Creationism - National Center for Science Education

and Eve. The most vigorous attack on this absolute truth has come from evolutionists,
who must rely on “governmental compulsion” to impose their theory in the classroom.
“This method of legal repression may be subconsciously supported by the suspicion that
scientific theories are tentative only” (1984:2).
Robbins, Clark’s disciple, likewise insists on a purely biblical creationism. He
considers “scientific” creationism—creationism that is sterilized of overt religious
reference—to be cowardly surrender to the secular anti-Christian forces. Robbins
expressed this quite explicitly in his address “The Hoax of Scientific Creationism”
delivered at the 1987 Baltimore Creation Fellowship Conference (and published in his
Trinity Review). He agrees with anti-creationists that so-called “scientific creationism” is
a fraud and a deception. To pretend that creationism consists of scientific evidence and is
not a religious concept is a shallow, devious tactic doomed to failure. Robbins is
appalled that Wendell Bird, in an attempt to pass off creationism as merely science,
declared to the Supreme Court that creation-science need not contain any concept of God
or the Book of Genesis. Not only are the “scientific creationists” trying—unsuccessfully
—to con the judges, they are conning Christians into supporting a movement that is
“hostile to Christianity”: that betrays its very principles.
It is past time for Biblical Christians to consider whether they ought to continue to spend thousands of
dollars on such specious arguments, and, more importantly, whether Christians can any longer afford to use
a method of defending the faith that inexorably leads to non-Christian conclusions.
It has taken only a decade for Biblical creationism to turn into scientific creationism. Many Christians
are not yet aware of the change. The scientific creationists have a pecuniary interest in keeping them
uninformed of the charge. But the ramifications of the change are extensive, and its implications are lethal.
Once the axiomatic acceptance of Scripture as inerrant is abandoned, the surrender to paganism is sure and
swift. The Bible and the Bible alone is the source of truth. It is in the Bible alone that we read about
creation. Neither science nor Aristotle [he accuses Geisler in particular of Aristotelianism] has anything to
say about it. Science is ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of truth.
Let us therefore, as Biblical creationists, stop funding and supporting the scientific creationists and return
to our divinely commanded duty of building Christian schools, publishing Christian books, and preaching
the whole counsel of God to every creature. And let those who call themselves Christians return to the
faith they profess and defend it as it ought to be defended: as God’s truth, and nothing less. [1987:6]
Scientific creationists are wrong, declares Robbins, in trying to prove creationism
true by means of science and not the Bible. Christians must begin with the prior
(“axiomatic”) belief that the Bible is true and work from there. This is the
“presuppositional” apologetics developed by Cornelius Van Til and championed by
Rousas Rushdoony and the Christian Reconstructionists. Our presuppositions—which
are either biblical or non-biblical—determine the way we interpret the facts of science
and history. To try to prove the existence of God or the truth of the Bible is blasphemy,
asserts Rushdoony; these “foundational” truths must be pre-supposed. Creation-science,
say both Robbins and Rushdoony, is guilty of relying on “evidentialist” rather than
presuppositional apologetics: of assuming, falsely, that scientific evidence could prove
Genesis.
Henry Morris responded to Robbins’ attack in “Is Creationism Scientific?” by
arguing that “creation-science” is the only type of creationism that would be allowed in
public schools.