Here are 10 of the most common misunderstandings about creation science, along with a brief explanation of each one. Each of these is frequently cited by evolutionists as a counterargument to creation science. There are many more, but this is a concise list of ten easy-to-understand misunderstandings. If you spend any amount of time on social media, you will likely see these ten misunderstandings being touted by evolutionists as fact, and many more.
1. Creation science is just religion disguised as science
The misunderstanding is that creation science is purely theological and has no scientific component. However, creation science attempts to interpret empirical data (biology, geology, astronomy) within a creationist framework, often employing scientific methods but starting from different presuppositions than those of methodological naturalism. This is the key to understanding creation science, and that is that it involves accepting and looking at the data, but from a different perspective other than those that lead to the Big Bang to man story.
2. Creation science rejects all of modern science
The misunderstanding is that creationists deny physics, chemistry, genetics, or astronomy. However, most creation scientists accept operational science (e.g., thermodynamics, nuclear physics, genetics) but question historical interpretations about origins and deep time. In fact, many creationists have degrees and have written peer-reviewed papers in their various fields of science.
Creation Science is not in any way a rejection of modern science itself. It is a rejection of a model of origins that is, at its heart, totally naturalistic and atheistic in nature. By the way, this does not mean you have to be an atheist to accept this view of origins, but the simple fact of the matter is that behind it is a desire to get rid of God as the creator.
The simple fact is that the rejection of a particular theory presented within science is not in and of itself a rejection of science as a whole. The only way you can draw that conclusion is if you assume that the naturalistic conclusions that are made under the guise of science are the only legitimate interpretations of the evidence in question.
3. Creation science claims no fossils exist
This misunderstanding claims that creationists deny the fossil record. This claim is made even though creation science fully acknowledges the fossil record but interprets it differently. Creationists often emphasize rapid burial, catastrophic processes, and ecological zonation rather than gradual evolutionary succession.
In other words, the difference is not a denial of the fossil record, but interpreting it from a different perspective, that being that fossils were formed during the Genesis Flood. This also involves pointing out evidence for rapid burial requiring catastrophic processes.
4. Creation science says species never change
The misunderstanding is that creationists deny all biological change. While the idea of the fixity of species was once part of the creationist perspective, this was largely because species within our modern classification system were originally supposed to be the created kinds. It took time for it to be confirmed not to be the case. Creation science generally accepts variation, adaptation, and speciation within created kinds, but rejects universal common ancestry of all life forms.
Part of the problem has been the way terms have been used. For example, the word “evolution” itself simply means change, but it is frequently used to refer to universal common descent, rather than just things such as adaptive change. Part of the problem is that evolutionists tend not to notice the difference in usage of the word “evolution.” This is why it is very important to use terms such as universal common descent and adaptation rather than “evolution.”
5. Creation science ignores genetics
This misconception suggests that creation science ignores modern genetics and molecular biology. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Many creation scientists actively engage genetics, often arguing that genetic information, mutation load, and molecular entropy challenge long-term evolutionary mechanisms.
It completely ignores the fact that some creationists actually have degrees in genetics and related fields. Such claims are typically made by individuals who have never thoroughly examined creation science itself, but rather repeat claims they have heard elsewhere without verifying the truth. The fact is that creationists not only used genetics but also many other fields of science, but claiming otherwise demonstrates that the person has never actually looked at anything that creationists have to say.
6. Creation science relies on a “God of the gaps.”
This misunderstanding claims that creationists insert God wherever science lacks answers. On the contrary, creationists typically argue that certain features (e.g., complex information, fine-tuning) are positively indicative of design, not merely gaps in knowledge. On the contrary, evolutionists have a long history of what can be called naturalism of the gaps. They tend to insist that any current lack of knowledge will eventually be filled in with a natural explanation. They also tend to do this for any evidence that tends to point to a designer. In other words, they tend to claim that eventually an answer will be found other than a designer.
The fact that they tend to “solve” problems with their theories by inventing just-so stories or otherwise untestable theories is an excellent example of this. A common type of just-so story is to simply throw a giant rock at any problem that shows up with the nebula theory of planet and star formation. An excellent example of inventing something that is fundamentally untestable is the idea of dark energy. This concept was invented purely to save the Big Bang from observations, which, within that cosmology Indicate an accelerating expansion. One possible alternative would be a time dilation blue shift resulting from the Earth being near the center of a universal gravitational well. This, of course, goes against the atheistic necessity that we cannot be in a special place in the universe, and so the scientific establishment would rather unscientifically patch the current cosmology.
7. Creation science claims the Earth “looks young” in every way
This misunderstanding claims that creationists say, “All evidence clearly points to a young Earth.” I don't even have a clue as to where they get this one from because I've never heard any creationist use it or anything similar. Creationists, on the other hand, do acknowledge data commonly interpreted as old but propose alternative models (e.g., accelerated nuclear decay, catastrophic geology, time dilation cosmology) to explain those observations.
It is interesting to note that many creationist models have not only produced predictions, but highly successful predictions. For example dynamic magnetic field decay theory accurately predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, when the Dynamo theory missed the magnetic field strength of Uranus. Accelerated nuclear decay has been successfully tested by accurately predicting helium diffusion rates in zircon crystals. This is just the tip of the iceberg of successful creationist predictions.
8. Creation science has no peer-reviewed research
This misunderstanding claims that nothing is published or scrutinized. However, creation research is published in peer-reviewed creationist journals and occasionally in secular venues, although it is often excluded from mainstream journals due to philosophical, rather than merely empirical, disagreements.
This misunderstanding is based on the presupposition that only mainstream Journals conduct legitimate peer review. When creationist journals are mentioned, they are often accused of being nothing but a rubber stamp for creationist research. I know from firsthand experience that the peer-review conducted by the three main creationist peer-reviewed journals is legitimate.
9. Creation science is anti-education
This misunderstanding claims that creation science discourages learning or critical thinking. However, creationists often emphasize critical evaluation of assumptions, model comparison, and the philosophical foundations of science, particularly in origins studies.
In my experience, it is evolutionists who discourage critical thinking about their theories. In fact, they tend to be extremely critical of pointing out any potential flaws in them.
This claim also ignores the fact that many creationists are quite educated, including having degrees in various fields of science. Ultimately, it is founded on an attitude that assumes anyone who is truly educated would agree with them.
10. Creation science is belief without evidence
This misunderstanding claims that creationists are just Bible thumpers who push biblical creation not only without evidence, but despite it. Now, while the creationist historical model is indeed based on the biblical account, creationists do not push this view of history in the absence of evidence. If you actually look at most of what creationists have to write on various topics, it is often loaded with evidence.
That evidence may be interpreted differently from the way evolutionists do, but that is not the same as not having evidence. Part of the problem here is that evolutionists frequently have a problem of confusing evidence with the evolutionary interpretation of it. They are usually either ignorant or willingly dismissive of the possibility that the same evidence can be interpreted in different ways.
Conclusion
None of these 10 points is found among creation scientists themselves. You may find some of them or even all of them among some lay creationists, but many misconceptions about Evolution are frequently seen amongst lay evolutionists.
The point is that in any field of study, you are going to have laypeople who think they know the topic, but have huge misunderstandings about it. Unfortunately, social media on the Internet has made it a lot easier for such people to make a lot of noise even when they do not know what they are talking about.
