If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.

Is Creation science or religion? Is Evolution science or religion?

That all depends on how we define science.

Evolutionists choose to define science in a way that presupposes Naturalism and materialism (THERE IS NO GOD). Most go one step further to presuppose uniformitariansim (THERE WAS NO CREATION OR GLOBAL FLOOD). These presuppositions are taken on blind faith without any proof. Any observations that do not fit into these presuppositions must be explained away or otherwise ignored as being "unscientific" since they violate the presuppositions that were taken on blind faith. In fact, as these presuppositions become part of Evolution scientists' thinking, the presuppositions develop into a confirmation bias that assures that the Evolutionists will not even be capable of noticing that they are operating in a biased manner. So much for the myth of objectivity.

Any person with any philosophy could define science to support their particular philosophy and then claim that all ideas that are outside of their philosophy are unscientific. This is exactly what Evolutionists have done. This is a great example of circular reasoning that has fooled masses of people who are otherwise intelligent.

Professor Richard Lewontin, and ardent Atheist, summed this up more honestly than most when he said: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." A "just-so story" is a story that is made up to explain something that has been observed; it is a story that is just claimed to be so (true) without any proof that it is true. Evolution is such a story. In so-called "proofs" of evolution, you will find one just-so story after another.

On top of this, schools have encouraged the belief in a myth: that scientists are objective without presuppositions or biases. This misconception shouldn't even be considered by a thinking person, since it would be impossible. However, being taught this concept from an early age, confirmation bias again takes over eliminating the ability to think objectively. Many people believe that objectivity is not only possible but that it is the rule in science. This is far from true. The reality is that the number of scientists that reject Evolutionism and Old-Earthism is far higher than generally reported, but coercion is used to silence anyone who does not comply with the dogma of those who are in power.

It becomes obvious that it is illogical for an Evolutionist to define Evolution as scientific and Creation is religion. Why is it irrational? Because the definition is based on circular reasoning. By defining the word, science, to mean "No God," then using that definition as a filter to filter out any facts that support God, it is irrational to then use this framework to "prove" that God did not create. Yet this irrational response is repeated in text books, in the news media, in courts, and in every form of media. Without the strange definition of science, God's handiwork is obvious to every person. Everything looks designed, and the world looks young.

Evolution morphs to fit the observations. There is no way to disprove it through observations since every observation, even those that obviously disprove Evolution or an extremely old creation, are proclaimed to be the very things that prove Evolution or an extremely old creation. That's the way that confirmation bias works.

Very few people realize how flimsy human thought processes normally are. Evolutionists base their beliefs on illogical, irrational thinking. Even when logic is used correctly, it is a step-by-step process. In other words, "If premise one is true and premise two is true, then premise three is true." But how do we know about premise one and two? We can take the same course to show that these are true, which leaves us with even more questions about the proof for premise one and premise two. So we can take it a step back from there and again state our proof, which leaves us with even more questions. Most people don't think this deeply, though. They just accept whatever flimflam comes down the road providing that it fits in with what they like. People prefer to believe what they prefer to be true. This is as true of scientists as it is of the rest of society. Scientists just have to be careful that they state their rationalizations in acceptable scientific-sounding language. However, when one reads the types of things that get published in the leading scientific journals, one can see illogical statement after illogical statement. And they are just making stuff up! In other words, they are lying. Their lies aren't even well-hidden because the people who are swallowing their lies love to be lied to.

When materialistic truth-claims, such as Evolutionism or Old-Earthism, are challenged logically, they end up showing their foundation. They are built on bold, but unsupported, declarations or on circular reasoning. When Biblical truth-claims are challenged logically they also end up showing their foundation. They are built on revelation that comes directly from God. The materialist will make the truth-claim that no revelation comes from God, but that truth-claim is based on circular reasoning and unsupported declarations.

Ungodly people are forced to hold on tightly to some basic presuppositions.  These presuppositions are just simple-minded assumptions.  They are filters and a way to censor out any information that supports the existence of God.  They set up a web of rules to filter out God.  They will only accept those things that conform to Naturalism, materialism, and uniformitarianism.  Naturalism claims that God does nothing.  Materialism claims that there is no God or spiritual realm.  Uniformitarianism claims that there was not creation and that there was no violent worldwide flood, as the Bible and numerous other historical accounts record.  Whatever they observe that does not conform to this complex filter is censored.  The way that it is censored can take several forms.  The ungodly may boldly proclaim that, though the data appears to support God's version and refute the version of the ungodly, yet it still must be interpreted to mean just the opposite of what it does mean.  A backup method that ungodly people use is to prophecy that in the future, science will be able to explain what they see as an anomaly.  If that fails, they will hide the data, set it aside, or lie to keep the public from knowing the truth.  The data clearly demolishes the story of the ungodly and clearly supports the reality of the Creator God, His Bible, and His abiding Presence in His people.  When confronted with the obvious, a closed-minded ungodly person says, "I can't understand it."  They are willingly ignorant because they refuse to hold God in their knowledge.  The reality is that these people, for whatever reason, don't what to know the Creator.  They don't want to truly know Jesus, their Creator.