objection to the museum.


Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part I

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part II

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part III

Shooting the messenger isn’t going to change the science – Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part IV

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part V

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VI

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VII

The Age of the Earth – Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VIII


[1] Introduction
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences
Second Edition (1999)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
Page 2
On line version of book



  1. […] My response is Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VI. […]