Can A Scientist also be a Creationist?

Following is an exchange between Bodie Hodge and an emailer challenging the fact that someone can be a scientist and have a Biblical view of creation. The exchange is worth reading, as an example of a typical ad hominem attack against Christians and for Mr.Hodge's excellent response. An ad hominem argument is where you attack the person instead of arguing the point.

The original article can be found at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/19/feedback-a-good-day-ruined


Feedback: A Good Day Ruined
by Bodie Hodge, AiG–U.S.
June 19, 2009
Wow... Just when I got that really happy feeling because I’m done with work ... I saw you website and [got sick]. The fact that you would call someone a creation scientist is ridiculous to say the least. What science are you doing? Where do you publish your works? How often are your results put up against an unbiased peer-review board? And how in, dare i say, “god’s name” do you get off at brainwashing children to believe your superstitious, astrological, irrational, primitive belief systems? Just when I thought I was having a good day. Get educated and EVOLVE!
—K., U.S.
Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. I was saddened to read your email, as there is really no argument, but merely attacks to degrade. I pray this response will help you realize that such an attack has no merit, and that these types of questions can easily be answered. My hope is that you will take them to heart and realize the error of the humanistic worldview. This response is intended with sincerity and kindness.

Wow... Just when I got that really happy feeling because I’m done with work ... I saw you website and [got sick]. The fact that you would call someone a creation scientist is ridiculous to say the least.
Why is it ridiculous? Most fields of science were developed by creation-believing scientists of the past, such as Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, and many others. They realized that an orderly God would create an orderly universe that made repeatable scientific testing possible. In fact, Francis Bacon, a creationist, developed the scientific method based on the idea of a God-made universe. But why, in a big bang, no-God, universe, would things be orderly?

What science are you doing?
Real science, unlike molecules-to-man evolution, which cannot be repeated or observed; for example, friends of ours have invented the MRI (Dr Raymond Damadian) and the Gene Gun (Dr John Sanford). Evolution, on the other hand, is far from scientific:

No one has been able to make life from non-life (matter giving rise to life, which is foundational to molecules-to-man evolution).
No one has been able to change a single-celled life-form like an ameba into a cow or goat.
No one has been able to repeat the big bang (which is foundational to molecules-to-man evolution).
We haven’t observed billions of new information-gaining mutations required to build the DNA strand and give rise to new kinds of life-forms.
Matter has never been observed to give rise to new information.
No one has observed millions of years of time progressing.
No one has found the billions of transitional fossils needed to help show the changes of one kind into another.
This isn’t to say that non-Christians can’t do science, but they are assuming the truthfulness of the Bible, perhaps even inadvertently, to do science. And of course, it’s silly to assume that all science is hinged to evolution. Data collection and analysis have nothing to do with origins and the inherent presuppositions of origins science.

Where do you publish your works?
With kindness, apparently you did not spend much time researching before asking such a question. We publish peer-reviewed, technical papers (ARJ), peer-reviewed, semi-technical articles (AiD), and, naturally, peer-reviewed, lay articles in Answers magazine and the website.

But beyond AiG, there are other places for technical discussion, such as the International Conference on Creationism and the CRS Quarterly, and many others. But many creation scientists have also published in secular journals—even I have.

How often are your results put up against an unbiased peer-review board?
If there were such a thing as unbiased, this would surely be an option. However, if you possibly think Science, Nature, and so on are unbiased, you have not done your research. These journals are obviously pushing for the religion of humanism. All review boards are biased because all review boards are made up of human beings. All the papers in ARJ, for example, go through a gauntlet of reviewers, most of whom are biased by their belief in the God of the Bible. We certainly don’t hide that. And many creation scientists have published in secular journals on non-origins related topics. But secular journals refuse to allow any research that does not affirm naturalistic explanations. It is common to find articles supporting tenants of the Humanist Manifestos and authors and editors who have signed the Humanist Manifestos within their pages. Since biblical creationists do not accept naturalistic explanations, it seems absurd to think that they would write as if they did—just to be published.

And how in, dare i say, “god’s name”
By saying this, it is fascinating and confirms two things. First, Romans 2:15 reveals that everyone has the Law written on their hearts. One part of the Law is that it is sinful to use the Lord’s name in vain. Your hesitation here is a good confirmation that the Bible is true. Why not in the name of Darwin, evolution, or mother nature, etc.?

Why is this important? Because man realizes that deep down, there is a God, and He is the highest authority. In light of this, I want to ask you to reconsider the evolutionary ideas that you may not have realized have been forced on you from a very early age. Note J. Dunphy’s words in the early 1980s:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.1
Please consider this and reevaluate the atheistic ideas that were forced on you by humanists who still hold you captive to their false philosophy.

do you get off at brainwashing children to believe your superstitious,
This is called projection—ironic, when humanists have been teaching their superstitions, such as asserting that single-celled organisms became dinosaurs and then chickens over millions of years, that truth doesn’t exist, that people are animals, etc. I doubt you’ve questioned their dogma. We do not want anyone who reads our materials to be brainwashed or to unquestioningly accept what we say. God doesn’t really need our help or for people to be brainwashed to believe in Him. It’s the opposite: one has to be brainwashed to not believe (Romans 1:20–25). We simply point to what the Bible teaches and do our best to understand the world in light of the what God says in His Word. Beyond that, children and adults should search the Scripture (which the Creator, Himself, is responsible for) for themselves to see if what we say lines up.

astrological,
Perhaps there is some confusion here; we are not astrologers and would join in arguing against this religion. Astrology is the belief that stars and other heavenly bodies can reveal the future. The Bible condemns such practice.

irrational,
How are we irrational? Besides, rationality comes from a biblical worldview. How can the materialistic evolutionist have a basis for the immaterial, such as logic and truth in the first place? In fact, they borrow from a biblical worldview when they even try to use logic.

primitive belief systems?
What do you mean by “primitive”? The Christian worldview has a basis for logic, truth, happiness, love, arts, science. It also explains how death and suffering are an intrusion into God’s originally perfect creation due to sin in Adam, and, mercifully, that God offers salvation and restoration through Christ. But what does an evolutionary worldview have to offer? The humanist religion teaches that you are rearranged pond scum, that lying and murder are neither right nor wrong, that we are likely headed for extinction, that life has no real meaning, and gives a flawed basis for logic, truth, happiness, science, etc.

Just when I thought I was having a good day.
What do you mean by “good”? This is a Christian concept where God sets what is good. In an evolutionary worldview, there is no such thing as “good.” But since you really seem to want goodness and happiness to exist (and I encourage this), then I suggest you find out more about God.

Get educated and EVOLVE!
Well, the use of “evolve” here is actually correct, but I would like to return this statement back to you in kindness. You have made several unresearched and incorrect statements and assume that we are ignorant simply because we do not share your presuppositions and beliefs about how the world came to be and the origin of life. Most of those working at AiG have college degrees—and many have advanced ones and from secular institutions. But true education starts with the right foundation—Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:3).

As a person made in the image of God, you can do so much better than simply believing you are an animal who has nothing to offer but ridicule. In fact, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, cared enough to step into history to die on a cross for people like you and me—who deserve the death He died for us. So, please take this to heart and reconsider the work of Christ, starting in Genesis.

Bodie

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes
J. Dunphy, “A Religion for a New Age,” The Humanist, January–February 1983, p. 23, 26. Back