This article compares various viewpoints held by creationists and mainstream scientists.
As explained in the Creation vs. evolution debate article, there exists a continuum of views in the debate. Many people would agree with one side on some points and the other side on other points. Particularly, old-earth creationists agree with the mainstream science side on matters not directly relating to the modern evolutionary synthesis. In the left-hand column below, this article includes the views of creationists who claim that their model is consistent with the scientific evidence.
Points are displayed side by side for ease of comparison. Facts offered in support of those viewpoints are also given. For more topic-specific discussions, see:
The nature of science, with regards to evolutionary theory
Creationism
- Science consists of adherence to the scientific method. This requires that theories be empirically testable and falsifiable.
- Theories of archaeology and historical geology are fundamentally different from theories of chemistry, physics, or empirical geology, because they are exclusively theories of past events. Because the events being studied occured in the past, they cannot be empirically repeated, tested, or verified, and cannot make falsifiable predictions. Macroevolution falls into the same category due to the timescales involved.
- While theories of repeatable science (for instance, regarding the structure of DNA or the operation of gravity) may be experimentally tested and observed, theories regarding the origins of such things cannot be observed or repeated, and are therefore subject to historical evidence, human interpretation, or faith.
- For example, scientists cannot empirically observe the alleged evolutionary pathway for the eye, because the alleged events took place long in the past, and many of the alleged transitional forms no longer exist. They can therefore only speculate about how the eye could have evolved based on observations today, but they cannot say as scientific fact that it did occur, or how.
- Similarly, the events of creation and the flood may be inferred from the evidence, but cannot be repeated or tested. Theories regarding these events are therefore subject to the interpretation of available evidence.
- Creationists argue that faith and science are not only consistent but dependent upon each other for coherence, and that science and the universe can only be properly understood as a deliberate creation. They argue that many scientific innovators believed that the universe was created.
- The creationist philosophy of science incorporates Theistic realism and rejects Philosophical naturalism.
- Creation qualifies as a scientific theory, because many of its aspects are falsifiable.[1] (http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp)
- Current mainstream biology is hampered by an unrealistic commitment solely to materialistic explanations while discounting the evidence and theoretical justifications for recognizing life being created by a master intelligence. It is the very essence of science to accept falsification, and the mainstream biology idea that life evolved without direction by a master intelligence is as falsified as alchemy--because it ignores the true scientific task of explaining how observed phenomena produce organisms (Johnson 1995:92).
- According to atomic theory denier, David Bergman [2] (http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/conflict.pdf), the true scientific principles that need to be maintained are causality, reality, and unity. To him, creationism is therefore opposed to the traditional atomic theory of chemistry and physics because those disciplines are wrongly based on a quantum mechanical acceptance of random probabilities that have their foundations in pantheistic and atheistic Greek philosophers. For Bergman, Darwin's theory of evolution was a natural extension of this initial problem, so he works to overthrow "atomism".
|
Mainstream science
- Science consists of adherence to the Scientific method. This requires that theories be empirically testable. Creationism when falsifiable has been falsified. Where creationism is not falsifiable it is not science.
- Scientists are their own worst critics. Every statement made in science is continually and constantly up for review and testing. As yet, biological evolution, geology, and astronomy are all the models that work best with the observations available. It is not the job of science to provide a perfect description of the history of life since a perfect description of the observable is considered epistemologically impossible.
- For example, when Einstein published his Theory of Relativity, it was not accepted uncritically, but was instead subjected to a regime of criticisms and tests before it was generally accepted. When Darwin published On the Origin of Species, the entire scientific community tested and reviewed his work before it was accepted. It was not accepted on the basis of his authority or his assumptions, but on the basis of the evidence he laid out.
- Science provides a broad-based framework for dealing with problems, but there are always gaps in knowledge. This does not mean that science is incorrect. Inductive science may not work perfectly, but it's the best tool available.
- Some sciences, because of the nature of their subject, are called historical sciences. These include Astronomy, Geology, Archaeology and Evolutionary Biology. As with all sciences, theories in each of these sciences are empirically tested against the existing physical evidence, and are expected to be able to make verifiable or falsifiable predictions about future discoveries. Creationist versions of these sciences are either inconsistent, incorrect, or unfalsifiable.
- There is no such thing as scientific certainty. Science consists of theories that are judged against the empirical evidence, but any and every scientific theory might be false. It is a misunderstanding of the basic principles of science to claim that the fact that a theory might be wrong counts against it.
- There is no logical difference between testing a theory about macroevolution, and testing a theory about the interaction of molecules in a test tube. The interactions of molecules in a test tube are not observed directly, but inferred from other observations. In exactly the same way, in macroevolution the events took place in the past, and so are not directly observable, but may be inferred from fossil evidence. In both cases theories about unobservable phenomena are tested using observable phenomena. Mainstream scientists assert that accepting the creationist argument would mean rejecting Chemistry as unscientific.
- That some scientists are or were theists has no relevance to the issue of whether creationism is scientific. Mainstream scientists also assert that this creationist argument is an example of the fallacy ad hominem circumstantial. Just because some famous scientists apparently believed a creation event was reasonable does not make it so.
- Mainstream science does not object to faith forming a part of a scientist's worldview. It does object to appeal to supernatural events forming a part of scientific explanations.
- Modern science has a history that is built upon Enlightenment ideals of the scientific method, universial applicability, methodological care, and empiricism. It simply is not dependent on any particular religious perspective. Although individual scientists may have faith, science forms a world view that is independent of religious belief.
