It may be helpful at this point to define a few more terms. The phrase creation science is often used by the media and other pro-evolutionism groups when they refer to Intelligent Design.  Creation science and Intelligent Design (ID) share many common scientific arguments.  They also both imply a designer.  However, they are different in one important way.  Those who practice true creation science believe the designer is the God of the Bible.  However, ID doesn't attempt to identify who the designer is.  It leaves that up to students, teachers and parents to decide for themselves.  Some will conclude it's the God of the Bible.  Others the false gods of their religion.  Still others will conclude it was aliens. 

Creationism is the term most often used by the secular media and some Ohio pro-evolution, pro-censorship organizations like Ohio Citizens for Science.  It is both scientific and religious in nature.  In addition to presenting scientific arguments for creation and against evolutionism, creationism also consists of the Biblical arguments.  If we were trying to promote creationism in the science curriculum and testing standards (we are not), they would be correct in claiming that we were trying to get religion into the science curriculum.  However, our current efforts in Ohio to have all the scientific information for and against evolution included in the curriculum deal only with scientific arguments and evidence.  In contrast, pick up any newspaper, listen to most secular TV or radio reports, and look at the pro-evolutionism web sites and invariably you will find references to us trying to get creationism into the curriculums.   This is probably the most common distortion of the facts by both the secular media and evolutionary scientists.  

We suspect that in many cases, they know it's a lie but they present our position this way anyway in a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters, and to scare the public into believing we're trying to trample on the religious beliefs of non-Christians by violating the mythical separation of church and state.  

Our position on this is pretty straight-forward.  If science teachers who consider evolution to be a fairy tale are given the academic freedom to teach the opposing scientific arguments and evidence against evolution, evolution will in the long-run not survive as a viable scientific theory. 

Right now, these teachers are often falsely accused of violating the mythical separation of church and state even if they've taught only the scientific evidence against evolution.  They also risk being fired for insubordination, loss of tenure and face other reprisals for taking a public stand against the atheistic evolution world-view (for several examples of this bigotry and/or censorship, see this link).  Once students are allowed to hear the scientific arguments these teachers have to present, we believe most of them will be discerning enough to eventually figure out that: 

• evolutionary theory is based on bogus science and
• it has religious aspects which are rooted in atheism and humanism (in other words, religion is already in the science curriculums)
• the public school systems and the secular news media have engaged in outrageous censorship that should never have been allowed to go on as long as it has.

As far as us trying to bring religion into the science classroom is concerned, that would be quite a spectacular waste of time and energy given the current legal/political realities.  There are much easier ways ¹ to get the religious message to the students that have none of the legal risks that trying to bring religion into the science classroom would have.  It is these alternative methods that we are focused on for promoting our religious message.  If the current efforts to include ID in the curriculum are successful, the importance of getting the religious message to the students through these alternative channels will not be diminished.  We (creationists) will still need to compete with the other explanations of who the designer is to win the confidence of the students. 

2. 

Mischaracterization of the debate as one between science and religion.  

It is really the science of one religion, Evolutionism, versus the science of another religion, Christianity.  The scientific arguments against evolution fall into two broad categories.  

The first is different interpretations of the same evidence.  This is where scientists from both sides of the argument look at the same evidence, but interpret it differently.  One good example of this is how starlight and its relation to time is interpreted.  All scientists  have world views that influence how they interpret the observable evidence.  It is naive to believe that this biased thinking can ever be completely removed from the paradigm each scientist uses to interpret what he sees, regardless of which side of the debate he's on.  Still, in spite of these biases, scientific arguments are made by scientists on both sides of the issue.  The arguments made by creation scientists are no less scientific than those made by evolutionists. In fact they are often more scientific because creation scientists tend to point to hard evidence (or the lack of it) where evolutionists rely primarily on their beliefs and often dubious "evidence".  

The second category is what we'd call "ignored evidence".  This is evidence that some evolutionists (and the media) either are not aware of, or that have been pushed aside by evolutionists because they will effectively falsify their evolutionary world view of origins.  This evidence is rarely reported on by the media, and is almost completely absent from the public school curriculum.  This in spite of the fact that it is almost all scientific, not religious in nature.  Examples include new research on radioactive dating methods, polonium 218 halos, evidence from various scientific disciplines that cast serious doubt on the assumptions behind evolutionary dating methods, evidence from all over the world that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, the mathematical improbabilities of evolution occurring, etc.   If these evidences were allowed into the public school classrooms, collectively they would be devastating to evolutionary theory. 

We strongly encourage all high school and college students to see the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed when it is released in movie theaters April 18-20, 2008.  If you value true academic freedom, and you want honest objective science taught to you in your public school classes, this movie is must viewing for you, your friends and your parents. Click here for more information, including links to where you can view trailers.

3.

The media will turn a blind eye towards, or is completely ignorant of evolution's religious roots.  

Evolution, as it is taught in the public school curriculum, and reinforced in the testing standards, is deeply rooted in the atheistic philosophies of Naturalism and Materialism.  But you will rarely if ever hear this truth in the secular media. The next time you hear an evolutionist complaining that we are trying to sneak religion into the science standards and curriculum, remind him of the fact that religion is already present in both.  It's there in the atheistic religion of  Evolutionism disguised as science. Consider this quote from an evolutionist:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, and in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." 
- Richard Lewontin ²

4.

The line between what is actually taught and tested on in the public schools, and what several individuals have added to it or subtracted from it on their own will be blurred.   

The media will point to people who believe in all kinds of Christian compromises with evolution in a misleading attempt to show support for having overt atheistic evolution in the science curriculum and testing standards.  

