Misplaced Pages

Creation science

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ungtss (talk | contribs) at 19:42, 15 August 2005 (the section was removed without any discussion. perhaps you'd like to justify your unilateral removal of all substantive description of CS from the article?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:42, 15 August 2005 by Ungtss (talk | contribs) (the section was removed without any discussion. perhaps you'd like to justify your unilateral removal of all substantive description of CS from the article?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Part of a series on
Creationism
Michelangelo's "The Creation of Adam" on the Sistine Chapel ceiling
History
Types
Biblical cosmology
Creation science
Rejection of evolution by religious groups
Religious views
Non-creation
Evolution
File:Creation vs evolution debate.jpg
Creation Magazine is a publication supporting young-earth creationist beliefs. This issue examines whether dinosaurs perished in Noah's flood.

Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS) is a subset of the creationist movement that claims to research and offer scientific evidence of creation according to Genesis. Specifically, it challenges the theory of the common descent of all life via biological evolution, and argues instead for creation biology, or the idea that life was created in a finite number of original forms. It also challenges the uniformitarian model of geology, in favor of flood geology, arguing for the historical accuracy of the global flood of Noah's ark.

Advocates of the idea tend to be heavily involved in the creation-evolution controversy. They have typically spent many years arguing for inclusion of creation science in the U.S. public schools science curriculum. After a number of court decisions in the U.S. that deemed teaching the idea unconstitutional, the push to teach Creation science in schools has been replaced by the push to teach intelligent design. Teach the controversy is a movement that argues that intelligent design is on par with the scientific theory of evolution and therefore both should be taught in schools as equally valid.

The United States' National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such." Skeptic Magazine reports: 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".

Philosophy and theology

Creation science is described by most of its proponents as a synthesis of science and religion, as it attempts to draw on both sources in developing its theories. As such, it differs both from pure creationist theology and from the widely accepted philosophy of science which excludes supernatural claims. It shares many similarities with other pseudosciences which nominally use the guise or trappings of scientific jargon and terminology to mask what most skeptics consider to be a fundamental disconnect with the scientific method and the consensus work of the scientific community.

Developed along the lines of young earth creationist theology, creation science presumes the historical accuracy of creation according to Genesis. Most adherents to creation science believe it to be inerrant. Unlike creationist theology, creation science adopts some features of scientific language and criticism as a means to validate its claims about events in the past. For example, adherents to creation science refer often to supposed "scientific evidence" that they claim is consistent with the young Earth interpretation of Genesis. Oftentimes the interpretations of the evidence does not hold up to scrutiny and has been roundly criticized by those on the mainstream science side of the creation-evolution controversy. Unlike mainstream science, creation science holds that the study of natural phenomena can reveal evidence of supernatural events and direct action by God.

"Operational science" and "Origins science"

In addition to allowing for supernatural events in history, creation science proponents also distinguish between what they call "operational science" and "origins science." Operational science, according to creation science advocates, involves the laws and phenomena of nature which are repeatable and testable through experiment; for instance, the laws of gravity, chemistry, and microevolution. However, advocates of creation science assert that issues of "origins science" are different from issues of "operational science," because they involve one-time events which cannot be observed or repeated, but can only be inferred from the evidence. Asserted examples of such issues in origins science are common ancestry, the age of the Earth, historical geology, and physical cosmology in which the ability of scientists to study the issues is limited by the available evidence, because the actual events cannot be observed first-hand. It is argued that in issues of "origins science," conclusions are much more tentative due to the unrepeatable nature of the events, that the conclusions are therefore much more subject to philosophical bias than in "operational science," and that "origins science" therefore admits multiple possible interpretations of the evidence.

The consistent basis for such a bifurcation of science is questioned by mainstream scientists. The nature of a scientific observation is the point of contention between advocates of creation science and those opposed to it. In mainstream science, all empirical evidence is given equal weight in the consideration of whether a hypothesis is falsified. The creation science proponent distinguishes between evidence in a fashion that is not generally accepted, in general discounting evidence that does not tend to support the ideas associated with a literal interpretation of Genesis. The accuracy of Radiometric dating is often maligned by creation science advocates even though it is tied principally to observations which are repeatable and testable with experiment. "Operational science", according to creation science's critics, would therefore be "any scientific theory that does not tend to contradict a creationist interpretation of Genesis" while "Origins science" would be "any scientific theory that does tend to contradict a creationist interpretation of Genesis".

