Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:45, 6 March 2009

Part of a series on
Creationism
History
Types
Young Earth Old Earth day-age gap progressive Neo-creationism
Biblical cosmology
Book of Genesis creation narrative as an allegory Omphalos hypothesis
Creation science
Created kind Flood geology Creationist cosmologies Intelligent design
Rejection of evolution by religious groups
History Public education "Teach the Controversy"
Religious views
Non-creation Creator in Buddhism Jainism and non-creationism Evolution Theistic evolution Buddhist Catholic Hindu Islamic Jewish Mormon
v t e

Creation science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to use scientific means to disprove the accepted scientific facts and theories on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution and prove the religious Genesis account of creation. Its most vocal proponents are fundamentalist and conservative Christians in the United States who seek to prove Biblical inerrancy and mount a challenge against the scientifically accepted theory of evolution. Key concepts in creation science include belief in "creation ex nihilo"; that mankind and other life on earth were created as unique, fixed "baraminological" kinds, and the hypothesis that fossils found in geological strata are indicative of an historical flood which extended over the whole earth. While creation science purports to be a true scientific challenge to the theory of evolution, often referred to by creation science proponents as Darwinism or as Darwinian evolution, it has never been recognized by or accepted within the scientific community as a valid scientific method of inquiry.

Until the 1960s, creation science drew little notice beyond the schools and congregations of conservative fundamental and evangelical Christians. The first creation science texts and curricula focused upon concepts derived from a literal interpretation of the Bible and were overtly religious in nature, most notably linking Noah's flood in the Biblical Genesis account to the geological and fossil record in a system termed "flood geology". Creation science came to the attention of the wider national and international public and scientific community when its followers launched objections to the teaching of evolution in public schools and other venues. Some school boards and lawmakers were persuaded that creation science deserved an equal amount of consideration in classrooms, alongside Darwinian evolution in the science curriculum. Revised creation science texts and curricula were developed for public schools which removed the theory's explicit references to Biblical and theological doctrine, and teaching of creation science was implemented in Louisiana, Arkansas, and other regions in the United States. By the 1980s, its influence was worldwide.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences, creation science fails to meet the key criteria of any true science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural events. The teaching of creation science in public schools in the United States effectively ended in 1987 when the United States Supreme Court determined the creation science taught in Louisiana public schools was not a legitimate scientific theory, and ruled its teaching unconstitutional in Edwards v. Aguillard because its true purpose was to advance a particular religious belief.

Beliefs and activities

Most creation science proponents hold fundamentalist or evangelical Christian beliefs in biblical literalism or biblical inerrancy, as opposed to the higher criticism supported by Liberal Christianity in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy. However, there are also examples of Islamic and Jewish scientific creationism that conform to the accounts of creation as recorded in their religious doctrines.

Creation science rejects evolution's theory of the common descent of all living things on the earth. Instead, it asserts that the field of evolutionary biology is itself pseudoscientific or even a religion. Creation scientists argue instead for a system called baraminology which considers the living world to be descended from uniquely created kinds or baramins.

Creation science incorporates the concept of catastrophism to account for Earth's geological formations. Creation scientists employ the concept to attempt to reconcile current landforms and fossil distributions with Biblical interpretations, proposing the remains resulted from successive cataclysmic events, such as a world wide flood and subsequent ice age. It rejects one of the fundamental principles of modern geology (and of modern science generally): uniformitarianism, which means applying the same physical and geological laws observed on the earth today to interpret the earth's geological history.

Sometimes creation scientists attack other scientific concepts, like the Big Bang cosmological model or methods of scientific dating which measure radioactive decay. The Young Earth Creationist branch of the creation scientists also rejects current estimates of the age of the universe, arguing for creationist cosmologies with timescales much shorter than those determined by modern physical cosmology.

The scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected the ideas put forth in creation science as lying outside the boundaries of a legitimate science. (See also: List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design‎.) The foundational premises underlying scientific creationism disqualify it as a science because the answers to all inquiry therein are preordained to conform to Bible doctrine, and because that inquiry is constructed upon theories which are not empirically testable in nature. Scientists also deem creation science's attacks against biological evolution to be without scientific merit. Those views of the scientific community were accepted in two significant court decisions in the 1980s which found the field of creation science to be a religious mode of inquiry, not a scientific one.

History and organization

The doctrine of creation is a fundamental and ancient precept of many religious faiths, including Christianity which holds beliefs founded on Creation according to Genesis. From the days of the early Christian Church Fathers there were allegorical interpretations of Genesis as well as literal readings. The Protestant Reformation widened literacy, and lay people began reading the Bible in translation with more literal understandings of creation than classical theologians. At the same time a new interest in natural history found that there were far more species of organisms than had been anticipated, and new findings in geology furnished the first strong scientific evidence that the earth was far older than the age of the Earth derived from the Biblical timeframe, as detailed for instance in the Ussher chronology. From the late seventeenth century through to the mid nineteenth century natural theology increasingly popularized the concept that Christian faith should be based on what can be rationally demonstrated, and the study of nature should reveal the intelligence, benevolence, and power of God. In a complex and lively debate between various viewpoints including deism and materialism, several of the ideas put forward to explain the discoveries anticipated modern creationist arguments. For example, catastrophism attempted to reconcile geological findings showing an ancient earth with the Biblical flood.

