Return
to Creation Science
Creation Science: The interpretation of historical science data (archeology, paleontology, paleoclimatology, historical geology, etc.) within the framework (paradigm) of the Bible, particularly the book of Genesis. (Sometimes also used to refer to any interpretive approach founded on belief in God as Creator of the universe; I restrict the term here to the specific biblical usage.)
View Genesis 1-11 for reference.
Creation Science may be contrasted with belief in Evolution, which I
define in a technical context as follows:
A macroscopic increase in
information content in a self-reproducing system without intelligent
intervention.
There are many different meanings for the word "evolution" so it is important to understand which one a writer is using if you want to understand them. This is also why the equivocation fallacy (claiming evidence for one definition as if it was evidence for another definition of the same word) is so prevalent in evolutionary apologetics. According to most definitions of evolution, I would simply be an "evolutionist" who knows God created the earth a few thousand years ago!
The amount of data in a human genetic code is many trillions of bits (not to mention the information in the genes of every other life form). To go from zero (the starting point before first life in evolutionary theory) to trillions of bits of data it is necessary for the definition of evolution as I've given it above to be achieved many times over. (I typically choose something like n=50 bits as a definition of macroscopic, as opposed to microscopic, change.) Whenever someone claims seeing "evidence for evolution" ask yourself "what definition of evolution are they using?"
Are they calling degenerative changes (such as some varieties of antibiotic resistance) evolution? Are they calling cases of natural selection with no genetic innovation (such as peppered moths), merely shifts in phenotypic frequency, evolution? Are they calling cases of genetic impoverishment, the elimination of genes from the genetic pool (such as breeding), evolution? Once you understand that not all change is "evolution," you will see how most "evidence" for evolution is really quite the opposite. Evidence of degenerative changes and genetic losses is being cited as evidence of upwards development and increasing information and complexity. That is why evolutionists can make such strident claims for "evolution" at the same time creation scientists and scientists in general are saying that there simply is no scientific, observed evidence for evolution.