Science and religion

Creation science has been considered by many to be "religion" placing itself in conflict with "science." According to this view, creation science is religious, rather than scientific, because it stems from the Bible, a "religious book." Acceptance of creation is thus "by faith," and not by the application of the scientific method. For example, the National Academy of Sciences wrote:

"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."

Alternatively, creationists attribute the conflict between the theories to varying philosophical presuppositions which, they argue, affect a scientist's interpretation of the evidence.

For example, David Bergman, a creationist physicist, attributes the conflict to two fundamentally different worldviews: on the one hand, atomism, which excludes supernatural action in the universe and holds that random events occur in nature; on the other hand, Creationism, which holds that the universe depends for its existence on God, and that the laws of nature are a result of his design and plan. Evolution, he argues, is merely a modern iteration of the ancient philosophy of Lucretius articulated in his work, On the Nature of Things.

Under this creationist definition of science, creation science and mainstream science are both "sciences" which are grounded in opposing philosophies, so that the same methods and same evidence lead to opposite conclusions due to the underlying philosophical assumptions of the scientist. This argumentation is rejected by mainstream science as being a redefinition of science to fit creationists' own ends. Uniformitarianism, for example, is rejected by those supporting creation science by means of redefining science to include accomodations for other ideas about what could happen in the past because any scientific inference contrary to Genesis cannot be true.

Creation science is related to intelligent design which makes similar kinds of justification for its goals. The two views differ in that intelligent design proponents claim to not make any theological assumptions, they do not posit Genesis to be an accurate scientific account of origins from first principles, and they do not necessarily oppose evolution (evolutionary creationism). Critics note that the intelligent design movement was started (by many of the same individuals previously campaigning for creationism) after attempts to have creation science taught in public schools met major opposition due to constitutional church-state separation issues in the United States.

Science and the supernatural

Creation science is closely linked to the issue of whether scientific endeavor permits the recognition of supernatural phenomena. The normal definition of supernatural events is anything not existing or observable in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws or not physical or material. Science, by necessity, is unable to consider such supernatural phenomena as evidence because a primary tenet of science is that nature, being widely observable, provides the only objective standard from which to evaluate evidence. By definition supernatural phenomena violate the natural laws, and are therefore inherently unfalsifiable and unscientific. The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when supernatural claims produce observable results that can be studied scientifically they have been considered and studied .

Adherents to creation science and proponents of intelligent design hold a different position. According to Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski, the proper application of science permits positing supernatural events, because supernatural phenomena should not be seen as violating the laws of nature, but instead as events reflecting a deeper, more fundamental physical reality than that which we understand. For example, a person on an island who has never seen an airplane fly before may think the airplane is "supernatural," because it appears to him to be "magic." However, from the perspective of greater knowledge, the airplane is fully natural -- it simply operates according to laws of nature which are unknown to the man on the island. This effectively redefines the supernatural to account for the natural, and most scientists would consider such an adjustment to be inappropriate as do many fideists.

In the context of Genesis, creationists believe that Creation according to Genesis is a historically accurate account of the origins of the Earth, and that the physical evidence today is more consistent with that account than with the scientific theories of origins. The fact that the recorded events defy much of our current scientific knowledge is seen as an opportunity to explore and understand the spectacular events recorded in Genesis in order to expand our knowledge of science and history, rather than a reason to deny those events occurred at all. This is asserted to be contrary to the principle of falsification, where proponents of a given explanation are obligated to find independent empirical evidence that could potentially disprove it, rather than interpret existing data in a way likely to verify it.