Various ideas of transmutation of species were put forward, and though they conflicted with the doctrine of fixity of species (now known as "special creation") and were harshly condemned as a threat to the aristocratic social order and the established Church of England, by the 1840s they had wide public acceptance and were favored by liberal theologians, Unitarians and some Dissenters as well as by Freethinkers and atheists. After Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published in 1859, the scientific establishment came to accept the common ancestry of all species, and by the 1900s evolution through descent with modification was widely accepted as the unifying principle of biological development.

Twentieth century creationism

The teaching of evolution was gradually introduced into more and more public high school textbooks in the United States after 1900, but in the aftermath of the First World War the growth of fundamentalist Christianity gave rise to a creationist opposition to such teaching. Legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution was passed in certain regions, most notably Tennessee's Butler Act of 1925. The 1957 Soviet Union's space program successful space launch Sputnik sparked national concern that the science education in public schools was outdated. In 1958 the United States passed National Defense Education Act which introduced new education guidelines for science instruction. With federal grant funding, the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) drafted new standards for the public schools' science textbooks which included the teaching of evolution. Almost half the nation's high schools were using textbooks based on the guidelines of the BSCS soon after they were published in 1963. The Tennessee legislature did not repeal the Butler Act until 1967.

Creation science (dubbed Scientific Creationism at the time) emerged as an organized movement during the 1960s. It was strongly influenced by the earlier work of Canadian armchair geologist and Seventh-day Adventist George McCready Price who wrote works such as The New Geology to advance what he termed "new catastrophism" and dispute the current geological time frames and explanations of geologic history. Price's work was cited at the Scopes Trial of 1925, yet although he frequently solicited feedback from geologists and other scientists, they consistently disparaged his work. Price's "new catastrophism" also went largely unnoticed by other creationists until its revival with the 1961 publication of The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, a work which quickly became an important text on the issue to fundamentalist Christians and expanded the field of creation science beyond critiques of geology into biology and cosmology as well. Soon after its publication, a movement was underway to have the subject taught in United States' public schools.

Court determinations

The various state laws prohibiting teaching of evolution were overturned in 1968 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas such laws were unconstitutional. This inspired a new creationist movement to promote laws requiring that schools give balanced treatment to creation science when evolution is taught. The 1981 Arkansas Act 590 was one such law that carefully detailed the principles of creation science that were to receive equal time in public schools alongside evolutionary principles.The act defined creation science as follows:

"Creation science means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those evidences. Creation science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:

1. Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing.
2. The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism.
3. Changes only with fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals.
4. Separate ancestry for man and apes.
5. Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of worldwide flood.
6. A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds."

This legislation was examined in McLean v. Arkansas, and the ruling handed down on January 5, 1982, concluded that creation-science as defined in the act "is simply not science". The judgement defined the following as essential characteristics of science:

1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
5. It is falsifiable.

The court ruled that creation science failed to meet these essential characteristics and identified specific reasons. After examining the key concepts from creation science, the court found:

1. Sudden creation "from nothing" calls upon a supernatural intervention, not natural law, and is neither testable nor falsifiable
2. Objections in creation science that mutation and natural selection are insufficient to explain common origins was an incomplete negative generalization
3. 'Kinds' are not scientific classifications, and creation science's claims of an outer limit to the evolutionary change possible of species are not explained scientifically or by natural law
4. Separate ancestry of man and apes is an assertion rather than scientific explanation, and did not derive from any scientific fact or theory
5. Catastrophism, including its identification of the worldwide flood, failed as a science
6. "Relatively recent inception" was the product of religious readings and had no scientific meaning, and was neither the product of, nor explainable by, natural law; nor is it tentative

The court further noted that no recognized scientific journal had published any article espousing the creation science theory as described in the Arkansas law, and stated that the testimony presented by defense attributing the absence to censorship was not credible.

In its ruling, the court wrote that for any theory to qualify as scientific, the theory must be tentative, and open to revision or abandonment as new facts come to light. It wrote that any methodology which begins with an immutable conclusion which cannot be revised or rejected, regardless of the evidence, is not a scientific theory. The court found that creation science does not culminate in conclusions formed from scientific inquiry, but instead begins with the conclusion, one taken from a literal wording of the Book of Genesis, and seeks only scientific evidence to support it.

The law in Arkansas adopted the same two-model approach as that put forward by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), one allowing only two possible explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Scientific evidence that failed to support the theory of evolution was posed as necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism, but in its judgment the court ruled this approach to be no more than a "contrived dualism which has not scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose."

The judge concluded that "Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact", and that it violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

The decision was not appealed to a higher court, but had a powerful influence on subsequent rulings. Louisiana's 1982 Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act (Balanced Treatment Act) was judged in the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, and was handed a similar ruling. It found the law to require the balanced teaching of creation science with evolution had a particular religious purpose and was therefore unconstitutional.

