1 Accusations Against Young-Earth Creationism
Old-earth creationists, especially theistic evolutionists,[1] often claim that the belief in a young creation conflicts with science. They accuse young-earth creationists of opposing science, denying science, contradicting science, or inventing their own science.
Reason and Religious Belief is a philosophy textbook used by Dr. Michael Peterson in his course PH501 “Philosophy of Christian Religion.”[2] In this book the authors claim that deep time and biological evolution are scientific facts; thus, young-earth creationists oppose science when they oppose evolution.[3] The authors assert that “the theme of conflict between religion and established science is very strong” within young-earth creationism.[4] Also, they assert, “Fundamentalists have actually employed their own version of science to help establish their position. ‘Scientific creationism’ tries to find scientific evidence (in addition to biblical references) to support belief in a young earth and the special creation of humans.”[5]
Peterson concurs in his lectures and handouts in this course (PH501). Peterson affirms that young-earth creationists are in conflict with modern science, and he said that “biblical literalists” and “Protestant fundamental types” “feel threatened by the findings of mainstream science.” He claimed that in the middle of the 20th century, Protestant fundamentalists created an alternative science: creation science. He said that the Institute for Creation Research is “hostile to mainstream science” and that they created “their own alternative science with a young earth and young universe, special creation of all species, rather than evolutionary development, so on.”[6] Peterson teaches likewise in his class PH600 “Suffering, Tragedy, and Christian Faith.”[7] Furthermore, Peterson declared that Answers in Genesis “is at war with modern science.”[8]
Philosophy professor Dr. Kevin Kinghorn also teaches that young-earth creationism is in conflict with science in his class PH610 “Christian Apologetics.”[9] Kinghorn teaches the four models regarding the relationship between science and religion given by the scientist and theologian Ian Barbour. Barbour classifies “biblical literalists” as being in conflict with science. Kinghorn teaches, “If you’re a certain kind of biblical literalist, and you think that the creation story in Genesis affirms, importantly, that God created the world in six 24-hour day periods, then science and theology again will come into conflict as long as the scientific consensus is that it took longer than that for, say, mountains to form.”[10]
These sources affirm that the belief in a young creation conflicts with science. However, this proposition depends upon two factors: (1) a definition of science and (2) scientific evidence against young-earth creationism and/or scientific evidence affirming deep time and/or neo-Darwinian evolution. One must first provide a proper definition of science, for without a proper definition of science, one cannot differentiate between scientific evidence and non-scientific evidence. Consequently, without a proper definition of science one cannot differentiate between what is scientific and what is not scientific. A definition of science is imperative for a proper discussion of science and its relationship with biblical interpretation. But what is science? What are the abilities and limitations of science? How can one determine what is or is not scientific?
2 A Faulty Definition of Science
Even though a definition of science is imperative for a proper discussion of the relationship between science and religion, Peterson never provided a clear definition in his lectures or handouts for the classes PH501 and PH600. Furthermore, the textbook which he co-authored, Reason and Religious Belief, never provides a detailed definition of science. Consequently, I asked Peterson in class one day, “What is science? How do you define science?”
First, Peterson responded by saying that there is a “demarcation problem” when defining science. However, he made no attempt to solve the demarcation problem.[11]
Next, Peterson defined science saying, “Science is the enterprise of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena.” He continued by saying that generally speaking, science is the process of finding natural explanations for natural events. Science has nothing to say pro or con about the supernatural. It only looks at natural phenomena. In finding a natural cause, science seeks to find a scientific law. Science is not interested in the particular but the general (e.g., scientific laws). Natural laws connect cause and effect for natural phenomenon.[12]
While Peterson’s definition of science may be considered correct, it is sorely incomplete. This definition explains what science does: “provide natural explanations for natural phenomena.” However, this definition fails to explain how science accomplishes this task. How does science provide natural explanations for natural phenomena? How does science acquire new knowledge? What is the methodology of science? How does science differ from other forms of investigation such as historical or sociological investigations? What are the abilities and limitations of science? These questions must be adequately answered when developing a complete definition of science.
