"It is commonly claimed by secular scientists that creationism is a Â “ science stopper.Â ” The contention is that to ascribe anything ( e.g. , the origin of living organisms ) to the direct action of God is to cut off all scientific inquiry . This seems such simple common sense that it has been very persuasive . Nevertheless , it is not difficult to show that the argument is fallacious . A number of general points can be made . First , the argument is based on ignorance of all the different ways in which Christian faith can enter into science and of how fruitful these have been . After all , many of the great scientists of the past were committed Christians and many of those were consciously exploring the implications of their Christian faith for science . Second , whereas the direct action of God may cut off one type of explanation , others will remain and may even be enhanced . To say that God created the different kinds of animals and plants certainly cuts off explanation in terms of evolutionary continuity . However , it leaves wide-open scientific investigation of every other pattern of relationship ( ecological , developmental , etc . ) between these kinds . Scientists have been so indoctrinated in the belief that all patterns can only be explained historically in terms of the happenstances of Darwinian evolution that many wouldnÂ ’ t even know how to look for explanations in other terms . Third , there is abundant documentation of the fact that evolutionary naturalism has often stopped scientific research . To take just one example , the evolutionary assumption that certain organs or features are vestigial has often long delayed the ( fruitful ) research into their functions . More specifically , one can appeal to experience and this is where this essay becomes a personal testimony to the scientific fruitfulness of a commitment to creation . During my undergraduate days when my Â “ hereticalÂ ” views became known , my professor ( Otto Lowenstein , Professor of Zoology ) made a point of telling me that no creationist would be allowed to do research in his department ! However , he did allow me to do research . From the pressure that was put on me , I can only assume that it was thought that I could be convinced of the error of my ways . If that was the intention , then it badly backfired . Many a visiting scholar was brought into my laboratory to convince me , from their area of expertise , that evolution was indisputably true . Of course , hardly knowing their field , I never had an answer at the time , but after they had gone I would look up the relevant research and carefully analyze it . I always found that the evolutionist case was much weaker than it had seemed and that alternative creationist interpretations were available which were just as or more convincing . My position was further strengthened by the results of my own research ."
"http : //www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/jones.asp When Judge John Jones of Dover Pa. was considering evidence from persuasive evolutionists concerning what should be taught in schools , could it be that he `` hardly knew the field , and did n't have an answer `` that would fit the time constraints of his decision making ? Did judge John Jones know what was going on in this country 100 years ago ? Why ca n't today 's ID opposing evolutionists see the mistake religious people made 100 years ago , and be enlightened enough to be more open minded about trying to suppress ideas ? Maybe because human nature does n't improve over the generations - following the money always comes first ."
"It is commonly claimed by secular scientists that creationism is a Â science stopper.Â The contention is that to ascribe anything ( e.g. , the origin of living organisms ) to the direct action of God is to cut off all scientific inquiry . This seems such simple common sense that it has been very persuasive . Nevertheless , it is not difficult to show that the argument is fallacious . A number of general points can be made ."
"When Judge John Jones of Dover Pa. was considering evidence from persuasive evolutionists concerning what should be taught in schools , could it be that he `` hardly knew the field , and did n't have an answer `` that would fit the time constraints of his decision making ?"