Intelligent Design splits off

In 1984, The Mystery of Life's Origin was first published. It was co-authored by chemist and creationist Charles B. Thaxton with Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen, the forward written by Dean H. Kenyon, and sponsored by the Christian based Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE). The work presented scientific arguments against current theories of abiogenesis and offered an hypothesis of special creation instead. While the focus of creation science had until that time centered primarily on the criticism of the fossil evidence for evolution and validation of the creation account of the Bible, this new work posed the question whether science reveals that even the simplest living systems were far too complex to have developed by natural, unguided processes..

Kenyon later co-wrote with creationist Percival Davis a book intended as a "scientific brief for creationism" to use as a supplement to public high school biology textbooks. Thaxton was enlisted as the book's editor, and the book received publishing support from the FTE. Prior to its release, the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard barred the teaching of creation science and creationism in public school classrooms. The book, originally titled Biology and Creation but renamed Of Pandas and People, was released in 1989 and became the first published work to promote the anti-evolutionist design argument under the name intelligent design. The contents of the book later became a focus of evidence in the federal court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, when parents filed suit to halt the teaching of intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania public schools. School board officials there had attempted to include Of Pandas and People in their biology classrooms and testimony given during the trial revealed the book was originally written as a creationist text but following the adverse decision in the Supreme court it underwent simple cosmetic editing to remove the explicit allusions to "creation" or "creator", and replace them instead with references to "design" or "designer".

By the mid 1990s, Intelligent design had become a separate movement. The creation science movement is distinguished from the intelligent design movement, or neo-creationism, because most advocates of creation science accept scripture as a literal and inerrant historical account, and their primary goal is to corroborate the scriptural account through the use of science. In contrast, as a matter of principle, neo-creationism eschews references to scripture altogether in its polemics and stated goals (see Wedge strategy). By so doing, intelligent design proponents have attempted to succeed where creation science has failed in securing a place in public school science curricula. Carefully avoiding any reference to the identity of the intelligent designer as God in their public arguments, intelligent design proponents sought to reintroduce the creationist ideas into science classrooms while sidestepping the First Amendment's prohibition against religious infringement. However, the intelligent design curriculum was struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the judge in the case ruling "that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism".

Today, creation science as an organized movement is primarily centered within the United States. However, creation science organizations are known in other countries, most notably Creation Ministries International which was founded (under the name Creation Science Foundation) in Australia. Proponents are usually aligned with a Christian denomination, primarily with those characterized as evangelical, conservative, or fundamentalist. While creationist movements also exist in Islam and Judaism, these movements do not use the phrase creation science to describe their beliefs.

Issues

Creation science has its roots in the ongoing effort by young-earth creationists to dispute modern science's description of natural history (particularly biological evolution, but also geology and physical cosmology) while attempting to offer an alternative explanation of observable phenomena compatible with the Biblical account.

The proponents of creation science often say that they are concerned with religious and moral questions as well as natural observations and predictive hypotheses. Many state that their opposition against scientific evolution is primarily based on religion.

The overwhelming majority of scientists are in agreement that the claims of science are necessarily limited to those that develop from natural observations and experiments which can be replicated and substantiated by other scientists, and that claims made by creation science do not meet those criteria. Duane Gish, a prominent creation science proponent, has similarly claimed, "We do not know how the Creator [sic] created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." But Gish also makes the same claim against science's evolutionary theory, maintaining that on the subject of origins, scientific evolution is a religious theory which cannot be validated by science.

Charles Birch and Paul Ehrlich stated that "hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past", such as:

• the ancestral habitat of the British great tit, Parus major; and
• competition in the past between two species of birds on the Canary Islands, Fringella coelebs and Fringella coerulea,

can hinder rigorous thought and scientific progress.

Metaphysical assumptions

Creation science makes the a priori metaphysical assumption that there exists a creator of the life whose origin is being examined. Christian creation science holds that the description of creation is given in the Bible and that empirical scientific evidence corresponds with that description. Creation scientists also view the preclusion of all supernatural explanations within the sciences as a doctrinaire commitment to exclude the supreme being and miracles. They claim this to be the motivating factor in science's acceptance of Darwinism, a term used in creation science to refer to evolutionary biology which is also often used as a disparagement. Critics consider creation science to be religious rather than scientific because it stems from faith in a religious text rather than by the application of the scientific method. The United States National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has noted, "Religious opposition to evolution propels antievolutionism. Although antievolutionists pay lip service to supposed scientific problems with evolution, what motivates them to battle its teaching is apprehension over the implications of evolution for religion."

Creation science advocates argue that scientific theories of the origins of the universe, Earth, and life are rooted in a priori presumptions of methodological naturalism and Uniformitarianism, each of which is disputed. In some areas of science such as chemistry, meteorology or medicine, creation science proponents do not challenge the application of naturalistic or uniformitarian assumptions. Traditionally, creation science advocates have singled out those scientific theories judged to be in conflict with held religious beliefs, and it is against those theories that they concentrate their efforts.

