I’m starting to notice that there are a lot of double standards in the way information is processed by those in this world. A few such “double standards” are:

• Stereotyping is wrong, and it is always wrong, unless you are talking about White Christians from the American south (who must be racist bigots until proven otherwise, and maybe not even then) or who happen to live in a trailer park.

• Diversity is the greatest of all virtues, unless of course, diversity leads one to assume that the law of non-contradiction applies to moral issues, in these cases, we cannot tolerate intolerance.

• All cultures are of equal value, except western culture, which is wholly bereft of redeeming value.

• Arguing that gaps in the fossil record disprove Neo-Darwinian evolution is an interesting idea that spurs important questions if you are Stephen Jay Gould and are proposing Punctuated Equilibria as a new theory of evolution. Arguing that gaps in the fossil record disprove Neo-Darwinian evolution is a mark of abject stupidity, if you are a young earth creationist.

The last double standard is the one I want to focus on in this post. Atheistic scientists are quick to discuss technical definitions of science when discussing Creation Science, and yes, if you are using a technical definition of science (what Ken Ham calls “Operational Science”) then this is correct. The problem of course is that Evolutionist do the same things, themselves. No one has observed the development of a new family or order by naturalistic means; if science is determined by observations and testing the hypothesis, evolution is ruled out. There is no scientific evidence for the development of new information in the genome, something necessary for the evolution to be science. Evolution’s relationship to religious atheism is identical to Creation Science’s relationship to Christian thought, but there is a double standard in how that relationship is understood – both are logical extrapolations of scientific data, and both sets of extractions are based on religious principles.

So how do we move the ball forward on this issue? Here are a few thoughts:
• Instead of pushing to have Creationism or Intelligent design taught in the public schools, we need to push to have evolution moved from biology classrooms to its proper location: classes on western thought or western philosophy, where multiple approaches can be discussed more reasonably.

• While learning something about the scientific arguments is important, but we need to study the interpretational elements of evolution as well. One of the modern hallmarks of religious naturalism (the religion of most atheists) is that it has been confused with science in a more technical sense. We need more Christians that can explain the difference.

• Finally, we need to call the evolutionists on this point. Pointing out the double standard is really indicating that evolutionists are not the unbiased observers they think themselves to be, and when a biased observer doesn’t recognize their own bias, they cannot be objective.