Why Creation Is Foundational To Science – Not Evolution

“How can you reject the same science that put man on the moon?”

You get that response sometimes when you admit that you’re a Creationist. The irony is that it was a Creationist rocket scientist, Wernher Von Braun, who got us to the moon.

He did it without need of evolution.

Consider the following comments from von Braun himself:

“For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose. . . . While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. . . .

To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye? Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. . . . But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers, the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature without divine intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must one really light a candle to see the sun?”

Observable, testable, repeatable science has given us many benefits and innovations. Many notable inventions, discoveries and developments are attributed to Bible-believing scientists. Inventions like the telegraph [Morse], mine safety lamp [Davy], electric motor [Ford], galvanometer [Henry], barometer [Pascal] and the reflecting telescope [Newton]. The discovery of scientific of gravity [Newton] and biogenesis [Pasteur]. Louis Pasteur alone gave us pasteurization, immunization and  fermentation control.

In fact, the Scientific Method itself is attributed to a Bible-believing scientist, Sir Francis Bacon. And no wonder, for the Scientific Method is based on the idea that we have an orderly universe that may be rationally understood because both it and our minds were designed by an Intelligent Creator. Furthermore, we have biblical permission to study the world [Genesis 1:28].

By contrast, evolutionism is based on the flaw of materialism, the unprovable tautology that matter is all there is and that everything came about by chance accident rather than design. CS Lewis demonstrated how materialism is an illogical basis for science when he said:

 “If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts – i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy – are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”

Evolutionists would like to object that their theory is more rational than the belief in a Creator God. GK Chesterton rightly scoffed at this notion:

“The world does not explain itself… it is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”

The founders of modern science – people like Bacon, Netwon, Kepler and Boyle – were Creationists who wanted to “think God’s thoughts after Him.” Many of the disciplines of science were established by Bible-believing scientists. To name a few:

• Antisceptic Surgery [Joseph Lister]
• Bacteriology [Louis Pasteur]
• Calculus [Isaac Newton]
• Chemistry [Robert Boyle]
• Comparative Anatomy [Georges Cuvier]
• Computer Science [Charles Babbage]
• Electronics [John Ambrose Fleming]
• Electromagnetics [Michael Faraday]
• Galactic Astronomy [William Herschel]
• Genetics [Gregor Mendel]
• Gynecology [James Simpson]
• Hydraulics [Leonardo da Vinci]
• Ichtyology [Louis Agassiz]
• Oceanography [Matthew Maury]
• Paleontology [John Woodward]
• Pathology [Rudolph Virchow]
• Stratigrphy [Nicholas Steno]
• Thermodynamics [Lord Kelvin]

Evolutionists ignore the fact that most of these disciplines were founded well before Darwin or by scientists, like Mendel, Owens and Agassiz, who actually rejected Darwin’s theory! This is true even within the biological sciences! Anatomy, Physiology, Microbiology, Botany, Systematics, Reproductive Biology, Embryology, Comparative Biology, Paleontology, Zoology and Genetics were all established before Darwin or by those who rejected his theory. Creationist Edward Blyth proposed the idea of Natural Selection well before Darwin did. Like Creationists today, Blyth thought of Natural Selection as an observed conservative force that worked against the effects of the Fall to weed out harmful mutations while aiding survival by allowing them to adaptations within the limits of their kind. Darwin’s natural selection, by contrast, was an unobserved creative force that facilitated molecules-to-man evolution.

Creationists today continue to practice normal, experimental science without need of evolution.

In fact, Michael Denton has famously admitted that:

“…contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach.” – Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pp. 353-354.

In fact, when evolutionism is conflated with science, science stalls. For generations, our appendixes and tonsils were summarily removed under the false evolutionary notion that there was such a thing as a vestigial organ. Nearly all alleged vestigial organs have now been shown to have a function. The genetic discoveries of Gregor Mendel were largely ignored for decades because it was considered a waste of time to study varfiation in light of Darwin’s assertions. One of the main reasons Mendel’s work in heredity was ignored was because it suggested that species could changed, but had fixed limits – a notion that Creationists call variation within created kinds – not molecules-to-man evolutionism.

Commentator Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig summarizes:

“Mendel incessantly speaks of “constant characters”, “constant offspring”, “constant combinations”, “constant forms”, “constant law”, “a constant species” etc. (in such combinations the adjective “constant” occurs altogether 67 times in the German original paper). He was convinced that the laws of heredity he had discovered corroborated Gärtner’s conclusion “that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change”. And as Dobzhansky aptly put it: “It is…not a paradox to say that if some one should succeed in inventing a universally applicable, static definition of species, he would cast serious doubts on the validity of the theory of evolution”. As the Darwinians won the battle for the minds in the 19th century, there was no space left in the next decades for the acceptance of the true scientific laws of heredity discovered by Mendel and further genetical work was continued mainly by Darwin’s critics among the scientists.”

The irony is that the Neo-Darwin Synthesis [of whom Dobzhansky was an author] simply incorporated Mendel’s work into their own [hence, the term “synthesis”]. Jonathan Wells notes this tendency toward “intellectual larceny” in the 7th chapter of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design [Regnery Publishing Inc, Washington, DC: 2006]. He suggests:

“…when Darwinists steal credit for scientific breakthroughs to which they contributed nothing, the verb “to darwin” might be appropriate. Generations of breeders have been darwined. Mendel has been darwined. Jenner and Semmelweis have been darwined. Fleming, Florey, Chain, and Waksman have been darwined. So have the real pioneers of modern biology. They’ve all been darwined.” [pp.80-81]

It should be pointed out that they’ve even darwined biology itself! L. Harrison Matthews comments in his Introduction to The Origin of the Species [J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., London, 1971, p.X]:

“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded upon an unproved theory – is it then a science or a faith?”

Ironically it was in the Introduction to the 1956 edition of Origins that Professor W.R. Thompson warned [of Darwinism]:

“This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”-Prof. W.R. Thompson, F.R.S., “Introduction” to Darwin’s Origin of the Species, J.M. Dent and Sons, 1956.

This warning stands prophetic, for it is just as applicable today as it was 53 years ago. Evolutionism is bad for science. In the words of many of its proponents, it is a position assumed by faith because the only viable alternative is Special Creation. Despite allegations to the contrary, it is Creationism that is consistently scientific while evolution is sustained by dogmatic faith, suppression of dissent, credentialism,  propaganda and indoctrination through government monopoly schools.

Along with proponents of Intelligent Design, we’d like to follow the evidence where it leads. Evolutionists don’t like where it’s leading.

If our children are to have a proper understanding of science, evolutionism mortal flaws must be published. Evolutionism must be placed critically under the microscope instead of being carefully guarded from criticism by a High Wall of Protection. Evolutionism must be held to the same standards as any other theory – even if it means evolutionism must die so that true science may advance.

–Rev. Anthony W Breeden

On behalf of the Creation Letter Project