Religious criticism

Fideists criticize creation science on theological grounds, asserting either that religious faith alone should be a sufficient basis for belief in the truth of creation, or that efforts to prove the Genesis account of creation on scientific grounds are inherently futile because reason is subordinate to faith and cannot thus be used to prove it.

Many Christian theologies, including Liberal Christianity, consider the Genesis narrative to be a poetic and allegorical work rather than a literal history, and many Christian churches – including the Roman Catholic, Anglican and the more liberal denominations of the Lutheran, Methodist, Congregationalist and Presbyterian faiths – have either rejected creation science outright or are ambivalent to it.

Theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are theologies that reconcile belief in a creator with biological evolution. Each holds the view that there is a creator but that this creator has employed the natural force of evolution to unfold a divine plan. Religious representatives from faiths compatible with theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism have challenged the growing perception that belief in a creator is inconsistent with the acceptance of evolutionary theory. Spokespersons from the Catholic Church have specifically criticized biblical creationism for relying upon literal interpretations of biblical scripture as the basis for determining scientific fact.

Scientific criticism

The United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such." and that "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested." According to Skeptic, the "creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics" and "seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution."

For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

• consistent (internally and externally)
• parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
• empirically testable and falsifiable
• based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
• correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
• progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
• tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is. If it meets two or fewer of these criteria, it cannot be treated as scientific in any useful sense of the word.

Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987, the United States Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms. Most major religious groups have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins.

A summary of the objections to creation science by scientists follows:

• Creation science is not falsifiable : Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, no claim about his existence can be supported or undermined by observation. Thus, creationism, the argument from design and other arguments for the existence of God are a priori arguments. (See also the section on falsifiability below.)
• Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Many explanations offered by creation science are more complex than alternative explanations. Parsimony favours explanations that make the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities.
• Creation science is not empirically testable : Creationism posits the supernatural which by definition is beyond empirical natural testing, and thus conflicts with the practical use of methodological naturalism inherent in science.
• Creation science is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments : That creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomena that it tries to explain.
• Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", instead of a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data as well as any future data. It is often given as a justification for the naturalistic basis of science. In any practical sense of the concept, creation science is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.

Creation science's lack of adherence to the standards of the scientific method means that it cannot be said to be scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined by the leading world science organizations. Creation science was described as an oxymoron by Stephen Jay Gould.

Historical, philosophical, and sociological criticism

Historically, the debate of whether creationism is compatible with science can be traced back to 1874, the year science historian John William Draper published his History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. In it Draper portrayed the entire history of scientific development as a war against religion. This presentation of history was propagated further by followers such as Andrew Dickson White in his essay A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Their conclusions have been disputed.

In the United States, the principal focus of creation science advocates is on the government-supported public school systems, which are prohibited by the Establishment Clause from promoting specific religions (see Edwards v. Aguillard).

Areas of study

Subjects within creation science can be split into three main categories, each covering a different area of origins' research: creation biology, flood geology, and creationist cosmologies. These subjects correspond to the scientific disciplines of evolutionary biology, earth sciences and cosmology respectively. Other topics include planetology and geophysics (including radiometric dating and radiohaloes).

Creation biology

Creation biology centers around an idea derived from Genesis that states that life was created by God, in a finite number of "created kinds", rather than through biological evolution from a common ancestor. Creation scientists consider that any observable speciation descends from these distinctly created kinds through inbreeding, deleterious mutations and other genetic mechanisms. Whereas evolutionary biologists and creation scientists share similar views of microevolution, creation scientists disagree that the process of macroevolution can explain common ancestry among organisms far beyond the level of common species. Creationists contend that there is no empirical evidence for new plant or animal species, and deny fossil evidence has ever been found documenting the process.

Popular arguments against evolution have changed since the publishing of Henry M. Morris's first book on the subject, Scientific Creationism in October 1974, but some consistent themes remain: that missing links or gaps in the fossil record are proof against evolution; that the increased complexity of organisms over time through evolution is not possible due to the law of increasing entropy; that it is impossible that the mechanism of natural selection could account for common ancestry; and that evolutionary theory is untestable. The origin of the human species is particularly hotly contested; the fossil remains of purported hominid ancestors are not considered by advocates of creation biology to be evidence for a speciation event involving Homo sapiens.

Biologists challenge creation scientists who claim the fossil evidence disproves evolution. Richard Dawkins has explained evolution as "a theory of gradual, incremental change over millions of years, which starts with something very simple and works up along slow, gradual gradients to greater complexity", and described the existing fossil record as entirely consistent with that process. Biologists emphasize that transitional gaps between those fossils recovered are to be expected, that the existence of any such gaps cannot be invoked to disprove evolution, and that instead the fossil evidence that could be used to disprove the theory would be those fossils which are found and which are entirely inconsistent with what can be predicted or anticipated by the evolutionary model. One example given by Dawkins was, "If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found."

