Is Creationism Science? Creationists Claim that Creationism is Scientific
From Austin Cline



Is Creationism logically consistent?:
Creationism is usually internally consistent and logical within the religious framework in which it operates. The major problem with its consistency is that creationism has no defined boundaries: there is no clear way to say that any particular piece of data is relevant or not to the task verifying or falsifying creationism. When you deal with the non-understood supernatural, anything is possible; one consequence of this is that no tests for creationism can really be said to matter.

Is Creationism parsimonious?:
No. Creationism fails the test of Occam’s razor because adding supernatural entities to the equation when they are not strictly necessary to explain events violates the principle of parsimony. This principle is important because it is so easy for extraneous ideas to slip into theories, ultimately confusing the issue. The simplest explanation may not always be the most accurate, but it is preferable unless very good reasons are offered.

Is Creationism useful?:
To be “useful” in science means that a theory explains and describes natural phenomena, but creationism is not able to explain and describe events in nature. For example, creationism cannot explain why genetic changes are limited to microevolution within species and don’t become macroevolution. A true explanation expands our knowledge and understanding of events, but saying that “God did it” in some mysterious and miraculous way for unknown reasons fails in this.

Is Creationism empirically testable?:
No, creationism is not testable because creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. Creationism relies on supernatural entities which are not only not testable, but are not even describable. Creationism provides no model that can be used for making predictions, it provides no scientific problems for scientists to work on, and does not provide a paradigm for solving other problems unless you consider “God did it” to be a satisfactory explanation for everything.

Is Creationism based upon controlled, repeatable experiments?:
No experiments have ever been performed that either demonstrate the truth of Creationism or suggest that evolutionary theory is fundamentally flawed. Creationism did not originate out of a series of experiments that produced anomalous results, something that has occurred in science. Creationism has, instead, developed out of the religious beliefs of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians in America. Leading Creationists have always been open about this fact.

Is Creationism correctable?:
No. Creationism professes to be the absolute Truth, not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. When you believe that you already have the Truth, there is no possibility of future correction and no reason to look for more data. The only real changes which have occurred in the creationist movement is to try and push the biblical arguments further and further into the background in order to make creationism look more and more scientific.


Is Creationism progressive?:
In a sense creationism could be considered progressive if you say “God did it” to explain all previous data as well as previously unexplainable data, but this renders the idea of progressive growth of scientific ideas meaningless (another good reason for science being naturalistic). In any practical sense, creationism is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what came before and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.


Does Creationism follow the scientific method?:
No. First, the hypothesis/solution is not based on analysis and observation of the empirical world - rather, it comes directly from the Bible. Second, as there is no way to test the theory, creationism cannot follow the scientific method because testing is a fundamental component of the method.
Do Creationists think Creationism is science?:
Even prominent creationists like Henry Morris and Duane Gish (who pretty much created scientific creationism) admit that creationism is not scientific in creationist literature. In Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, Morris, while discussing catastrophism and the Noachic flood, says:
“We cannot verify this experimentally, of course, any more than any of the various other theories of catastrophism [e.g. Velikovsky], but we do not need experimental verification; God has recorded it in His Word, and that should be sufficient.”
This is a statement of religious faith, not a statement of scientific discovery.

Even more revealing, Duane Gish in Evolution? The Fossils Say No! writes:

“We do not know how the Creator created, [or] 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.”
So, even leading creationists basically admit that creationism is not testable and clearly state that biblical revelation is the source (and “verification”) of their ideas. If Creationism is not considered scientific by the movement’s own leading figures, then how can anyone else be expected to take it seriously as a science?

I cannot see how it can be called science.

To assert that all was created by >god< and that god "always was" as an explanation is not scientific. The existance of the prime mover in the equation cannot be proven/disproven, and therefore cannot be subjected to a check.

For a person to accept creationism, they must already subscribe to the idea that >god< is the answer. And, to my thinking, a person that has already accepted >god< as the answer, will not be open to other possible answers

Creation Science
(an oxymoron...)

We decided that, although we have several articles which touch on claims of Creation Science, we should have a page that specifically addresses this assault on intelligence. However, we cannot go very far in our examination of this false belief because there simply aren't any facts to support it. Instead, we will provide references to a few of our articles - but there are other sites devoted to counteracting this movement and shich discuss its absurdity in great detail. They have, thankfully, undertaken a huge effort to address Creation Science. We thank them tremendously for their work... and for saving us a great deal of work here...

