That Terrible Word: Creationism
by Paul Abramson
In Pennsylvania the judge made the usual comparison that ID is some kind of disguise for that dreaded "creationism" stuff. Oh, creationism, now I need to wash my hands again.
One law of science, as I understand it is that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." I have no problem with that at all. An "equal and opposite reaction" is exactly what one should expect in a designed universe. But we have allowed a false religion to get co-mingled into our science classes. That belief system contends that "something from nothing for no reason" is also science.
Either you have "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" or you have "something from nothing for no reason." They cannot both be true. One is scientific and also leads to theism - since real science shows that this universe cannot have created itself if "every action has ...." But the co-mingling of a religious belief occurs when it is claimed that sometimes the laws of science get violated by contending that the universe just kind of exploded from nothing into something for no reason. They can believe this - as there is freedom of religion in America - but I must object to the use of that exclusive belief being taught in science classrooms since my understanding of how the universe got here is inherently more scientific. I do not have to suspend the laws of science to contrive an automatic non-designed process that random explosions of nothing into something made an orderly universe with tremendous complexity and life all-by-itself and that this cannot-be-questioned in modern "science" classes.
Is it really so horrible for alternative theories to be taught in the science classrooms? Don't they do that now in sex education classes? Many schools today encourage even grade school children to be open to sexual experimentation with both sexes. Don't they teach conflicting versions in history classes? Many American schools today teach a dishonorable history for America and point out the flaws in respecting our heritage. "Blame America first" after all. Should a good political science course only teach communism? (To be fair some of them teach both communism and anarchy, so that's okay.)
We weren't there when the Earth was formed. Everything we do in the regards to understanding our origins falls back to one-time events or to accepting the word of others for what happened. None of it falls within normal testable-repeatable science. If something is testable-repeatable then it is without question. But evolutionary theory is different. They find a set of bones, hire an artist, and set about making it look lifelike.
The debate over our origins is a big and difficult one, of course. I try to treat it academically. I don't want to argue with anyone. But I would like to encourage folks to think through a few of their presuppositions. The idea that we may have been "created" is not a terrible thing.
When I lived in Berkeley, California for five years I sometimes did not refer to that dreaded book the Bible at all. I used science, logic, history, and common sense to make my case to skeptics. Creation theory takes into account all of the evidence and we will continue to educate folks one person, one civic group, and one church at a time. And this will continue to be an issue in America as long as there are those who insist on co-mingling their belief of "something from nothing for no reason" into the science classrooms of this great land.
Dean of Biblical Creation Apologetics
Master's Divinity School, www.mdivs.edu Evansville, Indiana
and the founder/editor of: www.creationism.org