Science Defined to Exclude Creation

By Bruce Malone:

The following strategy is repeatedly used by those who advocate “evolution only” education. They:

1. Define science to exclude the possibility of a creator.

2. Claim that all the evidence for our designer is “not science” and, therefore cannot be shown.

3. Repeat, like a mantra, statements such as “evolution is the basis of science” and imply that

microbes to man evolution is a proven fact.

4. Then give examples of minor changes within organisms as “proof” that one organism can change

into a completely different type, while using the same word, ‘evolution’ for both the small and the

enormous changes.

Actual scientific evidence for any major evolutionary transformation is non-existent. No experiment ever performed has come even remotely close to showing how life could form from chemicals. Major problems with origin of life experiments are systematically hidden from students – after all, we can’t have students considering the only other alternative (creation), can we?

No experiment has shown how useful functioning information can be added to the DNA molecule by random changes. Yet, it can be experimentally demonstrated that every known mutation results in a net loss of original functioning information. Why aren’t we training students to ask the big question - where did all of this original functional information come from? Acknowledgment of a designer gives a mechanism that agrees with known scientific observations; evolution relies on faith that denies experimental reality.

It is commonly parroted by evolution believers that creation is not science because it is not testable or repeatable. In actuality, the creation model is far more testable than the concept that microbes turned into man by random mutational changes. Any sequence pattern even remotely similar in form or function to the DNA code, beamed to earth from outer space, would immediately be acknowledged as evidence of an intelligent originator. Yet, the same evidence for a designer, found in every DNA molecule, cannot be acknowledged as such in classrooms! Mutation rates have been accelerated a million-fold with fruit flies, yet no new creature or even any new functioning feature has ever developed. Fossils are an undeniable record of the sudden appearance of distinctly different animal forms with huge gaps between enormously diverse creatures. 

The Biblical creation model explains the fossil record as a consequence of a real worldwide flood and the reality of this ancient global flood has been repeatedly confirmed by careful scientific observations. Yet, these evidences are systematically suppressed because of a dogmatic faith in evolution, which survives by defining “science” so that it leaves out the better creation alternative. Those setting the standards for our public school science curriculum have merely replaced the acknowledgement of our Creator’s existence with a definition of “science” that excludes the possibility of God’s interaction with His creation. In essence modern man has decided to use the public education system to pretend that there is no God (at least not one worth mentioning). In reality what is being taught is that there is no God except naturalism. God, who desires for us to have a personal relationship with Him, has a response to this sad situation. Psalms 14:1 states, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ ” We have become a nation of fools in the way we have allowed our children to be educated.