Why Young-Earth-Creation “Science” Isn’t Considered Science.

Screen Shot 2017-09-11 at 10.50.34 PM.png

Defining science might not be as easy as initially thought. Anything with centuries long history, one that involves the intricacies and complexities of religion, philosophy, and other avenues of human belief, is seldom easy to capture in just a handful of paragraphs. But thankfully, science, as it is seen today, has a number of distinct characteristics that separates it from other disciplines and other means of acquiring knowledge about the universe. What are some of these distinguishable traits?

What’s Science?

Science seeks to explain things. Why, for example, if one throws a ball across an open field will it arch in a parabola, as opposed to a circle or a square, and then fall back to the ground? Why doesn’t the ball just keep flying away into the sky? No doubt Newton’s law of universal gravitation will help answer that question. This is why human beings do science in the first place. It helps build knowledge and an understanding of how the natural world works, and learning such things have had a good track record of elevating the quality of life, increasing human knowledge, and assisting and benefiting human beings in many important ways. Science, secondly, emphasizes predictability. The laws of nature allow scientists to predict what will happen under certain conditions. The apprehension of the law of gravity, for example, allows for scientists to predict that if one throws a ball up in the sky it will no doubt fall back down. Third, and just as important, is that of testability. A scientific claim allows itself to be analyzed against the real world, and invites scientists to examine a hypothesis to see whether or not it can be supported or falsified by the data of actual experience. Testability can thus lead to one of two conclusions: confirmation or refutation. It might lead to confirmation given that empirical evidence supports a hypothesis or, if a hypothesis lacks empirical support, then possibly refutation. A scientific claim must also be falsifiable. It must be open to refutation perhaps by facts supporting another hypothesis that could better explain phenomena. If one considers Kepler’s Laws that describe the motion of the planets he will realize that they are foundational to much of modern astronomy and physics. Kepler’s Law of Orbits, for instance, says that all planets move in elliptical orbits with the sun at one of the two foci. However, if scientists discovered planets orbiting in squares then Kepler’s Law of Orbits would be considered false, hence scrapped as an adequate theory.

No scientific theory is ever “proven” in any absolute sense simply because science continues to seek after new evidence. What one might consider a compelling theory today might be overturned or revised tomorrow. This is not to say that science and scientific theory are somehow unreliable, because many theories are accepted on the basis of compelling evidence, as well as because of the fact that further scientific investigation continues to support them (Big Bang theory, for example). A good scientist must therefore always be ready and open to rejecting his or her theories should they fail to account for new or reconsidered evidence. Thus, generally speaking, science hopes to understand the history of the universe and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence being the basis from which we can learn about the world.

The question then is, how might one understand creation-science given this definition and understanding of science? We will return to this question shortly after we’ve defined what creation-science is.

What’s Creation-Science?

One proponent of the view, Duane Gish, encapsulates the general idea of what creation-science is promoting,

By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation…We do not know how God created, what processes He used, for God used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to divine creation as Special Creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by God” (1).

Creation-science is often based on literal interpretations and inerrantist presuppositions of the narratives of particular religious texts, specifically the Genesis text of the Bible (2). Proponents argue that the Earth is just a few thousand years old (roughly 6 000 to 10 000 years), that Adam and Eve are the progenitors of the entire human race, and that there really was a global flood that encompassed the entire Earth as presented in the story of Genesis 6. Naturally, such a proponent will oppose evolutionary theory as well as any scientific evidence suggesting that there never was a global flood and that the Earth is at least four billion years old. According to Loren Haarsma, a physicist at the theistic think tank Biologos,

“Some Christians, often called ‘Young Earth creationists,’ reject evolution in order to maintain a semi-literal interpretation of certain biblical passages. Other Christians, called ‘progressive creationists,’ accept the scientific evidence for some evolution over a long history of the earth, but also insist that God must have performed some miracles during that history to create new life-forms. Intelligent design, as it is promoted in North America is a form of progressive creation. Still other Christians, called ‘theistic evolutionists’ or ‘evolutionary creationists,’ assert that the scientific theory of evolution and the religious beliefs of Christianity can both be true” (3).

Proponents of creation science will argue that the evidence in the world supports both a young Earth an a universal flood. It was a view argued for by the Canadian Seventh Day Adventist and amateur geologist George McCready Price (1870-1963) in his books The New Geology (1923) and Illogical Geology (1906) which seemed convincing to Christians readers who lacked training in geology. It wasn’t long after that Henry Morris (1918-2006) and John Whitcomb revised and updated his 1923 work The New Geology. Morris and Whitcomb soon released their own book The Genesis Flood in 1961. The duo argued that, on the basis of their interpretation of the Bible, the Earth was 6000 years old, that the fall of man transformed nature by initiating the operation of the second law of thermodynamics, and that Noah’s flood was the correct explanation for most of the geological evidence and fossilization that scientists observe today. The creation science movement didn’t stop there as since the 1960s three major Young Earth Creationist (YEC) organizations have accumulated a following and thus exerted some influence on the consciousness of religious believers. These notably being The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) (founded in 1972 by Henry Morris and now run by his son John), a larger international organization Answers in Genesis (founded by the Australian Ken Ham) and Creation Ministries International (founded in Australia in 2006).

The claimed evidence that YEC scientists have offered for their Young-Earth views have received little scientific response from mainstream scientists. This is because, on scientific grounds, their claims are unanimously viewed as problematic evidentially and methodologically. Likewise the consensus of professional biblical scholars view a YEC biblical interpretation as anachronistic as well as an unwarranted reading of the opening chapters of Genesis.

Although creation science has been quite popular for many religious believers adherence among the general public, according to some statistics, has dropped quite significantly. For example, in the US, where creation-science has generally held a notable presence, only 38% of Americans believed God created life some time in the past 10 000 years, making it the lowest figure in 35 years (4). Only 22% of Canadians and 17% of Britons believe similarly (5). Nonetheless, despite it diminishing status, creation-scientists will argue that creation-science is legitimate science and therefore must be taught in public classrooms. Critics, however, observe that what is masqueraded as “science” (creation-science) it is actually a form of religion, specially one constructed upon “dogmatic biblical literalism” (6).

Responses to Creation-Science.

Contemporary scientific consensus opposes the views proposed by creation-scientists, and criticisms of creation-science can been found in both Christian and non-Christian camps (7) (8). The National Science Teachers Association, for example, opposes teaching creationism as science (9). Other prominent scientific organizations such as the American Anthropological Association, Association for Science Teacher Education, the National Association of Biology Teachers, the Geological Society of America, the American Geosciences Institute, the American Geophysical Union, among numerous other professional teaching and scientific societies, have opposed scientific creationism and view it as a pseudoscience. According to the American Academy of Religion, creation-science should not be taught in science classes given that is ,

“represent[s] worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning” (10).

One of the major critiques leveled against creation-science is that is denies an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence and scientific consensus. As the Royal Society states,

“a belief that all species on Earth have always existed in their present form is not consistent with the wealth of evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record. Similarly, a belief that the Earth was formed in 4004 BC is not consistent with the evidence from geology, astronomy and physics that the solar system, including Earth, formed about 4600 million years ago.”

This includes creation-science’s hypotheses conflicting with the dating methods of geology, astronomy, cosmology, and paleontology. For example, significant difficulties sustaining a young Earth view is only enhanced by the age of the earliest pottery discovered, the age of ice cores, the oldest known trees, and the layers of silt deposit in Lake Suigetsu – all of which point to a far older Earth than creation-scientists have argued for. Some creation-scientists, aware of the evidence for an older Earth, have argued that the Earth was created with the appearance of age. Although one could entertain that claim theologically it is, however, problematic scientifically because it renders the hypothesis unfalsifiable. On such a claim no evidence could ever possibly be discovered or produced that could falsify the claim that God created the Earth with an appearance of age, and the creation-scientist could always dismiss any evidence to the contrary stating that God just made it that way.

Another scientific criticism leveled against creation-science is that many of his beliefs involve supernatural forces that lie outside of nature (they depend on supernatural intervention) and, as a result, do not allow for predictions. Thus, many of the claims and beliefs that creation-scientists hold can neither be confirmed nor disproved by scientists. According to the National Academy of Science,

“In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations” (11)

… “they begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter—that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems—rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science” (12).

Creation-science thus fails, at least on this level, to makes its case in favour of it being considered a viable science. This not only goes for creation-science, but also other untestable and unfalsifiable explanations of the world derived from myths, as well as personal, philosophical, and religious beliefs. This is not to say that any of those beliefs are false, but rather they cannot be said to be scientific beliefs.

Creation-science also fails the criteria of falsifiability. A scientific theory puts itself in the firing line, so to speak, through opening itself up to being falsified on the basis of new information and facts. Creation-science doesn’t do this, rather, advocates of creation-science seem to be at work constantly protecting their views against threats, hence why they’ve been criticized for promoting and inventing ad hoc hypotheses to save their assumptions (13).

Further, perhaps more of a taint to reputation than as opposed to an actual scientific critique, dishonesty and a lack of integrity can be found within the works of creation-science advocates. One way to see this is in their often blatant misquoting of authorities. According to philosopher of science Michael Ruse, one finds this in their treatment of evolutionary theory,

“Almost invariably, the creationists work exclusively with discoveries and claims of evolutionists, twitching their claims to their own ends… When new counter-empirical evidence is discovered, creation scientists appear to pull back, refusing to allow their position to be falsified” (14).

One creationist, Gary Parker, misquotes Richard Lewontin, and gives the impression that Lewontin actually viewed the human hand and eye as evidence for God’s design (15). This is an odd claim given that Lewotin was known for his materialistic disposition as he once penned that “materialism [in science] is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door” (16). Instead, Lewontin merely penned that such was rather a belief held by people prior to Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution, not that he believed it.

Others have noted many misconceptions that advocates of creation-science have fed their readers. One of these is that they will argue that scientists accept certain theories and views (such as evolutionary theory and an old universe) because they are somehow hostile to God and the Bible. They also argue that scientists reject creation-science because of similar attitudes. However, these are false. They reject creation-science because it doesn’t offer testable and falsifiable hypotheses, and as such cannot be considered a viable science.

References.

1. Gish, D. 1979. Evolution? The Fossils Say No! p. 40.

2. National Academy of Sciences. 2008. Science, Evolution, and Creationism.

3. Haarsma, L. 2010. God, Evolution, and Design. p. 168.

4. Swift, A. 2017. In US, Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low. Available.

5. The Huffington Post. 2012. Believe In Evolution: Canadians More Likely Than Americans To Endorse Evolution. Available.

6. Ruse, M. 1982. Creation-Science is Not Science. p. 38.

7. Aron, R. 2016. Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism. p. 182.

8. Bates, S. 2006. “Archbishop: stop teaching creationism.Available.

9. NSTA. Ibid.

10. Branch, G. 2010. American Academy of Religion on teaching creationism. Available.

11. National Academy of Sciences. 2008. Ibid. p. 10,

12. NAS. 2008. Ibid. p. 43.

13. Ruse, M. 1982. Ibid. p. 43.

14. Ruse, M. 1982. Ibid. p. 43-44.

15. Parker, G.. 1980. “Creation, Selection, and Variation,” in Acts & Facts. p. 144.

16. Lewontin, R. 1997. Billions and Billions of Demons. Available.

Advertisements

4 responses to “Why Young-Earth-Creation “Science” Isn’t Considered Science.

  1. Interestingly truth by definition excludes falsehood . So the question is what is true? Is God true or men’s imaginations. To deny young earth you have to deny all the scientific evidence and the fossil record. Science clearly shows the truth of the scripture with the soft tissue in fossils . The fossils being the same as creatures today such as men , dogs , turtles and etc.. the fairy tale of evolution has been well accepted by scientist although there is no evidence but only blind faith saying that it was common ancestors . None have ever been found. It continues to contradict itself but the Bible continues to be the same and science continues to confirm it and the new DNA research says all women originated from one ( eve) and her Mitochondria is observable.

    Yes you can make anything you want up and claim science ; it is just another term for religion to them. Yet true science ( knowledge ) continues to show God’s word is true and the made up imaginations and blind faith are false.

  2. What’s ironic is that Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research and some other creation science proponents now argue for evolution as the way that the thousands of pairs of animals from the ark evolved into the millions of distinct species that we see today, but it all happened within the last 6000 years. You will see this in the most recent Christian homeschooling materials. For example, the hundreds of thousands of modern beetle species diverged from a single breeding pair of beetles on the ark. They refer to this as an example of microevolution, but in reality they are suggesting macroevolution, since it involves the generation of novel, complex forms. Apparently, evolution is true, but only when it is convenient for them. I find this to be rather hypocritical. They of course claim to adhere to a strict Biblical reading due to their dogmatic (and incorrect) insistence on a literal interpretation of the creation text, but they strain out a gnat only to swallow a camel.

    Ken Ham claims that there were about 10,000 species of animals on the ark, with only two representatives of each of those species (for most of them). There are about 10,000,000 species today by most accounts. In the approximately 4000 years since the flood, where did the other 9,990,000 species come from? According to Ham, they must have arisen from the 10,000 species on the ark. So how is this not macroevolution? In Ken Ham’s universe, we see a 1000x increase in the number of species in the span of about 4000 years. If true, this would be macroevolution proceeding on a tremendously faster scale than anything described as evolution in a science textbook. It doesn’t matter that Ham says we had thousands of “starting kinds” as opposed to just a few or one, as described by science. The mechanism of evolution is the same — genetic divergence of traits of a few species into much larger number more, except Ham’s evolution is comically more rapid than what actually happened.

    The problem is, macroevolution doesn’t happen that fast. And microevolution can’t account for such a rapid rise in the number of alleles (variants of a gene) even within the individual species over this time period. There are far too many species now, and these species have far too many alleles in their respective gene pools for them to have evolved in the span of 5000 years from any set of thousands of animal pairs that could have fit on the ark. Furthermore, young-Earth creationists’ explanation for the variety of modern species refutes their own assertion that mechanisms such as the bombardier beetle’s chemical defense mechanism couldn’t have evolved naturally. You see, young-Earth creationists also teach that animals’ parasitic, predatory, and defense mechanisms only appeared after Adam and Eve’s sin, as they claim that all animals lived peacefully with one another before this event. If we follow this argument to its conclusion, all animal forms such as the bombardier beetle’s chemical spray must have evolved after the fall, or even after the flood — in either case, a time span of only a few thousand years. This is nonsensical, since they elsewhere claim that the bombardier beetle’s defense mechanism is so irreducibly complex that it couldn’t have evolved even given millions of years. If it developed after Adam’s fall, then it happened within thousands of years, which implies evolution of novel, complex forms on a far grander scale than anything taught in a science textbook.

  3. Pingback: Engaging & Critiquing the Logic of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Concept [#3]. | James Bishop's Theological Rationalism·

Let me know your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s