[ADDENDUM: In the Spring of 2023, I took PH605 "Science and Christian Faith" from Dr. Michael Peterson at Asbury Seminary. At the beginning of this course, Peterson said that the historic definition of the activity science is “the intellectual search for natural causes of natural phenomena.” Later, he added some additional information including the inductive nature of science and the idea that science involves repeatable experiments. Also, he made brief mentions of the difference between science and history. However, he never clearly defined in detail the abilities and limitations of science and how young-earth creationism contradicts that definition of science. Also, he never explained how evolution is confirmed by science.]
3 Developing a Definition of Science
Developing a definition of science is not an objective endeavor. Science itself surely cannot teach us the methodology of science or the abilities and limitations of science. Developing a definition of science is a philosophical endeavor, and philosophy always involves a measure of subjectivity.[13] Although multiple definitions of science exist, I intend to provide a short but comprehensive definition of science by investigating numerous sources on this subject. Thus, I intend to provide a holistic view of what science is: its methodology, its abilities, and its limitations.
3.1 The Methodology of Science
“Methodology” is “a body of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline: a particular procedure or set of procedures” or “the analysis of the principles or procedures of inquiry in a particular field.”[14] Methodology is a system of rules by which one acquires new knowledge. The methodology of science is called the “scientific method of investigation” or just the “scientific method.”
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the scientific method as “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”[15] Britannica affirms that the scientific method involves “observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments…”[16] As an example, Britannica says, “In a typical application of the scientific method, a researcher develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments. The modified hypothesis is then retested, further modified, and tested again, until it becomes consistent with observed phenomena and testing outcomes.”[17] Brian Hepburn and Hanne Andersen write in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Among the activities often identified as characteristic of science are systematic observation and experimentation, inductive and deductive reasoning, and the formation and testing of hypotheses and theories.”[18] In summary, the scientific method requires repeatable observations, measurements, and experiments in order to inductively support a given hypothesis or deductively falsify competing explanations.
Regarding inductive reasoning, biologist Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson writes, “Logically, the scientific method is an inductive method of reasoning. . . . Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning.”[19] Deductive reasoning begins with premises which are known or given to be true, and using rules of logic, these true premises lead to a true conclusion. “In contrast,” Jeanson writes, “inductive reasoning starts with observations and tries to work back to a premise or general principle.”[20] Inductive reasoning has problems and limitations, though. Jeanson affirms, “The problem with inductive reasoning is that there may be multiple explanations for an observation.”[21]
Inductive reasoning can never unequivocally prove that a hypothesis is true. Therefore, science cannot conclusively prove that something is true. Multiple observations, measurements, tests, and experiments can increase the probability that a given hypothesis is true; however, a new discovery may contradict that hypothesis, requiring one to modify that hypothesis or find a new hypothesis. Scientific research is able to offer inductive, probabilistic support for one hypothesis over a competing hypothesis, but science can never afford unequivocally proof that a given hypothesis is true.
Philosopher of science Karl Popper “stressed that, regardless of the amount of confirming evidence, we can never be certain that a hypothesis is true without committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent.”[22] The fallacy of “affirming the consequent” says:
(1) If “P,” then “Q.”
(2) “Q”
(3) Therefore, “P.”
In other words, it is illogical to believe that because the consequent of a conditional statement is true, then the antecedent must also be true. One cannot prove that the antecedent of a conditional statement is true by affirming that the consequent of that conditional statement is true because a different, perhaps yet unknown, antecedent (i.e., a competing hypothesis) may be able to explain that same consequent.