The introduction of theism into the equation is something that occurs outside of the curriculum and testing standards.  This distinction is all the more important when one considers that in a recent poll, it was discovered that only 26% of young people attend church.  That means that around 74% are hearing only (or primarily) the atheistic explanation of origins in their science classes.  They probably are not being exposed to a theistic explanation of origins in any meaningful way, or by someone who will vigorously defend it.  Think about what that means for America's future, and God's attitude towards this nation if we continue down this path.  Stay focused on what's actually in the science curriculum and testing standards and see it for what it truly is, atheism.

5.

The media will be quick to point out the religious biases of those who oppose evolution, but will ignore how the religious biases of evolutionists impact the way they interpret the observable evidence, whether they be scientists or journalists. 

The secular media is either ignorant of, or will intentionally ignore the influence that atheists, humanists and agnostics are having on the public school system.   Consider these quotes from five evolutionists.  Two of these evolutionists have been frequently quoted by the media, although one of them recently passed away.

"But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology."    
Stephen Jay Gould (frequently quoted by the media, recently passed away) ³ 

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!"  
G. Richard Bozarth ⁴

"I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principle vice of any religion.”  
Dr. Richard Dawkins (frequently quoted by the media) ⁵ 

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”  
H. S. Lipson ⁶ 

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved.”  
John J. Dunphy ⁷

Also, consider these survey results:

"To measure the strength of religious belief in an era of ascendant science, the eminent researcher James Leuba conducted a landmark survey in 1916. He found that 60 per cent of 1,000 randomly selected scientists did not believe in God, and predicted that such disbelief would increase as education spread [Leuba, J. H., The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psychological, Anthropological and Statistical Study (Boston: Sherman, French & Co., 1916)]. ... And although biologists showed the highest rates of disbelief or doubt in Leuba’s day (69.5 per cent), that ranking is now given to physicists and astronomers (77.9 per cent). ⁸  

Also see Survey of the National Academy of Sciences that shows 93% of its members are either atheistic or agnostic.

It should be obvious from looking at these numbers why we see such a strong commitment by the scientific community in general to atheistic evolution. Christian parents, are you paying attention to who's teaching your children and what they're being taught? Are you aware of God's warnings in the Bible about evolution? These numbers should be your wake-up call to take action in your local communities and states.

6. 

The media will attempt to discredit or will ignore scientists who hold the creation view of origins.  

They (and evolutionist scientists) have many options in their bag of tricks to do this.  Here are two of the most common ones:

• Creationists, especially those who believe in a six-day literal creation, including those who promote the theory of intelligent design, are portrayed as not being serious scientists.   There are thousands of scientists (and the numbers are growing thanks to organizations like Answers in Genesis), who consider evolution to be a fairy tale.  These scientists didn't get their degrees in a Cracker-Jack® box.  They earned them the hard way just like the evolutionists did.  In fact, many of today's leading creation scientists started off as militant evolutionists, so they can't be accused of not understanding evolution (see Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists).

There are three web sites we know of that maintain lists of some creation scientists (there are probably other lists we're not aware of).  A quick look at any of these lists and it should be obvious that these scientists have strong scientific credentials and  therefore deserve to be taken seriously.

1. Institute for Creation Research (ICR) list
2. Answers in Genesis Ministries (AiG) list
3. Creation Scientists with Outstanding Achievements (our list)

These lists represent only the tip of the iceberg.  Many creation scientists are missing from them either because a) they don't know they can request to be included on these lists, or b) they don't want to appear on them because of concerns about reprisals.  

• They promote the idea that creation science isn't real science, or is junk science.  At the same time, all the holes that are large enough to sail a fleet of aircraft carriers through in evolutionary theory are overlooked.  When was the last time you saw a newspaper article that explained exactly how life originated from non-living chemicals, how matter created itself from nothing, or even a single observed incident of macroevolution?  Evolutionists have to believe these things on 'faith' because they have no hard empirical evidence to demonstrate that these things actually can, and have occurred.  Creation scientists have presented compelling, alternative interpretations of the same evidence the evolutionists use.  They have in some cases also presented compelling ignored evidence (defined above).  These alternative explanations and ignored evidence are based on hard scientific observations, and therefore are worthy of consideration.  For more information, see It's not science by Dr Donald James Batten and Who's really pushing 'bad science' by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati.

7.

Claiming that Intelligent Design and all its proponents support an old earth and universe.

To clarify, the word 'old' used in this context is referring to the evolutionary dating methods that claim the universe is billions of years old.  In contrast, 'young' earth creationists would say that both science and the Bible support an earth and universe that is 6,000 - 10,000 years old.  According to Dr. Jonathan Wells, author of the book Icons of Evolution, "ID is completely neutral on the issue of the age of the earth".  The idea that ID somehow supports an old earth probably comes from the fact that some who consider ID to be good science agree with the old earth evolutionary dating methods.  However, that is not the end of the story.  We know of no polls that have specifically asked this question.  But a 1999 Gallup poll seems to suggest that it's about a 53/46 split in favor of the young earth view.  While the poll didn't specifically address ID, it is possible to extrapolate from the numbers with a fair degree of accuracy what percent of those who support ID are young earth, and what percent are old earth.  The results of the poll can be viewed at:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/
evolutionviews990816.html

The poll breaks the respondents down into four categories.  It is possible to make some general assumptions about how ID relates to each of these categories (see table below).

 

Category	Percent	How it relates to Intelligent Design
No opinion	7%	Unknown, so disregard them
Evolution occurred without God's help	10%	It is quite likely that almost everyone in this category would disagree with ID, and would agree with 'old earth' dating methods.  Since they're likely not proponents of ID, disregard them
Evolution occurred, but God guided it	39%	It is quite likely that almost everyone in this category would agree with ID, but they would also agree with evolutionary old earth dating methods, so count them as 'old' earth
God created humans within the last 10,000 years	44%	Virtually everyone in this category would be 'young' earth.