Other Definitions
creation science (dict)
|
Creation ScienceCreation science is the term used by some proponents of creationism to describe the attempt to develop scientific justification for their views. They often argue against biological evolution and in favor of young earth creationism (the belief that the Earth is much younger than is believed by the scientific establishment). Opponents consider the term a misleading oxymoron, on the ground that practitioners of "creation science" do not follow the scientific method. These critics allege that the term "creation science" was chosen to purposely blur the distinction between science and religion, thereby undeservedly legitimizing creationism by association to science. Mainstream scientists, including many who believe in God, believe that what is called "creation science" is actually a pseudoscience. Philosophy and theology Creation science is described by its proponents as a synthesis of science and religion, as it attempts to draw on both sources in developing its theories. As such, it differs both from pure creationist theology and from the widely accepted philosophy of science which excludes the supernatural a priori. Like creationist theology, it presumes a straightforward understanding of Genesis, and that Genesis is at least historically accurate, and at most inerrant. Unlike creationist theology, however, it attempts to use the scientific method to demonstrate a scientific and historical consistency with the recorded events. Like science grounded in philosophical naturalism, it attempts to use physical evidence and science to explore theories of origins. Unlike mainstream science, however, it holds that the study of natural phenomena can reveal evidence of supernatural events and direct action by a God. Not all creationists believe in creation science, and Old Earth creationists tend to be notably less forceful in their opinions. It should also not be confused with intelligent design, which purports not to make any theological assumptions, although creationary scientists do make use of intelligent design arguments. Although creationists do use the teleological argument for the existence of God, this is less strong as it is presumed a priori. Creation science is not recognised by the mainstream scientific community, who consider it to be pseudoscience. However, it would seem that the creation-evolution issue is unimportant for most practical science, especially physics and chemistry, and even most biological research: - "The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. "Evolution" would appear to be the indispensible unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.' (Wilkins, A.S., 2000. Evolutionary processes: a special issue, BioEssays 22:10511052).
Creation science has been described by its proponents as a useful alternative to a simple rejection or ignoring of the theistic conceit. They view their attempts at incorporating a God into scientific investigation as a way of accepting a larger context for the natural world and empirical science. Creation scientists, therefore, explicitly reject the idea that nature can be explained completely naturalistically, they instead argue that there are things in nature which defy such an explanation and therefore must be dependent upon a supernatural cause. This is especially true, they say, with regards to the origin of the human species, and naturalistic explanations thereunto are looked upon with considerable disdain. For example, creation scientists have been known to quote C.S. Lewis in his conception of a "new science" to provide a definition for their endeavor, "The regenerate science which I have in mind would not do even to minerals and vegetables what modern science threatens to do to Man himself." Criticisms of creation science as science Creationists often claim that creationism, and more specifically creation science, is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution. This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science, is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be: - Consistent (internally and externally)
- Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
- Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
- Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
- Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
- Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
- Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
- Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it simply cannot be treated as scientific in any sense of the word. Typical specific objections to creationism as actual science are: - Creationism is not falsifiable. Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. God being a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can neither be supported nor undermined by observation, hence making creationism, the argument from design and other arguments for the existence of God a posteriori arguments.
- Creationism violates the principle of parsimony. Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding supernatural entities to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events.
- Creationism is not empirically testable. That creationism is not empirically testable stems from the fact that creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism.
- Creationism is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive. Creationism professes to be the absolute Truth, the word of God, not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that the Truth has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data as well as any future data. It is often given as a justification for the naturalistic basis of science. In any practical sense of the concept, creationism is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.
In light of its poor adherence to the standards of the scientific method, creationism, and specifically creation science, can not be said to be scientific. First, its hypothesis/solution is not based on analysis and observation of the empirical world - rather, it comes directly from scriptures. Moreover, as there is no way to test the theory. And lastly, the underlying assumptions of creationism are not open to change. Scientists note that creation science differs from mainstream science in that it begins with an assumption, then attempts to find evidence to support that assumtion. Conversely, science sets out to learn about the world through the collection of empirical evidence and the use of the scientific method. Historically the debate of whether creationism is compatible with science can be traced back to 1874, the influential science historian John William Draper published his 'History of the Conflict between Religion and Science'. In it he portrayed the entire history of scientific development as a war against religion. This somewhat skewed presentation of historical fact was propagated further by such prestigious followers as Andrew Dickson White in his essay 'A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom'. Opponents consider creation science to be an ideologically and politically motivated propaganda tool whose purpose is to promote the creationist agenda in society. They allege that the term "creation science" was chosen to purposely blur the distinction between science and religion, thereby undeservedly legitimizing creationism by association to science. Creation science and falsifiability Creation science is commonly called unfalsifiable by prominent members of the mainstream scientific community. Falsifiability was proposed by Karl Popper as a criterion for whether an idea should be considered scientific. If no experiment could be devised which would prove a theory false, then the theory was not a function of science, but rather metaphysical or pseudoscience. Popper argued that certain ideas, such as Freudian psychology, were not falsifiable, because any possible observation could be fit into the theory, so that the theory, although not necessarily false, were metaphysical, rather than strictly scientific. He classified theories into three broad categories based on how falsifiable they were: - "...There will be well-testable theories, hardly testable theories, and non-testable theories. Those which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. They may be described as metaphysical." Popper, Karl, Conjectures and Refutations (New York: Basic Books, 1963), p. 257.
