Creation And Evolution: Both Interpret The Evidence

Creation And Evolution: Both Interpret The Evidence April 26, 2015

It is often claimed that the idea of a difference existing between ‘operational (observational) science’ and ‘historical (forensic/origins) science’ is simply an imaginary construct of creationists used to bolster their argument for creation. However, there truly is a distinct, and important, difference between the two. This difference helps explain why it is possible for two groups of scientists to view the exact same evidence and still come up with completely different interpretations of that evidence.

An illustration

The following helps illustrate this concept, “Imagine that a friend points to a building and asks you to tell them about it. Being the inquisitive individual that you are, you immediately set out to describe the building in as much detail as you can.

The first part of your investigation is pretty straightforward. You climb to the top and drop down your measuring tape to find that the building is exactly 1,453 feet and 8 9/16 inches from the ground to the tip of the broadcast tower—that includes over 100 floors and an observatory. You put the building on your scales and find it to be 365,000 tons.

“That’s great,” says your friend. “But when was it built?”

Measurements alone can’t tell you that part. You could make an educated guess, of course, but there’s really no need. After all, you have an eyewitness account.

After a quick Internet search, you hand your friend the complete history of this amazing historical monument—otherwise known as the Empire State Building in New York City” [1]. 

The difference presented

The above example illustrates the difference between two types of scientific research. Some information is gathered by examining things with your senses; such as height and weight in the above example. Others are then able to check your findings by making their own measurements. This is operational science, or observational science. However, some research, such as the “when was it built” question in the example above, requires making educated assumptions about the past by examining evidence in the present. This is called historical science, forensic science, or origins science.The correctness of the labeling can be debated, but the fact that one method of scientific research involves the interpretation of events that are unobservable and unrepeatable and one method involves the observable and repeatable is clear. The fact that we know cats exist is a result of observational research; our explanation of how cats came to be will be the result of the interpretation of unobservable (historical) research.

“As creationists, we insist that we cannot scientifically prove creation or disprove evolution. Both are ways of thinking—schemes by which we can interpret present data. All we can do is study the evidence in the present and see which historical reconstruction is more likely correct. Present data include the incredible design of living systems which, look for the entire world as if they were “manufactured” by an intelligent designer, and not the random by-product of chance processes. We have the universal Second Law of Thermodynamics, which shows that things become more disordered through time, not more complex, as evolution insists. We see no clue in the fossil record that any basic category of animal ever came from any other basic category…These scientific observations fit well with the creation model, but not at all well with the evolution model. We cannot scientifically prove or disprove either creation or evolution, mainly because we don’t have direct access to the past, but we can assert that creation is better—the one most likely correct” [2].

Everyone uses sources that agree with their position

Neither creation nor evolution can be scientifically proven; anyone who tells you differently is not being honest. Therefore, creation/evolution discussions and debates often involve many quotes from so-called authorities. Often, when a believer quotes Ken Ham, John Morris, Henry Morris, or any other prominent believer in Creation, a challenger will claim that the quote is worthless simply because it came from one of these men or the groups with which they are associated. As if for a truth to be true it can only originate from someone who is NOT a believer in creation. Why does it seem odd (to some folk) that those who believe in creation should quote from the works of Mr. Ham, Mr. Morris, and others? It is these men and women who are at the forefront of the creation/evolution discussion. The secular community does exactly the same thing within their ranks; quoting Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, the late Christopher Hitchens, and others to support their case. Instead of dealing with creation scientist’s ideas, they simply mock and ridicule those with whom they disagree. The discussion will get nowhere until each side sticks to dealing with the competing ideas instead of simply attacking those who hold those ideas.

Conclusion

All of us depend on knowing the truth; therefore, it is unreasonable and illogical to attempt to find the truth when one has eliminated the possibility that the truth is God-centered. The Bible says that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17); therefore, the intelligent response, from one who is seeking to understand the universe, would be to submit oneself to the Creator of that universe. Who would know better than He?

 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1 NASB).

“You alone are the Lord. You have made the heavens, the heaven of heavens with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to all of them and the heavenly host bows down before You” (Nehemiah 9:6 NASB).

Article by Robert Driskell

NOTES:

[1] https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/two-kinds-of-science/

[2] http://www.icr.org/article/can-scientists-study-past


Browse Our Archives