Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. -- Luke 6:44
Creationists say the darndest things. On one online chat room, I actually saw one say that ever since evolution was accepted, science has stagnated.
Stagnated? The Human Genome Project has opened up new vistas into human biology, and new possibilities in gene therapy. Cladistic analysis has enabled us to re-evaluate how different species and genera fit in relation to each other. Understanding how plants evolve has led to improved strains of agricultural crops, and conversely, alerted us to the risk of new super weeds. If this is stagnation, I would love to see progress!
And that is just biology. Since many Creationists mix quantum physics into their concept of evolution, we would have to go into that, too, to see how "stagnated" science really is. But physics are not my forte, so let us stick with biology.
So, what advances has Creation science made? Can it boast any breakthroughs in medicine? In agriculture? In ecology?
Advances in medicine reduce human suffering. Advances in agriculture reduce hunger. Advances in ecology help to ensure adequate water, air, and other resources. Since Creation science seems to be practiced primarily by Born-Again Christians, and since Christianity teaches that love is of the most important importance, it would seem logically to follow that Creation scientists would be motivated to put a lot of research effort into reducing human suffering, reducing hunger, and ensuring adequate resources. So why is it that all Creation science ever seems to produce is more polemic against evolution?
A living science is integral; that is, it stands on its own, without having to define itself in terms of rival sciences. One of the best-known college-level textbooks in evolution is Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J Futuyma. It runs 763 pages, and in those pages it lays out, topic by topic, the current state of knowledge of evolutionary science. If there are any references to Creationism, they are dealt with quickly in the introductionary chapter, as historical background. After that, you may read page after page, chapter after chapter, with no reference to Creation in any form. This is because evolutionary biology is integral -- it defines itself by its own body of knowledge, not in terms of a rival science.
Where is the equivalent Creation science textbook? Is there a book, of comparable length to Futuyma's, on the college level, that simply lays out topic by topic the current state of knowledge in Creation science -- without constant polemic against evolution? If Creation science was a living, integral science, there would be such a book. But since all books on Creation science are written specifically with the intent to counter evolution, this marks it as a reactionary movement, not a science. Reactionary movements, not sciences, define themselves in terms of their rivals. I do not believe any book meeting the above criteria can be written.
Or again, let us leave the broad scope of a general textbook, and consider instead one important human concern: medicine. In 1994, Randolph M. Nesse, M.D. and George C. Williams, Ph.D published Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine. In approximately 250 pages, divided into 15 chapters, they explain both sickness and health in terms of the Darwinian concept of natural selection. Is there a science of Creation medicine? Will there ever be a book explaining scientifically how sickness and health work in terms of Creation science? After all, simply describing to me how I am "fearfully and wonderfully made" does not provide any useable insight into how to keep myself healthy.
I am not sure there is currently such a thing as Creation medicine. (Does faith healing qualify?) But if there is, we can test it relative to Darwinian medicine, using a straightforward experiment. First, we take as a baseline the natural recovery rate -- that is, how many patients would have recovered anyway, regardless of whether they had effective treatment or not. Then we take a set of patients treated with medicine based on Darwinian principles, and another set treated based on Creationist principles. If either one gets results significantly better than the baseline rate, then we may call it a valid science. If either one gets results significantly better than the other, we may call it superior to the other. Of course, this would require careful documentation of both groups -- and careful documentation does not mean being sensationalized on television.
We previously mentioned that understanding how plants evolve has led to improved strains of agricultural crops. Since all human life (except a few remaining hunter-gatherers in very isolated parts of the world) depends on agriculture, and the human population continues to grow, advances in agriculture are necessary to keep up a sufficient food supply. What advances in agriculture have come about through modern-day Creation science?
When Jesus said people do not pick figs from thornbushes, He was saying, quite simply, that everything may be identified by what it produces. That thornbush will never produce figs, no matter how carefully the orchardist tends and cares for it. In order to produce figs, it would have to have been a fig tree from the very start.
The fruit of a true science is scientific advances. Every true science will produce them, and no false science ever will. The Creationist mentioned in the first paragraph must have known this, when he claimed science had stagnated ever since evolution. He must have known that if, in fact, evolution produced scientific advances, it must therefore be true science. Well, we have here listed a few of evolution's scientific advances. If Creation science is a true science, then it, too, must by definition produce advances. Where and what are they?
If I want to grow figs, I will not waste my time tending thornbushes.
