Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The history of science is full of cases where a new, sound scientific theory didn't catch on right away, and was ridiculed by the scientific community, sometimes for decades or centuries, before becoming accepted theory.

The theory of the Flat Earth, orbits of the planets, even the theory of relativity... all were met with scientific resistance initially.

So it seems conceivable that "creation science" is solid science that simply hasn't yet taken hold in the mind of the masses.

But if this is true, one would expect there to be at least some non-Christian scientists who hold that the "creation science" theories are valid.

How do "creation science" proponents explain the lack of non-Abrahamic (non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Muslim) scientists who buy into these "creation science" theories?

share|improve this question
You apparently didn't watch Ben Stein's documentary No Intelligence Allowed. Richard Dawkins himself admitted in an interview in that documentary that Intelligent Design is a valid research area...but [in his opinion] only if you replace God with space aliens. –  david brainerd Mar 24 '14 at 22:58
I have seen that, but intelligent design is quite a separate issue from "creation science." –  Flimzy Mar 24 '14 at 22:59
@Flimzy I've always understood "creation science" to simply be a derogatory way to refer to Intelligent Design; i.e., they are the same. –  Matthew Moisen Mar 25 '14 at 4:26
@MatthewMoisen: They clearly are not at all the same. "Creation science" is one, fairly narrow interpretation of Intelligent Design. Some obvious differences: ID came well after CS. CS denies evolution, ID does not. –  Flimzy Mar 25 '14 at 5:28
Historically ID came after, but it's more of a generalisation of creationism. ID says there must have been a designer, but creationism says that designer is the God of the Bible. –  curiousdannii Mar 25 '14 at 5:50

3 Answers 3

Creationism is built on the assumption that there is a God, and the assumption that this God is the God described in the Bible.

If you don't believe either of these things are true, then you cannot logically believe creation science.

However, if you believe that both these things are true, then creation science becomes a logical possibility (although not the only possibility).

Atheists do not believe there is a God. Therefore they cannot logically believe in creationism.

Hindus do not believe in the God of the Bible. Therefore they cannot logically believe in creationism. (They may formulate their own version of creationism, but it will not be the same as Christian creationism.)

Christians believe there is a God, and that this God is the God of the Bible. In the same way that secular scientists use the framework of naturalism (i.e. the idea that all things have been created by currently observable processes) to structure and inform their hypotheses, creation scientists use the framework of the Bible to structure and inform their hypotheses. In both cases, the hypotheses can be tested by observing available evidence.

In theory, it should be possible to perform creation science in a rigorous manner. However, for every rigorous creation scientist, there are probably 10 000 mis-informed bloggers spreading their own unsubstantiated theories. In addition, some popular creationists have used fairly weak arguments. This has led to the popular belief that all creationists are stupid or wrong.

I am personally a creationist, but I try to approach it in a logical fashion. I am very wary of popular creationists, and try to determine whether their arguments are logical before I accept them.

Your questions was "How do "creation science" proponents explain the lack of non-Abrahamic (non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Muslim) scientists who buy into these "creation science" theories?"

In answer to this, I believe that most people do not realise that creationism can be logical. In addition, some current creation theories appear to be inconsistent with the evidence. For instance, there is no creationist consensus on the problem of distant starlight. Back in the 80s, it was popular to suggest that "God made the light so it looked like it came from billion year old stars." However, modern creationists have realised that this suggestion is problematic, because if this were true, it would mean there were millions of stars which we can see which never existed!! Most non-Christians would see this as instant proof that creation theory is wrong. I am happy to wait and see if they can come up with better theories, because creationism makes the Bible more internally consistent.

Note: I don't believe you have to be a creationist in order to be a Christian.

share|improve this answer
Thank you for the thoughtful answer. I think your comparison with "secular naturalists" isn't a very good one. It's true there are secular naturalists who believe in evolution and the Big Bang, but there are also Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Agnostics, and New Age practitioners who believe in these scientific theories. In other words--the world view in this case does not dictate the scientific theory. It's quite the opposite with Creation Science--only those with a specific world view ever come to the conclusion that the theory makes any sense. –  Flimzy Mar 25 '14 at 16:29
I may not have made myself completely clear on that point. The logic goes like this: If you believe in God, then it is possible that God created the universe through creation OR through evolution / big bang. If you do not believe in God, then the universe can only have been created through the big bang and evolution. –  daviewales Mar 26 '14 at 0:52
I understand that point. I'm just saying that your parallel of "secular naturalism" isn't truly a parallel, since secular naturalism doesn't dictate any specific scientific theories--but creationism does. Any scientific theory held by a secular naturalist can also be held by a Christian; but the same cannot be said of Creationism--theories held by creationists are only held by Creationists. –  Flimzy Mar 26 '14 at 0:57
Actually, secular naturalism dictates that all theories must work without God. If something is possible without God, it is possible with God. However, creation is not possible without God. –  daviewales Mar 26 '14 at 1:28
Science, by its very nature, must work "without" God. It must be experimentally repeatable. This is not a secular naturalist concept. Secular naturalism only diverges from Christian-compatible science when it leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of philosophy. Clearly there are philosophical differences, but they don't manifest themselves in the science. Only in Creationism is the science actually different. This is my point. –  Flimzy Mar 26 '14 at 1:34

