The Cons of "The Cons of Creationism" | The Institute for Creation Research

The Cons of "The Cons of Creationism"

A recent New York Times online editorial titled “The Cons of Creationism”1 is a typical example of the way the secular media routinely mischaracterize creation science. Let us critique the editorial’s claims, one item at a time.

[Creationists] believe that students who are taught a creationist view of biology—or who are taught to disregard the Darwinist view—are not being disadvantaged.

So creationists believe that it is best to teach students to be ignorant about Darwinian biology? Actually, for decades informed creationists have advocated a two-model approach,2 where students are taught the pros and cons of both views and then permitted to evaluate the situation for themselves.

[Teaching] the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution…is code for teaching creationism.

We beg the reader to consider that teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution is actually code for “teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution.” The idea that creationists are being subversive is without merit, a mere smear. It is likely that the author has not bothered to consider that there actually are weaknesses to evolution.3

The trouble is, a creationist system of science is not science at all. It is faith. All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator.

What is “a creationist system of science”? The author seems to think that creationists invoke God to explain every empirical phenomenon. That may be animism, but it is certainly not creationism.

Adequate clarity on these important issues requires more precise definitions. We must distinguish between historical science and empirical science. Both creation scientists and evolutionary scientists practice the same kind of empirical science—observing the repeatable. Just like creation scientists, Darwinists typically use naturalistic interpretations to explain the operation of observable and repeatable phenomena. However, Darwinists mistakenly, and by faith, presume exclusively naturalistic causes to explain the origin of phenomena. There are no “gods” causing light to refract or masses to gravitate, but that does not mean that there was no God responsible for the origin of lights and masses!

The New York Times editorial ends with “The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms.” Of course science belongs in science classrooms—that is our point! The religion of evolutionary atheism does not belong, nor does evolutionary history or methodological naturalism philosophy.4

References

  1. The Cons of Creationism. The New York Times. Posted online and accessed June 7, 2008.
  2. Bliss, R. 1978. A Comparison of Students Studying the Origin of Life from a Two-Model Approach vs. Those Studying from a Single-Model Approach. Acts & Facts. 7 (6).
  3. Morris, H. 2000. The Scientific Case against Evolution: A Summary Part 1. Acts & Facts. 29 (12); and 2001. The Scientific Case against Evolution: A Summary Part 2. Acts & Facts. 30 (1).
  4. This philosophy is a kind of “hyper-naturalism” that excludes by definition any supernatural cause for origins. We agree that the operation of phenomena should be described in "natural" terms, but it is error to insist, given a theistic worldview, that the origin of phenomena be described only within the limits of nature.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

Article posted on June 13, 2008.

The Latest
CREATION PODCAST
Can We Build a REAL Jurassic Park?! | The Creation Podcast: Episode...
In 1993, the movie Jurassic Park took the world by storm with its compelling characters, excellent cinematography, industry-altering...

NEWS
Project Artifact: The Spear
DALLAS, TX, September 9, 2025 — It’s finally here! Today marks the official launch of the Institute for Creation Research’s highly...

NEWS
Flood Tsunamis Transported Trees and Amber
A recent study published in Scientific Reports found strange globs of tree resin (amber) mixed within claimed ancient (Cretaceous) deep-water sediments...

NEWS
Secular Paper Admits ''Unreasonable Likelihood'' of Abiogenesis
A recent popular science article begins with the words, “A new study published in July 2025 tackles one of science’s most profound mysteries...

NEWS
September 2025 ICR Wallpaper
"Woe to him who strives with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What...

ACTS & FACTS
Pervasive Genome Functionality Destroys the Myth of Junk DNA
In 2001, the first rough draft of the human genome was published in a collaborative effort between private industry and the public sector.1,2...

NEWS
Happy Labor Day 2025
“For we are laborers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.” (1 Corinthians 3:9) Labor Day was...

ACTS & FACTS
The Age of Reptiles Myth
We hear about the Age of Reptiles, also called the Age of Dinosaurs, almost as early as we can understand the idea. Even kindergarteners might be taught...

ACTS & FACTS
The Tiktaalik Missing Link Myth
In 2004, the paleontological community—and the world—was presented with what many evolutionists considered to be a dyed-in-the-wool missing...

ACTS & FACTS
Archaeopteryx, Myth of a Transitional Fossil
In 1860, one year after the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, a wonderfully preserved fossil feather was discovered in...