The Creation Versus Evolution Debate: Good for Science?
by Owen Omid (Ommid Bekrai Boroujerdi)
The creation versus evolution debate is good for science because it inspires young people to be interested in science and can inspire them to pursue careers in science. The debate can also inspire new ideas in science can help promote science. Stubbornness and sticking to old theories does not inspire new ideas and future potential scientists can be uninspired and even turned away from pursuing careers in science. Scientists and the science establishment must be willing to accept new ideas as new discoveries are made. There is a shortage of scientists and engineers in the world and promoting science can inspire more young people to pursue careers in science. Remember that Gregor Mendel was a man of faith, in addition to Isaac Newton and many others. Creation science gives those who believe in the young earth an alternative to millions of years of evolution and geologic processes and therefore young earth supporters can enjoy science and even pursue careers in science without compromising their beliefs. Evolutionists claim that creation and young earth views hurt science and these ideas should not be promoted. However, many young students who believe in the creation model are discouraged from entering scientific fields because of discrimination. True science should be open to new ideas and that includes the young earth model. The mainstream science establishment today has become intolerant of viewpoints that do not fit their doctrine of evolution and gradual processes over millions of years. Evolutionists want to keep religion out of science, however religious beliefs should not be discriminated against and people of faith should be free to pursue careers in science without compromising their beliefs. New scientific discoveries are made frequently today and these new discoveries will provide more evidence for the young earth. Evolutionists will continue to attempt to hide these evidences, however as more evidence is shown, hiding these evidences will become more difficult. It is the evolutionists who want to protect and promote their "religion" that promotes an origin of uniform, random processes over long periods of time and reject the possibility of a special creation and a global catastrophic flood 6,000 years ago. An engineer can perform his or her job just as well regardless if he or she believes in evolution or creation. Operational and applied science is independent of origins and is irrelevant to job performance. Evolutionists want to have a monopoly on science and keep all of the government funding for themselves while excluding anyone who does not support evolution.
The creation versus evolution debate is good for science because it inspires young people to be interested in science and can inspire them to pursue careers in science. The debate can also inspire new ideas in science can help promote science. Stubbornness and sticking to old theories does not inspire new ideas and future potential scientists can be uninspired and even turned away from pursuing careers in science. Scientists and the science establishment must be willing to accept new ideas as new discoveries are made. There is a shortage of scientists and engineers in the world and promoting science can inspire more young people to pursue careers in science. Remember that Gregor Mendel was a man of faith, in addition to Isaac Newton and many others. Creation science gives those who believe in the young earth an alternative to millions of years of evolution and geologic processes and therefore young earth supporters can enjoy science and even pursue careers in science without compromising their beliefs. Evolutionists claim that creation and young earth views hurt science and these ideas should not be promoted. However, many young students who believe in the creation model are discouraged from entering scientific fields because of discrimination. True science should be open to new ideas and that includes the young earth model. The mainstream science establishment today has become intolerant of viewpoints that do not fit their doctrine of evolution and gradual processes over millions of years. Evolutionists want to keep religion out of science, however religious beliefs should not be discriminated against and people of faith should be free to pursue careers in science without compromising their beliefs. New scientific discoveries are made frequently today and these new discoveries will provide more evidence for the young earth. Evolutionists will continue to attempt to hide these evidences, however as more evidence is shown, hiding these evidences will become more difficult. It is the evolutionists who want to protect and promote their "religion" that promotes an origin of uniform, random processes over long periods of time and reject the possibility of a special creation and a global catastrophic flood 6,000 years ago. An engineer can perform his or her job just as well regardless if he or she believes in evolution or creation. Operational and applied science is independent of origins and is irrelevant to job performance. Evolutionists want to have a monopoly on science and keep all of the government funding for themselves while excluding anyone who does not support evolution.