Although inductive reasoning can only probabilistically support a hypothesis, the scientific method can conclusively falsify competing hypotheses.[23] The scientific method is able to employ deductive reasoning to unequivocally disprove a given hypothesis. Indeed, the scientific method seeks to discover new knowledge primarily through disproving competing hypotheses. Biologist Dr. Gary Parker concurs saying, “Contrary to a popular misconception, scientists can only disprove or support a theory, never prove it. As every working scientist knows, you can never tell when some new discovery will shift support to a competing theory.”[24]
3.2 The Line of Demarcation
Due to the inductive nature of scientific inquiry, the scientific method has limitations. The “demarcation problem” is a philosophical concept that seeks to identify the epistemological limitations of science. How to properly define the line of demarcation is a matter of debate among philosophers of science. Nevertheless, the principles of repeatability and falsification are two important concepts to consider.
Biologists Christopher Rupe and Dr. John Sanford affirm, “Operational science requires the development of hypotheses that are testable and falsifiable—followed by controlled experiments that are rigorous and can be reproduced by other scientists.”[25] In other words, if a hypothesis cannot be tested with repeatable experiments or falsified by empirical evidence, then that hypothesis cannot be regarded as being scientific according to the scientific method.
Philosopher of science Karl Popper emphasized the need for falsification in science. According to Hepburn and Andersen, Popper was “motivated by his doubts about the scientific status of theories like the Marxist theory of history or psycho-analysis, and so wanted to demarcate between science and pseudo-science.”[26] Alistair E. McGrath affirms that Marxism and particularly Freudianism seem impervious to falsification, for they can apparently account for any and all experiences.[27] McGrath writes, “It was precisely this inability to be refuted by experience that prompted Karl Popper to develop his celebrated theory of falsification. Irrefutability might seem to be a virtue; in reality, it is a vice.”[28] According to Popper’s philosophy, “Science was science because its method involved subjecting theories to rigorous tests which offered a high probability of failing and thus refuting the theory.”[29]
In summary, science is limited in its ability to acquire new knowledge because science can only acquire new knowledge through repeatable, empirical observations and testable experiments which inductively increases the probability of a hypothesis being true. The scientific method can never conclusively or unequivocally prove that a hypothesis is true. Science can only falsify competing hypotheses. Indeed, a hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be considered truly scientific.
3.3 Operational Science vs. Historical Science
Heretofore, I have been describing and defining what is known as “operational,” “observational,” or “experimental” science. Operational science employs the scientific method of investigation. However, a discussion of science is incomplete without contrasting the scientific method with “historical science.” Historical science is epistemologically distinct from operational science.
Rupe and Sanford affirm, “There are two types of scientific inquiry that are very different—operational science and historical science. Unfortunately, many people fail to grasp the difference.”[30] Rupe and Sanford contrasts operational and historical science saying,
Operational science is the type of science that involves conducting repeatable experiments in the present. This is classical ‘hard science,’ which teaches us how nature operates, and has given rise to modern technologies like computers, modern medicine, and modern agriculture. . . . Historical science is the type of science that deals with questions about the past (if about the recent past, it is often called ‘forensic science’). Historical science is a ‘soft science,’ because history cannot be repeated, and is not generally accessible through experiments conducted in the present.[31]
Geology historian Dr. Terry Mortenson also affirms a distinction between operational science and historical science, and he demonstrates that the “scriptural geologists” of the early 1800’s did likewise.[32] (“Scriptural geologists” were church leaders, clergy, and/or scientists who lived in the early 1800’s and defended the historical reliability of Genesis 1-11 against old earth views such as the day-age view and the gap theory.[33] For more information, see my article “Where did Young-Earth Creationism Come From?”)
Historical science seeks to learn what may have occurred in the past by making inferences from present observations. Historical science is not based upon repeatable observations because history, by definition, cannot be repeated. Thus, historical science is based upon interpretations of present physical phenomena extrapolated into the past. All examples of historical science rest upon assumptions which can never be unequivocally proven true because history can never be repeated, and historical claims can never be conclusively falsified. Consequently, historical science always involves subjectivity. Furthermore, history cannot be properly understood from present observations alone; rather, history must also be studied using historical eye-witness accounts. This distinction between operational and historical science is imperative for our present discussion: does young-earth creationism conflict with science?
4 Implications and Application
A proper definition of science must affirm the scientific method and include an answer to the demarcation problem. Furthermore, a proper understanding of science must distinguish between operational science and historical science because operational science and historical science are categorically different methods of epistemology.
