The 10th grade California biology textbook Biology by Miller & Levine, states, “Darwin’s theory of evolution…is often called “the most important scientific idea that anyone has ever had.””1 Despite this claim, belief in particles to people evolution has never led to any new invention, medicine, or technological breakthrough!
This is because evolution doesn’t fall under the category of observational science (the kind that builds our technology), which deals with things we can observe and test, but historical science, which deals with things in the past; things we weren’t there to observe or test.
We can’t go back in time to watch the beginning of the universe. All we can do is interpret clues in the present through our worldview, our “reality filter” based on our beliefs, and use them to reconstruct the past. Creationists and evolutionists have the same facts, but we reach different conclusions about them because we have different starting points.
Evolutionists start with naturalism, the belief that nature is all there is, and build their understanding of the past on this foundation and frame. However, creationists start with the Bible, which says that God created all things in six days, and build our understanding of the past on this foundation and frame.
So, far from essential, belief in evolution doesn’t have any bearing on how someone does observational science. In fact, many fathers of science, including Galileo, Newton, and Pasteur, were biblical creationists, and there are hundreds of modern, Bible-believing scientists in every major field of science today.
In the words of molecular biologist Dudley Eirich, “In academia, evolution is a big issue. But once you get out into the real world of science and industry, we very seldom talk about evolution—it’s not even an issue. It really doesn’t have anything to do with the work we do.”2
1Miller, Kenneth R., and Joseph S. Levine. Miller & Levine Biology. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006. 467. Print. 447. Print.
2Wieland, C. and Sarfati, J., “Manipulating Life? Genetic engineering researcher backs Genesis”, Creation 27(1):46–49, 2004.