Flood geology

Flood geology is a concept based on the belief that most of Earth's geological record was formed by the Great Flood described in the story of Noah's ark. Fossils and fossil fuels are believed to have formed from animal and plant matter which was buried rapidly during this flood, while submarine canyons are explained as having formed during a rapid runoff from the continents at the end of the flood. Sedimentary strata are also claimed to have been predominantly laid down during or after Noah's flood and orogeny. Flood geology is a variant of catastrophism and is contrasted with geological science in that it rejects standard geological principles such as uniformitarianism and radiometric dating. For example, the Creation Research Society argues that "uniformitarianism is wishful thinking."

Geologists conclude that no evidence for such a flood is observed in the preserved rock layers and moreover that such a flood is physically impossible. For instance, since Mount Everest currently is approximately 8.8 kilometres in elevation and the Earth's surface area is 510,065,600 km², the volume of water required to cover Mount Everest to a depth of 15 cubits (6.8 m), as indicated by Genesis 7:20, would be 4.6 billion cubic kilometres. The Earth's atmosphere, however, only has the capacity to store water in vapor form sufficient to blanket the globe to a depth of 25 millimeters. Nevertheless, there continue to be many adherents to flood geology, and in recent years new theories have been introduced such as catastrophic plate tectonics.

Astrophysics

Creationist cosmologies

Several attempts have been made by creationists to construct a cosmology consistent with a young universe rather than the standard cosmological age of the universe, based on the belief that Genesis describes the creation of the universe as well as the Earth. The primary challenge for young-universe cosmologies is that the accepted distances in the universe require millions or billions of years for light to travel to Earth (the starlight problem).

An older creationist idea, proposed by creationist astronomer Barry Setterfield, is that the speed of light has decayed in the history of the universe. More recently, creationist physicist Russell Humphreys has proposed a theory called "white hole cosmology" which suggests that the universe expanded out of a white hole less than 10,000 years ago; the apparent age of the universe results from relativistic effects. Humphreys' theory is advocated by creationist organisations such as Answers in Genesis; however it is considered pseudoscience by the majority of scientists.

Cosmology is not as widely discussed as creation biology or flood geology, for several reasons. First, many creationists, particularly old earth creationists and intelligent design theorists, do not dispute that the universe may be billions of years old.

Also, a number of creationists who believe that life was created in the timeframe described in a literal interpretation of Genesis are open to the possibility that there may have been multiple cataclysms and creations, or a lifeless Earth, prior to the Edenic creation.

Planetology

Various items of evidence are claimed by creationists to prove that the age of the solar system is of the order of thousands of years (in contrast to the scientifically accepted age of 4.6 billion years). Commonly used arguments relate to the numbers of comets and the recession of the moon from the Earth, and have been thoroughly refuted by planetologists.

In response to increasing evidence suggesting that Mars once possessed a wetter climate, some creation scientists have proposed that the global flood affected not only the Earth but also Mars and other planets. People who support this claim include creationist astronomer Wayne Spencer and creationist cosmologist Russell Humphreys.

An ongoing problem for creationists is the presence of impact craters on nearly all solar system objects, which is consistent with scientific explanations of solar system origins but creates insuperable problems for young Earth claims. Creationist Paul D. Ackerman asserts that impact craters on the moon are subject to rock flow, and so cannot be more than a few thousand years old. While some creationist astronomers assert that different phases of meteoritic bombardment of the solar system occurred during creation week and during the subsequent Great Flood, others regard this as unsupported by the evidence and call for further research.

Geophysics

Young Earth creationists make a number of claims in the field of geophysics, mostly related to flood geology and the age of the Earth. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that these claims have no scientific basis.

Radiometric dating

Creationists point to experiments they have performed, which they claim demonstrate that 1.5 billion years of nuclear decay took place over a short period of time, from which they infer that "billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay" have occurred, a massive violation of the principle that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying nuclear physics generally, and radiometric dating in particular.

The scientific community points to numerous flaws in the creationists' experiments, to the fact that their results have not been accepted for publication by any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and to the fact that the creationist scientists conducting them were untrained in experimental geochronology.

The constancy of the decay rates of isotopes is well supported in science. Evidence for this constancy includes the correspondences of date estimates taken from different radioactive isotopes as well as correspondences with non-radiometric dating techniques such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records. Although scientists have noted slight increases in the decay rate for isotopes subject to extreme pressures, those differences were too small to significantly impact date estimates. The constancy of the decay rates is also governed by first principles in quantum mechanics, wherein any deviation in the rate would require a change in the fundamental constants. According to these principles, a change in the fundamental constants could not influence different elements uniformly, and a comparison between each of the elements' resulting unique chronological timescales would then give inconsistent time estimates.