It's not a matter of theories or facts, it's a matter of personal worldviews.

All people (whether scientists or not) interpret facts through their individual worldviews. A person with a creationist worldview will interpret a fact one way, while a person with an evolutionist worldview will interpret the same fact quite differently.

For example, in 1963, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (neither are creationists...) calculated that the probability of a one-celled organism arising spontaneously (abiogenesis) was about one chance in 10 to the 40,000th power (for an organizm without reproductive capability). Borel's 'single law of chance' states that any event having a probability of less than one in 10 to the 50th can be considered impossible. This means that abiogenesis is 10 to the 39,950th times less likely than Borel's 'impossibility' law.

A creationist will look at the above statement and think 'I'm not surprised', while Carl Sagan (a devoted evolutionist and self-professed atheist), who calculated that the probability of abiogenesis of an organism WITH reproductive capability was one in 10 to the 2,000,000,000th power, stated 'Ain't evolution wonderful?'

It is very difficult to get a person to alter their worldview. It is much easier for them to just evaluate evidence through that sieve, and throw out or explain away anything that conflicts with it. There are very few truly 'open-minded' people in the world, who would be willing to alter their fundamental beliefs regardless of how much conflicting evidence with which they might be confronted.

Therefore, anyone with a 'non-Abrahamic' worldview (scientists included) is unlikely to alter their worldview based upon a fews (or several) concepts which seem to conflict with it. Keep in mind that scientists carry just as many metaphysical predilections into the lab with them as any preacher has ever carried into a pulpit. They are not Mr. Spock. They are biased, self-centered human beings just like the rest of us.

share|improve this answer

Creationism is a system that interprets the evidence science gathers from the perspective that God not only can but does intervene in the world. It says that God created the world through spectacular miraculous means, not through the business-as-usual scientific laws we experience today. It says God sent a world wide flood which changed the world for good. We shouldn't be surprised then that people who reject an active God reject creationism too. Creationism is only logical if God exists, so creationists have no expectation that non-Christians will agree with their interpretations.

Creationists themselves do not believe creationism is solid science, but that it's closer to history. They sometimes call the difference that between "operational science" that makes computers and rockets, and "historical science" that builds models to extrapolate from the present to the past. Historical or "origins" science can't be investigated with experiments or the scientific method, and some don't consider it to be true science. They believe evolution is historical science too, despite what most evolutionists say.

share|improve this answer
Okay, but this doesn't address the question. If this "historical science" holds any water, why do only people with a pre-conceived agenda think it makes any sense? If it's a good theory (scientifically, historically, or otherwise), one would expect that at least one atheist or other non-Christian would see it as valid on its own merits. Why isn't that the case? You haven't addressed this point. –  Flimzy Mar 25 '14 at 5:26
Well you didn't ask if there were any non-Christians who think that creationism is a reasonably and rational position to hold for theists to have even though they themselves aren't theists! You only asked why they're not concerned that others don't agree, and the reason why is that the creationism depends on a Christian worldview. –  curiousdannii Mar 25 '14 at 5:49
No, I didn't ask that. I asked how they explain this blaring lack of non-partisan support for their theory. –  Flimzy Mar 25 '14 at 5:52
That newsletter is from 1992. They now call it "Answers Update" or "Answers Weekly". And no, my main answer, as I wrote above in my answer, is that that the theories only make sense if God exists so they have no expectation that atheists will like their theories. Explaining that creationists don't think creationism or evolution is solid science was a secondary point. –  curiousdannii Mar 25 '14 at 7:02
Mod Notice: Hey guys; your using comments wrong. Please take discussion and debate to chat and save comments for things focused on improving posts (usually a one way street). –  Caleb Mar 25 '14 at 7:31

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.