From the perspective of mainstream science there is no useful definition of 'supernatural.' In most definitions, anything having an effect on nature makes that something a part of nature itself, the same point made by William Dembski. It follows that any explanation for something observable and verifiable occuring in nature would be considered natural by definition. Since nothing truly supernatural could be observed the only way science could reach a supernatural explanation is to eliminate all natural explanations; but it is impossible to ever know that all possibilities have been eliminated since this involves a degree of counterfactual reasoning. Even if scientists were to conclude that a supernatural explanation is correct, it would be impossible even in principle to distinguish between one supernatural explanation and another since the number of potential explanations that are not limited by natural laws is by definition infinite. Thus, determining the correct supernatural explanation among many, without recourse to independently valid criteria, is again impossible. It is primarily for this reason that science came to adopt naturalism as a cornerstone of the scientific method. The main quandary is that it is impossible to utilise science to justify a particular supernatural explanation over any other potential scientific or religious interpretation when it is factually unverifiable.

Creation science and parsimony

The mainstream scientific position is that where multiple explanations are available, each of which explains a phenomenon, scientists should prefer the theory which requires the fewest assumptions. This principle is known as Occam's razor, which suggests that new, more complicated principles or entities should not be posited if existing principles already provide an explanation.

Creation science is often criticized for positing supernatural forces or beings in order to explain events than can be explained without them. The position of mainstream science has been that evolution alone is sufficient to explain life and its appearance, and positing a supernatural creator is unnecessary.

A counterpoint to Occam's razor lies in Chatton's anti-razor, which suggests, "If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on". Karl Menger articulated a similar principle: "Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy" and "It is vain to do with fewer what requires more".

Creationists argue that naturalistical models of the origin of life and macroevolution are inadequate because they fail to effectively explain the origin of life and the origins of irreducible complexity and specified complexity. Since Chatton's anti-razor holds that entities should not be reduced to the point of inadequacy, it is argued, a designer should not be ruled out unless and until naturalistic explanations are adequate. Thus, much of the literature about creation science is devoted to criticizing mainstream science, often taking issues, debates, and discrepencies discovered by scientists working in the scientific paradigm and declaring that these problems indicate that their methodologies are fundamentally flawed and that adequate explanations can only be elicited from religious scripture.

Adherents of creation science also suggest that it is no more parsimonious to posit an ostensibly unobserved and unexplained chemical mechanism for the above phenomenon than to posit an unexplained but ostensibly subjectively experienced designer, so that neither is ruled out by Occam's razor until one or the other is comprehensively observed, explained, and/or demonstrated. What creationist advocates means by "unobserved" or "unexplained" varies according to the specifics of the individual arguments raised.

Those criticizing this position argue that Chatton's anti-razor is not a principal tenet of the scientific method and that religious beliefs do not count as valid hypotheses; allowing God as an explaination is not open to verification or validation. They also argue that creationism as an explanation is not an affirmative proposition - related to the discussion of falsifiability above. For an explanation to be an affirmative proposition it must explain why something is one way instead of an alternative way in a manner that accounts for or accords with a broad range of, if not all, evidence and phenomena beyond the subject at hand. If the correct explanation is always found in Genesis, that means that any piece of physical evidence in apparent contradiction to Genesis must be refuted or explained with reference to it, rather than explained in the formulation of a new theory that better predicts the observable results. This leads to the problem that by its criteria, creation science does not have to account for all observable phenomena, but only for the way in which they accord with Genesis.

Creation science and falsifiability

Creation Science is commonly called unfalsifiable by prominent members of the mainstream scientific community. Falsifiability was proposed by Karl Popper as a criterion for whether an idea should be considered scientific. If no experiment could be devised which would prove a theory false, then the theory was not a function of science, but rather metaphysical or pseudoscience. Popper argued that certain ideas, such as Freudian psychology, were not falsifiable, because any possible observation could be fit into the theory, so that the theory, although not necessarily false, were metaphysical, rather than strictly scientific.

He classified theories into three broad categories based on how falsifiable they were:

"...There will be well-testable theories, hardly testable theories, and non-testable theories. Those which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. They may be described as metaphysical." Popper, Karl, Conjectures and Refutations (New York: Basic Books, 1963), p. 257.

Many prominent scientists have argued that "Creation Science" is an oxymoron and purely metaphysical, because it is unfalsifiable. For example, Stephen Jay Gould wrote in "Hens' Teeth And Horses' Toes":

"Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D. from his recent (1978) book, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "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 the Creator created, what process 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 investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is scientific creationism?

