Myth: "Creation science" is science.
Fact: "Creation science" doesn't make predictions or offer verifiable evidence.
Summary
"Creation science" fails two important tests of
science: it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can
be empirically verified. It simply makes proclamations by faith.
Furthermore, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific
evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are
almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within
evolution. Finally, the scientific credentials of the creation
scientists are what we might charitably describe as suspicious.
Argument
In the last few decades, a movement called "creation
science" has gained considerable influence among Christian
fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute
for Creation Research, their studies require "no reliance
upon biblical revelation," but utilize "only scientific
data to support and expound the creation model." (1)
Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis
as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and
biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th
century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists
had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however,
creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight
against evolutionists on their own ground.
By presenting the creation model as science, creationists have
re-raised the question of what "science" is. Philosophers
of science have worked out a commonly accepted list of criteria
(produced well outside the debate between creationists and evolutionists).
To be accepted as science, a theory must have predictive value,
must be coherent (or internally consistent), must be falsifiable
(or verifiable), and must explain at least those phenomena explained
by the current theory.
Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways.
First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory
has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would
be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable
without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists
on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify
as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely
becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the
earth is likewise unverifiable
no one has yet found any
way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made
countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if
indeed they are.
Second, creationism has no predictive value. A theory must be
able to make predictions which can then be tested for accuracy.
Creation science makes "predictions" that already happened
in the past or are unfalsifiable. Evolutionary theory passes this
test because it has made accurate predictions concerning population
densities, physiologies, chemistries, fossil find forecasts, and
many other things.
Third, creation scientists have not come anywhere close to explaining
all the phenomena of life to the extent that evolution has. It
would be entirely fair, and no exaggeration whatsoever, to say
that the difference between the two explanatory efforts is akin
to the difference between a magazine article and the Encyclopedia
Britannica.
Here, creation scientists will probably protest. Although it's
true that the Institute for Creation Research is a small organization,
employing dozens of researchers who have written dozens of books,
this is hardly the entire literary output of creationists. The
book Anti-Evolution, by Tom McIver, is a bibliography of
those Christian books touching upon any aspect of this debate,
and he lists no less than 1,852 titles. (2) However, virtually
none of these books makes a positive scientific description
of creationism. There is almost no attempt to use the scientific data
found in the world today to prove creationism. Instead, the overwhelming majority of these
books forge a negative scientific critique on its opponent,
evolution. When not doing that, they concern themselves with the
theological or legal issues surrounding the debate. But when it
comes to making a positive scientific case for their paradigm,
the analogy of a magazine article vs. the Encyclopedia Britannica
is entirely correct.
The near complete absence of a scientific theory of creationism
has been an embarrassment to that movement ever since it started.
Creation scientists claim to have scientific evidence --
tons and tons of it, according to their charming and affable spokesman,
Duane Gish -- but they never produce it. The welcome page
for talk.origins, the Internet discussion group where evolution
and creation are hotly debated, says up front: "No one has
ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us." (3)
A study of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 68 scientific journals
over a 3-year period found that only 18 attempted to make a case
for scientific creationism, and these were rejected because they
were apparently written by laymen with a high-school level understanding
of their subjects. (4) The simple fact is, creationists do not
have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis. If they
had it, they would offer it.
So what is to be found in all the books and articles published
by organizations like the Institute for Creation Research? Basically,
attacks on evolutionary theory. The researchers seem stuck in
a false dichotomy: they believe that if one aspect of evolution
can be proven false, then it must all be false, and this automatically
proves the case for creationism. An analogy best highlights the
illogic of this approach. Imagine two historians debating an age-old
controversy, whether or not Thomas Jefferson had an affair with
Sally Hemings, one his slaves. If a crank scholar were so
inclined, he could take this argument between two legitimate historians
and offer this as "proof" that neither one of them knows
what he's talking about, and that this constitutes "proof"
that the American Revolution never occurred! Or, better yet, one
historian might be proven clearly wrong, which offers even stronger
"evidence" that the entire historical period is a complete
fiction.
Nor are the "scientists" at the Institute for Creation
Research what we might charitably call top-drawer. Most of them
have degrees in fields other than what they are debating. And
there seems to be an unusually high level of suspicious credentials
at the IRC. Many are theologians who are passing themselves off
as scientists. Some have claimed to have degrees which they actually
did not have; some received their degrees from fraudulent diploma
mills; others completely invented their educational backgrounds.
(5)
Many books have been written debunking creation science, but two
of the best are Abusing Science by Phillip Kitcher and
The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. These books address
specific and frequent creationist arguments and show how they
are fallacious. Another thorough deconstruction of creation science
can be found in the talk.origins FAQs.
Return to Overview
Endnotes:
1. Henry Morris, "Tenets for Creationism," Acts
and Facts Series, No. 85, July 1980.
2. Tom McIver, Anti-Evolution (Baltimore: John Hopkins
University Press, 1992).
3. Andy Peters,
"Welcome to talk.origins!"
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-welcome.html .
4. Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole, Quat. Rev. Biol. 60, (1985),
p. 21.
5. A list of suspicious credentials at the Institute for Creation
Research, along with other examples of blatant dishonesty, can
be found at
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/origins/faqs-creationists.html .