Creation Science As Pseudoscience
In every civilization throughout history, man has searched for the
explanation
to his existence. In ancient society’s people created origin
myths. Every
civilization had a unique myth. Some myths involved gods and
others involved
nature. Sometime around one thousand B.C. the longest
standing creation myth was
popularized. This creation myth is still in
practice today, almost three
thousand years later. The myth I am referring to
is the Genesis recollection in
the bible. In the early 1800’s scientists
carried out many experiments in the
attempt to give scientific proof to the
Genesis account. In 1859 when Charles
Darwin published his Origin of
Species theory, the Genesis "myth" was no
longer regarded as scientifically
plausible. Darwin’s theory went against
everything in Genesis and gave a more
logical explanation to human existence
than the account in Genesis. Religion
and science were separated and were now
fighting for people’s beliefs.
Evolution, or Darwinism, offers a reasonable
and highly logical explanation
whereas the religious groups offer another
logical explanation though in this
explanation you have to presume certain
assumptions taken from Genesis. Most
creationists believe that the earth was
created somewhere between five to ten
thousand years ago. Their arguments
involve primarily attacking evolution.
Evolutionists dispute all of the
creationist claims and have explanations to
most if not all of them. Creationism
is a creditable pursuit but due to the
fact that it is primarily based in
religion it should not be considered a
science as many people deem it to be.
There are two kinds of
creationists, pure creationists, which I will be talking
about in this essay,
and theistic evolutionists. Pure creationists believe that
the bible is a
literal depiction of the creation of the universe; they believe
God
created the universe during six 24-hour days, the earth is young, and
the
global flood was a real event. Theistic evolutionists believe that the
days of
creation are long periods of time in which evolution occurred. They
consider
themselves creationists because they believe God started the process
and
intervened along the way. This view incorporates evolution and
religion.
Theistic evolutions can be religious as well as scientific. It
is this
compromise that gives people a believable view of creation while not
dismissing
God’s role in creation. Pure creationists do not except
theistic evolutionists
as creationists. They believe that if you don’t
believe that the bible is
literal then you are not a real creationist.
Creationism is rooted in the bible,
but is not entirely unscientific. Modern
creationists deal mainly in finding and
presenting scientific fact that will
work against evolution or give proof to
Genesis. Creation scientists
attempt to disprove evolution in any way possible.
Some of their main
arguments include their claim that natural selection, the
backbone of
evolution, does not occur outside of the category "kind"; The
claim that
there are no fossils indicating transition, meaning that all life was
created
in its full form, by god; flaws in radiometric dating and several
other
disputable errors in evolutionary thought. The creationists believe
that science
is the act of pursuing scientific facts. They believe that their
motives in
searching for these facts are irrelevant. They use the scientific
method drawing
hypothesis from the bible. In many respects I agree with this
view of science. I
agree with the idea of pursing scientific facts but I
disagree that all
scientific motives should be equal. Science should be
unbiased and when using a
religious hypothesis you will draw a religious
conclusion. The main flaw in
creationist thought is that they set conditions
that will prove creationism but
they do not stipulate conditions that will
disprove creationism. The results of
creationist experiments will either
count for creation or not count at all. In a
true scientific experiment the
results of an experiment can falsify the
hypothesis, this is not the case
with creationist experiments. Since Darwin
separated creation science from
the rest of science in 1859 there has been
strong opposition to creation
science. Religious belief in creationism is the
one factor that keeps
evolution from being considered an absolute fact. If
Genesis was not a
fundamental part of two or more widely practiced religions
then people would
look at the origin of man as a scientific concern.
Evolutionists do not
take creationism seriously. The science community regards
creation science as
a pseudoscience. Creationism despite any "proof" working
for it is still
based in religion and thus cannot be considered a science. Any
experiment in
creation science will be conducted to prove the events described
in the
bible. Evolutionists believe that science is the study of the physical
or
material universe using the scientific method. In creation science
the
conclusions are already drawn and experiments are merely finding certain
terms
that will give the desired result ignoring all the facts that will
dispute the
conclusion. I agree with the evolutionist view of science,
creation science
could be considered a biased science and therefore a
pseudoscience. The main
creationist arguments do not attempt to justify
Genesis, instead, they attempt
to falsify evolution. The majority of all
creationist arguments deal with"errors" in evolution. Their primary argument is
that natural selection does
not exist outside of the category of living
things, kind. Kind is one level
above species in the categories of living
things. According to evolution,
natural selection does effect outside of kind
and is responsible for all of
evolution. When natural selection occurs
outside the category of kind it is
called macroevolution, when natural
selection occurs inside of the category of
kind it is called microevolution.