- Johnson is advocating replacing natural science with intelligent design because he believes that natural science is a failed endeavor. He also believes that there is evidence for intelligent design. However,intelligent design as a concept is a shill misnomer because the way to detect or measure what constitutes an intelligent design is not quantified nor offered falsifiable guidelines by creationists. "Intelligent design" as it is supported by creationist front-organizations such as the Discovery Institute is really a mask for an assumed belief in supernatural design: that is design by an intelligence that is not bound by the natural laws of the universe. This is a bait-and-switch ploy by creationists to declare belief in an intelligent design while really meaning belief in a supernatural design. In theory, an "intelligent" design is something that should be observable by means of either empirical data about the "intelligence" itself or by an independent means as yet unquantified by the creationists' attempt to formulate a workable, falsifiable theory. Creationists rely on the inherent skepticism of science to make claims for which there is no supporting evidence seem plausible. While conjecture about the intelligence or lack-thereof involving the creation and evolution of the material world may be entertaining philosophical endeavors, there is no empirical science that allows for any measurement or observation of said intelligence. For the creationist, this isn't a problem because the intelligence is assumed to be supernatural and therefore beyond the reach of empirical investigation.
- The current scientific paradigm excludes the possibility of supernatural causes for natural phenomena by definition. Science is obliged to seek naturalistic causes for naturalistic phenomena. As long as science is able to account for natural phenomena through naturalistic causes, there is no need to introduce supernatural causes.
- Bergman presents an idea which is not even a close competitor to quantum mechanics, though his arguments about creationists not in his following failing to address the fundamental stochastic processes in the natural world are worthy of note. Creationism is not simply opposed to some parts of science and not to others, because science is entirely interconnected. For example, evolutionary biology is dependent on physical arguments from chemistry and physics that are necessarily violated by creationists in their vain attempts to counter the current scientific paradigm.
|
Views on the conduct of the debate
Creationism
- Creationists claim that mainstream scientists systematically fail to address their ideas and critiques on the merits, but merely prove by assertion and authority, particularly the phrase, "the majority of mainstream scientists believe ..." (Bandwagon fallacy).
- Creationists claim that evolutionists often argue against creationism in the manner of "your theory doesn't work under my theory, so your theory is wrong". An example is arguing that rapid plate tectonics would result in ocean floors of essentially the same age, and seeking to refute that by quoting "ages" derived from uniformitarian principles.
- Creationists believe that this enclave of scientific "consensus" supporting evolution is maintained in large part by systematically excluding creationism from scientific discourse.
- Creationists claim that they are excluded from scientific discourse in the following ways:
- There is discrimination against those with creationist beliefs, including name-calling, denial of tenure and promotion even while qualified. This is likely related to 92% of the scientific community doubting or disbelieving God.
- Scientific philosophy has been redefined in such a way as to exclude theistic causes for phenomenon, leaving no alternative but evolution, despite the possibility of theistic causes which creationists believe to be more reasonable.
- Academic coursework is so steeped in evolutionary ideology as to make a creationist trying to get through evolutionary biology coursework feel much the same as an atheist trying to get through seminary.
- Creationary organizations require belief in creation for membership, because they are excluded from secular scientific discourse, and therefore must conserve their efforts.
- Evolutionists often quote them out of context and represent them as believing things that they don't (straw man fallacy), or not believing things that they do, such as plate tectonics.
- Scientific Journals generally will not publish papers that support creation. This is an example of academic bias.
|
Mainstream science
- Mainstream scientists assert that the various creationist theories proposed are unscientific because either:
- The theory does not make testable predictions.
- The theory is not falsifiable
- The theory is far more complex than existing theories (without explaining more data) and so falls foul of Occam's razor.
- The predictions that the theory is said to make cannot be agreed upon.
- Many "creationist" organisations purporting to be scientific have a criterion of membership which involves a statement of belief in a creator. This is an example of academic bias.
- This (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html) amicus brief was filed on August 18, 1986 for the Edwards v. Aguillard supreme court case (in the USA). The amicus was signed by 72 Nobel laureates, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations. This amicus brief argues that "creation-science" is actually religious dogma.
- Stephen J Gould repeatedly complained that he was misquoted by creationists. Many examples of alleged creationist misquotes can be viewed at [3] (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/).
- Mainstream scientists assert that many attempts have in the past been made by creationists to pass leglislation for the following aims:
- Establish teaching of creationism in US schools.
- Ban the teaching of evolution in US schools.
- Some of these attempts have been successful in the past. (see the Scopes trial)
- Creationists often link evolution with perceived moral failings in society. For an example see this article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0427social_evil.asp) published online by creationists.
- Explaining something by reference to a deity is not scientific. This is not to say that such explanations are not valid. They may be appropriate in some circumstances; but such an explanation would not count as science but as theology.
|
References
- Harvey Blatt, Sedimentary Petrology (New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1982).
- Johnson, Phillip E. 1995. Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
- A. E. Nordenskiold, The Voyage of the Vega Round Asia and Europe, translated from Swedish by Alexander Leslie (New York: Macmillan and Co., 1882), p. 302.
- V. K. Ryabchun, “More about the Genesis of the Yedoma Deposit,” The Second International Conference on Permafrost: USSR Contribution, 13–28 July 1973 (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1978), pp. 816–817.
- TalkOrigins.org. Talk origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/), a mainstream site detailing many arguments against creationist theories.
|
