Defending The Word Of God: A Christian Critique of Creation Science

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