Biblical Creation Science

      The following articles are intended to be a brief summation of the critiques of what has become known as ‘creation-science' based on the Bible. The object of my critique is not a belief in God or the doctrine of the creationism, because it is possible to be a believer in God, and even a ‘creationist' and not hold to Biblical Creationism. Biblical Creationism turns out to not be a science at all, but rather is a form of Christian apologetics, of the most literal sort, and it is based first on the unquestioned belief in the inerrancy of the Bible as history. This presupposition is never put to the test (rather the evidence is sought which will support the foreordained conclusion, which is the opposite of the scientific method). For all these reasons it is more than fair to describe it as simply another form of Christian apologetics and an obvious tool of conservative evangelism, and thus by definition, not a scientific discipline at all.

     If the Bible is to be used as a scientific textbook, then first the Bible should be subject to analysis and critique as regards its merits as a source of history. The Bible proves upon examination to be a religious document, a political document, and the product of the many human societies responsible for producing the book, and its ideology can be demonstrated to span the spectrum from the most reactionary conservatism to radical liberation movements, and the doctrines of its writers were thus often in conflict, coming from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum (and it is these ideological conflicts which are responsible for the contradictions on the pages of the Bible). This truth then requires a person to make value judgments when reading what is found written in the Bible, and it follows that what one will choose to keep and what one will choose to devalue will be entirely dependant on what any individual person values.

      Here we encounter the conflict between personal autonomy and heteronomy, between individual freedom and the demands of authority. A sensible balance must be struck here, because not every ‘personal value judgment' is equally valid, and this suggests that there should be certain constraints on individual judgment (without swinging to the opposite extreme, to Biblical heteronomy and the abject deference to supposed authority figures). Most people would agree that an honest judgement has more value than a dishonest judgment. I value honesty and so this leads me to value the radical liberation traditions in the Bible and to devalue the conservative reactionary sources found on its pages, because the radicals in the Bible were critics of the Bible itself (and this is not well known by people) and as critics they held to the belief that the book was not inerrant, which is the truth, while the conservative elements held to a doctrine of inerrancy of the Bible (then as now), which is false. These two points of view are not equally valid.

      There are many other ways to judge the points of view found on the pages of the Bible, and I just mention the point in passing lest someone should oversimplify and suggest that ‘all the points of view in the Bible are equally valid' (this being an oversimplified characterization of that ‘ecumenical' approach so much in favor today, and, when you consider some of the foul things actually written in the book, not to mention the intellectual dishonesty of some of its authors, and when you consider the deliberately deceptive nature of some of the blatant falsehoods of certain religious propositions, it is a view point in need of serious reconsideration if you ask me. Every point of view, or every ‘belief' is not granted a measure of validity by the simple stunt of calling it a religion.) the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture does not have the same measure of validity as a critical approach to the Bible. Similarly ‘Creation-Science' does not have the same measure of validity as a legitimate scientific discipline, since its purpose is to justify religious dogma and it proves to be a branch of Christian apologetics and conservative evangelism.

      Analysis of the Bible as an historical and ideologically consistent document is important in the debate about evolution versus religious doctrine, since it is in defense of certain dogmas concerning the book that attacks are launched against modern research. Those who are interested in an introduction to Biblical analysis can consult the index to the Bible pages or the essays index page, not to mention many other pages on the web. To summarize the conclusion that is based on the investigation found on these pages, the Bible is not an historical document, but rather a book of religious, even political polemic, and it is also typical that the theology of the authors is transmitted using the universal language of all religion, the language of mythology and symbol. This fact alone should be enough to bring into question the attempt to use the Bible as the unquestioned base upon which modern research can be judged.

      That the practice of such Bible based ‘science' is actually a form of apologetics and intended as a means of religious conversion is amply demonstrated by many of the statements which have come out of the literalists of the creationist camp. That their methodology is not based on the scientific principles of investigation and then conclusion, but rather on conclusion followed by justification, is demonstrated by statements such as the following: "The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology." (Morris, Creation Science, 1972, p. 94) No research need be done, and really should not be, because it would be heresy. The above is not a scientific statement, but rather a statement of a certain religious dogma, and this particular dogma is itself the point of view of only one sect, and as far as the Bible itself is concerned, as I demonstrate on many pages on my site, this dogma of the inerrancy of scripture was not the ‘standard' doctrine of the book itself, but rather the dogma of only one sect represented on its pages. I just make the point that the claim that conservative viewpoints are ‘God's viewpoints' is just another conservative distortion of the scriptures, as is the doctrine that teaches that the scriptures contain only a single, socially conservative voice on its pages (thus giving a big thumbs up to conservative reaction in religion). This false doctrine of ‘doctrinal consistency' is just a blatant attempt on the part of conservatives to silence the radical voices found in the Judeo-Christian tradition, by denying that they even exist.

      Biblical creation science (as distinguished from simple Creation science, which I would consider a separate occupation) is not a emperical discipline, something best demonstrated not in the laboratory, but rather on the pages of sites such as this one, which examine the source documents. However, since, surprisingly, the level of public ignorance, both about the Bible, and it would seem a level of scientific illiteracy in our society, have both allowed conservative reactionaries in the churches to invade both school boards and legislatures and have in some cases even brought forward into legislation the pseudo- argument that the religious doctrines of the religious right deserve ‘equal time' in the science classroom. For this reason the following pages will briefly debunk the supposed scientific evidence of Biblical creationists, which, on examination prove to be merely an extension of that old principle of Christian apologetics into the domain of scientists (use any argument, with the end justifying the means, this sort of approach typifying apologetic ‘explanations' of the inconsistent (re: non- conservative) elements in the scriptures, and also, an investigation reveals, typifies the argumentation style of the Biblical Creationists, which is not surprising, since Creation Science is just conservative Christian apologetics dressed up in a lab coat.)