Later in the same book, he says:

The individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research. Creationists themselves have been forced to retreat from the more embarrassing items. Noted creationist Henry Morris, for example, has often cited the supposed footprints of dinosaurs and humans together in rocks of the Paluxy River of Texas. But creationist Leonard Brand attributes some of the "human" prints to erosion and others to a three-toed dinosaur. He also adds: "We do know that there was a fellow during the Depression who carved tracks."

Phillip Quinn, a philosopher of religion and science, states that being able to falsify creationist arguments automatically means being able to falsify creationism itself, and therefore sees a contradiction between Gould's two quotes above:

"Unfortunately, the patently false claim that creation science is neither testable nor falsifiable seems well on its way to becoming, for some evolutionary biologists, a rhetorical stick with which to belabor their creationist opponents. In a recent collection of essays, Stephen Jay Gould claims that "'scientific creationism' is a self-contradictory nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified' ... Gould goes on to contradict himself by asserting that "the individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research." Indeed some of them are! But since they are easily refuted by research, they are after all falsifiable and, hence, testable. This glaring inconsistency is the tip-off to the fact that talk about testability and falsifiability functions as verbal abuse and not a serious argument in Gould's anti-creationist polemics." Template:Mn

Creationists acknowledge that some aspects of creationism are unfalsifiable, but assert that other aspects are falsifiable. They claim parts of their beliefs are very difficult to falsify solely because the related events took place in the distant past. Opponents say that all the falsifiable parts have been falsified.

Creationists also argue that the unfalsifiability of an idea does not necessarily mean that the idea is false, but only that contemporary scientists lack the tools to test it effectively. However, this has no bearing on whether or not the arguments of Creationists are true or false, but whether they are scientific.

Creationists see the unfalsifiable aspects of the theory as ambiguities in the idea, rather than cause to dismiss the idea out of hand. Finally, they assert that many aspects of evolutionary theory are also unfalsifiable, such as common ancestry between humans and apes. They claim that no falsifying experiment could be conducted to test that theory, so a theory need not be wholly falsifiable in order to be considered scientific.

In the first quote above, Gould disagrees:

I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs.

About Creationist methodology, he says:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."


Organized movement

Creation science as an organized movement is primarily centered within the United States, although creation science organizations are known in other countries. Proponents are found primarily among various denominations of Christianity described as evangelical, conservative, or fundamentalist. While creationist movements also exist in the Baha'i faith, Islam, and Judaism, these movements do not use the phrase creation science to describe their beliefs.

Controversy

Creation science has its roots in the ongoing effort by young earth creationists to critique 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—an explanation they also describe as "science"—compatible with the Biblical account.

The proponents of creation science tend to avoid the assertion that the Biblical account is scientifically verifiable or falsifiable. Its adherents do, however, often argue that many observable phenomena fit more easily into the Biblical account than with the naturalistic worldview. The vast majority of mainstream scientists argue that this premise runs counter to the core principles of coherent scientific methodology.

Creation science advocates argue that mainstream scientific theories of the origins of the universe, the earth, and life are rooted in an assumption of methodological naturalism that is unfalsifiable, and uniformitarianism that is disputed, and that, therefore, it is a matter of faith to decide whether one proceeds under the assumption that the Biblical account describes actual historical events, or under other assumptions. However, in other areas of science, for example chemistry, meteorology, or medicine, the assumptions of a naturalistic universe and uniformitarianism are not considered problematic to most creation science proponents.

Religious criticisms of creation science

Fideists criticize creation science on the grounds either that religious faith, alone, should be a sufficient basis for belief, or that efforts to prove the Genesis account of creation on scientific grounds are inherently futile, arguing that faith is a necessary component of divine salvation.

Many Christian churches, including the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran faiths, have either rejected creation science outright or are ambivalent to it, since much of Christian theology, including Liberal Christianity, considers the Genesis narrative primarily a poetic and allegorical work and not a literal history. Supporters of Young Earth creationism argue that Genesis has the style of a historical narrative and none of the earmarks of Hebrew poetry.

Scientific criticisms of creation science

The United States' National Academy of Sciences has said that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such." According to the NAS, "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."

Creationists often claim that creationism, and more specifically creation science, is not only scientific, but that it is more scientific than evolution.

