by David Cox
The Scientific Method - Pure science is always a great ally to the Creationist. The scientific method is briefly a scientist observes nature, and from what he observes and knows makes theories which he tries to prove. According to the scientific method, nothing can be affirmed as true unless it is (1) always constant, (2) can be observed (needing an observer), (3) can be reproduced by other scientists. A scientist's theories do not become laws and axioms until they are first proved by other scientists doing the same experiments that he has done to prove the theory. For example, some scientists claim to have produced cold fusion, (a nuclear reaction like what goes on in the sun but in a cold small scale environment). Their pronouncements are always subject to other scientists being able to do the same. If others can verify their pronouncements, then the scientist who made the theory is given credit for having discovered a law of nature.
So scientists do not invent these laws, they observe them, and scientific evidence always proves or disproves a scientists theories, or does neither.
Evolution as an Explanation of Origin - The great problem with evolution is that it is still a theory which is unproven. The key point is that nobody (a scientist) was around when the universe started, so this key point of the beginning of things is impossible for a scientist to affirm definitely anything. The cards are stacked against him. Secondly, if evolution is how things got to be, then evolution would have to still be going on, or some reasonable explanation would have to be given to explain why not. Evolutionists claim it is still going on. But the genetic evidence is quite against the evolutionist position because (1) scientists cannot cross species barriers (only within a species), and (2) their is not a gradual blending from bacteria to man across the spectrum of beings, but there are very definite creatures that may have some likeness to others but they are very definitely separate in many ways.
Creation as an Explanation of Origin - As a scientist, we look at God's description of creation, and it fits exactly what a scientist would want. There is a scientific observer (God) who accurately describes what happened and tells why it is not continuing to happen. This qualifies as a scientific explanation.
If science cannot enter upon the realm of religious dogmatic and belief, then it cannot posit God as existing, nor can it discount God has existing. Until definitely proven, it has to remain reserved about religion.
But that is not the truth of the situation. Most scientists are humanists, believing that God does not exist (actually trying to prove He doesn't exist, or at least destroy the faith of those who do believe), and these prejudices and bias affect his view of things as a scientist. He is no longer objective. He has a bias towards evolution and a prejudice against God.
As an honest scientist, any theory that is popular but which he can disprove or stack legitimate scientific evidence against it he will do as an honest scientist. Examining evolution and the scientific evidence, he will distrust and attack evolution as being unscientific unless his bias towards evolution and his prejudice against God kicks in.