_Creation Science _
By: Ashley
Creation Science Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory about
the origin of the universe. It is not a scientific theory. Technically,
creationism is not necessarily connected to any particular religion. It simply
requires a belief in a Creator. Millions of Christians and non-Christians
believe there is a Creator of the universe and that scientific theories such
as the the theory of evolution do not conflict with belief in a Creator.
However, fundamentalist Christians such as Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell,
have co-opted the term 'creationism' and it is now difficult to refer to
creationism without being understood as referring to fundamentalist Christians
who (a) take the stories in Genesis as accurate accounts of the origin of the
universe and life on Earth, and (b) believe that Genesis is incompatible with
the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. Thus, it is commonly assumed
that creationists are Christians who believe that the account of the creation
of the universe as presented in Genesis is literally true in its basic claims
about Adam and Eve, the six days of creation, and not an allegoryCreation
science is a term used by certain creationists to indicate that they believe
that Genesis is a scientific account of the origin of the universe. Reading
the Bible as if it were a scientific text contradicts the Big Bang theory and
the theory of evolution. "Creation scientists" say those theories are false
and that scientists who advocate such theories are ignorant of the truth about
the origins of the universe and life on Earth One of the main leaders of
creation science is Duane T. Gish of the Institute for Creation Research, who
puts forth his views in conjunction with attacks on evolution. Gish is the
author of Evolution, the Challenge of the Fossil Record ( San Diego, Calif.:
Creation-Life Publishers, 1985) and Evolution, the Fossils Say No (San Diego,
Calif.: Creation-Life Publishers, 1978). Another leader of this movement is
Walt Brown of the Center for Scientific Creationism. Neither Gish nor Brown
seem to understand the difference between a fact and a theory. They loudly
proclaim that evolution is just a theory and that it is false. Scientific
theories are neither true nor false. They are explanations of facts. That
species evolved from other species is considered by 99.99% of the scientific
community to be a scientific fact. How species evolved is what a theory of
evolution is supposed to explain Darwin's theory of how evolution happened
is called natural selection. That theory is quite distinct from the fact of
evolution. Other scientists have different theories of evolution, but only a
negligible few deny the fact of evolution. Gish is not doing science when he
argues against the fact of evolution. He has no interest in scientific facts
or theories. His interest is in apologetics: defending the faith against what
he sees as attacks on God's Truth. All his arguments are defensive; they are
attempts to show that the evidence does not support the scientific fact of
evolution Creationists, mistaking the uncertain in science for the
unscientific, see the debate among evolutionists regarding how best to explain
evolution as a sign of weakness. Scientists, on the other hand, see
uncertainty as simply an inevitable element of scientific knowledge. They
regard debates on fundamental theoretical issues as healthy and stimulating.
Science, says evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, is "most fun when it
plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that
old information may be explained in surprisingly new ways." Thus, through all
the debate over evolutionary mechanisms biologists have not been led to doubt
that evolution has occurred. "We are debating how it happened," says Gould
(1983, p.256) Creation science, on the other hand, is not science but
pseudoscience and it is connected to a particular group of fundamentalist
Christians. Most Christians, fundamentalist or not, probably never heard of
creation science. Like creationists of all sorts, "creation science" puts
forth its claims as absolutely certain and unchangeable. It assumes that the
world must conform to the Bible. It assumes that the Bible needs no revision
and can contain no error. Where creation science differs from creationism in
general is in its notion that once it has interpreted the Bible to mean
something, no evidence can be allowed to change that interpretation. Instead,
the evidence must be refuted Compare this attitude to that of the leading
European creationists of the 17th century who had to admit eventually that the
Earth is not the center of the universe and that the sun does not revolve
around our planet. They did not have to admit that the Bible was wrong, but
they did have to admit that human interpretations of the Bible were in error.
Today's creationists seem incapable of admitting that their interpretation of
the Bible could be wrong Creation scientists can't be seen as real
scientists because they assume that their interpretation of the Bible cannot
be in error. They put forth their views as irrefutable. Hence, when the
evidence contradicts their reading of the Bible, they assume that the evidence
is false. The only investigation they seem to do is in an effort to prove some
scientific claim is false. Creation science sees no need to test its theories,
since they have been revealed by God. A theory that is absolutely certain
cannot be empirically tested, but empirical testability is the hallmark of a
scientific theory. Claims of infallibility and the demand for absolute
certainty characterize not science but pseudoscience What is most revealing
about the militant creationists lack of any true scientific interest is the
way they willing and uncritically accept even the most preposterous of claims,
if those claims seem to contradict traditional scientific beliefs about
evolution. In particular, any evidence that seems to support the notion that
dinosaurs and humans lived together is welcomed by militant creationists The
theory of scientific creationism is a good example of a non-scientific theory
because it cannot be falsified. "I can envision observations and experiments
that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know," writes Gould, "but I
cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their
beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science" (Gould, 1983). What makes
scientific creationism a pseudoscience is that it attempts to pass itself off
as science even though it shares none of the essential characteristics of
scientific theorizing. Creation science will remain forever unchanged as a
theory. It will engender no debate among scientists about fundamental
mechanisms of the universe. It generates no empirical predictions that can be
used to test the theory. It is taken to be irrefutable. It assumes a priority
that there can be no evidence that will ever falsify it The history of
science, however, clearly shows that scientific theories do not remain forever
unchanged. The history of science is not the history of one absolute truth
being built upon other absolute truths. Rather, it is the history of
theorizing, testing, arguing, refining, rejecting, replacing, more theorizing,
more testing, etc. It is the history of theories working well for a time,
anomalies occurring (i.e., new facts being discovered that don't fit with
established theories), and new theories being proposed and eventually
partially or completely replacing the old ones Of course, it is possible for
scientists to act unscientifically, to be dogmatic and dishonest. But the fact
that one finds an occasional oddball in the history of science (or a person of
integrity and genius among pseudoscientists) does not imply that there really
is no difference between science and pseudoscience. Because of the public and
empirical nature of scientific debate, the charlatans will be found out,
errors will be corrected and the honest pursuit of the truth is likely to
prevail in the end. This will not be the case with pseudosciences such as
creation science, where there is no method needed for detecting errors (since
it can't err) much less of correcting them Some theories, like creationism
can't be refuted, even in principle, because everything is consistent with
them, even apparent contradictions and contraries. Scientific theories allow
definite predictions to be made from them; they can, in principle, be refuted.
Theories such as the Big Bang theory and the steady state theory can be tested
by experience and observation. Metaphysical theories such as creationism are
"airtight" if they are self-consistent. They contain no self-contradictory
elements. No scientific theory is ever airtight.
Word Count: 1397
| 