Those who affirm the historical reliability of Genesis 1-11 do not deny the reality and the power of operational science which uses the scientific method to provide mankind innumerable advancements in knowledge and technology. Young-earth creationists (YEC) affirm operational science and the conclusions derived from it. Furthermore, YEC scientists are not opposed to historical science. Indeed, YEC scientists participate in historical science. However, YEC scientists do disagree with evolutionary scientists regarding how to conduct historical science. Biblical creationists disagree with evolutionists over interpretations of present observations which contradict the Word of God.
4.1 Evolution is an Historical Science
Deep time and neo-Darwinian evolution are not based upon observational science and the scientific method of investigation. Indeed, scientific observations regularly contradict the notions of deep time and evolution.[34] Deep time and evolution are examples of historical science which are based upon interpretations of presently observed empirical data. Even secular scientists recognize that evolution is an example of historical science rather than operational science. The famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr (1904-2005) once wrote:
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.[35]
Also, Mayr wrote in his famous book What Evolution Is, “Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanation of particular evolutionary events, must be inferred from observations.”[36] Furthermore, the renowned paleontologist and evolutionist Stephen J. Gould (1941-2002) agreed with Mayr that evolution is an example of historical science rather than a “hard” science.[37]
Chemist Philip S. Skell (1918-2010) not only affirmed that Darwinian evolution is an example of historical science rather than experimental science, he also affirmed that Darwinian evolution does not profit experimental biology. Skell was the “Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University,” and he was a “member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) since 1977.”[38] Nevertheless, he questioned the value of Darwinian evolution. Writing about Skell, Casey Luskin says,
Skell was a rare voice in the NAS who was willing to dissent from the majority neo-Darwinian viewpoint. In 2008 the NAS published a booklet, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, declaring that “[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution,” and asserting that evolution by natural selection is “so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter” it. Skell published a rebuttal to the NAS’s booklet in the journal Politics and the Life Sciences, explaining that it did not speak for all NAS members, and that the NAS was guilty of “overselling of the theory of evolution.[39]
Skell observed that Darwinian evolution does not benefit experimental science. In 2005 Skell wrote, “I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.”[40] Skell continues, “I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”[41] Skell also mentions that he read academic articles on experimental biology, and whenever the writer said “evolution,” he substituted “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” and even “creationism.” He declared that the primary content of these academic articles was unaffected by these substitutions. Skell affirmed, “From my conversations with leading researchers it had become clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.”[42] Skell clearly affirmed that Darwinian evolution is an example of “historical biology” which does not benefit “experimental biology.” Skell declared, “Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”[43]
Skell noted that biologists do not use Darwinian evolution to benefit experimental biology; rather, biologists merely describe observed biological phenomena in terms of Darwinian evolution. Also, Skell contended that natural selection is “too supple” and can be invoked to explain almost any observable biological phenomenon. As an example, he wrote, “Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers.”[44] Referring to natural selection, Skell truthfully declared, “When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”[45]
In summary, deep time and Darwinian evolution are examples of historical science – not operational science (i.e., “observational” or “experimental” science based upon the scientific method). Consequently, deep time and evolution depend upon assumptions which can never be unequivocally proven true. Furthermore, as Skell noted, Darwinian evolution doesn’t even benefit operational science.
4.2 Historical Science and Faith
Again, YEC scientists agree with other scientists regarding the abilities of operational science based upon the scientific method. Furthermore, YEC scientists agree with all other scientists that historical science is a legitimate field of epistemology. However, the key difference between YEC scientists and all other scientists is this: biblical creationists understand that history should not be studied from present observations alone. Rather, history should also be studied using historical eye-witness accounts.
