Doddy Curumehtar writes:
Try this one for me: naturalistic science.
Why not naturalistic, tentative, replicable, peer-reviewed science?
Science
*does* have a definition, and putting some of the terms of its definition in front of it as modifiers doesn't really address the topic of this thread. Science is naturalistic. Science that isn't naturalistic isn't another kind of science, it just isn't science at all. The same is true of all the other modifiers. In other words, science that isn't tentative isn't another kind of science, it just isn't science at all, and so forth with the other modifiers.
The opening post asks, "What actually is 'creation science'?" Well, if it is different from what mainstream science thinks of as science, then it must be different in some way regarding the qualities I mentioned above: naturalistic, tentative, replicable, peer-reviewed.
So, is creation science non-naturalistic? In other words, does creation science claim to be able to study non-natural phenomena? How, exactly?
Of is creation science non-tentative? In other words, does creation science claim its findings are timeless truths? What does it do if something new is learned that is inconsistent with one of the timeless truths? How does it advance and move forward?
Or is creation science non-replicable? In other words, do creation scientists accept findings by other creation scientist that they are unable to replicate?
Or is creation science non-peer-reviewed? In other words, do creation science journals and conferences accept anyone's work without a review by peers of its quality and how well it follows from already accepted work?
If creation science is non-naturalistic, or if it's non-tentative, or if it's non-replicable, or if it's non-peer-reviewed, then it isn't even science. It's something else. As far as the science presented by creationists for consideration by public school boards, it's just creationists saying, "Oh, you mean Genesis isn't science because it isn't natural and therefore can't be taught in public schools as science ? Oh, well then, let me just cross out these references to God and miracles - give me just a minute here - there ya go, science!"
The only way creation science can be true science is if it is naturalistic, tentative, replicable and peer-reviewed. As long as it includes these qualities then it is science. When it fails to include one or more of these qualities then it is not science.
There's another way to look at it. At heart, science is the study of how the world works. Since creationism is the study of how to create scientific sounding explanations reconciling conflicts of the evidence of the natural world with the Bible, it is not science.
One of the best examples of why creation science is not science is the examples of fossil sea shells on mountain tops. Creationists see this as evidence of a great flood, since only a great flood could have left sea shells on mountain tops.
Before addressing the non-science component of this view, let me describe an analogy. There's a murder, and the first people to arrive at the scene find the victim lying in a pool of blood and a man with blood on his shirt standing over him. At trial the prosecutor argues that the man at the scene did it because the victim's blood was on his shirt. The defense attorney points out that there was a knife found nearby that did not have the alleged perpetrator's (call him Bob) finger prints on it. The prosecutor insists that Bob did it because of the blood. The defense attorney points out that the victim's wallet was missing and not at the scene. The prosecutor insists that Bob did it because of the blood, and that Bob could have had time to hide the wallet. The defense attorney points out that the wallet was eventually found in the possession of a known criminal. The prosecutor insists that Bob did it because of the blood, and that Bob must have given the wallet to the criminal. The defense attorney points out that clothes were found in the criminal's home with the victim's blood on them. The prosecutor insists that Bob did it because of the blood, and that the victim's blood on the criminal's clothes must have come from Bob. The defense attorney points out that the fingerprints on the knife found at the scene match the criminals. The prosecutor insists that Bob did it because of the blood, and that the criminal's finger prints were only on the knife because he must have used it while preparing dinner earlier that night. Most people would rapidly conclude the prosecutor has no case, and is a complete boob besides.
This is a pretty fair match for what creationists do with the fossil sea shell evidence. Only a flood could have left sea shells on mountain tops, insist creationists. Radiometric dating shows the sea shells are ancient, say scientists. Only a flood could have left sea shells on mountain tops, insist creationists, and besides, radiometric dating is unreliable. The sea shells found on the surface actually turn out to be only the topmost portion of very deep sedimentary layers, say scientists. Only a flood could have left sea shells on mountain tops, insist creationists, and besides, the flood created all those layers. The sea shells found in the layers differ in a gradual fashion when examined from the top to bottom, say scientists. Only a flood could have left sea shells on mountain tops, insist creationists, and besides, the flood sorted the sea shells. The composition of the sedimentary layers is consistent with gradual deposition over millions of years, say scientists. Only a flood could have left sea shells on mountain tops, insist creationists, and besides, the flood deposited all the fine-grained material, and don't believe the nonsense from scientists about floods not creating that kind of that much sediment. There are land layers interspersed in the layers of sea shells, say scientists. Only a flood could have left sea shells on mountain tops, insist creationists, and besides, scientists can't really tell land layers from oceanic layers anyway. The sea shells are on mountain tops because they were deposited on sea floors and then uplifted later by tectonic forces. Only a flood could have left sea shells on mountain tops, insist creationists, and the mountains were lower during the flood.
It quickly becomes obvious that creationists aren't really interested in learning how the sea shells came to be on mountain tops. They're only interested in making it seem like the Biblical account agrees with evidence from the natural world, and they do this by ignoring instead of explaining natural evidence. Ignoring the natural is the antithesis of science, and so "creation science" is not science by the accepted definition.
Most of what creationists do involves attempts to "explain away" the evidence. One of the most absurd recent examples is happening in a thread here at EvC right now, where someone is arguing against the accuracy of radiometric dating by nullifying the claims of correlation with the 79 AD eruption of Mt. Vesuvius by claiming that that eruption never happened.
If an evolutionist here were to say something stupid like the standard model of physics had been verified because the Higg's Boson had been discovered, other evolutionists would be all over him correcting his error (the Higg's Boson has
*not* been discovered). But a creationist claims the 79 AD eruption of Vesuvius never happened, and where are the creationists? Why do creationists allow their own to bring discredit upon creationism through their advocacy of the obviously wrong?
Playing word games like, "Try this one for me: naturalistic science," raises the same question. And it has an answer. Fallacious issues like this one are constantly raised by creationists because they have no unified theory of origins and even no agreement on what science actually is. What unites them is not love of science, but opposition to the teaching of evolution in public schools. The reason creation science is not science is because the controversy over the teaching of evolution is a religious, cultural and political issue, not a science issue.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
™ Version 4.2