Creation Science Is Not Science Summary

To accurately determine wether creationists should be involved with scientists in public debate, or in scientific debate at all, one must accurately define the institution that scientists represent. The issue present is the ability to provide an accurate definition of science. As Ruse stated “it is simply not possible to give a neat definition” (Ruse, 1982), however Ken Ham attempts to define science through the linguistics route. Using the origin of the latin word

The problem in scientific creationism, and what I see as a reason for its exclusion from the science classroom in public schools, is the fact that it looks as if, from the outside, the whole theory that it rest on is simply a contortion of the traditional version of creation described in Genesis, custom-made to fit in with Darwin’s theory of evolution. R. M. Hare would probably say that scientific creationism is simply a modification of the story of creation in Genesis, to fit into the ÒblikÓ of the religious fundamentalist. A blik, as Hare describes it, is a pre-set worldview held by all people, in which they draw from when forming certain opinions on any particular subject. In the case of religious fundamentalist, whose faith in the validity of the Book of Genesis is an essential part of their blik, it becomes necessary for them to contort their literal view of the Book of Genesis into a form that is scientifically acceptable. For this reason, creation science still does not have a place in the science classroom of public schools.

Moreover, today’s criticisms and denials also come from all quarters in various forms such as creationism, Li 2 neo-creationism, and intelligent design. Even though several points exist on either side of the creationism versus evolution argument, notwithstanding the gaps on both sides of the divide, it becomes apparent that the theory of evolution has some serious fundamental flaws. Creationism is the belief that concept and design require a creator (Sarfati and Mathews). When applied to detecting design in the universe and life, this principle becomes a more reasonable explanation to believe in a higher power as the Creator or Designer of both (Sarfati and Mathews). Unlike the concept of evolution, which remains unproven and continues to lack even the slightest experimental or observational support, the creationist argument is sound because it argues against a set of misunderstandings about evolution that people are right to consider ludicrous (Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini).

For as long as mankind has had the curiosity to gaze at the stars, we have been constantly questioning our origin and place in the universe. From simple, yet elegant solutions (like our world being on the back of a large tortoise) to the more complex pantheons of gods and heavens, humanity’s dedication to classifying and comprehending our universe has enabled us to weave rich and complex mythologies and beliefs. However, in America today there are two prominent paradigms that are shaping how we see the world—Christian creationism and scientific evolution. These two schools of thought, like many other conflicting models of the universe and its creation, have fueled passions and incited spirited rivalries among its most ardent followers and fanatics, but, again like many other opposing beliefs, at the same time it is easy to see how they can be reconciled both within and without oneself. However, many scientists and theologians believe that one of the two is blasphemous and the other is gospel (or textbook) truth. For example, in Scott D Sampson’s essay Evoliteracy, (2006) Sampson denounces Christianity and pushes for everyone to learn the theory of Evolution instead of creationism. While he is correct in wanting a more educated populace, Christianity is not an inherently wrong construct. Similarly, many of those pushing for intelligent design have similarly decried the evolutionary theory as

Hypotheses are often taken from a form of an if-then statement (Scott 2009) -- usually based on previous experience, scientific background, observation, and logic. While a scientific theory explains laws and facts (Scott 2009). Clearly, this is a contradiction. A hypothesis cannot be considered as a scientific theory since it is based on conditions that simply lacks a strong foundation to become a theory unless it’s proven to be concise otherwise.

There are many topics that science and religion have opposing views on and continue to debate. One of these subjects that has received a great deal of attention and has placed an enormous wedge between the two realms is the varying opinions concerning the creation of the universe. For nearly a century, scientists have explained this phenomenon with the Big Bang theory, whereas spiritual thinkers have long placed their faith in the Genesis creation account. Both submit valid arguments, however, it is ultimately up to each individual to decide which testimony to accept as truth and to consider if it is possible that both opinions could co-exist.

The debate over the origins of the earth and of life has captivated and divided America since the late 19th Century. Evolutionists and creationists have battled in courtrooms , churches , academia , and public schools over the course of the 20th century and continue fighting, or attempting to make peace over, this culture war today. The debate has changed between the time of the Scopes Trial and the present in several important ways. First, creationists have developed many more diverse arguments, and employ not only biblical and moralistic arguments, but scientific evidence, logical arguments, and political rhetoric to counter evolutionary theory. Second,

There are some demarcations to science from pseudo-science and non-science (Hansson, 2008). Science aims to unravel the way the natural world is and explain how it is and why it works in a particular manner (Hobson, 2001 & Bunge, 1982). It answers few of these questions by demonstrating the cause and the effects of various actions by presenting in descriptive and explanatory claims (Parse, 1995). Scientists prove their findings by explaining

Objection 1: In 1820, fossils were identified and many began to argue that their very existence discredits Biblical truth. When geologists began to realize that the discovered fossil records were incredibly old, the separation between science and the theologians was increased. They were much older than the creation story in the Bible claimed. The scientists found that the creature, which walked, called Australopithecus, slightly resembling an ape, resided in the Middle East and in east Africa, approximately four to five million years ago. After this, scientists believe Homo erectus, a

At the beginning of the essay Gould made a clear reference to a dear friend, Kirtley Mather, who “was a pillar of both science and Christian religion in America” (Gould, 1981). Comparatively, this appealed to the emotions of the reader, unlike most scholarly works—Gould reminded the reader of his humanity. Often, Christians relate evolution as being the work of a devil, or some form of subhuman, out to misguide their faith; therefore, the reader assumed this was Gould’s way of facilitating a viable connection with biased readers before undermining creationism. Darwinism is known as the theory of evolution, and creationists repeatedly utilize a mistaken vernacular of the word “theory” to denounce evolution. Although, a theory is “part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess” (Gould, 1981).

The Arkansas trial raised discussions about the demarcation of science from nonscience. Towards the end of the trial Judge Overton justified his decision by providing five criteria, which stated the definition of science. Discussions arose which argued for and against these criterias. One of the philosophers that claimed that creation science was indeed science was Larry Laudan. Laudan expressed his disappointment towards the decision of the trial, and stated that the trial failed to recognise the falsifiable theories that creationists made. Gilkey and Ruse were a couple of the philosophers however, that agreed with the decision arguing that creation science failed to comply with the standards of science especially through its conclusion of an unexplainable divine creator. In this essay, I will discuss the arguments that aid the demarcation of science from nonscience, and ultimately conclude with an

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

Creation science, on the other hand, is not science but pseudoscience and it is connected to a particular group of fundamentalist Christians. Most Christians,

In the article, "Science: Conjectures and Refutations", Karl Popper attempts to describe the criteria that a theory must meet for it to be considered scientific. He calls this puzzle the problem of demarcation. Popper summarizes his arguments by saying, "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." Kuhn

In this essay I will argue that science and pseudoscience cannot be clearly demarcated: rather that there’s great difficulty and complication on the fringes when asserting strict criteria that distinguishes the two. I will give a brief overview and draw on the arguments made by philosophers of science throughout history and explain why perhaps their criteria are problematic. I will look in depth into ‘creation science’ and why we strongly consider this as pseudoscientific and analyse the more ambiguous peripheries of science such as Freudian psychoanalysis or even economics.