the strange thing about “Creation science”

As I first identified as an Atheist I initially planned to keep quiet about it and not be one of those outspoken guys like Matt Dillahunty or Christopher Hitchens who persuaded me in the first. That was until I heard of one specific group of people : Young Earth creationists! I was very curious about them the first time I heard of them. I went to Answers in Genesis and checked out some of their videos. I didn’t know as much about science as I today and while I am by no means an expert, I know exactly why their arguments don’t hold up and back then I also knew that their assertions against the theory of evolution were wrong.


As I began to look deeper into creationism (specifically young Earth creationism) and watched the Ham vs. Nye debate 2 times in that period I noticed some rather strange things about creationists in general and “creation scientists” specifically that I want to share here:

The first thing I noticed within my investigation of the theory of evolution itself is that the ways to disprove (or at least cast serious doubt on) it are rather straightforward and simple: One way of course would be the often cited “Precambrian rabbit” , which means that a fossil would be found in a strata in which it doesn’t belong. Another finding that would change our mind on this issue was cited by Bill Nye in his debate with Ham: “We would just need one piece of evidence.We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another […].”

One would think that creationists would be digging up the whole Earth by now in order to find such fossils that would completely debunk “evil-ution”. But one would be wrong. As far as I’m aware no creation-scientist has set out to find that fossil.

Another curiosity is the fact that they really don’t actually attempt to prove their own position. You hear it very often said that “Billions of dead things,Buried in rock layers,
Laid down by water,All over the earth!” are evidence of a Global Flood or that “animals producing after their kind” proves that they were created. But they never go any further than that. Both of those lines of evidence (if we see past the fact that kinds aren’t a thing) are compatible with both creation and evolution. What’s even worse is the fact that both are immediately obvious to anyone who has even half a brain and don’t exclusively support creation.

If we go further than that creation scientists also don’t seem to have interest in making predictions based on their hypothesis or running experiments that would give their position validity. What better way to show that creationism has scientific validity than to operate in exactly the same way the “secular  scientists” do and come out with positive results (edit: As I was informed there are these following predictions: predictions according to AiG make of that what you will)?

Now if you ask me than the answer to these questions should be crystal clear: They can’t and they know that they can’t! They already know that they won’t find the “Precambrian bunny” and what’s worse is that they could find something that would undermine their position even further. They also know that they can’t make experiments or predictions based on their paradigm and even if they could they of course don’t want to test and potentially falsify creation!

Instead their chosen course of action is to propagate their worldview in their own not peer reviewed articles in the hope that their followers will continue to buy their narrative.

Those were my thoughts on “Creation science” and I would appreciate to hear yours.

Goodbye from yours truly,

Rene von Boenninghausen @Renevelation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s