Science vs Creationism

Generally, Creationists attacks on Evolutionary Darwin theory often contain the following characteristics: 

Faith vs Evidence:

There is a fundamental difference in the ways that Creationists and Scientists reach their conclusions about the world around them. Creationists start with an article of faith; they believe in a god that created the world and anything that conflicts with this is considered to be wrong.

On the other hand a good Scientist reaches his/her conclusions by starting with an open mind, considering the evidence for and against certain possibilities, being rigorous in his/her analysis of information, and using logic to come to a considered opinion of how something works. Wherever possible, this idea ('model') of how something works is tested by experimentation; however, it is not easy to test some aspects of evolution by experiments since the model proposes that it usually occurs over such large periods of time. Many scientists feel that, faced with this difference between a 'faith-based’ and an 'evidence-based' approach to reaching conclusions, there is really no basis for proper debate.


This does not mean statements that creationists and Darwinian scientists might disagree about. It means statements that any reasonable person who is well informed about a particular subject would agree is no factual. (See for example, point 2 below).

Lack of logic.

The arguments made by Creationists are frequently logically flawed. For example, the fact that humans cannot yet produce an entire artificial cell does not logically mean that cells must have been created by a god.

'God in the Gaps'

This is a description that has been given to the practice of claiming that any process or structure that humans do not yet understand was created, or is controlled, by a god. This is not, of course, a logical stance. Furthermore, history is littered with examples of things that were once given a supernatural explanation but which we now understand have their basis in nature.