Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?
From EvoWiki
Creationism is not considered to be science because it makes no testable hypotheses, is generally not falsifiable (and those parts that are falsifiable are rarely conceded by creationists) appeals to the supernatural. It is a pseudoscience at best, and religious dogma at worst.
Contents |
The requirements of science
For something to be investigated through the scientific method, it must meet a few criteria. Many of these criteria are related, in that one criterion requires another.
Makes testable hypotheses
The first and foremost criterion of a scientific idea is that it must inform our understanding of the world. It must make a hypothesis about the nature of reality, and there must be a conceivable experiment that could falsify that hypothesis. If that hypothesis is rigorously tested and is not falsified, then it becomes part of that scientific theory. If a hypothesis predicts something that cannot be tested (i.e. if no test result could clearly show the prediction to be false), or if it predicts nothing at all, then it cannot be science.
A hypothesis about the supernatural world cannot be tested, and so is not scientific. So the concept of God, or supernatural designer(s), capable of designing the whole universe, can neither be proved nor disproved. Hence any claims that any supernatural being or force cause some event is not able to be scientifically validated (however, whether that event really occurred can be scientifically investigated).
Is falsifiable
Another hallmark of science, as mentioned above, is that it can always be proven false in future experiments. However many creationist ideas, especially the central premise that a supernatural being (or beings) created life, are not falsifiable, even in principle. Anything observable in the natural world is consistent with the idea.
Some forms of creationism (especially Young Earth Creationism) do make falsifiable predictions that natural events record in some holy work (e.g. The Bible) did occur. The occurrence of a natural event in the past is testable, so does fall under the category of science. However these creationists put forth their ‘hypotheses’ as irrefutable dogma. According to Answers in Genesis: “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.” [1] Therefore, as no experimental result is allowed to invalidate their hypotheses, they are not scientific in methodology either.
Is naturalistic
As there is no experiment that can measure, or even determine, any supernatural effects, testability and falsification require science to be limited to the natural world, where things can be manipulated and the effect of that manipulation observed. Therefore, science must assume a position of methodological naturalism.
What is at stake?
What will happen if science starts accepting supernatural explanations?
- Inconclusive 'chaotic' debates: Virtually anyone can justify his own theory using supernatural explanations. Any observations you cannot explain? Just say "it is a mysterious phenomenon designed by invisible gremlins that can't be detected if they don't want to be detected." Even if people don't agree with you or are not satisfied by your explanation, they can never 'falsify' you or prove that you are wrong. (A real-world example: Creationist viewpoints have been around for millenia. Science has never been able to falsify them, as they are non-testable).
- Change of Focus: Once unfalsifiable hypotheses are allowed , the focus of science will change from genuine research to publicity stunts for winning public opinion. After all, if no evidence can point to one idea over another, the only deciding factor will be marketing. (A real-world example: no creationist "research" has been published in standard peer-reviewed journals. All creationists' material either targets common audience or are published in dubious non-standard journals.)
- No Practical Applications: Since supernatural explanations are not 'predictive', they do not produce any new applications. Scientific research would essentially stop, as nothing new could come of it. (A real-world example: Young Earth Creationists movements have been around for over a century. There is no industrial or agricultural application where the YEC viewpoint has been instrumental.)
- Religious Conflicts: Without evidence to settle the matter, strong personal religious biases will interfere with each religious group accepting its own non-falsifiable version of the world, justifying its own holy book as a historical account, dangerously turning healthy scientific debates into religious conflicts. (A real-world example: Apart from the Bible-based YECs there are Quran-based creationist movements too, although perhaps less funded). It is not hard to imagine creationist movements based on Hindu or other religions. No amount of scientific debate can decide which of these 'non-testable' theories is better than the other. These movements lead to nothing else, save for religious conflicts in a science classes and scientific debates).
Common Tricks used by Pseudo-scientists
Creationists, failing to prove their studies to be scientific, often try to bring evolution down to their level by denouncing evolution as religion or claiming that it isn't science because it can't be falsified or doesn't make predictions[1]. Regardless, creationism remains unscientific whatever the status of evolution is (it is, of course, valid science).
(to be added : example of junk DNA, how pseudo-scientists use tricks to show their theory is predictive)
References
External Links
- Ebon Musings: Why Creationism Isn't Science
- The Skeptic's Dictionary: Creationism and Creation Science
- Why Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial and the "Intelligent Design" movement are neither science—nor Christian
