top of page
  • Writer's pictureBible Brian

Creation scientists and the NTS fallacy


A common tactic for Evolutionists is to slander Creationists as being anti-science, while claiming there is virtually no debate among scientists as to whether or not Evolution is valid. No scientists reject Evolution, right? Especially not to the extent where they accept Creationism!

But there's a problem. There are scientists who believe in Creationism. Quite a few of them, actually, and they have made great contributions to science (not to mention that virtually all scientists prior to Darwin were Creationists). "But those aren't real scientists!" the Evolutionist cries. Why? Well, it's because they reject Evolution...

This is a fallacy commonly referred to as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, otherwise known as appeal to purity. That is, the subjective definition of a "true" A to exclude all examples of A that do not fit one's case.

An especially interesting example is that of Richard Sternberg. As an editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg made the mistake of allowing a positive article concerning intelligent design to be published in the journal. This resulted in backlash from his colleagues. Backlash so extreme that it actually warranted an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel, who found in his favour.

Sternberg was called a "shoddy scientist", to the extent that one of his colleagues actually had to circulate his résumé to dispel false rumours that he wasn't even a scientist at all. What's even more telling is that, despite being an agnostic, Sternberg was called a "closet Bible thumper".

This really says it all. It's not a question of science, it's a case of not allowing a divine foot in the door. Evolution is an atheist's only defence against Christianity, because it is the only real alternative for atheists. If Evolution didn't happen, Creationism once again becomes a valid model of origins. Not only valid, but the evidence for it would spread a lot more rapidly if it wasn't stunted by politics. So atheists simply can't afford to allow Evolution to be questioned. It must be protected at all costs.


But what is the cost of protecting such a silly religion? We could say integrity, because of the use of dishonest tactics. We could say dignity, because aside from occasionally acting like animals, Evolutionists believe they actually are animals. We could say millions of lives, because Evolution has lead to many an atrocity, and is foundational to the practice of eugenics. But the greatest cost of protecting Evolution is a human soul.


The God who created humanity holds humanity accountable for every perverse thought, every idle word and every evil deed. There is nothing we can think, say or do for which we will not be held accountable. But a lot of what we think, say and do is evil. In fact, God is so displeased with our sin that He goes as far as to call our righteous deeds "filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). Evolution, which is itself just one more perverse thought and many more idle words, not only contributes to that sin, but also erases the answer.

God, in His unfathomable love and unsearchable mercy, sought to redeem us from such a tragic fate as eternal punishment. He sent His Son, Jesus, to live a perfect life as a man, and die a sinner's death. The punishment due to us was instead levied upon Him. If we have faith in His death, resurrection and Lordship, then our sin, and our filthy rags, are replaced with His perfect righteousness. Evolution tells us that none of this is true, but Evolutionists will have to do a lot better than subjectively defining a true "scientist" as "someone who believes in Evolution".

11 views
bottom of page