Creation "science" tries to imagine or pretend that the Bronze Age Mythology in the Book of Genesis can be made into science.

Can it be science?[]

  1. How do you make a set of myths into science?
  2. How do you pin down supernatural concepts with no scientific proof?

What can be proved scientifically?

  1. Anthropologists can see parallels with creation mythology in other parts of the world.
  2. Historians can study Judeo-Christian-Islamic mythology, trace how the mythology developed out of earlier Sumerian mythology etc.
  3. The Genesis account is a rich source of scientific data about what Bronze Age people in that area believed.
  4. As a serious account about origins of the universe and of life Genesis doesn’t begin to pass any test that applies the Scientific method.


Are the ideas in Genesis falsifiable? Well there’s plenty to suggest that Genesis is implausible.

  1. Astronomy
    1. In Genesis the earth is formed before the sun, the moon and the other stars.
    2. Astronomers maintain that the galaxy and older stars existed well before the solar system formed. Indeed the heavy elements in the earth were formed in supernova explosions that happened when earlier stars had lived out their lives and died.
  2. Plant biology
    1. In Genesis land plants producing seeds including trees were created before sea life.
    2. Biologists maintain that the earliest fossils are found in the sea and life moved onto land much later while seed bearing plants came later still.
  3. Animal biology
    1. In Genesis whales and birds were created before the land animals.
    2. Biologists maintain that the ancestors of whales and birds were ground dwelling land animals. [1]

Believers can always imagine a supernatural entity might have made the universe seem to have developed differently from the way it did. Still there is no reason to believe that the particular mythology of the Old Testament is correct rather than other mythology. The idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster creating the universe is as reasonable or unreasonable as Genesis. Occam’s razor favours the scientific account of origins.

Scientific conclusions[]

Creationists start with the Bible account and looks only at what appears to support that account ignoring other data.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." (Creationist, Ken Ham)

" Ignoring what doesn’t fit ones presuppositions is totally incompatible with science.

The Genesis account of the flood is given an imposing name. “flood geology” but calling something geology doesn’t make it science. Problems with the supposed Global flood are dealt with in the article.

Creation Scientist[]

If you’ve got a degree in any relevant or irrelevant subject and also believe the Genesis creation account you’re called a creation scientist. People like Newton and Kepler are called creation scientists because they didn’t know what is known today and didn’t know why Genesis is implausible. [2]

See also[]


  1. 1st Chapter of Genesis
  2. Creation science This draws heavily from the above article and incorporates some material from there.