There is no reliable eye-witness account affirming deep time and neo-Darwinian evolution. By contrast, there is a reliable eye-witness account affirming a young universe and special creation. In the beginning God witnessed the creation of the universe, and He communicated His act of creation to us. God created everything described in Genesis 1-2 in six 24-hour days, which is confirmed in Exodus 20:11. Furthermore, we have a reliable historical account of the genealogy of Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11. This genealogy is affirmed in 1 Chronicles 1:1–28 and Luke 3:34–38.[46] This indicates that God created the universe approximately 6,000 years ago.[47]
Biblical creationists have faith that Genesis 1-11 is just as historically reliable as any other narrative passage in Genesis and the rest of the Bible. Building upon faith in God’s Word, YEC scientists participate in historical science by seeking to understand how the historical events described in Genesis 1-11 affect past and present physical and biological phenomena. No biblical creationist believes that the Bible is a science textbook as critics have often accused.[48] The Bible is a book of history, and those who believe in the authority of the Bible can be confident that the historical events described in Genesis 1-11 are true. (Furthermore, biblical creationist affirm that God teaches important theological truths through the historical accounts narrated in Genesis 1-11 and the rest of the Bible.)
By contrast, those who deny the historical reliability of Genesis 1-11 have nothing but human reasoning and unprovable assumptions to rest their historical interpretations upon. All evidence for deep time and neo-Darwinian evolution rest upon unprovable assumptions such as the philosophy of uniformitarianism, the belief that the present is the key to understanding the past. Thus, the historical science of deep time and evolution is based upon faith in fallible human reasoning alone.
Old-earth creationists and evolutionists claim that present scientific observations prove that deep time and evolution are true. However, as noted above, the scientific method is based upon inductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning cannot prove anything to be true. Inductive reasoning can only falsify competing views or possibly support one view over a competing view using probability. To date, no empirical observation or scientific experiment has falsified the historical events narrated in Genesis 1-11. On the contrary, many repeatable observations contradict the hypotheses of deep time and evolution.[49] Furthermore, many observations support the historical events of Genesis 1-11.[50] In the words of the biologist and former evolutionist Dr. Gary Parker, “Evolution is based on genetics that have never been observed and fossils that have never been found. The Bible is supported by laws of heredity we put into practice every day and on thousands of tons of fossils buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. In short, evolution is a faith that the facts have failed. Biblical Christianity is a faith that fits the facts.”[51]
5. Addendum: Censorship of Science
I have observed that old-earth creationists, particularly evolutionary creationists, often fail to provide even a basic definition of science when they discuss scientific propositions. This is true for many of my seminary professors. They, claim that deep time and evolution are scientific facts, but they almost never provide any sort of definition for science in their notes/handouts and lectures. Also, I have observed that those who do provide a definition merely provide a weak and incomplete definition of science. For example, Peterson’s definition of science given above is so vague and incomplete that it is useless for scientific progress. One cannot improve modern medicine, agriculture, and technology with a definition of science as vague as Peterson’s.
But why do old-earth creationists often refrain from adequately defining science? And why would Peterson provide such an incomplete definition of science? Whether intentionally or unintentionally, old-earth creationists must censor or water-down science to support their faith in deep time and/or neo-Darwinian evolution.
When one understands a proper definition of science, one is set to properly analyze “scientific” evidence to see whether that evidence should or should not be considered “scientific.” Consequently, a proper definition of science allows one to examine whether empirical evidence better supports deep time and evolution or the biblical account of creation. Space prohibits me from providing an analysis of scientific evidence for and against these two worldviews; however, one can find many sources on this subject cited in this article. Also, one can find many more sources from numerous Christian apologetic ministries such as Answers in Genesis (answersingenesis.org), the Institute for Creation Research (icr.org), and Creation Ministries International (creation.com).
Suffice it to say, a proper view of science, together with a close examination of scientific evidence, reveals that there is no unequivocal scientific evidence that contradicts the historical events described in Genesis 1-11, and there is no unequivocal scientific evidence that supports deep time and neo-Darwinian evolution. Consequently, a proper understanding of science, including its abilities and limitations, is a threat to the faith of old-earth creationists. Conversely, a proper definition of science is an ally for those who affirm the historical interpretation of Genesis 1-11. (See my article “Where did Young-Earth Creationism Come From?” for a summary of church leaders throughout church history who affirmed the historical reliability of Genesis 1-11.)
