Creation science

Creation "science" is an attempt to pretend that it is possible to give a scientific description for the Genesis creation myth, in the mistaken idea that faith in these concepts is somehow not enough for a believer. The major problem faced by those who promote the idea of creation "science" is that creation, relying as it does on supernaturalism, is completely non-scientific. Science, while having many definitions and nuances, is fundamentally the application of the scientific method to arrive at a theory that explains what we observe. "Creation science" in this context is an self contradiction.

Falsifiability

One of the pillars of the scientific method and hence of scientific theories, is that they be falsifiable, i.e. there has to be some potential observation that would show the theory to be wrong.

Creation science falls at this hurdle, as there is no known way to falsify a creation event. For example, on the evolution side of the argument, a cat giving birth to a dog is an event that would falsify evolution and render our current understanding of it almost worthless. (Funnily enough, this is the very type of event that a number of creationists claim would get them to believe in evolution, which is just a further sign of how little they understand the subject of evolution and falsifiability).

There exists, however, no corresponding idea for creation science - unless they impose limits on their chosen creator, which they are naturally rather loath to do. For a creator can choose to create whatever they will, in whatever manner they will, so any possible scenario could be "explained" by a creation event. In being able to answer every question, creation science in effect answers none of them. Floating axe heads, burning bushes, talking snakes, etc. are all capable of being explained by a supernatural creator, so what is left to falsify the idea? Nothing, and so the science has to be removed from the creation science title.

So in the falsifiability arena, the question that the supporters of creation science need to answer — and have comprehensively failed to answer — is: what possible event would falsify their position? By this important Popperian criteria, creation science is not science.

Cherry picking

A real science does not just look for evidence to prove their theory, but to disprove it (see Falsifiability). Creation 'science' only attempts to prove the theory and ignores any evidence against their theory.

Scientific conclusions

A science starts at looking at evidence and trying to work out a conclusion from the evidence. Creationism starts at the conclusion and attempts to look for evidence to support the conclusion, ignoring anything else (cherry picking). As Ken Ham, founder of AIG put it: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

Baraminology

According to Young Earth Creationism the earth and all animals were created during Creation Week. The animals were created in non-evolving kinds the study of which is called Baraminology. In an effort to further their cause, YECs have built a Creation Museum.

Geology, and other things that aren't in the Bible

As the global flood of Genesis is also believed to be true, a separate element of creation "science" deals with flood geology.

Creation science acknowledges some decidedly non-Biblical aspects of prehistory which have been proven during the modern period by geological, archaeological and paleontological evidence, such as ice ages and the existence of dinosaurs. In creationist chronologies, these are fitted incongruously around the events described in Genesis.

Creation Scientist

To a young earth creationist, a creation "scientist" is any degree-holding person who—no matter in what field, discipline or even whether they do any research, experimentation or propose any hypotheses—believes the Genesis account to be the literal truth (e.g. the Creation Ministries International "list of scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation").

Many of the world's foremost pioneers in scientific fields such as Sir Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler are thus considered creation scientists by young earth creationists because they did not believe in evolution or the Big Bang Theory and held to the ruling paradigm of the time — which was creation.

This ignores the fact that these scientists had none of the knowledge we have today regarding modern science leading one to wonder if they would have been creationists if they were alive today. One such creationist, when presented with this argument, wondered whether Charles Darwin would have been an evolutionist if presented with modern "creation science."Template:Quotation

Intelligent design

As it has proved almost impossible for creationists to get creationism taught in public schools in the US, the Discovery Institute came up with another pseudoscience — Intelligent Design. Intelligent design is effectively creationism with a thin veil of neutrality and a thick coating of pseudoscience. It does not name a designer, although many adherents of ID believe in the Judeo-Christian god. It attempts to give scientific evidence for "design" of the universe, yet falls into the same trap as creation "science" by not following the scientific method and being based on religious ideas.

See also

• Baraminology
• Bible
• Pseudoscience
• Science and religion

Copied from RationalWiki