What about "creation science?”

Creation Scientists claim to have an alternative to the theory of evolution. Nearly all scientists reject the creationist theory. Why? The answer is in the way Science works. The scientific method is a specific and precise way of answering questions and developing explanations. If you don't follow the method exactly, the results are not reliable. The method has been developed and refined over several centuries. During that time we have lots of examples of the mistakes and errors that result if the method is not carefully applied. Scientists are trained to watch out for these pseudoscientific methods. Sometimes it looks like science, it sounds like science, but on careful examination it just is not science. The scientific method works. Nearly all the advancement in understanding of the world in the last 500 years can be attributed to science. Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Engineering, Medicine, Technology, the Space Program, and nearly every other area of human knowledge is founded on carefully applied science.

Isn't Evolution Just a Theory?

Misunderstood Terminology

In common usage Theory: refers to ideas that haven't been proven Once they are proved they are called “Facts” This is not the way scientists use these terms.

Theories and Facts in Science

Theory is a structure for organizing the facts It will always be called a theory even after it is “proved.” Technically you don't prove a theory; a theory is accepted or rejected . Einstein's theory of relativity has been accepted since the 1930’s but it is still called the theory of relativity. Copernicus heliocentric theory (the theory that the earth is round) has been accepted as true for centuries.

Theory Development: How do scientists come up with new theories?

As new facts are discovered, the theory may have to be reorganized or adjusted to accommodate the new facts. This process makes the theory “tighter” or more complete. Sometimes it takes several years to figure out how a new fact fits in a theory. Over time, it may occur that many new facts are discovered which don't fit the current theory. Scientists then begin to look for new ways to organize the facts that will account for all the facts. They come up with a new theory and the old theory falls out of favor (is rejected).

The Difference Between Scientific Theories and Creation Science

Scientific Theories

Scientific theories start with all the facts. Develop a theory that explains as many of the facts as possible. The Theory of Evolution for example, is a theory that organizes and helps scientists make sense out of millions of facts and pieces of data from geology, botany, zoology, genetics, pharmacology, medicine, anatomy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and many other disciplines. While not every fact that has been discovered can be explained by evolution, the power of the theory to advance our understanding of living organisms is fantastic.

Creation Science

A number of well meaning people, some of the scientists, who subscribe to a particular set of religious beliefs about the origin of the world, have come up with a theory they call “Creation Science” that is offered as an alternative to “Evolution.” This "theory" starts by saying “We believe the earth was created 6000-8000 years ago.” Then it asks, “Are there any facts that can be interpreted as consistent with what we believe.” Creationists have found some facts that can be interpreted as consistent with recent origins so they conclude evolution has not been proved. Most of these same facts can also be interpreted as consistent with evolution, but some of the data doesn't fit the evolution theory very well. On this basis creationists conclude that the theory of evolution is wrong.

The creationist theory does not attempt to explain all the facts, only the facts the creationists agree with.

The Logic of Creation Science is Flawed

If you apply the logic used by creation scientists to another area you can easily see the flaws in this method.
The flawed logic goes like this:

Start with a preferred theory and
Search for facts consistent with the preferred theory
If facts consistent with the preferred theory are found then
reject the other theory.

If you use the method of creation science you could prove that the world is flat.

We prefer the theory that the world is flat. We want to reject the heliocentric theory
Are there facts consistent with the theory that the world is flat
Yes there are:

World looks flat. Just step outside and it is obvious the world is flat
The world cant be a ball because stuff on the bottom would fall off. You can prove this by holding up a ball and trying to set something on the bottom.
If the earth were traveling around the sun at more than 1000 miles an hour, the wind would blow everything down.

Therefore the heliocentric theory has never been proved. It cant explain all the facts therefore we reject the heliocentric theory. We have proved the world is flat.

This is obviously a logical fallacy.

Conclusions:

Creation Science is rejected by nearly all serious scientists because of its inability to account for the millions of facts and observations which are nicely accounted for by the theory of evolution and old earth theory. Creation science has trouble with the fossil record, glaciers, sedimentary rock found hundreds of feet below the surface, coal seams, petroleum, continental drift, and thousands of other facts. Dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. If the earth is only 6 to 8 thousand years old, petroleum geology is impossible and there is no continental drift. It is a fact that 98.8% of human genes are identical to the genes of a Chimpanzee. It is a fact that the life processes in a human cell are virtually identical to the life processes of animals. Creation science offers no explanation for these facts. If your theory requires that we just reject a bunch of facts because you don't like them and you have no explanation for millions of observations and findings, then your theory is not going to be taken seriously as a candidate to replace the theory of evolution.

New Reformation Home Page
Send comments to:

Steve Falkenberg

Steve.Falkenberg@eku.edu