One of the most common arguments that evolutionists use against creation researchers is the old refrain that creationists are “against” or “anti-” science. However, the same critics fail to answer one important question. Ken Ham explains:

Recently a reporter from a secular magazine interviewed me for an article on the creation/evolution issue. One of the first things he asked was, “How do you react to those who claim you creationists are against science?”

As I always do in such instances, I asked him: “What do you mean by science?” He just looked at me and said, “Good question—so how do you define science?”

This is a question that many do not consider when examining the issue of creation versus evolution. The word science has the root meaning of “knowledge.” Scientists can make repeatable, testable observations about our present world and gain knowledge about the present—such knowledge has built the technology that puts humans into space.

Scientists also try to obtain knowledge about our past—our origins. But this sort of knowledge is very different from knowledge about the present. It must involve assumptions about how the universe and life arose—when no human was there to see it all happen. Fossils, rocks, dating methods, all of these require the observer to interpret the evidence, and this interpretation is always filtered through beliefs about the past.

There is a major difference between observational (or operational) science—what we can observe in the present—and origins science—interpretations about the past with no direct observation. Creationists are not against science, but they do want people to understand what the word science means.

For more information, see Science or the Bible?