| The proponents of "Scientific Creationism" | | | | matters of faith and knowledge. There is no |
| are quick to point out that God requires | | | | "book of nature" which has authority to |
| Christians to believe the Word of God when it | | | | declare what is true about the world APART |
| comes in conflict with the words of men. And | | | | from a biblical warrant. Special revelation |
| here they have said well. But what happens | | | | finally declares the content and character of |
| when we apply this standard to "Scientific | | | | natural revelation.Moreover, the history of |
| Creationism" itself? Uh-oh. They weren't | | | | science shows that theoretical science cannot |
| counting on this. So let's start the | | | | yield knowledge about what the universe is |
| counting:Scientific Creationism Error | | | | really like because the truth-status of its |
| #1:Turning the Word of God found in Genesis | | | | successful theories flip-flops over time. In |
| into a "scientific model" is a strictly | | | | the theoretical sciences, what is true today |
| forbidden practice in Scripture. This is | | | | probably will be false tomorrow. This, of |
| because models remain fallible (might be | | | | course, means the theory in question never |
| false); Scripture cannot be false; it is | | | | was true in the first place. But "the Word of |
| infallible. Models are to be tested; the | | | | the Lord stands forever." One historian and |
| Bible is not. It is written: "You shall not | | | | philosopher of science, Dr. Larry Laudan |
| put the Lord your God to the test." Testing | | | | (Science and Values) catalogued over 33 |
| Scripture (unless you are judging one | | | | different "absolutely proven" or "highly |
| Scripture by another) falsely presupposes | | | | succcessful" theories that later turned out |
| there exists a standard for truth HIGHER than | | | | false.Scientific Creationism Error #4: The |
| Scripture somewhere outside Scripture. Thus, | | | | fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. One |
| scientific creationism actually promotes the | | | | commits this fallacy when he reasons upon any |
| very problem it purports to solve in opposing | | | | subject in the following manner: If A is |
| evolutionism. It accidentally fosters the | | | | true, then B is True; B is true, therefore, A |
| idea that the words of men (some standard | | | | must be true. This is a formal fallacy, |
| other than Scripture itself) must be used to | | | | meaning that it matters not at all what the |
| test the Bible.Scientific Creationism Error | | | | content of the propositions (dubbed "A" and |
| #2 -- It promotes the fallacy of division. | | | | "B") are; it is the FORM of the argument that |
| God gave the Scripture to be taken as a | | | | makes it fallacious.Here is the relevant |
| singular unit, where any one part is to be | | | | example followed by -- get this -- ALL |
| understood ONLY in the context of ALL of the | | | | SCIENTIFIC MODELS, when one uses predictive |
| other revelation given, not one piece by | | | | ability to prove "veracity of theories:"If my |
| itself. This is the lesser doctrine of the | | | | model is true, when should expect to find X, |
| reformation known as "Tota Scriptura." And | | | | Y, Z. We did find X, X, Z; therefore my |
| the Westminster Confession of Faith | | | | theory (or model) is true. This follows the |
| marvelously names the integrated unity of | | | | pattern, "If A, then B; B, therefore A, and |
| Scripture "The [mutual] consent of all the | | | | so it affirms the consequent.A brief example |
| parts." Yet, Scientific Creationists ignore | | | | might highlight this problem: If Iraq attacks |
| the "irrefragability" and absolute integrity | | | | the United States, the United States will |
| of Scripture (wherein the same Holy Spirit | | | | invade Iraq. The United States did invade |
| speaks throughout) by making a "model" of a | | | | Iraq, so that means Iraq attacked us. As is |
| small part of Genesis -- perhaps the first 10 | | | | obviously the case, the U.S. might invade |
| chapters -- in isolation from the rest of the | | | | Iraq for a whole host of other reasons (e.g. |
| Scripture.This falsely ignores what is called | | | | "Iraq attacked Kuwait," "Saddam didn't listen |
| the "analogy of Scripture," and fails to do | | | | to the U.N.'s demands," or "Saddam is an |
| justice to the fact the the Bible has the | | | | idiot"). And Iraq attacking the U.S. - since |
| consent of all the parts. In contrast to | | | | it never happened -- obviously is not related |
| this, Jesus said, "And the Scripture cannot | | | | by logical necessity to the idea of the U.S. |
| be broken" (John 10:30).Scientific | | | | invading Iraq.Other biblical and logical |
| Creationism Error #3:It promotes the use of | | | | errors dot the creation science (as well the |
| multiple final authorities in matters of | | | | evolutionistic) landscape. But these should |
| knowledge. Scientific creationsts often | | | | suffice for a short article. For more on a |
| contend that both science (meaning | | | | related topic, see Carson's article entitled, |
| THEORETICAL science APART from a biblical | | | | "The Galileo Conspiracy: 5 Questions Your |
| warrant) and Scripture can yield knowledge | | | | Science Professors Hope You Never Ask."By |
| independently of one another. Sometimes they | | | | now, the reader may be wondering, "How could |
| do this by using a "two book metaphor," where | | | | anyone ever come up with something so |
| supposedly the "book of nature" tells us | | | | fallacious and counter-biblical as |
| about the real world outside the narrow | | | | "Scientific Creationism," and still manage to |
| domain covered by the biblical record, and | | | | convince so many Christian people that this |
| the Bible tells us about "matters of faith" | | | | is what the Bible teaches? You'll never |
| in the "book of faith." Scripture says, | | | | believe this, but I was wondering the same |
| "There is no authority EXCEPT that which | | | | thing.Carson Day has written some 1.3 |
| comes from God" (Rom. 13:1). And knowledge | | | | gazillion articles and essays on all manner |
| that can oblige others to believe or act | | | | of diverse topics. These aim to glorify God |
| (obliging knowledge) is a matter of | | | | and offer people real help to live wisely and |
| authority. And again, "NO one can serve two | | | | well. You can visit Carson's websites at |
| masters." The Bible affirms that the God of | | | | (The Omniblog, where Carson blogs everything) |
| creation wrote the 66 books of the Bible and | | | | or (Carson's Day Trading Outpost). Thanks |
| that it speaks with final authority on all | | | | for stopping by. |