Conclusion
Defining science is not an objective procedure but rather a subjective philosophical endeavor. While multiple definitions of science exist, many sources affirm the importance of the scientific method of investigation which includes repeatable observations/measurements and repeatable tests/experiments which must be corroborated by other scientists. This methodology of science is paramount for scientific inquiry. Without repeatable observations and testable experiments, a proposition cannot be considered “scientific.” A proposition which lacks repeatable empirical support can only be considered a hypothesis at best. In contrast to operational science, historical science is not an objective endeavor because history, by definition, can never be repeated. Deep time and neo-Darwinian are examples of historical science, and they rest upon assumptions about the past which can never be tested with observational science.
Without a careful definition of science, the demarcation between scientific fact and faith becomes vague and ambiguous. An imprecise definition of science can lead to any proposition being deemed a “scientific fact,” including deep time and neo-Darwinian evolution. If you truly believe that deep time and evolution are “scientific facts,” then I cordially invite you to carefully examine as much evidence for deep time and evolution as you can to see how well or poorly the evidence supports your beliefs.
Footnotes
[1] “Old-earth creationist” refers to any Christian who accepts “deep time,” the belief that the earth and the universe are billions of years old. Generally, the term “old-earth creationist” refers to one who affirms astronomic and geologic evolution but denies biologic evolution. By contrast, theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists also affirm biologic evolution (i.e., neo-Darwinian evolution by means of mutation-selection). [2] I took this course at Asbury Theological Seminary (ATS) as an online class in the spring of 2022. [3] Michael Peterson et al., Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, Fifth Edition. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 294–97. [4] Peterson et al., Reason and Religious Belief, 297. [5] Peterson et al., Reason and Religious Belief, 295–96. [6] This information comes from my class notes for PH501. [7] I took this course from ATS in the fall of 2022. [8] This comes from my class notes for PH600. [9] I took this course from ATS as an online class in the fall of 2022. [10] This information comes from my class notes for PH610. This quotation is a direct quotation from the slide-notes of Kinghorn’s PowerPoint presentation which he gave his students. [11] This information comes from my class notes for PH600 taken on November 8, 2022. [12] This information comes from my class notes for PH600 taken on November 8, 2022. [13] Cf. Brian Hepburn and Hanne Andersen, “Scientific Method,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2021. (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2021), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/scientific-method/. [14] “Methodology,” Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/methodology. [15] “Scientific Method,” Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific%20method. [16] “Scientific Method,” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method. [17] “Scientific Method,” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method. [18] Hepburn and Andersen, “Scientific Method.” [19] Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2017), 108. [20] Jeanson, Replacing Darwin, 109. [21] Jeanson, Replacing Darwin, 109. For more information on inductive reasoning and the scientific method, see Jeanson, Replacing Darwin, 107–11. [22] Hepburn and Andersen, “Scientific Method.” [23] Note: In colloquial English, the term falsify means “misrepresent,” “fabricate,” “forge,” “lie,” etc. However, in the context of science, falsify means to conclusively refute or disprove—to prove that a hypothesis is incorrect, wrong, or false. Related terms included falsified, falsifiable, and falsification. [24] Gary Parker, Creation Facts of Life: How Real Science Reveals the Hand of God (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2006), 231. [25] Christopher Rupe and John Sanford, Contested Bones, First ed., second printing. (Canandaigua, NY: FMS Publications, 2019), 13. Emphasis added. [26] Hepburn and Andersen, “Scientific Method.” [27] Alister E. McGrath, Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths: Building Bridges to Faith Through Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993), 83. [28] McGrath, Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths, 83. [29] Hepburn and Andersen, “Scientific Method.” [30] Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 13. [31] Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 13. [32] Terry Mortenson, The Great Turning Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology - Before Darwin (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004), 228–34. [33] Cf. Mortenson, The Great Turning Point. [34] Against radiometric dating, see Donald