If the evidence for creation is so strong, why don't more scientists accept this evidence and reject evolution? The primary reason is that science has been defined to eliminate the consideration of God's interaction in creation. Richard Dickerson, a prominent biochemist and member of the elite National Academy of Science, states it this way:
“Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural. Calling down special-purpose miracles as explanations constitutes a form of intellectual 'cheating.' A chess player is perfectly capable of moving his opponent's king physically from the board and smashing it in the midst of the tournament. But this would not make him a chess champion, because the rules have not been followed.”
Evolution is not promoted because of the overwhelming evidence supporting this concept. Nor is creation rejected because it is a poor explanation for life's origin. Creation is simply ignored by most scientists because they have been trained to ignore this possibility. They would be accused of “cheating” if they did accept evidence for creation!
From A Closer Look at the Evidence by Kleiss, February 1.
