The proponents of "Scientific Creationism" are quick to point out that God requires Christians to believe the Word of God when it comes in conflict with the words of men. And here they have said well. But what happens when we apply this standard to "Scientific Creationism" itself? Uh-oh. They weren't counting on this. So let's start the counting:

Scientific Creationism Error #1:

Turning the Word of God found in Genesis into a "scientific model" is a strictly forbidden practice in Scripture. This is because models remain fallible (might be false); Scripture cannot be false; it is infallible. Models are to be tested; the Bible is not. It is written: "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test." Testing Scripture (unless you are judging one Scripture by another) falsely presupposes there exists a standard for truth HIGHER than Scripture somewhere outside Scripture. Thus, scientific creationism actually promotes the very problem it purports to solve in opposing evolutionism. It accidentally fosters the idea that the words of men (some standard other than Scripture itself) must be used to test the Bible.

Scientific Creationism Error #2 -- It promotes the fallacy of division. God gave the Scripture to be taken as a singular unit, where any one part is to be understood ONLY in the context of ALL of the other revelation given, not one piece by itself. This is the lesser doctrine of the reformation known as "Tota Scriptura." And the Westminster Confession of Faith marvelously names the integrated unity of Scripture "The [mutual] consent of all the parts." Yet, Scientific Creationists ignore the "irrefragability" and absolute integrity of Scripture (wherein the same Holy Spirit speaks throughout) by making a "model" of a small part of Genesis -- perhaps the first 10 chapters -- in isolation from the rest of the Scripture.

This falsely ignores what is called the "analogy of Scripture," and fails to do justice to the fact the the Bible has the consent of all the parts. In contrast to this, Jesus said, "And the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:30).

Scientific Creationism Error #3:

It promotes the use of multiple final authorities in matters of knowledge. Scientific creationsts often contend that both science (meaning THEORETICAL science APART from a biblical warrant) and Scripture can yield knowledge independently of one another. Sometimes they do this by using a "two book metaphor," where supposedly the "book of nature" tells us about the real world outside the narrow domain covered by the biblical record, and the Bible tells us about "matters of faith" in the "book of faith." Scripture says, "There is no authority EXCEPT that which comes from God" (Rom. 13:1). And knowledge that can oblige others to believe or act (obliging knowledge) is a matter of authority. And again, "NO one can serve two masters." The Bible affirms that the God of creation wrote the 66 books of the Bible and that it speaks with final authority on all matters of faith and knowledge. There is no "book of nature" which has authority to declare what is true about the world APART from a biblical warrant. Special revelation finally declares the content and character of natural revelation.

Moreover, the history of science shows that theoretical science cannot yield knowledge about what the universe is really like because the truth-status of its successful theories flip-flops over time. In the theoretical sciences, what is true today probably will be false tomorrow. This, of course, means the theory in question never was true in the first place. But "the Word of the Lord stands forever." One historian and philosopher of science, Dr. Larry Laudan (Science and Values) catalogued over 33 different "absolutely proven" or "highly succcessful" theories that later turned out false.

Scientific Creationism Error #4: The fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. One commits this fallacy when he reasons upon any subject in the following manner: If A is true, then B is True; B is true, therefore, A must be true. This is a formal fallacy, meaning that it matters not at all what the content of the propositions (dubbed "A" and "B") are; it is the FORM of the argument that makes it fallacious.

Here is the relevant example followed by -- get this -- ALL SCIENTIFIC MODELS, when one uses predictive ability to prove "veracity of theories:"

If my model is true, when should expect to find X, Y, Z. We did find X, X, Z; therefore my theory (or model) is true. This follows the pattern, "If A, then B; B, therefore A, and so it affirms the consequent.

A brief example might highlight this problem: If Iraq attacks the United States, the United States will invade Iraq. The United States did invade Iraq, so that means Iraq attacked us. As is obviously the case, the U.S. might invade Iraq for a whole host of other reasons (e.g. "Iraq attacked Kuwait," "Saddam didn't listen to the U.N.'s demands," or "Saddam is an idiot"). And Iraq attacking the U.S. - since it never happened -- obviously is not related by logical necessity to the idea of the U.S. invading Iraq.

Other biblical and logical errors dot the creation science (as well the evolutionistic) landscape. But these should suffice for a short article. For more on a related topic, see Carson's article entitled, "The Galileo Conspiracy: 5 Questions Your Science Professors Hope You Never Ask."

By now, the reader may be wondering, "How could anyone ever come up with something so fallacious and counter-biblical as "Scientific Creationism," and still manage to convince so many Christian people that this is what the Bible teaches? You'll never believe this, but I was wondering the same thing.