For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

  • consistent (internally and externally)
  • parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
  • useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
  • empirically testable and falsifiable
  • based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
  • correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
  • progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
  • tentative (admits 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; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any useful sense of the word, and may instead be characterized as a pseudoscience. On these points, the National Academy of Sciences said:

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 U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms. And 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 mainstream scientists:

  • Creationism is not falsifiable. Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. God being a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, claims about his existence can neither be supported nor undermined by observation, hence making creationism, the argument from design and other arguments for the existence of God a posteriori arguments. (See also the section on falsifiability, below)
  • Creationism violates the principle of parsimony. Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding supernatural entities to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events.
  • Creationism is not empirically testable. That creationism is not empirically testable stems from the fact that creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism.
  • Creationism 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 phenomenon that it tries to explain.
  • Creationism is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive. Creationism professes to adhere to the absolute Truth, the word of God, not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that the Truth has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. 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, creationism is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.

Its lack of adherence to the standards of the scientific method mean that Creationism, and specifically Creation Science, cannot be said to be scientific, at least not in the way that science is conventionally understood and utilized. As a result, scientists characterize Creationism as a pseudoscience.

Scientists note that Creation Science differs from mainstream science in that it begins with an assumption, then attempts to find evidence to support that assumption. Conversely, science sets out to learn about the world through the collection of empirical evidence and the use of the scientific method.

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

Some opponents consider Creation Science to be an ideologically and politically motivated propaganda tool, akin to a cult, the purpose of which is to promote the creationist agenda in society. They allege that the term "Creation Science" was chosen to purposely blur the distinction between science and religion, thereby undeservedly legitimizing creationism by association to science.

Skepticism regarding Creation science

Skeptic Magazine reports: 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".

Subjects within creation science

Subjects within creation science can be into split into three broad categories, each covering a different area of origins research; creationist cosmologies, flood geology, and creation biology.

Creation biology

Further information: 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. Creationists who involve themselves in this endeavor believe that observable speciation took place through inbreeding and harmful mutations during an alleged population bottleneck after the great flood of Noah's ark, which they claim was an actual historical event that happened in a manner consistent with its description in the Bible even though there is no physical evidence for a global flood event that is consistent with the methods and standards of scientific evidence (see below).

Creation biology disagrees with biological evolution (see creation-evolution controversy). Popular arguments against evolution have changed over the years since the publishing of Henry M. Morris's first book on the subject, Scientific Creationism, but themes often arise: missing links as an indication that evolution is incomplete, arguments based on entropy, complexity, and information theory, arguments claiming that natural selection is an impossible mechanism, and general criticism of the conclusions drawn from historical sciences as lacking experimental basis. The origin of the human species is particularly hotly contested; the fossil remains of hominid ancestors are not considered by advocates of creation biology to be evidence for a speciation event involving Homo sapiens.

Flood geology

Further information: Flood geology

Flood geology is an idea based on the belief that many of Earth's geological formations were created by the global flood described in the story of Noah's ark. Fossils and fossil fuels are believed by its followers to have formed from animal and plant matter which was buried rapidly during this flood, while submarine canyon extensions are explained as having formed during a rapid runoff from the continents after the seafloors dropped. Sedimentary strata are described as sediments predominantly laid down after Noah's flood.

Mainstream geologists conclude that no such flood is seen in the preserved rock layers and moreover that the flood itself represents a physical impossibility. Nevertheless, there continue to be many creationists who argue that the flood can explain the fossil record and the evidence from geology and paleontology that are often used to dispute creationists' claims. In addition to the above ideas that are in opposition to the principles of geology, advocates of flood geology reject uniformitarianism and the findings of radiometric dating.

Creationist cosmologies

Further information: 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.

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 creationists do not dispute that the universe may be billions of years old. Also, some creationists who believe that the Earth was created in the timeframe described in a literal interpretation of Genesis believe that Genesis describes only the creation of the Earth, rather than the creation of the entire universe, allowing for both a young Earth and an old universe. Finally, the technical nature of the discipline of physical cosmology and its ties to mathematical physics prevent those without significant technical knowledge from understanding the full details of how the observations and theories behind the current models work, let alone a critique of such work.


