LACE recently addressed the issue of intellectual hamstringing -- the claim by evolutionists that creationism and Intelligent Design are devoid of serious thought. Indeed, evolutionists claim that their endeavors comprise the only "real science" being practiced. But what is science? What is the real nature of scientific inquiry?
Science, in LACE's view, is the study of God's creation -- or, to put it in terms more palatable to our evolutionist friends, the study of the natural world. Science, at its purest, entails one simple thing: observing and reporting those things about the natural world that are verifiable fact. Commenting on inferences that should be obvious to people of sound common sense is acceptable, but extensive interpretation should be left out of the equation. And this is where evolutionists, as a general rule, go astray.
A striking example presented itself recently. Let's say someone's walking along and comes across a tree, and under the tree is a large branch on the ground. Common sense suggests the branch fell from the tree it's lying under, not from some other tree, and a quick scan of the tree confirms this: at some point on the tree is a bare spot where, clearly, a branch used to be attached. But how did the branch get separated from the tree? Two possibilities: the branch was broken off by natural forces (wind, for example, or old age), or someone came along and cut the branch off.
How can you tell which it is? You look at where the break occurred: If the break is rough and jagged, it's likely that, even though a person could have snapped the branch off, it was probably the result of natural causes. If, however, the break is smooth and even, it's obvious that someone cut it off.
When it comes to creation vs. evolution, however, evolutionists look at the clean-cut branch and deny the involvement of any outside intelligence. Sounds absurd when put in the context of that particular example, but this is what they do, and this is what they really believe ... or at least it's what they want to believe. It's also what they want you and LACE and everyone else to believe, and what they want to force on our children, particularly in school.
All of this, of course, goes against the spirit, methods and principles of real science. Scientists should simply be relating to the public those things that are observable, verifiable facts and, outside of common-sense inferences, leaving their interpretations out of it. Instead, they deny the obvious, the common-sense (which is bad enough), then throw their self-serving, "I wish God didn't exist" wish-fulfilling ideas in their place.