Is creationism scientific?

featured article image

TL;DR:

Creationism applies the scientific method, but most secular scientists consider creationism unscientific because it allows supernatural explanations (acts of God). The related field of Intelligent Design offers compelling scientific arguments that life and the universe were designed (by God).

from the old testament

  • Starting in Genesis 1:1 the early chapters of the Bible give brief information which includes supernatural acts of creation by God. The Bible does not collect scientific information; its purpose is to confirm the creation of everything by God.

from the new testament

  • God's fingerprint on creation is undeniable: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So, they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

implications for today

Methodological naturalism is the prevailing philosophy within the modern scientific community. In short, this means looking for explanations driven by natural laws and forces wherever possible. Unfortunately, many scientists warp this definition to mean that science—all science, itself—requires explaining everything in terms of natural causes and natural causes only. That perspective rules out any act of God, since God is outside of the natural realm. But to be prejudiced against God, from the beginning, means not being an impartial judge of evidence.

While naturalism (no supernatural intervention) is the prevailing point of view within the modern scientific community today, it is not universal. Many brilliant, accomplished scientists believe that creationism is more than a valid scientific perspective; they see it as more compelling than atheistic alternatives. These scientists note that scientists use design inference in disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, forensic sciences, and cryptanalysis. Applying that same logic to biology and genetics makes it evident that all life was created by some sort of intelligent agent outside of our realm (i.e. God).

The modern field of Intelligent Design (ID) research is compelling scientific perspective showing that life and the universe were designed. ID says that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. Two key arguments in ID are irreducible complexity and the observations that earth appears to have been fine-tuned (designed) for life.

Irreducible complexity is the idea that some biological systems cannot have evolved naturally, because they would not have been functional when in simpler forms. Most proponents of Intelligent Design identify the source of design as the theistic God of the Bible. Technically, however, ID points to no particular Designer; ID is not an inherently religious position.

understand

  • Creationism is not incompatible with science but includes supernatural explanations, which mainstream science excludes out-of-hand.
  • Intelligent Design argues that life and the universe show signs of being purposefully arranged, providing a scientific perspective that challenges naturalistic evolution.
  • Mainstream science’s reliance on naturalism (atheism) often dismisses creationism, despite its use of empirical methods and logical arguments; that does not mean creationism is unscientific.

reflect

  • How does the inclusion of supernatural explanations in creationism impact your view of scientific validity and what counts as evidence?
  • Reflect on the balance between faith and science in your understanding of the universe. How does your personal belief system influence your interpretation of scientific data? How does scientific data influence your faith?
  • The universe came from somewhere. How can your faith in God and the biblical explanation of creation be held firm while being unafraid of science?

engage

  • What are the key arguments presented by Intelligent Design that challenge naturalism, and how do these arguments align with or contradict your understanding of science?
  • Creationism and naturalistic evolution are the only likely explanations for life on earth. How might methodological naturalism, which excludes supernatural explanations, limit scientific inquiry and discovery, particularly in the context of creationist perspectives?
  • How could personal biases within the scientific community influence the acceptance or rejection of creationist ideas, and how can we ensure a fair evaluation of different viewpoints?