Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
Not at all! Answers in Genesis (like other creationist groups) affirms and supports the teaching and use of scientific methodology, and we believe this supports the biblical account of origins.
In its original form science simply meant “knowledge.” When someone says today that they work in the field of science, a different picture often comes to mind. Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe.
It is helpful to distinguish between operational science and origin science, and compare how each one seeks to discover truth. Operational science uses observable, repeatable experiments to try to discover truth. Origin science relies on relics from the past and historical records to try to discover truth.
It is because God exists that science is possible. Think about it: the reason the universe is orderly and logical is because a logical God has imposed order on His creation. It’s because God created our minds that we are able to discover the laws of science that He created.
Creationists are often accused of being “anti-science” or of “rejecting science.” But how well does this claim reflect reality? Are we really against science?
We are often told that “evolution is science.” But what is meant by “science” makes all the difference in understanding the origins debate.
Did YECs invent the terms origin science or historical science, and if so did we invent these terms just to discredit evolution?
There is no “neutral” starting point; everyone—whether they acknowledge it or not—interprets the “facts” according to a particular worldview.
One of the most popular facets of science right now is forensics. But no investigative science is more accurate than an eyewitness account.
Even atheists admit that people who err about origins aren’t necessarily “ignorant, stupid, or insane.” There is a fourth option.
Most people think that the battle over creation and evolution is being fought between “science” and “religion.” But there are two problems with this thinking.
Today we constantly hear warnings that evolution is necessary for science. Oh, really?
Examining the battlefield of Fort Mystick, almost 400 years later, can illustrate both the value and limitations of forensic science, showcasing apologetics.
Bill Nye’s technique uses the same word science to refer to what is clearly historical science as well as for what is clearly observational science.
Popular Science’s September 2014 issue jumped into an arena that it is unprepared for, and this particular issue should be renamed Popular Spin.
Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe.
Cosmos astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson asserts that religious influence on science intellectually cripples would-be innovators.
If evolution was really true and all the scientific evidence confirmed it, why won’t this evolutionist defend his views in a formal public debate?
The latest message of Bill Nye, “the Science Guy,” is that creation is dangerous and evolution the basis for modern science. Does he truly understand science?
New solar cell design touted as a product of evolutionary understanding.
Despite the common claim that scientists objectively evaluate their observations, this teacher’s predetermined decision to reject and mock all he saw is clear from the beginning.
In this chapter we will examine the nature and role of science, as well as the ability and limitations of scientific dating methods.
The controversies regarding the early chapters of Genesis and the geological discoveries and theories were part of a complex movement of thought which pulsed through the educated minds of Europeans.
Is there a legitimate distinction between historical and observational science, or are we being misleading to use those terms? Troy Lacey, AiG–U.S., explains.
In June we discussed the work of Rice University sociologist Elaine Ecklund, whose survey of scientists revealed that, among other things, “the academy seems to have a ‘strong culture’ that suppresses discussion about religion in many areas.” Ecklund now weighs in on the topic in a USA Today opinion piece.
Ever heard one of these claims? Perhaps you’ve even said one yourself. We’ve heard them all—but they’re all false, or at least they imply a falsehood.
Anyone familiar with the creation/evolution debate should know that anti-creationists love to lob the accusation that creationists are “anti-science” or that they “reject science.”
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) headed by Dr. Eugenie Scott has started a campaign to try to discourage parents from bringing their children to the Creation Museum.
A recent study by Jon D. Miller of Michigan State University reveals interesting developments in the U.S. populace’s familiarity with science and beliefs about alleged “pseudoscience.”
News to Know - December 16, 2006
Well-known NBC-TV reporter Robert Bazell suggests that the evolution debate adds little to the education of physicians. He also ridicules those who are proponents of intelligent design and creation.
The word “science” is used in many ways. Many secular humanists try to redefine science as “naturalism”—the belief that nature is “all there is.”