Is this true?  Well frankly yes…for some.  But this response is subjective and varies for each person.  Those that have no inclination for scientific research or that are just lazy will be more likely to invoke this explanation and say that’s all there is.  Those that peddle simplistic explanations to the masses are in this category.  But this mindset cuts both ways for both materialistic and supernatural views and I’ll address it later.  You can find plenty about how Christians are supposedly scientifically stunted due to this mindset elsewhere so I will spend the balance of this column pointing out how: a) this is an extremely broad brush and b) Darwinists frequently do the same.

Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, James Maxwell and host of others from the science hall of fame were creationists.  They believed God created all but didn’t let that quench their curiosity (not that it would).  They saw matter, life and the cosmos as a collection of machines within machines created by God and wanted to discover how it all works.  Like an inquisitive child that knows a mechanical object is manmade and takes it apart to uncover the hidden mechanism.  It is absolutely true that the hypothetical object didn’t manufacture itself but that's not the point.  How does it work? 

The most practical questions in science, of course deal with the present observable.  What does it do?  How does it work?  These can be asked regardless of your view of origins and are the most productive.  Creationist, Louis Pasteur, asked these questions when laying the foundation for microbiology.  Evolutionists, James Watson and Francis Crick asked these questions when they discovered DNA.  Bicycle makers, Orville and Wilbur Wright asked these questions when pioneering aeronautics (I have no idea what their views on origins were).  These questions have driven technology and medicine over the last few centuries and continue to do so.

Biologist Philip Skell, in an article titled “Darwinism is Beside the Point”, published in the Philadelphia Daily News, concludes evolution and by extension, origins, really has little bearing on scientific research.  He says “Darwin's theory provided no discernible guidance. Instead, it was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss”.  My friend Dr. Joe Francis has a Ph.D. in microbiology and says orgins theory was never discussed during his five years of post-doctoral work at a cell immunology lab.  Dr. Francis realized that his fellow researchers did not bring evolution or any other theory of origins into their day-to-day work.

Contrary to what many assert, there is no empirical evidence for the origin of anything natural so the question of “where did it all come from?” boils down to inference.  Newton, Pasteur and company worked from the inference that the universe was created.  Watson and Crick from an evolutionary inference.  Some have said that Watson and Crick used reverse engineering which implies design by default but their belief was in evolution so we should assume that inference.  Studies in biological and physical origins, like archeology, are historical sciences.  There should always be room for differing viewpoints free from persecution which is the real science stopper.

Now I deal with the issue of “(fill-in-the-blank) did it” and how it cuts both ways.  I phrase it that way because there are dogmatic evolutionists that are either not concerned with “how does it work?” or not content with only presenting observations and they invoke this all the time.  My kids and I are assaulted with “evolution did it” without supporting evidence every time we watch a nature documentary on Discovery or National Geographic.  Science textbooks do this repeatedly.  When archeological documentaries present one view, they frequently offer an opposing view and I’m suspicious of those that don’t.  Why don’t the majority of nature documentaries do the same when discussing possible historical events?  Why aren’t science teachers allowed to do that?  We’re dealing with historical science, not fact so it should be entirely acceptable if not expected.

The evolutionary mindset has had a tendency to state “we know all about vestigial organ X so no need to waste time on it” and this has hindered research.  Biochemist Dr. Ross Anderson tells me interest in discovering the function of a biological component declines when it is generally believed to be settled.  For over 100 years the appendix was said to be useless.  It has only recently been found to be essential to protecting and restoring bacteria critical to intestinal operations.  How much sooner might this have been discovered if the appendix wasn’t said to be vestigial? 

 In the late 20th century, tonsils were found to play a role in the human immune system yet evolution proponents claimed they were vestigial.  Many have become prone to respiratory illness because their tonsils were removed.  Tonsils were removed because of illness and an assumption they can be without causing harm.  After almost 50 years, researchers are only beginning to scratch the surface of how DNA works.  Research was held static after the first sequencing by the mistaken assumption that DNA is mostly vestigial junk; leaving most of it unexplored.  Evolution did it, you see.

The creationists I know that are scientists say evolution theory hinders science and evolutionists claim this of Creation and Intelligent Design.  Yet science advances with research done by those on either side of this issue when questions that have nothing to do with origins are asked.  Evolutionary theory, as a general rule, is given way too much credit for discoveries that would have been made without it in mind.