March for Science Coming to Washington, DC

Their website states a variety of interesting things about their mission and principles. Now, they are careful with their wording and don’t really come out as against any particular position. But statements sprinkled across the site like “reject overwhelming evidence” or “peer-reviewed evidence and scientific consensus” suggest they are targeting those who deny evolutionary ideas and human-caused climate change. Indeed, before they changed their website, I read statements they made claiming evolution and man-made climate change were fact.

Here are a few other excerpts from their site, along with my thoughts:

Science should neither serve special interests nor be rejected based on personal convictions. At its core, science is a tool for seeking answers.”

This highlights a fundamental problem—they don’t recognize the difference between observational and historical science. Science is indeed “a tool for seeking answers,” but, when it comes to the past, what you believe about the past determines your interpretation. Scientists can’t be entirely neutral. Historical science always comes with “special interests” and “personal convictions” about the past.

We must protect the rights of every person to engage with, learn from, and help shape science, free from manipulation by special interests.

Now, does this include creationists or those who reject human-caused climate change? I suggest definitely not! They protect the right of every person who agrees with them to participate in “science.”

We support science education that teaches children and adults to think critically, ask questions, and evaluate truth based on the weight of evidence.

Would they encourage and support teaching the (many!) problems with evolutionary science in the classroom? Would they encourage students to be allowed to compare the evolutionary and biblical creation interpretations of the evidence to see which better supports the evidence? I don’t think so.

Science works best when scientists come from diverse perspectives, and we must work to encourage and support a new generation of scientists that increasingly includes historically underrepresented groups.

Our diversity is our greatest strength: a wealth of opinions, perspectives, and ideas is critical for the scientific process. What unites us is a love of science, and an insatiable curiosity.

Again, by diverse perspectives do they mean creationists? Do they really encourage up-and-coming young creationists to add to the discussion? No, they don’t. What they mean is “scientists and people who care about science are an intersectional group, embodying a diverse range of race, sexual orientation, (a)gender identity, ability, religion, age, and socioeconomic and immigration status.” Diversity is great—unless you are a Christian who stands on the authority of God’s Word and believes in a literal Genesis. Then your views are probably not welcome.

Sadly, much of science today is controlled by an atheistic, naturalistic worldview.

Creationists love science! But, sadly, much of science today is controlled by an atheistic, naturalistic worldview. We reject this worldview and anything that goes against the inerrant Word of God, but that doesn’t mean we hate science. It means we trust the eyewitness account of the Creator who never lies, over the sinful, fallible, ever-changing opinions of man.

We talked about the March for Science recently on Answers News, our twice-weekly Facebook Live video broadcast. You can watch that below (our discussion of the March for Science begins at 11:29, but I encourage you to watch the entire broadcast):

Be sure to join Dr. Georgia Purdom, Bodie Hodge, and me every Monday and Thursday at 2:30 p.m. (Eastern Time) for Answers News on my Facebook page.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.