Gary Chiang

Developing an Integrative Approach
to Science and Christianity

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Creation Science in Disguise

I posted the following comment in response to:

Over my years of experience as a university professor engaged in teaching and research, I have come to the realization that the Evolutionists are right about one thing. Creation Science is religiously based, and teaching young-earth, six-day creationism in the public school system is bringing religious ideas into the classroom. Even the concept of Intelligent Design, which claims that the design in nature is scientific proof of a designer, is Creation Science in disguise.

On the other hand, Evolutionists are dead wrong when they claim that the natural world can only be understood from an evolutionary perspective. Creationists can stand firm on the reality of scripture, and rid science of religious presuppositions by attacking the scientific merit of evolution, rather than promoting creationism.

[please note: Jones has misquoted me. The last sentence in the first paragraph should read "Even the concept of intelligent design, which claims that the design in nature is scientific proof of a designer, has been accused by Evolutionists as being Creation Science in disguise."
I never wrote that I claim that ID is creation science in disguise. I tried to correct this misquote on Stephen's blog, but he still insists that I wrote it. Strange...]

Stephen E Jones answer on his blog was:

Thanks for your comment above, but I disagree with it.

"Creation Science" (as commonly understood) is based on the Bible. That is why it tries to present scientific evidence for an Earth only ~10,000 years old, and also that the fossil record was laid down by a worldwide Noah's Flood (not that the Bible requires either of those two interpretations).

You won't find *anything* like that in ID. ID is based *only* on the evidence for design in nature, not the Bible. Some IDists are not even theists (e.g. David Berlinski). Also some IDists accept universal common ancestry (e.g. Mike Behe and myself). There are *no* advocates for "Creation Science" (as commonly understood)who are not theists or who accept universal common ancestry.

To be sure, one can believe in both "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" but they are two different beliefs. Not all who believe in "Creation Science" also believe in "Intelligent Design", and not all who believe in "Intelligent Design" also believe in "Creation Science".

However, if after this you *still* maintain that "Intelligent Design ... is Creation Science in disguise", then we must agree to differ.

He went on to elaborate at:


At 11:57 AM, Blogger gary said...

What Gary wrote in this comment was taken directly from Stephen's blog. However, he misquoted me.
I did not write that I believed that ID was Creation Science is disguise, but that Evolutionists have labeled it as such. Thus, his concerns should be directed to these Evolutionists, and not to me.


Post a Comment

<< Home