One of the tactics used by those people who vehemently disagree with AiG’s position on God’s Word in Genesis is to try to undermine our integrity by doing things like the following:
- Talking about creationists and terrorists in the same sentence or paragraph
- Using the term “child abusers” to describe biblical creationists (and theologically conservative Christians in general)
Another way they try to indoctrinate people against the creation position is to label biblical creationists as “anti-science” or that we believe the Bible against “established science.” Thus many people think that creationists are anti-science, which is simply not true.
A couple of days ago, I was interviewed by a secular journalist who happened to use the phrase “religion versus science” a couple of times in his questions to me. So the first thing I did was ask him, “what do you mean by the word science when you use it?” The writer fumbled around and really couldn't answer me. You see it is just one of those accusations our opponents use against biblical creationists, but I find most of those who use it don’t even know what they are actually asking. I then went on to explain to this journalist that I was not against science. I was a science teacher. And we have a number of PhD scientists at AiG, and we work with many PhD scientists who are employed in the secular world. We love science.
You see, the problem is that most people tend to think of our technology—based on empirical science—when they use the word ”science.” But evolutionists also use the word “science” for their belief of evolution and millions of years. And there are those leading secularists who know when they use “science” in this way and then say AiG is anti-science that the average person thinks of the word “science” as meaning that which has given us the great technology we use today. But those same people have been indoctrinated to believe that evolution and millions of years are also “science”; therefore if we don’t believe in evolution and millions of years, we are said to be anti-science. What a mess of misunderstanding and misrepresentation because the terms aren’t defined correctly.
That’s why we teach people that the definition of the word “science” is basically knowledge. Now, knowledge gained by direction observation that builds our technology is called observational or operational science. Creationists and evolutionists both accept this same operational science. But “knowledge” about the past (beliefs concerning history not based on direct observation) is called “historical science.” Creationists and evolutionists disagree over historical science but not operational science.
This past week, an agenda-driven journalist wrote an article about our Ark Encounter project. Now, this article is full of misinformation, false statements, misrepresentations, etc. Even the subtitle is totally misleading (and I’m sure it was meant to be). But without going into all the details of all these problems with the piece, we read, “Espousing an unabashedly conservative reading of the Bible that pits religious thought against reason and established science is regarded by its detractors as a beacon for the return to the Dark Ages” (http://www.jewsonfirst.org/11a/Ark1.aspx).
There it is again: to believe in creation as opposed to evolution is to accept the idea that the Bible is against “established” science. This poorly researched, emotional, and anti-creationist article is trying to imply those who believe as AiG does are against science.
I thought it would be a good time here to remind everyone of the list of highly qualified scientists who are creationists (this is by no means an exhaustive list)—see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/.
Yes, creationists love science!
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,