Does teaching Creationism hurt science? Of course not! I think the “Science Guy’s” reflexive response brings into question his true credentials as a scientist. Since when does science seek a monopoly on a particular idea? The whole scientific enterprise, when done properly, seeks to disprove idea’s not hide behind rhetoric. That’s what peer review is all about. Someone presents a hypothesis, and everyone tries to disprove it. When they have failed, the hypothesis becomes a theory. The scientists who promote evolution seem to have a problem. They do not want any competing alternative to their hypothesis. The fact is that there are scientists who engage in scientific research who can show evidence for a young earth. So, why not hear them out? Could it be that there is in fact scant evidence behind the hypothesis of evolution? And could it be that they do not want the public to see that there is real evidence for an alternative point of view?
The reality is that evolution is more of a philosophy. Any scientific “research” is always done with some very important qualifications in place. For example, when evolutionary scientists approach something that might be deemed evidence for evolution, they always begin with the philosophical commitment that the earth is really, really old. But, what if the evidence says otherwise? Because of their prior commitment to their “belief” in an old earth, they will not consider anything that tells them something different. The reality is that the hypothesis of evolution has almost no tangible evidence. Everything that is presented as such is usually clouded with a heavy dose of philosophical fussy language. When all the hypothetical meanderings are cleared away what is left is something that is far removed from true scientific evidence. Evolution rests on creative rhetoric, nothing more.
And as to the Science Guy’s ill-conceived rhetoric that studying the Bible will “Hurt” science, or those who study it, he forgets two important things. First, it was Bible believing Christians who began much of the scientific enterprise to begin with. For example, Sir Isaac Newton said that doing science was “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Because he believed in a rational God who can clearly communicate, Newton believed that the universe must be rational, and therefore subject to rational inquiry. Second, the philosophical theory of evolution has “hurt” more people than every other “ism” combined. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche considered the practical consequences of evolution and discovered that if life is an accident, then there is no foundation for ethics, truth, or morality. Instead he proposed the “Superman.” No not the guy in the blue cape who can leap tall buildings, but instead the guy in the military uniform who can subdue others to his will. The man who attempted to perfect Nietzsche’s idea was named Adolf Hitler. Hitler is a direct consequence of the very bad philosophical influence of Natural Evolution.
No, evolution is a bad idea with no real scientific support. And it is itself an idea that has proven to bring true pain and suffering into God’s beautiful creation.