What if Evolutionists Operated Crime Scene Labs?
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Some of the most popular television programs involve forensic science to investigate crime scenes. The CSI franchise had almost 800 episodes, and numerous law enforcement dramas involve forensic technician activities. You can find many documentaries that are nonfiction. I feel that some of those are more disturbing than the fictional programs.
These people are highly trained and specialize in different fields (television shows are a bit misleading when they portray them as experts in practically everything). Attention to the smallest details are essential, and evidence can accumulate to lead investigators to successful conclusions. Sometimes new technology can be used to solve "cold cases" that were shelved for years.
Both creation science and universal common ancestor evolution are forensic sciences. Biblical creationists believe the Word of God while most evolutionists reject God and presuppose philosophical naturalism. From there, they attempt to reconstruct the past through evidence and hypotheses. Forensic crime investigators have an advantage that most of their evidence is recent.
Proponents of these historical sciences as well as other scientists should be able to change or abandon their ideas in light of additional evidence, but that does not happen. Consider how Ignaz Semmelweis had his true ideas rejected and how phlogiston was disproved but not abandoned for many years. Biblical creationists have their disagreements over details of creation and the Genesis Flood, but still believe the Bible. Evolutionists, not so much.
Regular readers of this site have seen many examples of how uniformitarian geologists tenaciously cling to their belief in deep time and gradual processes despite evidence of rapid change. Also, we have seen naturalism cherished despite evidence against evolution and supporting recent creation (such as "junk" DNA, for example). Can you imagine what would happen to many criminal investigations if forensic crime lab specialists acted like secular origins scientists?
Darwinist Investigator: "I came up with a theory on how the culprit stole the sculpture that has the characters slightly raised from the background".
Skeptic: "Well, that's a relief!"
Darwinist Investigator: "Be serious. Here, read the paper I wrote on it. I have computer simulations about the past."
Skeptic: "After examining your work, I can see several flaws in it. You based several concepts on principles that are assumptions, and some other have even been discredited."
Darwinist Investigator: "It is a theory, which is mine. We use assumptions and assume that stuff happens to explain what exists in the present."
Skeptic: "This is about what happened in the recent past. You have no witnesses for any of your evidence, just inference, so a valid solution to the case cannot be attained using your methods."
Darwinist Investigator: "The theory (which is mine) needs a bit more research."
Skeptic: "I would be concerned that you would have an innocent person arrested, but your theory implicates someone who has been dead for thirty years."
Darwinist Investigator: "I have all kinds of science in this theory of mine, including dendrochronology and radiometric dating!"
Skeptic: "Yes, and those involve faulty data and unsupportable assumptions. They are also irrelevant to the case."
Darwinist Investigator: "It takes time, random chance, and the belief that stuff will happen in the future. My theory will give us insight into how we reached this point and will help other scientists down the road."
Skeptic: "That is blind faith, not science. And a heapin' helpin' of wishful thinking. Listen, when a hypothesis, theory, speculation, or whatever does not work, it needs to be dropped on the trail and you start again."
Darwinist Investigator: "Who are you, anyway?"
Skeptic: "I just stopped in to see if you have any rolls of toilet paper to sell me."
While historical (forensic) science uses the scientific method, it is severely limited when it comes to origins and the distant past. Criminal investigators have recent clues and witnesses, and must be willing to change or reject theories based on better information. Biblical creationists rely on the Word of the Creator, who was the witness to all that he has revealed to us. That must be why creation science has far more plausible explanations than naturalistic evolutionary views.
Some of the most popular television programs involve forensic science to investigate crime scenes. The CSI franchise had almost 800 episodes, and numerous law enforcement dramas involve forensic technician activities. You can find many documentaries that are nonfiction. I feel that some of those are more disturbing than the fictional programs.
 |
| Credit: Bureau of Labor Statistics (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) |
Both creation science and universal common ancestor evolution are forensic sciences. Biblical creationists believe the Word of God while most evolutionists reject God and presuppose philosophical naturalism. From there, they attempt to reconstruct the past through evidence and hypotheses. Forensic crime investigators have an advantage that most of their evidence is recent.
Proponents of these historical sciences as well as other scientists should be able to change or abandon their ideas in light of additional evidence, but that does not happen. Consider how Ignaz Semmelweis had his true ideas rejected and how phlogiston was disproved but not abandoned for many years. Biblical creationists have their disagreements over details of creation and the Genesis Flood, but still believe the Bible. Evolutionists, not so much.
Regular readers of this site have seen many examples of how uniformitarian geologists tenaciously cling to their belief in deep time and gradual processes despite evidence of rapid change. Also, we have seen naturalism cherished despite evidence against evolution and supporting recent creation (such as "junk" DNA, for example). Can you imagine what would happen to many criminal investigations if forensic crime lab specialists acted like secular origins scientists?
Darwinist Investigator: "I came up with a theory on how the culprit stole the sculpture that has the characters slightly raised from the background".
Skeptic: "Well, that's a relief!"
Darwinist Investigator: "Be serious. Here, read the paper I wrote on it. I have computer simulations about the past."
Skeptic: "After examining your work, I can see several flaws in it. You based several concepts on principles that are assumptions, and some other have even been discredited."
Darwinist Investigator: "It is a theory, which is mine. We use assumptions and assume that stuff happens to explain what exists in the present."
Skeptic: "This is about what happened in the recent past. You have no witnesses for any of your evidence, just inference, so a valid solution to the case cannot be attained using your methods."
Darwinist Investigator: "The theory (which is mine) needs a bit more research."
Skeptic: "I would be concerned that you would have an innocent person arrested, but your theory implicates someone who has been dead for thirty years."
Darwinist Investigator: "I have all kinds of science in this theory of mine, including dendrochronology and radiometric dating!"
Skeptic: "Yes, and those involve faulty data and unsupportable assumptions. They are also irrelevant to the case."
Darwinist Investigator: "It takes time, random chance, and the belief that stuff will happen in the future. My theory will give us insight into how we reached this point and will help other scientists down the road."
Skeptic: "That is blind faith, not science. And a heapin' helpin' of wishful thinking. Listen, when a hypothesis, theory, speculation, or whatever does not work, it needs to be dropped on the trail and you start again."
Darwinist Investigator: "Who are you, anyway?"
Skeptic: "I just stopped in to see if you have any rolls of toilet paper to sell me."
While historical (forensic) science uses the scientific method, it is severely limited when it comes to origins and the distant past. Criminal investigators have recent clues and witnesses, and must be willing to change or reject theories based on better information. Biblical creationists rely on the Word of the Creator, who was the witness to all that he has revealed to us. That must be why creation science has far more plausible explanations than naturalistic evolutionary views.