This website use cookies and similar technologies to improve the site and to provide customised content and advertising. By using this site, you agree to this use. To learn more, including how to change your cookie settings, please view our Cookie Policy
Xmas Legs Small Present Present
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
AU
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
   You are currently viewing the Australia version of the site.
Would you like to switch to your local site?
Digital Subscriptions > Skeptical Inquirer > May June 2018 > Sorry, ‘Theistic Science’ Is Not Science

Sorry, ‘Theistic Science’ Is Not Science

A critical examination of the book Who Was Adam? demonstrates that creationism is not science.

Arecently published book documents the creationist misrepresentation of science called “theistic science.” Who WasAdam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity (2015) consists of a reprint of a book of the same title published more than ten years earlier, followed by a thorough update that constitutes one-third of the text.

The authors are Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, both executives and scholars with Reasons to Believe (RTB), a Christian ministry located in Southern California. They have graduate degrees in science (chemistry and astronomy, respectively) and have written many books that profess to put biblical creationism on a scientific foundation.

Rana and Ross’s work focuses on the “scientific case for God’s existence and the Bible’s reliability” and the “integration of scientific fact with biblical faith.” Throughout Who Was Adam? they describe their creationist approach to human origins as science.

However, Rana and Ross also make clear their fundamental biblical premise: “We believe life’s origin and history cannot be fully explained apart from the direct involvement of the Creator, who repeatedly intervened in Earth’s history, initiating new life-forms, including humans who alone were made in His image.”

This premise reflects Rana and Ross’s explicit statement that creation by supernatural intervention is the foundational assumption of RTB’s human origins model. The central presupposition of “theistic science” is operationalized in the repeated use of phrases such as “God’s handiwork,” “Creator’s direct action,” “work of the Creator,” “God’s cre ative work,” and other causal behavior attributed to the biblical deity.

The RTB strategy does not satisfy the basic requirements of a scientific endeavor, and in this article I explain why, giving numerous examples taken primarily from the ten-year update of Who Was Adam?.

Creation Model

READ MORE
Purchase options below
Find the complete article and many more in this issue of Skeptical Inquirer - May June 2018
If you own the issue, Login to read the full article now.
Single Issue - May June 2018
$7.99
Or 799 points
Annual Digital Subscription
Only $ 4.33 per issue
SAVE
4%
$25.99
Or 2599 points

View Issues

About Skeptical Inquirer

Progressophobia: Why Things Are Better Than You Think They Are STEVEN PIKER Percival Lowell and the Canals of Mars The Curious Question of Ghost Taxonomy and much more!