In 2014, Ken Ham debated Bill Nye on the topic "Is Creation a valid model of origins in our modern scientific era". Ham began by claiming that the term "science" has been hijacked by secularists. He provided a few sample quotes and headlines about how "scientists should not debate Creationists" and related ad hominems. There is a strange, yet prevalent view in society that Creationists can't be scientists. Furthermore, there is the equally false view that few scientists reject Evolution.
During the debate, Ken Ham presented video testimonies from real scientists, such as Professor Stuart Burgess and Dr. Andrew Fabich. There are many many more scientists who not only reject Evolution, but are Bible believing Christians. Stuart Burgess also testified that many of his colleagues are "sympathetic" to the Creationist model, but won't speak out for fear of ridicule. The typical Evolutionist response is that these aren't "real" scientists because they reject, or at least question, Evolution.
The question is, then, what's the difference between a "real" Evolution believing scientist and a "fake" Evolution questioning scientist? Both have made huge contributions to science, and show no signs of ceasing to do so. The only real difference between a Bible believing scientist and an Evolution believing scientist is the level of acceptance of the extremely religious "theory" of Evolution. What we're dealing with, therefore, is a clear example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. It's not that all scientists accept Evolution as scientific fact. It's that all Evolutionists accept Evolution as scientific fact. Basically, "Creationism is unscientific because it goes against my religion". Convinced yet? Me neither.
Opmerkingen