In refutation of young-Earth claims of inconstant decay rates affecting the reliability of radiometric dating, Roger C. Wiens, a physicist specializing in isotope dating states:

There are only three quite technical instances where a half-life changes, and these do not affect the dating methods :

1. Only one technical exception occurs under terrestrial conditions, and this is not for an isotope used for dating. ... The artificially-produced isotope, beryllium-7 has been shown to change by up to 1.5%, depending on its chemical environment. ... eavier atoms are even less subject to these minute changes, so the dates of rocks made by electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few hundredths of a percent.
2. ... Another case is material inside of stars, which is in a plasma state where electrons are not bound to atoms. In the extremely hot stellar environment, a completely different kind of decay can occur. 'Bound-state beta decay' occurs when the nucleus emits an electron into a bound electronic state close to the nucleus. ... All normal matter, such as everything on Earth, the Moon, meteorites, etc. has electrons in normal positions, so these instances never apply to rocks, or anything colder than several hundred thousand degrees. ...
3. The last case also involves very fast-moving matter. It has been demonstrated by atomic clocks in very fast spacecraft. These atomic clocks slow down very slightly (only a second or so per year) as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. No rocks in our solar system are going fast enough to make a noticeable change in their dates.

Radiohaloes

In the 1970s, young Earth creationist Robert V. Gentry proposed that radiohaloes in certain granites represented evidence for the Earth being created instantaneously rather than gradually. This idea has been criticized by physicists and geologists on many grounds including that the rocks Gentry studied were not primordial and that the radionuclides in question need not have been in the rocks initially.

Thomas A. Baillieul, a geologist and retired senior environmental scientist with the United States Department of Energy, disputed Gentry's claims in an article entitled,"Polonium Haloes" Refuted: A Review of "Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological and Cosmological Perspective". Baillieul noted that Gentry was a physicist with no background in geology and given the absence of this background, Gentry had misrepresented the geological context from which the specimens were collected. Additionally, he noted that Gentry relied on research from the beginning of the 20th century, long before radioisotopes were thoroughly understood; that his assumption that a Polonium isotope caused the rings was speculative; and that Gentry falsely argued that the half-life of radioactive elements varies with time. Gentry claimed that Baillieul could not publish his criticisms in a reputable scientific journal, although some of Baillieul's criticisms rested on work previously published in reputable scientific journals.

See also

• Adnan Oktar
• Cargo cult science
• Conflict thesis
• Denialism
• Natural theology
• Omphalos (theology)
• Pseudoscience
• Rapid-decay theory