History

Within the history of creationism, creationism was originally based purely on theology. The vast majority of Church Fathers and Reformers accepted Genesis straightforwardly, and even the few who did not, such as Origen and Augustine, defended an earth that was on the order of thousands of years old.

When geologists revised the age of the Earth to millions of years, some writers looked to studying geology within the Biblical timeframe detailed in the Ussher-Lightfoot calendar. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the leaders were the scriptural geologists in Britain. About a century later, the Canadian George McCready Price wrote extensively on the subject. However, the concept only revived during the 1960s following the publication of The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb.

Subsequently, creation science has expanded into biology and cosmology. However, efforts to have it legislated to be taught in schools in the United States were eventually halted by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard 1987.

See also

References

Template:Mnb American Heritage Dictionary definition of creation science
Template:Mnb "The philosopher of science as expert witness", p. 43, in Cushing, J., Delaney, C.F. & Gutting, G., Science and reality: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Science, University of Notre Dame Press, 1984.
Template:Mnb Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition, 1999, National Academy of Sciences.
Template:Mnb Project Steve: FAQs National Center for Science Education, 2003-2005

Further reading

A history of scientific creationism and its course in time can be found in Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992).

Creation science

  • Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book ISBN 0-949906-23-9 (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
  • Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism ISBN 0-89052-003-2 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)
  • Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? ISBN 0-89051-081-4 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)
  • Mortenson, Terry, The Great Turning Point: The Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology — Before Darwin ISBN 0-89051-408-9 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004)
  • Rose, Seraphim, Genesis, Creation and Early Man ISBN: 1887904026 (Saint Herman, 2000)
  • Roth, Ariel A., Origins—Linking Science and Scripture ISBN 0-8280-1328-4 Hagarstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1998)
  • Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution ISBN 0-890512-58-2 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999) forward and introduction
  • Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution 2 ISBN 0-890513-87-2 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2002) table of contents with links to chapters
  • Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Compromise ISBN 0-890514-11-9 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004) introductory chapter and some reviews
  • Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man's Origin, Man's Destiny ISBN 0-87123-356-8 (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)
  • Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology ISBN 0-932766-54-4 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)
  • Woodmorappe, John, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study ISBN 0-932766-41-2 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)
  • Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods ISBN 0-932766-57-9 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)
  • Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory ISBN 9-99213-967-6 (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)
  • Gish, Duane T., Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics ISBN 0-932766-28-5 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)
  • Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood ISBN 0-87552-338-2 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)

Criticism

  • Bates, V. L., 1976, Christian Fundamentalism and the Theory of Evolution in Public School Education: A Study of the Creation Science Movement : University of California, Davis.
  • Frye, R.M., 1983, Is God a creationist?: the religious case against creation-science, ISBN 0684179938, (New York: Scribner's, c1983)
  • Kitcher, P., 1983, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism ISBN 026261037X (Boston, MA: The MIT Press, 1983)
  • Lewin, R., 1982, Where is the Science in Creation science? Science 215, pp. 142–146.
  • Pennock, R., 2000, Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism, ISBN 0262661659 (The MIT Press; Reprint edition, February 28, 2000)
  • Vawter, B., 1983, Creationism: Creative Misuse of the Bible, in Frye, R. M., ed., Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science (New York, Scribner's Sons), p. 71–82.
  • Numbers, R.L., 1992, The Creationists, ISBN 0679401040, (New York: A. A. Knopf: Distributed by Random House)
  • McKown, D.B., 1993, The mythmaker's magic : behind the illusion of "creation science", ISBN 0879757701, (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1993)
  • Tiffin, L., 1994, Creationism's Upside-Down Pyramid: How Science Refutes Fundamentalism, ISBN 0879758988, (Prometheus Books, August 1, 1994)
  • Zimmerman, M. , 1997, Science, Nonscience, and Nonsense, ISBN 0801857740, (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, 2000, ISBN B0008JBPNY. (Georgia Academy of Science; March 22, 2000)

External links

Neutral

  • Edwards v. Aguillard 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling preventing the teaching of creation science in public school science classrooms

Creation science

Criticism

Categories: