Evolution Essays - Is Creation Science Really Science? -- Argumentativ

Is "Creation Science" Really Science?      Ã‚   "Creation science" fails two important tests of science: it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can be empirically verified. It simply makes proclamations by faith. Furthermore, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within evolution. Finally, the scientific credentials of the creation scientists are what we might charitably describe as suspicious.    In the last few decades, a movement called "creation science" has gained considerable influence among Christian fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, their studies require "no reliance upon biblical revelation," but utilize "only scientific data to support and expound the creation model." (1) Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however, creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight against evolutionists on their own ground.    By presenting the creation model as science, creationists have re-raised the question of what "science" is. Philosophers of science have worked out a commonly accepted list of criteria (produced well outside the debate between creationists and evolutionists). To be accepted as science, a theory must have predictive value, must be coherent (or internally consistent), must ... ...g Science by Phillip Kitcher and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. These books address specific and frequent creationist arguments and show how they are fallacious. Another thorough deconstruction of creation science can be found in the talk.origins FAQs.          Endnotes: 1. Henry Morris, "Tenets for Creationism," Acts and Facts Series, No. 85, July 1980. 2. Tom McIver, Anti-Evolution (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1992). 3. Andy Peters, "Welcome to talk.origins!" http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-welcome.html . 4. Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole, Quat. Rev. Biol. 60, (1985), p. 21. 5. A list of suspicious credentials at the Institute for Creation Research, along with other examples of blatant dishonesty, can be found at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/origins/faqs-creationists.html    Evolution Essays - Is Creation Science Really Science? -- Argumentativ Is "Creation Science" Really Science?      Ã‚   "Creation science" fails two important tests of science: it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can be empirically verified. It simply makes proclamations by faith. Furthermore, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within evolution. Finally, the scientific credentials of the creation scientists are what we might charitably describe as suspicious.    In the last few decades, a movement called "creation science" has gained considerable influence among Christian fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, their studies require "no reliance upon biblical revelation," but utilize "only scientific data to support and expound the creation model." (1) Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however, creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight against evolutionists on their own ground.    By presenting the creation model as science, creationists have re-raised the question of what "science" is. Philosophers of science have worked out a commonly accepted list of criteria (produced well outside the debate between creationists and evolutionists). To be accepted as science, a theory must have predictive value, must be coherent (or internally consistent), must ... ...g Science by Phillip Kitcher and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. These books address specific and frequent creationist arguments and show how they are fallacious. Another thorough deconstruction of creation science can be found in the talk.origins FAQs.          Endnotes: 1. Henry Morris, "Tenets for Creationism," Acts and Facts Series, No. 85, July 1980. 2. Tom McIver, Anti-Evolution (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1992). 3. Andy Peters, "Welcome to talk.origins!" http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-welcome.html . 4. Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole, Quat. Rev. Biol. 60, (1985), p. 21. 5. A list of suspicious credentials at the Institute for Creation Research, along with other examples of blatant dishonesty, can be found at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/origins/faqs-creationists.html