Thinking Creationist: How Science Denial (And Its Undoing ) Transformed the


The author of that piece would be a wonderful addition to PS.


He has a good post on natural historian. Really highlights some problems with YEC and separate ancestry models


@David_MacMillan people are discussing your article!

1 Like

Thanks – I am, in fact, here!


Full article, with more film info, here:



Even as an atheist, I am also encouraged to see that you kept your faith through the transition between YEC and where you are now. I understand how belief is an important part of peoples’ lives, and I would hate to see people pressured to give up those beliefs to embrace the science so many of us enjoy.


Thank you! It really plays into creationist’s hands when they can say, “See, if you doubt our all-knowing truthiness, you’ll lose your faith and descend into hedonism and burn in hell!” So for that reason (among others) I’m glad that I was able to rebuild my own faith after excising the science denial side of things.


Your description of the shift from a fishbowl view of the world to a different reality is real great.


Is the accusation being made by posters here and MacMillan possibly, that creationists are SCIENCE DENIERS!? Say it ain’t so! If this was true then any dialogue with any non evolutionist etc would be nurturing science denial.
ts just the lame loser side that accuses the other of denial of science. EVEN IF it was true no creationist or any thoughtful thinker weighing these matters WOULD recognize it in themselves. All species of creationists think they are doing science the same, really better, then anyone on origin matters.
I don’t care if the accusation is made IT just makes that side look like those who can’t make a intellectual case to persuade. Fire away!


Do you know how many science disciplines converge in agreement on the reality of Evolution?

One by one, you and your YEC pals have denied the reliability of each and every science that can be found that can possibly help determine the age of the Earth, and the relatedness of life forms to common ancestral populations:

etc., etc, etc.

Name me a science that you endorse ?


I see that the film is premiering now. Will it be available for purchase online? I doubt it will be showing where I live!


Hi David. Im a young earth creationist more concerned about how folks are abandoning sound Biblical theology which is to be accepted by faith (theism) and trading it for trust in man’s science.(sciencism) I just read an article on the Gospel Coalition website here

In this article it says “In [ Genesis in Space and Time ] for example, Francis Schaeffer did something similar by showing what Genesis 1–11 must be affirming in order for the rest of Scripture to be coherent and true.”

The author who brings this up, then proposes 7 points as drawn directly from Genesis that are essential in order to make sense of all of the rest of Scripture. You can read the article to see all 7, but i can tell you that one of them is that an historical Adam and Eve as the first humans to ever walk the earth is an essential from which the rest of Scriptural theology falls apart if not true.

But we see that mainstream science denounces the possibility that an historical Adam and Eve, the first humans existed 6000 yrs ago.

So how do you handle this? The Bible says that anything that does not flow from Biblical faith makes a pathway impossible to please God. Yet there seems to be a surge of Christian scientists who seem to want to dispell of this ideal for trust in what the science of man says. How do you handle this quagmire?

A post was split to a new topic: Samuel Emadi: Triaging the Doctrine of Creation

Byers, I’m not sure what your purpose is in coming over here.

It’s not an accusation; it’s just a reality. Young-earth creationism and antivax and climate change skepticism are all science denial.

Science is real.


It needs a distributor so it isn’t available for purchase online just yet. It is making its rounds at film festivals now – next one being June in the DC area. I’ll keep the group aware.


My purpose in coming here is the same as everyone. Maybe yours I don’t know. Whats your purpose.
Saying its a REALITY iS just a ACCUSATION. why do you think you avoid this by repeating the accusation? Accusation is not indictment. Saying something doesn’t make it true just because one, however competent, says so!!

Science is real(well actually its just human investigation) but attacking creationists as anti vaxxers types is injurious accusation without a reality of credibility.

Creationists contend with certain conclusions in certain subjects of science touching on origin matters.
These are all invisible subjects that are figured out by forensic like investigation. In fact really like history. they are not testable/repeatable like real science subjects.
you can’t test them!! they don’t contribuite anything we can walk on, move by, or put in our bodies for healing.
Creationists are like sherlock Holms correcting Scotland yard on some crime.
We come too different conclusions using forensics, better, and saying we are REJECTING science because of different conclusions is lame shots at thoughtful people, Christian people, and millions tens of millions of species of creationists. It just shows why the evolutionist side loses and maybe loses oiut of proportion to what creationists actually persuade.
By the way omn a historical curve its always the wrong side/the side that will lose tHAT MORE attacks its opponents as not credible. For history buffs out there!


There is a difference between “you can’t test them in real time” vs. the more important question:

“can you develop hypotheses that can be proved true or false by further research”?

And the truth of the matter is, the latter statement in bold is the more important one… and in fact, it is the one religious people use to affirm their faith as well. You can’t “test” Exodus… because it is long over. But if Exodus is TRUE, then it should lead to other conclusions that can be proved true or false.

For example, if Exodus is true, then this sentence should be true:

Exo 13:17
And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war [with or against the Philistines], and they return to Egypt…"

And if Exodus 13:17 is true, then Moses could not lead Exodus until after the settlement of the southern Levant by a group of “Sea People” (i.e., aka, the Pelest). Israeli archaeologists have come a long way in understanding the settlement of the Philistine Pentapolis… and how the Egyptians had them successfully contained and monitored with multiple Egyptian garrisons.

But eventually, the Philistine leadership recruited enough new (armed) immigrants to these coastal settlements that around 1130 BCE or 1145 BCE, these 5 cities led a Canaanite rebellion against Egypt. Beth Shean, long time administrative center for Egyptian officials, had to be abandoned, and the last Egyptian garrison of Gezer was destroyed. When this happened, if you couldn’t get to Egypt by sea or foot, or find protection with a Canaanite war chief, you were “finished”.

So… do you see the problem here? If Exodus is true, then the parts of Genesis describing Abraham’s chatting with Philistines has to be wrong … by about 800 years.

[One link that points to problems but has some flaws in the timeline]

1 Like

This is a helpful article…and one that I certainly resonate with on a personal level. It describes some of my experience and journey.

1 Like