Notes

1. Plavcan, J. Michael. "The Invisible Bible: The Logic of Creation Science". In Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey (ed.). Scientists Confront Creationism. New York, London: Norton. p. 361. ISBN 978-0-393-33073-1. Most creationists are simply people who choose to believe that God created the world-either as described in Scripture or through evolution. Creation scientists, by contrast, strive to use legitimate scientific means both to disprove evolutionary theory and to prove the creation account as described in Scripture.
2. Numbers(2006) pp 271-274
3. ^ Larson, Edward J. (2004). Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. Modern Library. ISBN 978-0679642886.
4. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (Supreme Court of the United States).
5. See, for example, the rejection of the creation science claims of George McCready Price, The Genesis Flood in those articles, as well as the rejection documented at #Beliefs and activities
6. Numbers, R.L. (2002). "21 Creationism since 1859". Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
7. National Academy of Science (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edition. National Academy Press. p. 48.
8. "Islamic Scientific Creationism: A New Challenge in Turkey". National Center for Science Education. 1999. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
9. Scott, Eugene (2001), Antievolutionism and Creationism in the United States, National Center for Science Education
10. "creationism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 20 Oct. 2007
11. Antidote to superstition, Answers in Genesis
12. Wright v. Houston I.S.D.
13. Get Answers: Created Kinds (Baraminology), Answers in Genesis
14. What About The Ice Age?
15. "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edition", Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences, 1999
16. ^ National Academy of Sciences
17. Edward J., Larson (2004), Evolution, Modern Library, p. 258, ISBN 0-679-64288-9, Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of creation science; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific arguments for their position. See also Martz, Larry; McDaniel, Ann (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek, CIX (26), Newsweek Inc.: 23, ISBN 0028-9604, By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 United States earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
18. Error in Webarchive template: Empty url., Edwards v. Aguillard‎
19. Lyall, Sarah (2006-03-22). "Anglican Leader Says the Schools Shouldn't Teach Creationism". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-22. most of the history of Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time.-Rowan Williams
20. ^ Forster, Roger; Marston, Dr Paul (2001), "Chapter 7 - Genesis Through History", Reason Science and Faith, Chester, England: Monarch Books, ISBN 1854244418, retrieved 2007-06-30.
21. Moore, James. "Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin". Speaking of Faith (Radio Program). American Public Media. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
22. ^ Johnston, Ian C. "History of Science: Origins of Evolutionary Theory". And Still We Evolve. Liberal Studies Department, Malaspina University College. Retrieved 2007-05-24.
23. ^ Johnston, Ian C. "History of Science: Early Modern Geology". And Still We Evolve. Liberal Studies Department, Malaspina University College. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
24. Johnston, Ian C. "Science and Society in Europe, 1660 to 1859". And Still We Evolve. Liberal Studies Department, Malaspina University College. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
25. Skoog, Gerald (1979). "Topic of evolution in secondary school biology textbooks: 1900-1977". Science Education (1979 Wiley Periodicals). 63 (5): 621–640. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
26. ^ Scott, Eugenie (2004-06-30). Evolution vs Creationism. Greenwood Press. pp. 1590–1628 Kindle ed. ISBN 9780313321221.
27. Numbers 2006 harvnb error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFNumbers2006 (help) p265
28. Tennessee Evolution Statutes, Chapter No. 27, House Bill No. 185 (1925) and Chapter No. 237, House Bill No. 46 (1967)
29. One long-term correspondent, David Starr Jordan of Stanford University who was the United States' foremost authority on fish fossils, explained to Price his flawed works were "based on scattering mistakes, omissions, and exceptions against general truths that anybody familiar with the facts in a general way can not possibly dispute."Numbers, Ronald L. (2006). The Creationists. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674023390. p106
30. Act 590 of 1981--General Acts, 73rd General Assembly, State of Arkansas. Abstract available at ERIC.
31. Decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton, McLean v Arkansas, sec IV(A), copy available Talkorigins Archives
32. McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
33. Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007, pp8-9.
34. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
35. ^ Numbers, Ronald (2006-11-30). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. pp. 624 pages. ISBN 0674023390.
36. John A. Thomas, "The Foundation for Thought and Ethics", NCSE Reports 10(4), pp. 18-19.
37. "...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact." Phillip Johnson. "The Wedge", Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. July/August 1999.
38. the Evolution Debate Can Be Won. Phillip Johnson. Truths that Transform.
39. wikisource Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context Page 31 of 139
40. Number (2006) pp10-11, chapter 5
41. How can creation have anything to do with science?, Origins Research Center.
42. How The Universe Began, Thomas F. Heinze
43. "Introduction", Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences
44. ^ "Where Is the Science in Creation Science?", Roger Lewin in Science, vol.215, 8 January 1982, pp.142-146, Copy used in class lesson; Error in Webarchive template: Empty url.; Lewin attributes Duane Gish's quote to, Evolution: the Fossils Say No!; Lewin attributes Gish's claim that scientific evolution is equally religious to Gish's letter to Discover magazine, published July 1981.
45. Birch, L. C.; Ehrlich, P. R. (1967), "Evolutionary History and Population Biology", Nature, 214: 349–352, doi:10.1038/214349a0{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
46. The Quote Mine Project Quote #4.20
47. talkorigins.org Mclean-v-Arkansas
48. National Center for Science Education
49. ncseweb.org
50. Scott, Eugenie C. (2000-12-07). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
51. Teaching Evolution, March 2006
52. ^ "Vatican Official Defends Evolution Against 'Useless' Creationism". Associated Press. 2008-09-19. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
53. Joyce Arthur, Skeptic (U.S. magazine), Vol. 4, No. 4, 1996, pp. 88-93
54. Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?
55. "The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching." Edwards v. Aguillard
56. "Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each." Science and creationism
57. Gould, SJ (1987). "Creation science is an oxymoron". Skeptical Inquirer. 11 (2). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |unused_data= (help); Unknown parameter |[ages= ignored (help)
58. Medieval Science, the Church and Universities
59. E. Scott, "The Evolution of Creationism", Goucher College lecture March 13, 2006, mp3 format.
60. The Vanishing Case for Evolution, Henry M. Morris, Institute for Creation Research
61. Comparison of all skulls, TalkOrigins Archive
62. Time Magazine, 15 August 2005, page 32
63. Howe, G. F.; Froede, C. R. .J.r. (1999). "The Haymond Formation Boulder Beds, Marathon Basin, West Texas: Theories On Origins And Catastrophism". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal. 36 (1). Retrieved 2008-06-13. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |number= and |issue= specified (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
64. Snelling, A. A. (2008). "Catastrophic Granite Formation: Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusion and Cooling" (PDF). Answers Research Journal: 11–25. Retrieved 2008-06-13.
65. creationresearch.org
66. Pandey, R. (2004). "Study of total column ozone,precipitable water content and aerosol optical depth at Udaipur, a tropical station" (PDF). Current Science. 86 (2): 305–309. Retrieved 2008-06-13.
67. Robert Day (1997), The Decay of c-decay
68. Russell Humphreys (1994), Starlight and Time
69. Talk Origins response
70. Numbers(2006) pp10-11
71. http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
72. Jonathan Sarfati (1998). "The moon: the light that rules the night". Retrieved 2007-02-14. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
73. Jonathan Sarfati (2003). "Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth?". Retrieved 2007-02-14. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
74. TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims Claim 110 talkorigins.org edited by Mark Isaak. 2005.
75. TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims Claim 261 talkorigins.org edited by Mark Isaak. 2004.
76. Dr Russ Humphreys (1997). "Water on Mars: A Creationist Response". Retrieved 2007-02-14. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
77. "How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs'". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2008-08-11.
78. Paul D. Ackerman (1986). "It's a Young World after all". Retrieved 2008-06-13.
79. Danny Faulkner (1999). "A biblically-based cratering theory". Retrieved 2007-02-14. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
80. Wayne R. Spencer (2000). "Response to Faulkner's 'biblically-based cratering theory'". Retrieved 2007-02-14. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
81. Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World, D. Russell Humphreys, Impact, Number 352, October 2002.
82. Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates" Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data, Kevin R. Henke, TalkOrigins website, Original version: March 17, 2005, Revision: November 24, 2005.
83. R.A.T.E: More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation Research, J. G. Meert, Gondwana Research, The Official Journal of the International Association for Gondwana, November 13, 2000 (updated February 6, 2003).
84. Claim CF210, Mark Isaak (editor), Index to Creationist Claims, TalkOrigins website, 2004.
85. Dating methods discussed were potassium-argon dating, argon-argon dating, rubidium-strontium dating, samarium-neodymium dating, lutetium-hafnium, rhenium-osmium dating, and uranium-lead dating.
86. Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective, Roger C. Wiens, American Scientific Affiliation, p20-21
87. ^ "Polonium Haloes" Refuted - A Review of "Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological and Cosmological Perspective" by Robert V. Gentry by Thomas A. Baillieul. Copyright 2001–2005. Last Updated 22 April 2005.
88. Polonium Halos: Unrefuted

