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?

  • 6
    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. Commented Mar 24, 2014 at 22:58
  • 2
    I have seen that, but intelligent design is quite a separate issue from "creation science."
    – Flimzy
    Commented Mar 24, 2014 at 22:59
  • 1
    @Flimzy I've always understood "creation science" to simply be a derogatory way to refer to Intelligent Design; i.e., they are the same. Commented Mar 25, 2014 at 4:26
  • 2
    @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
    Commented Mar 25, 2014 at 5:28
  • 2
    The theory of the flat earth was from a fictional novel, not from a scientific mind, and was snidely attributed as a belief of religious people in one sentence to denigrate them.
    – Steve
    Commented Mar 25, 2014 at 13:45

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.

  • 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
    Commented Mar 25, 2014 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
    Commented Mar 26, 2014 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
    Commented Mar 26, 2014 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
    Commented Mar 26, 2014 at 1:28
  • 1
    No. Science doesn't have to be repeatable. It must be testable. For example, evolution is currently accepted as fact by most scientists. However, evolution is not repeatable within human timeframes. However, there are repeatable experiments which can be used to verify aspects of evolution. Similarly, we can't repeat creation, but we can do repeatable experiments to verify aspects of the theory.
    – daviewales
    Commented Mar 26, 2014 at 1:40

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.


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.

  • Plenty of secular scientists believe in the distinction between operational and historical science (not always under those exact terms), and I believe some have even argued that historical science "is not real science". Unsurprisingly, "historical scientists" have a vested interest in defending their fields. Too much "science" these days is more about propaganda and peer pressure than truth (and I don't just mean in origin-of-life debates).
    – Matthew
    Commented Apr 7, 2022 at 19:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .