TIMEezine at l'atelier bonita
established since december 2002
ONCE
UPON a
TIME
ezine at l'atelier bonita
established since december 2002
|
Are There Good Reasons To Think That Creation Science Is or Is Not Science? by Gurpreet Gupta As we are to discuss whether Creationism should be given the status of a “science” I shall refer to it as the Creation theory rather than Creation Science. Followers of the Creation theory postulate that all life (animal and plant), the universe and all else that we take to make up our natural world were brought into existence from nothing by special processes conducted by God as stated in the book of Genesis. The foundational belief of the Creation theory is that Genesis is inerrant and that it is a literal representation of how the world was created. Advocates of the Creation theory also believe the following: • The Earth is under 10,000 years old. • All “kinds” of life forms were created within the 6 days of creation week, with plants preceding animals. • Descriptions of the Noachian flood are accurate and this flood brought about changes in the earth’s landscape giving rise to mountains, volcanoes as well as the resulting in fossil formation. • Man and apes have separate ancestry. • Evolution did not occur. Only minor changes within a “kind” of animal/plant have happened. • Although the earth is under 10,000 years, God created all things as if they had a preceding history and this is why the earth appears to be 4.5 billion years old. To decipher whether or not the Creation theory can be considered a science we must first outline what defines “science” itself. Many philosophers have tried to define this but have rarely been able to agree on the definitions presented. A popular demarcation criterion is Karl Popper’s idea of Falsification. It is almost implicit in the scientific method that nothing is absolutely proven for all time and that all true scientific theories can be falsified. If a theory is falsified it must then be disregarded. Falsification, therefore allows science to be a self correcting process, enabling detection of errors in order to further scientific progress. Popper also argues that science proceeds not by the accumulation of positive inductive support for a theory but by trying to falsify it and Popper sees confirmation simply as unsuccessful falsification. For this method to be employed theories must also be able to make novel predictions about a wide range of phenomena which can be tested. In order to be retained as an accurate scientific theory it must be able to survive several attempts of falsification through testing. This is not to say that we should be critical towards even our most “certain” scientific theories, as many theories were well accepted in their time but were later disputed and falsified. It would seem that in some ways the Creation theory is falsifiable in that it has falsifiable consequences. Focussing on one aspect of the theory, which states that all animals inhabited the planet at the same time implying that dinosaurs and humans would have co-existed, it would seem that this has been falsified by the fact that not all fossils are of the same age and that no human and dinosaur fossils have been found together. It would seem then that Creation theory ‘passes’ the test of falsification. However, Popper’s criterion also sates that once falsified a theory must be revised and retested on the basis of new predictions. Creationists do not adhere to this criterion as they will not allow their theories to be refuted. This does more harm to Creationists claim of being scientific because if they were to adapt their theories they may be given some credit of being scientific (even if only as ‘bad’ science). Creationists may have their own reasons not to believe the evidence as they may not think that methods such as Carbon dating are accurate or that no one has dug deep enough to discover fossils of humans and dinosaurs together. Other disputed areas of the Creation theory are its claim that God created everything from nothing as this is nether a testable theory or falsifiable and so in accordance with Popper, unscientific. But, even this can be explained by the Creationists who claim “God, used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe”+ therefore it is not possible to obtain evidence for it by current scientific methods of investigation. Creation theory fails to satisfy Popper’s demarcation criterion also on the point that it is unable to make predictions of future events and only able to provide “after the fact explanations of things already known” + This is what Creationists appear to do as they take the book of Genesis to be a literal explanation of creation and therefore try and ensure all evidence somehow compliments the theory. Many Creationists set out to falsify the evolution theory in order to show that it is not necessarily good science. However the fact that areas of the evolution theory can be falsified leading to a revision in the theory proves it to be a science. Many other aspects of the Creation theory are falsifiable but let us move on and examine whether the theory can be deemed scientific according to other criteria such as Inductivism. Inductivism is a theory put forward by Francis Bacon in the 17th Century and is based on the following principles: • Presuppositionless observation by random collection of information • Organisation of results • Generalisation by induction • Prediction and further experimentation Induction is based primarily on past observations and the principle that the more times a phenomenon is observed or occurs the more likely it becomes in the future. Observation of phenomenon is taken without bias and the results of our experience are recorded. Once made, the observations are used as a basis for scientific theories and laws. Inductivism is a “form of reasoning where we generalise from a whole collection of particular instances to a general conclusion.” ? Inductivism works on the assumption that the future resembles the past and implies that past justification also justifies similar future occurrences. Creation theory appears to comply with the inductive criterion as it seems to be an unbiased explanation of the evidence through observation. However, there are some discrepancies as Creationists do not believe that the processes used by God during creation week are observable or present today and therefore this conflicts with the inductivist principle that future events resemble past ones. Verification is similar to induction in that it works on direct observation and looks for positive instances to justify a theory. Also in the same way as induction it only determines that things are highly probable rather than certain. Creationists may argue that modern science cannot directly observe all things such as the growth of the Earth and cannot determine its true age. However, there are methods which have been developed to verify this such as Carbon dating. In order to accept this as verification you have to trust the methods employed. Most of these methods share a simple assumption that the basic processes occurring today behaved in the same way in the past (an inductive principle) for example the gravitational constants and the speed of light etc, were the same thousands/billions of years ago as they are today. Creationists dispute this and as mentioned before suggest that many processes used for creation are no longer present and even if they are, there is no proof that they acted in the way they are observed to do so today. For example; what if radioactive decay was faster back in 400BCE?! This could mean that many of the fossils which have been dated are not as old as first thought. Verification also claims that a statement is only meaningful if it is possible to verify it via direct observation. As the entire Creation theory is based on the notion that God exists, which is neither testable nor directly observable it cannot be verified. Some of the Creationist’s claims are possibly verifiable. One of these claims are that “kinds” of animals are fixed and only minor changes have happened within any kind and no new “kinds” of animal can now be created. Therefore evolution did not and is not taking place and no transitional forms exist and Evolution theory it seems can be falsified when examining the fossil record. Evolutionists claim that all animals have a shared ancestry and therefore there must be transitional forms present between species. It seems that the Creationist’s claim can be verified by examining fossils found in the Cambrian rocks. “Every one of the major invertebrate forms of life has been found in the Cambrian rocks” * but no multicellular fossils have ever been uncovered in Precambrian rocks. This appears to show a “sudden appearance in great variety of highly complex forms” * which is in clear contradiction with the evolution model and in favour of the Creation theory. “There is in fact, a systematic deficiency of transitional forms between the higher categories, just as predited but the creation model.” * Although there is evidence of transitions at the subspecies level (which is accounted for by the Creation model). This could possibly be verification for the creation model and a falsification for the evolution model. Creationists may argue that the lack of evidence of transitional forms is due to their non-existence but in the same way the evolutionists may claim that the reason there is no evidence recorded of human and dinosaur remains of the same age is because they do not exist either. But as Michael Ruse states “denying Evolution in no way proves Creationism.” + There are many reasons why scientists believe Genesis and the Creation theory to be inaccurate and unscientific. One of the questionable aspects of Genesis is the order of creation described. According to the book of Genesis plants were created on the 3rd day and birds and insects on the 5th day. This poses somewhat of a problem for those Creationists who believe that each day was equivalent to 1000 years as many plants rely on insects and birds for propagation. The account of the Noachian flood which shaped the Earth and lead to the formation of sedimentary fossils also appears to be severely flawed. There has been no evidence presented for this occurrence. There are serious questions as to where all the water came from and indeed went. Apart from biblical writing there does not seem to be any record of this flood among ancient Egyptian, Indus or Chinese writings, which would have existed at the time of Noah. There would have appeared to be major interruptions in pre-flood and post-flood cultures however there are no signs of this and these various cultures seem to have continued to develop through the period of the flood. “Creationists believe that the flood, for example could not have just occurred through blind regularities. As Whitcomb and Morris make very clear, certain supernatural intervention were necessary to bring about the flood” + A miracle perhaps?! Yet, science does not allow for miracles as Michael Ruse suggests and so is it possible to disregard Creation theory as a science on these grounds? However, It could be argued that science does not appear to admit miracles where in fact it does but presents them as ‘unexplained data’. Scientists will then strive to explain this data by employing new methods or creating a new theory. Is this not just ad hoc hypothesis making or a “conventionalist twist” (where data is somehow accounted for to save core assumptions) and is this not the very thing Popper claims science can not do. Does science just construct a natural law for each miracle? For example; whether the earth was created by a God or as according to the Big Bang Theory both accounts violate all current conditions of the universe and have not been observed again. So in many ways both are miracles. Only the Big Bang theory has scientific laws which have become associated with it. Ruse claims that “science is about unbroken natural regularity” + and this clearly does not seem to be the case in the previous example. Ruse also claims that science is bound by natural laws and makes predictions on the basis of these laws whereas the creation of the universe, as according to the Creationists, is not bound by law. Ruse suggests that Creationists are unable to provide sufficient evidence for their claims and make themselves somewhat immune to providing further evidence by claiming ‘God created things that way’ which cannot be tested or proved. Ruse also says that many creationists appear to further their integrity and argument “by showing evolution (specifically Darwinism) wrong rather than by showing Creationism right.” + Science it seems must also be open to change and development, to take the Bible literally and think of the writings in Genesis to be inerrant allows no room for further debate, discussion, progression on the original conclusion. This along