Responding John Rennie’s fifteen answers published in the July 2002 issue of Scientific American serves to expose straw man arguments used by evolutionists as well as to point out errors in the criticisms of evolutionists.
Rennie’s remark about methodological naturalism being the central tenet of modern science reveals his lack of objectivity and understanding of scientific inquiry. True, objective science is agnostic not atheistic. An objective scientist will be open to recognizing evidence that suggests design in addition to random, chance events of material properties. The naturalism bias proposed by Rennie and that dominates the field of science forces a natural explanation regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Such a position does not seek a true understanding of our world, but rather an exclusive natural explanation. The blinders of naturalism bias does not make for good science. It impedes science.
In contrast, agnostic science recognizes the properties of organization and forces at work in material. Such an approach to science serves as a platform to seek truth in knowledge and understanding of the physical world. Accepting a supernatural origin position does not preclude investigation into the physical properties and function built into creation. Rather it serves to strengthen the investigator’s pursuit and inquiry to discover how these properties explain observed phenomena. A thorough examination of the workings and properties of the material make up of an intricately designed watch is not deemed unscientific because the watch was designed. Unlike the intrinsic bias and forced interpretation required by naturalism, supernatural design proponents are more objective in their examination of the material world. The real contradiction in science is the bias of naturalism.
Rennie claims that intelligent design scientists avoid being pinned down on the particular questions. However, the very questions Rennie presents, and eagerly answered by creationists. For example, Rennie asks: When and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? (By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human?) Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? This question has been answered so often, would have to purposely ignore the answers in creation articles. In fact, creation debates abound in articles over when and how life was created. Some argue for the creation of single cells only, some for species as an orchard of types, some for the major phyla and even classes, etc. It is not apparent that the question is avoided as Rennie claims.
Rennie then complains that creationists do not provide all the answers. But this is hypocritical and naïve. Evolution does not answer all questions and endless debate rages over identifying fossil finds. Models of science are used to guide investigators down the path to finding answers. This is true of creation science as well. What is obvious from the evidence is that the universe, life, and species were created. Scientists are using this premise based on solid evidence to inquire into the questions of when, how, where, and what. This is the practice of good science.
Bias of any kind, including naturalism, is ultimately not good for science and culture. Atheistic naturalism insisted that spontaneous generation was the best explanation for the origin life. Creationists exposed this fallacy. Unfortunately, it altered its disguise cloaked in molecular biology, and millions of dollars are being spent in vain attempts to create life in laboratories contrary to the law of biogenesis.
The foundation principles of western science that are practiced today are the result of creationists, and we are the benefactors of this intelligent design based science in our medicine, our technology, our space exploration, and our understanding of quantum. Evolution is the product of naturalistic bias and suffers from major contradictions with laws of science and empirical evidence. In spite of its claims, evolution by any other names is forced naturalism disguised as objective science.
The following critique of Rennie’s answers/retorts will serve to equip creationists with rebuttals to his answers and to inform others the error in Rennie’s claims. You can read Rennie’s complete article of answers at Scientific American.com, "15 answers to Creationist nonsense."
The following list of creation representations and claims are in the words of Rennie, and do not necessarily reflect legitimate creation claims or represent all creationists' positions.
"...it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself...It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption." (Loren C. Eiseley, "Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It," , Anchor Books: Doubleday & Co: Garden City NY, 1961, reprint, p.62)