References

• Numbers, Ronald (November 30, 2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674023390. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Further reading

Proponents

• Don Batten (ed.), The Answers Book ISBN 978-0-949906-23-6 (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
• Duane T. Gish, Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics ISBN 978-0-932766-28-1 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)
• Henry M. Morris (ed.), Scientific Creationism ISBN 0890510032 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)
• Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? ISBN 978-0-89051-081-0 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)
• Terry Mortenson, The Great Turning Point: The Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology — Before Darwin ISBN 978-0-89051-408-5 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004)
• Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off, ISBN 978-1-57683-344-5 (Navpress Publishing Group, 2004)
• Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation and Early Man ISBN 978-1-887904-02-5 (Saint Herman, 2000)
• Ariel A. Roth, Origins – Linking Science and Scripture ISBN 978-0-8280-1328-4 (Hagarstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1998)
• Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution ISBN 978-0-89051-258-6 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999) forward and introduction
• Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2 ISBN 978-0-89051-387-3 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2002) table of contents with links to chapters
• Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise ISBN 978-0-89051-411-5 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004) introductory chapter and some reviews
• John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood ISBN 978-0-87552-338-5 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)
• A. E. Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny ISBN 978-0-87123-356-1 (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)
• A. E. Wilder-Smith, Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory ISBN 978-99921-39-67-7 (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)
• John Woodmorappe, Studies in Flood Geology ISBN 978-0-932766-54-0 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)
• John Woodmorappe, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study ISBN 978-0-932766-41-0 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)
• John Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods ISBN 978-0-932766-57-1 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)

Critics

• Vernon Blackmore, and Andrew Page, Evolution, The Great Debate (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 1989)
• V. L. Bates, Christian Fundamentalism and the Theory of Evolution in Public School Education: A Study of the Creation Science Movement (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis: 1976).
• R. M. Frye, Is God a creationist? The religious case against creation-science ISBN 978-0-684-17993-3 (New York: Scribner's, 1983)
• P. Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism ISBN 978-0-262-61037-7 (Boston, MA: The MIT Press, 1983)
• R. Lewin, Where is the Science in Creation Science? (Science v.215, pp.142–146.)
• R. Pennock, Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism ISBN 978-0-262-66165-2 (The MIT Press, Reprint edition, February 28 2000)
• B. Vawter, Creationism: Creative Misuse of the Bible, in R. M. Frye (ed.), ibid. p.71–82.
• R. L. Numbers, The Creationists ISBN 978-0-679-40104-9 (New York: A. A. Knopf / Random House, 1992)
• D. B. McKown, The mythmaker's magic: Behind the illusion of "creation science" ISBN 978-0-87975-770-0 (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1993)
• L. Tiffin, Creationism's Upside-Down Pyramid: How Science Refutes Fundamentalism ISBN 978-0-87975-898-1 (Prometheus Books, August 1 1994)
• M. Zimmerman, M. Science, Nonscience and Nonsense ISBN 978-0-8018-5774-4 (The Johns Hopkins University Press: Reprint edition, December 1 1997)
• Synoptic Position Statement of the Georgia Academy of Science with Respect to the Forced Teaching of Creation-­Science in Public School Science Education, Georgia Academy of Science: March 22 2000 (ISBN B0008JBPNY)

External links

Legal documents

• Edwards v. Aguillard 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling preventing the teaching of creation science in public school science classrooms
• McLean v. Arkansas 1981 challenge to Arkansas' Act 590, which mandated that evolutionary biology instruction be balanced with "creation science".

Proponents

• Answers in Genesis
• Institute for Creation Research
• Answers In Creation
• The True.Origin Archive
• Creation Research Society

Critics

• No Answers in Genesis website
• Talk.Origins Archive
• Index of Creationist claims with rebuttals
• National Science Teachers Association Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution
• National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution
• National Center for Science Education
• Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences
• Skeptics Dictionary Introduction and criticism of creationism.
• Origin Myths Introduction to a number of alternative origin myths from varied cultures around the world
• 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense by John Rennie- Scientific American
• Introduction to creationism

• Creation science
• Pseudoscience