Evolutionists frequently claim that creation science is not really science. In fact, this is the entire basis on which atheists have convinced judges to throw all creation science out of public schools. This is literally a case of doing science by judicial decree and not giving the position a chance to make its own case.
Creationists respond by pointing out that we do indeed do science. Part of the problem is that evolutionists are wrongfully comparing the philosophical position of creationism, which is in opposition to philosophical naturalism, with creation science, which is an opposition to the entire Big Bang to man evolutionary story. In other words, evolutionists keep confusing philosophical positions with the scientific position. While creationism does form the philosophical starting point of creation science, they are not the same thing. The simple fact of the matter is that there are multiple reasons why creation science is indeed science.
1. It Uses the Scientific Method
Creation science employs observation, hypothesis formation, testing, modeling, and prediction, particularly in operational science, which is also known as experimental science, such as biology, geology, physics, and astronomy. Creationists have produced multiple models that produce testable predictions, many of which have actually been tested. On some occasions, the models have been proven wrong; on other occasions, they have successfully provided accurate predictions.
2. It Is Based on Empirical Evidence
Creation scientists analyze real-world data, including fossils, genetic sequences, radiometric measurements, geological formations, thermodynamics, and astronomical observations. This is done just as any other scientific discipline does. In fact, creationists have found an abundant amount of empirical evidence that fits the biblical account.
Creationists regularly do field research and other studies. The RATE project, for example, was a complete research project with above-average funding. The simple fact of the matter is that creationists do not ignore empirical evidence, as is sometimes claimed, but rather it is used to improve our understanding of what actually happened beyond the details specifically mentioned in the Bible.
3. It Makes Testable Predictions
There are multiple examples of creationists making scientific predictions, including many successful ones. This is even true in areas where evolutionists have to keep patching their models with untestable just-so stories. Among the examples are genetic entropy, which predicts genetic decay and limits genetic variation. The Genesis flood, in general, includes rapid fossil burial rather than slow accumulation, with the observed soft tissue preservation in fossils being one of the predictions of rapid burial. In all cases, the predictions can be and are, when possible, compared against observations, often successfully.
A good example of this is two scientific predictions that came right out of the Bible itself. One is that all human beings should be descended from one woman, along with a three-way split resulting from Noah's three daughters-in-law. The second is that all human males should be descended from a single man, Noah, and there should be a three-way split representing Noah's three sons. Mitochondrial DNA studies have confirmed not only the prediction of human beings descended from a single woman, but the three-way split as well. Studies of the Y chromosome, which is only passed down from father to son, have confirmed that all human males are descended from a single male ancestor, along with the three-way split. Furthermore, direct measurements of the rate of change in both sets of DNA are consistent with the biblical account. Evolutionists have to assume a common ancestor with chimpanzees to stretch out the time period.
Other examples include Dr. Humphries’ model of planetary magnetic fields, which accurately predicted the magnetic fields of both Uranus and Neptune before the Voyager 2 flyby. Along with the RATE project prediction of helium diffusion rates for a young Earth with accelerated nuclear decay, versus an old Earth with a constant decay rate. Actual experimentation showed that the young earth model was correct, and the old earth model was completely off by a factor of 100,000.
4. It Distinguishes Between Observational and Historical Science
Creation science emphasizes that origins science, that is, past unrepeatable events, is fundamentally different from experimental science, requiring interpretation of evidence within a worldview framework—an approach acknowledged in philosophy of science.
Evolutionists, on the other hand, often refused to even acknowledge that there is a difference. The reason for this is that it gives universal common descent evolution better credibility if it can be equated to real scientific theories, such as those associated with gravity.
5. It Follows the Laws of Physics
Creation science explicitly appeals to the laws of thermodynamics. These include the First Law of Thermodynamics, which has to do with energy conservation, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which has to do with the tendency of entropy to increase. There is also a more recently developed principle that deserves to be labeled law 1.5, because it explains both the second and third laws. This new principle explains how the application of energy affects the entropy of the system. Creation science makes full use of information theory, which shows us that information does not arise from random processes alone. All of these laws constrain evolutionary and cosmological models.
Miracles tend only to be invoked when justified for reasons other than patching a theory. For example, if the Bible indicates that God specifically was acting in a certain situation, then invoking miracles to explain it is justified, because it is specifically an act of God. This is a far cry from the many just-so stories and other untestable entities invented by evolutionists for the express purpose of saving a theory from reality. Furthermore, even when a miracle is invoked by creationists, it is generally specific enough that it can still produce testable predictions.
6. It Employs Multiple Working Hypotheses
Rather than assuming naturalism as the only explanation, creation science evaluates design, catastrophe, and rapid processes as legitimate scientific alternatives. This allows for a broader range of possibilities. It allows for the possibility that a naturalistic explanation may not be the correct one. The simple fact of the matter is that you can always push a totally naturalistic explanation as the answer. However, it will frequently need to be corrected by untestable just-so stories to keep it going. There are many cases where creationist models easily explain stuff that naturalistic models need to be constantly patched to handle. Furthermore, these patches are seldom ever testable.
7. It Produces Peer-Reviewed Research
Creation scientists publish in technical journals, including both creationist and secular venues, and conference proceedings using standard scientific formats, data analysis, and citation practices. The quality of the peer review in creationist journals is excellent. It usually either equals or surpasses the quality of most secular peer-review journals.
8. It Is Falsifiable at the Model Level
Creation models can be falsified if the following examples are proven true. If genetic information is shown to increase indefinitely without intelligent input. If clear transitional fossils demonstrating transitions between the biblical kinds are found. If irreducibly complex systems could be shown to arise through purely unguided processes.
Contrary to the claims of evolutionists, creationists use scientific models that not only can be tested but are tested. In fact, many of them have been successfully tested, even producing successful results where naturalistic models have failed. These are scientific models, not metaphysical claims. Specific examples were mentioned earlier.
9. It Integrates Across Scientific Disciplines
Creation science is inherently interdisciplinary, drawing from Biology, Molecular Biology, Genetics, Geology, Paleontology, Physics, and Astronomy. Such cross-disciplinary coherence is a hallmark of strong scientific frameworks. Many creationists have academic degrees in these fields of science. In some cases, these include doctorates. Creationists do a considerable amount of research despite much lower funding than evolutionists often have access to.
10. It Acknowledges Presuppositions Honestly
Unlike methodological naturalism, which often goes unexamined, creation science openly states its starting assumptions, allowing for transparent evaluation. In fact, evolutionists frequently pretend to be objective, and even may think they are, while holding fast to naturalism. Furthermore, it very often goes beyond methodological naturalism and is actually full-blown philosophical atheistic naturalism. This is particularly the case when dealing with origins and other historical questions.
Philosophical openness is a key principle in philosophy of science. It is bad science not to be open about your philosophical assumptions. It is even worse to do so while claiming objective neutrality. This is a major part of the problem. You will hear statements from evolutionists indicating not only that they do not acknowledge their presuppositions, but they also claim that they do not have any.
Conclusion
Creation science qualifies as science because it uses scientific methods, analyzes empirical data, develops testable models, operates within known physical laws, and engages critically with competing explanations. While it is true that some creationist models do include miracles, it is under circumstances that the Bible specifically indicates direct divine action and specific enough to make testable predictions, not the untestable patches frequently used by evolutionists to save a theory from reality.
The real debate is not science vs. non-science, but which interpretive framework best explains the evidence. The big problem is that honest debate is really not allowed within the general scientific community. Regardless of which view of origins is correct, it is sad that the scientific establishment is willing to block alternative models while pushing their models as if they were proven fact, even though they are not.
