A couple of weeks ago The Daily Show did some stories about Evolution vs. Creationism. In one segment, Jon Stewart hosted a panel discussion.

One member of the panel was a proponent of creationism. This man actually possessed real academic scientific credentials.

Jon Stewart asked the creationist a question that got to the heart and soul of the matter: “Which came first: your religious conversion, or your conversion to creationism?” The man answered that his religious conversion came first. The man gets points for honesty.

I think Stewart’s question provides a grand jumping off point for discussions of Creationism vs. Evolution with anyone who has a science education and who advocates Creationism. Asl them if the science led them to Creationism, or did the religious faith?

We already know that real science does not point to a Biblical 6,000 year-old creation. But religious faith does. Will the scientifically-trained creationist admit that his faith came first? Would we believe him if he claimed that his scientific inquiry led him to conclude that the earth was only 6,000 years old, and THEN he converted religiously?

In real science, conclusions flow from the factual proof and the testable hypotheses developed from the real facts and observations. Theories change or are discarded as new facts emerge. If facts conflict with theory, the theory is deemed flawed.

In the Creationist community religious faith came first. “I belilve the earth is 6,000 years old”. Faith requires that facts be construed to support the religious position. Facts are not allowed to shake up the basic theory in a 6,000 year old creation. In order for facts to be seemly properly disregarded, huge areas of science must be belittled — biology, astrophysics —- The creationist must discredit things like Carbon dating, in order to plausibly deny age-related evidence. Etc…

See my Science vs. Religion archives for much more.