Creationists Reject "Most of Modern Science"

At least that's what Charles Johnson says today!

This comes in the post where he reports that the scientist who said that Creationism should be discussed in schools has "quit". (Well, that didn't take long, did it?) I mention that story here.

But anyway, do creationists reject "most of modern science"? Or de we reject the "sciences" that are used in suport of the evolutionary fairytale? Do creationists reject Chemistry? Hardly. There are creationists with PhDs in Chemistry. Do we reject Geology? No. There are creation geologists, naturally. One could mention many other scientific fields, and we'd see that creationists are represented in all of them.

So why does Charles say that? Well, my guess is that Charles wrongly assumes that the methods that are employed in all sciences are the same methods that are employed in the theory of evolution, and since creationists reject the theory (for Biblical and scientific reasons), they must also reject all other scientific fields.

The problem of course is that the theory of evolution is not on the same realm as the theory of Gravity, or Quantum Mechanics, or the Einstein's theories. Evolution is a story about the unrepeatable past, and belongs to the domain of "Historical Sciences" (HS). Physics and Chemistry, for example, belong to "Operational Science" (OS). Creationists differ with darwinists when it comes to HS, but are in agreement with them when it comes to OS.

What darwinists try to do is to mix them together and make it seem as if rejecting the theories that arise from HS is the same as rejecting Physics or Chemistry, which belong to the realm of OS.

This is totally false. One can be a good scientist and reject the notion that the living world is the result of a mindless, purposeless, undirected natural force.

Posted in: Science,UK