Creationists use examples such as dog breeding
and the English peppered moth
to show that microevolution occurs but that
macroevolution does not. Dog
breeding is done by combining different species of
dogs to produce a new
species of dogs. Though a new species of dogs is created
it is not possible
to make a new "kind" from breeding a cat with a dog, this
is an example of
microevolution. Looking at the peppered moth study in England
95% of
moths were white and the other 5% were black. When pollution turned the
trees
the moths lived on black, the population of moths was 95% black and
five
percent white. A moth’s color camouflages it. When the trees were white,
white
was a good camouflage. When the trees were black, was a good
camouflage. The
moth’s that weren’t camouflaged by the trees got eaten and
the surviving
moths lived to reproduce moths of their own color. This is an
example of a
favorable trait being passed through the population. Both
evolutionists and
creationists agree that this is a case of natural selection
but this is still an
example of microevolution. It is impossible to
demonstrate macroevolution in
action; the process of macroevolution takes
millions of years to occur.
Evolutionists claim that there are very few
differences between micro- and
macroevolution. They believe that there is no
difference between micro- and
macroevolution except that genes between
species usually diverge, while genes
within species usually combine. The same
processes that cause within-species
evolution are responsible for
above-species evolution, except that the processes
that cause speciation
include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such
as the evolution of
different sexual apparatus. Another main creationist
argument is that there
are no fossils demonstrating transition between
organisms. Organisms can
share traits but according to creationists an ape with
a human trait is still
an ape. The creationists say that if evolution were true,
there should be so
many intermediates that we would not be able to categorize
them. As the
author of "The Creation Science Web P age" says, "It should
not be possible
to tell where one type of animal ‘ends’ and another
‘begins’. Look at the
evolutionary ‘tree of life’ and you will find only
the leaves, with
speculative branches showing few if any common
intermediates". Creationists
claim that there is a clear line in the fossil
record, at which point fossils
can be categorized as one type of species or
another. Evolutionists claim
that there are fossils demonstrating transition. A
study was taken to in
which creationists were shown pictures of fossilized
skulls, some pre-ape and
some pre-human. The creationists could not agree which
fossils were apes and
which were human. Although creationists are adamant that
none of the skulls
are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are
not able to tell
which are which. Evolutionists believe that there are
transitional fossils
but creationists refuse to acknowledge them. Creationists
believe that
radiometric dating is flawed. The basic premise behind radiometric
dating is
that a parent isotope in a rock or any other object containing the
isotope
decays over time into a daughter isotope at a known rate, specified by
its
"half-life". The validity of radiometric dating depends on three
assumptions
being correct. The decay rate being a constant, what the parent to
daughter
ratio was when the object was "created"; and that there has
been no loss or
addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its
history.
Creationists argue that the second two assumptions are incorrect. They
say
that the parent to daughter ratio is arbitrary and the notion that
there
would be no external loss or addition of parent or daughter components
is very
unlikely over millions of years. Evolutionists argue that they
account for these"flaws" in the dating process. Creationists argue that
evolution defies the
second law of thermodynamics. The second law of
thermodynamics states that when
an imbalance exists between two systems there
exists an opportunity for
developing work that would be irrevocably lost if
the systems were allowed to
come into equilibrium in an uncontrolled way.
Creationists believe that
evolution, by creating highly complex creatures
from chaos, contradicts this
law. Evolutionists believe that the second law
of thermodynamics applies only to
closed systems. The Earth is not a closed
system. If thermodynamics forbids
evolution, then it would also forbid babies
from growing to be adults, and
parents from having children. Creationists
also have less scientific claims.
They say that humans, being complex
beautiful creatures with the ability to
think, create and love, could not
have possibly been created by simple chance.
Evolutionists when
confronted by this argument just refer to essential facts of
evolution.
Creationists argue that evolution did not happen but they give very
little
evidence that suggest that Genesis did. The majority of their arguments
deal
with so called "flaws" in evolution. In some cases they provide
information
such as dating that has shown the earth to be seventy-six million
years old.
In this example, creationists attempt to disprove evolution by saying
that
using this information there was not enough time for evolution to occur.
If
this information were true it would probably change or disprove evolution
but it
would also disprove Genesis. It seems that creation science’s primary
goal is
to disprove evolution. Even if creationists disproved evolution they
would be
asking people to believe them due to a lack of any other
alternative.
Creationists and evolutionists use the same facts but come
up with completely
different conclusions. Both sciences have a common goal
being the explanation of
the origin of man. The only difference between the
two is that creation science
has a motive. Creation science tries to prove
that the details in Genesis
actually happened and ultimately they are trying
to prove their religion.
Evolution has a much more objective approach to
the origin of man. Evolutionists
have nothing to lose if their "theory" is
proven incorrect they will take on
the new theory and attempt to prove that.
Creationists have everything to lose
if they are proven wrong so they distort
and disregard facts so that their
theory is accurate. Science is unbiased.
True scientists develop and or test
theories with no personal stake in their
experiment. When dealing with a subject
such as the origin of man it is
impossible to have no personal stake in your
subject. Where we come from is
as fundamental of a question as any other to
humans. It explains at least in
part who we are and why we are here. Creation
science and evolution both seek
answers to this question. Evolutionists do their
best to be unbiased; they
put aside their religious convictions in the name of
science. Creationists
bring all their religious convictions into their
experiments so their
experiments are biased. Creation science is a respectable
practice.
Creationists are deeply religious people who dedicate their lives in
the
attempt to prove their religion. Though commendable creation science
is
biased and therefore, must be considered a pseudoscience.