Many prominent scientists have argued that "creation science" is an oxymoron and purely metaphysical, because it is wholly unfalsifiable. However, other scientists and philosophers of science argue that statements such as these are not true to the definition of falsifiability, and are instead merely specious rhetorical devices. For instance, Phillip Quinn, a philosopher of science, wrote: - "In a recent collection of essays, Stephen Jay Gould claims that "'scientific creationism' is a self-contradictory nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified'. Ironically, in the next sentence Gould goes on to contradict himself by asserting that "the individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research." Indeed some of them are! But since they are easily refuted by research, they are after all falsifiable and, hence, testable. This glaring inconsistency is the tip-off to the fact that talk about testability and falsifiability functions as verbal abuse and not a serious argument in Gould's anti-creationist polemics." philosopher of science as expert witness", in Cushing, J., Delaney, C.F. & Gutting, G., Science and reality: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Science, University of Notre Dame Press, 1984
Creationists, of course, acknowledge that some aspects of creationism are unfalsifiable, but assert that other aspects are, in fact, falsifiable. Therefore, creationism does not fall into Popper's "metaphysical" category. On the contrary, the theory is very difficult to falsify because the related events took place in the distant past, and the theory is therefore "hardly falsifiable." The dispute, therefore, centers on the degree to which the falsifiable aspects of creation science have been falsified. Whereas mainstream scientists hold that creation science has been consistently falsified insofar as it is falsifiable, creation scientists hold that the predictions of creation science have been consistently verified insofar as they are falsifiable. As to the unfalsifiable aspects of creationism, creationists argue that the unfalsifiability of an idea does not necessarily mean that the idea is false, but only that contemporary scientists lack the tools to test it effectively. They see the unfalsifiable aspects of the theory as ambiguities in the idea, rather than cause to dismiss the idea out of hand. Finally, they assert that many aspects of evolutionary theory are also unfalsifiable, such as common ancestry between humans and apes for which they assert no falsifying experiment could be conducted, so that a theory need not be wholly falsifiable in order to be considered scientific.http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm Subjects within creation science Subjects within creation science can be into split into three broad categories, each covering a different area of origins research; creation biology, creation cosmology and flood geology. Sciences that are not concerned with origins, or contradict YEC theology (such as engineering) are dealt within mainstream science. A related discipline creation anthropology is the study of anthropology from a creationist perspective, though it would probably be regarded more as a social science rather than a natural science. Creation biology Creation biology is an attempt to study biology from a creationary perspective. Creation cosmology Creation cosmology, or creation astronomy, is an attempt to study the cosmos, etc. from a creationist perspective, that is, within the 6,000 year age indicated by the genealogies of Genesis (as formalised in the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar), that is several orders of magnitude less than the commonly accepted age. In religious light it is a form of cosmogony. Creation geology Creation geology is an attempt to study geology in the context of the events recorded in Genesis, particularly the creation recorded in Genesis 1, and the Biblical flood recorded in Genesis 5. Generally, geological phenomena are considered to have been formed within the 6,000–7,500 year age of the Earth indicated by the genealogies of Genesis (as formalised in the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar), that is several orders of magnitude less than the age commonly accepted by the mainstream scientific community. History Within the history of creationism, creationism was originally based purely on theology. The vast majority of Church Fathers and Reformers accepted Genesis straightforwardly, and even the few who did not, such as Origen and Augustine, strongly defended a young earth. The adoption of an ancient age for the age of the Earth prompted some to look to studying geology within the Biblical timeframe detailed in the Ussher-Lightfoot calendar. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the leaders were the Scriptural geologists in Britain. About a century later, the Canadian George McCready Price, wrote extensively on the subject. However, the concept only revived during the 1960s following the publication of The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb. Creation science expanded into biology and cosmology. However, efforts to have it legislated to be taught in schools in the United States were eventually scuppered by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard 1987. Bibliography A scholarly history of the development of this form of Creationism can be found in Ronald L. Numbers, ''The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992). Creation science - Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book ISBN 0-949906-23-9 (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
- Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism ISBN 0-89052-003-2 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)
- Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? ISBN 0-89051-081-4 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)
- Mortenson, Terry, The Great Turning Point: The Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology — Before Darwin ISBN 0-89051-408-9 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004)
- Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man's Origin, Man's Destiny ISBN 0-87123-356-8 (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)
- Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution ISBN 0-890512-58-2 (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
- Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution 2 ISBN 0-890513-87-2 (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 2002)
- Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Compromise ISBN 0-890514-11-9 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004)
- Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology ISBN 0-932766-54-4 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)
- Woodmorappe, John, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study ISBN 0-932766-41-2 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)
- Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods ISBN 0-932766-57-9 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)
- Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory ISBN 9-99213-967-6 (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)
- Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood ISBN 0-87552-338-2 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)
- Roth, Ariel A., Origins—Linking Science and Scripture ISBN 0-8280-1328-4 (Hagarstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1998)
Criticism - Bates, V. L., 1976, Christian Fundamentalism and the Theory of Evolution in Public School Education: A Study of the Creation Science Movement dissert.: University of California, Davis.
- Lewin, R., 1982, Where is the science in Creation science? Science 215, pp. 142–146.
- Vawter, B., 1983, Creationism: Creative Misuse of the Bible, in Frye, R. M., ed., Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science (New York, Scribner's Sons), p. 71–82.
External links Creation science Criticism
|
 |