The Pros And Cons Of Creation Science

Better Essays

Philosophical Essay #1
In Creation Science is not Science, Michael Ruse argues that Creation science should not be taught in public schools because it is not science. Opposing this view, in Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern, Larry Laudan argues that Creation Science is science, but that it should not be taught in public schools because it is false. In this paper, I will argue that Michael Ruse had the better argument and that Creation Science is not science, but rather it is religion. First, I explain Ruse’s argument for why creation science does not meet the criteria for science. Second, I consider and briefly explain Larry Laudan’s opposing view that creation science is false science. I then argue why I believe Ruse has the better argument.
In his argument, Michael Ruse defends the science communities’ position that creation-science is not a science. He claims that it is a pseudo-science. His argument is that “creation-science should not be taught in the public schools because creation-science is not science” (Ruse 1982, 76). His main criticism against creationism is based on the lack of support from the established view of real science. Ruse lays out what he believes the criteria for real science should look like. He then, expands on several parts of scientific activity which includes the role of prediction, explanation, testability, confirmation, falsifiability, tentativeness, and integrity. Ruse presents these as the absolute necessary empirical and social

Get Access