As I demonstrated in my debate with Bill Nye in February, creationists can be—and are!—great scientists. No one in their right mind would argue that Sir Isaac Newton, Kepler, or Francis Bacon (inventor of the scientific method) hindered science. Nor would they say that Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the MRI scanner, can’t do science. Observational or experimental science—the kind of science that deals with the present and is testable, repeatable, and observable—does not require a belief in evolution! That’s why both creationists and evolutionists can do amazing things like being involved in building space shuttles and finding cures for diseases. However, when you move into historical science—the kind of science (knowledge) that deals with origins (beliefs about the past), and is not directly observable, repeatable, or testable—your model of origins will determine how you interpret the evidence of the present. It all depends on your starting point! Is it man’s fallible opinion about the past or God’s infallible Word?