B. DeYoung, Thousands, Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution: Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005); Vernon R. Cupps, Rethinking Radiometric Dating: Evidence for a Young Earth from a Nuclear Physicist (Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2019); Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 269–305. Against neo-Darwinian evolution, see Parker, Creation Facts of Life; John C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, Third Edition. (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications, 2008); Jeanson, Replacing Darwin; Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones; Jeffery P. Tomkins, Chimps and Humans: A Geneticist Discovers DNA Evidence That Challenges Evolution (Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2021). [35] Ernst Mayr, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought,” Scientific American, 24 November 2009, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought1/. Emphasis added. [36] Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 13. Emphasis added. [37] Stephen Jay Gould, “Balzan Prize to Ernst Mayr,” Science 223.4633 (1984): 255–57, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.223.4633.255. [38] Casey Luskin, “Giving Thanks for Dr. Philip Skell,” Evolution News, 25 November 2010, https://evolutionnews.org/2010/11/giving_thanks_for_dr_philip_sk/. [39] Luskin, “Giving Thanks for Dr. Philip Skell.” [40] Philip Skell, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?,” The Scientist, 28 August 2005, https://www.the-scientist.com/opinion-old/why-do-we-invoke-darwin-48438. [41] Skell, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?” Emphasis added. [42] Skell, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?” [43] Skell, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?” [44] Skell, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?” [45] Skell, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?” [46] For an explanation of the second Cainan in Luke’s narrative, see Travis R. Freeman, “Do the Genesis 5 and 11 Genealogies Contain Gaps?,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 308–13. For another explanation, see Paul F. Taylor, “An Extra Cainan?,” Answers in Genesis, 6 July 2009, https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/an-extra-cainan/. [47] For a defense of the historical reliability of Genesis 1-11, see the following sources: Steven Boyd, “A Proper Reading of Genesis 1:1-2:3,” in Thousands, Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution: Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005), 157–70; Steven W. Boyd, “The Genre of Genesis 1:1-2:3: What Means This Text?,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 163–92; Travis R. Freeman, “Do the Genesis 5 and 11 Genealogies Contain Gaps?,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 283–313; Trevor Craigen, “Can Deep Time Be Embedded in Genesis?,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 193–210; Todd S. Beall, “Contemporary Hermeneutical Approaches to Genesis 1-11,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 131–62; Eugene H. Merrill, “‘Where Are You, Adam?’ The Disappearance of Adam and the Death of Truth,” in Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man’s Origin (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2016), 113–38. See also, Terry Mortenson, “Jesus’ View of the Age of the Earth,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 315–46; Ron Minton, “Apostolic Witness to Genesis Creation and the Flood,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 347–71; William D. Barrick, “Old Testament Evidence for a Literal, Historical Adam and Eve,” in Searching for Adam (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2016), 17–51; David A. Croteau and Michael P. Naylor, “The Question of a Historical Adam: A New Testament Perspective,” in Searching for Adam (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2016), 53–72. [48] Cf. Jason Lisle, “Does the Bible Say Anything about Astronomy?,” in The New Answers Book 2 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 95; Paul F. Taylor, “How Did Animals Spread All over the World from Where the Ark Landed?,” in The New Answers Book 1 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2006), 141; Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 63, 79–80, 96, 104–6, 165, 184–85, 197, 232. [49] Cf. Sanford, Genetic Entropy; DeYoung, Thousands, Not Billions; Jeanson, Replacing Darwin; Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones; Cupps, Rethinking Radiometric Dating; Brian Daniel Thomas, Why the World Looks so Young (Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2020); Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Traced: Human DNA’s Big Surprise (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2021). [50] Cf. Parker, Creation Facts of Life; Jeanson, Replacing Darwin; Thomas, Why the World Looks so Young; Tim Clarey, Carved in Stone: Geological Evidence of the Worldwide Flood (Dallas, Texas: Institute for Creation Research, 2020); Jeanson, Traced; Tomkins, Chimps and Humans. [51] Parker, Creation Facts of Life, 230–31. Emphasis in original.