with previous failures of Creation theory to meet scientific criterion would seem to lead us to the conclusion that it is not scientific. It could also be said that science is to some extent just as dogmatic as many of its core assumptions are not challenged but accepted and used as foundations for the rest of science. Is this not the same as what Creationists do? I disagree and feel it is not the same, as creationists would not accept any falsity in their core beliefs whereas scientists are more open to accepting such challenges, looking at the evidence and making the necessary corrections if required. Therefore the dogmatism is temporary unlike the inherent dogmatism of Creationism. There have been objections to many of the aforementioned arguments by Larry Laudan. Laudan says that Creation theory is falsifiable and by denying this it “deprives science of it strongest argument against creationism” ? Laudan says that the best way to disregard Creation theory as a science would be in the first instance to actually test it as a science and show it to be misguided and false rather than “asserting that Creationism makes no empirical claims” ? as this only immunises “their ideology from empirical confrontation” ? Adopting this approach would seem to only present Creation theory as bad or weak science rather than unscientific. If we were to adopt Feyeraband’s viewpoint of “methodological anarchism” it would seem that both Creation theory and Evolution theory have equal weight. Feyeraband also felt that science itself was just another dogma, a claim also made by Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga states that the Evolution theory is an atheist dogma and a religion in itself. Plantinga argues that without the Evolution theory the non theist would not have a satisfactory way of understanding how the world came into being and hence the devotion to it. Feyeraband felt it was important that new theories were built upon previously well confirmed ones and should not be immediately disregarded but be given room to grow. I feel that this is the only way to progress the argument for or against Evolution theory or indeed Creation theory. If Creation theory presents itself to be a science then may be it should be evaluated as such and if it cannot be furthered through scientific methodology and practice then may be it should not be considered as science. Disregarding it solely on hypothetical claims that it cannot be verified or falsified is hardly scientific in itself. In terms of accepting the Creation theory or Evolution theory I am drawn to Evolution theory because of its evidence based conclusions and because it is in keeping with laws of nature but no amount of evidence can prove definitively that one theory is more accurate. As for the question ‘are there good reasons to think that Creations science is or is not science?’ I am inclined to say no on the basis of the several arguments presented throughout this discussion. Creation theory is heavily influenced by religion, its attitude towards evidence contrary to its core beliefs and lack of evidence for many aspects of the creation story lead me to the conclusion that it is should not be thought of as a science. It is possible to look at Creation theory from Kuhn’s point of view and suggest that the theory is just incommensurable to scientific methodologies of today. Although at the time of it (Genesis) being written, it may have been considered scientific according tot he standards of the times but as circumstances have changed the theory cannot be compared with scientific criterion of today. So it is possible to look at Creation theory and refer to it as being old/bad science but not in terms of science as we know it today. This however, does not really further the Creationists case as it clearly shows its failures as not being able to develop in accordance with new discoveries and evidence and is still being assured of its initial assumptions. Another problem arises when considering things from Kuhn’s point of view is that the story of Creation as described in Genesis was only presented as science in recent years so it is comparable to scientific criterion of present day. Although we set out to discover if Creation theory could be classed as scientific there has also been much discussion about the Evolution theory and how it appears to be subject to some of the same problems Creation theory faces when questioned about being science. But this is not the aim here, as showing one to be false does not guarantee the other to be true science. In conclusion I would have to agree with Michael Ruse and those others who say that Creation theory is not science as it is unable to adhere to the scientific methods of testing or development in that it: • Is unable to be falsified and refuted • Cannot be wholly verified • Is not wholly inductive as it does not assume the past resembles the future • Is constantly the subject of ad-hoc reinterpretation • Is not based on collection of empirical evidence but rather uses evidence gathered by others to its advantage or disputes and tries to nullify such evidence if it is not to its liking The inaccuracies in the Creation story can be understood in many ways by considering that people of the time were not as knowledgeable about the cosmos as we are today. Therefore it is understandable that many of the statements made are in keeping with what was considered to be known at the time but these known facts of the day have since been discredited and are far from scientific. Saying the theory is not science however does not prove it to be wrong and no amount of empirical evidence can make this absolutely certain. As Evolution theory is considered a science and therefore open to change it may well be, that at some stage in future research the Evolution theory becomes subject to such drastic alterations (in light of new evidence) that it could possibly resemble the Creationist’s theory! ©2005 Gurpreet Gupta _______________ I was born and rasied in London, UK. I have always had an interest in medicine and have been studying medicine for the past 3 years. I have always enjoyed drawing and so try to keep interest alive, also this year i had an opportunity to study something different and so opted for Philosophym which has been really interesting. But it will be back to medicine soon and looking forward to that too. - Gurpreet Gupta |
ONCE
UPON
a TIME
ezine at l'atelier bonita
established
since december 2002