You may be asking yourself if this page is even necessary? Why? Because there are two opposing groups here: one which finds the evidence for evolution overwhelming and accepts it completely; the other which insists on ignoring the facts and who will fabricate any illusion necessary to maintain their views. So, it's possible that neither side will even read this article. We'll consider it an experiment and watch the page hits - plus we'll add some great quotes and funny cartoons to 'juice' it up a little bit!

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge...
it is those who know little, and not those who know much,
who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
(Charles Darwin)

ethicalatheist.com

A couple of years ago I started a topic in which I spotted creationists the non-existance of evolution, and challenged them to come up with a supportable theory of creationism. It took the first ten pages of continually repeating "NOT evidence against evolution!" before it finally sank in that arguing against evolution would be useless, and that they had to support creationism. In the 40+ [ages that followed, no one was able to even formulate a theory, let alone support it (although many excuses were offered in their stead.

Personally, I consider it evidence that creationists don't really know what their pointof view is. They think they are supporting creationism, but when all is said and done, all they are really doing is trying to debunk evolution.


In case anyone is interested:
Proof of Creationism

And its sister thread:
Proof of Evolution

Oh yes I remember that thread, Aquatus, it end up a waste of server space. Those who believe in Creationism will never except the science evolution no matter how much proof is presented.

All very good points, however as creationism has suffered a great deal of criticism and is prohibited in most public school curriculum, it is from that creation/god premise, that was born Intelligent Design. Which alludes to a creator or intelligence, and tries to circumnavigate the religious implications by claiming to present it's argument from a secular scientific point of view.

Excerpt: Intelligent design (ID) is an anti-evolution belief that asserts that naturalistic explanations of some biological entities are not possible and such entities can only be explained by intelligent causes.* Advocates of ID maintain that their belief is scientific and provides empirical proof for the existence of God or superintelligent aliens. They claim that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom as an alternative to the science of evolution. ID is essentially a hoax, however, since evolution is consistent with a belief in an intelligent designer of the universe. The two are not contradictory and they are not necessarily competitors. ID is proposed mainly by Christian apologists at the Discovery Institute and their allies, who feel science threatens their Biblical-based view of reality.

Then again science study. We study things in our reality through science. When religions state that a god created all it means all not just what is blandly stated in holy books. In that sense, when you create something you take all the small parts combine them and build up. We work science in reverse. We have the complete creation and break it down to see how it works and what it is made of. When you base your beliefs on a creator that means he created everything down to the smallest microbe to the largest tree. Just because man did not know about such scientific finds when such books were written doesnt mean that they were not there. When you believe a creator such as God created all around us you must consider that all around us means everything in our reality. So to an extent it is a science because it a study of all that a creator has created.

Of course that is very subjective, it in no validites creationism as a science it lacks everything that science requires.
There are also many different forms of creation, I wonder what the christian right supporters of ID would say about using the ancient Eygptian model of the universe being masterbated into existance?

I wasnt being biast towards any other creator based beliefs. Masterbated, mixed in a jar or made by the hand of a god, it is all there due to a big bang type creation that must be in the boundaries of the creator. Point is we are smarter than people of the past. And I dont mean that So-in so of today is smarter than Newton I mean that due to study of things being handed down to us from past to present and into the future the people of the present and future will always know more and be more advanced due to this exchange of info down the time lines.

One thing people tend to forget is that these prophets were not in the modern world we are today or even the past eras such as the middle ages and the turn of the century. They spoke about what they knew of at the time. Just like whatever scientists and prophets of this age write will be critisized by those of the future just like we critisize those of the past. We think everything has cellular structure through our tests and studies. They thought that everything was just blood and guts. The people of the future will look at our theories of today and laugh at them just like we laugh at those of the past.

There are quite a few "creation" stories out there, but I think we all know we're talking about the story found in the Bible. I have read quite several of them and (surprise, surprise!) I've yet to find any other I would believe, so to throw up the Egyptian story just because the act would be something that would be "troubling" to a Christian is kind of a cheap shot.

Is Creationism science? No. Science is man's attempt to understand the universe, and as man's knowledge base increases the "facts" of science can bend, twist, or outright break. Creationism is God's explanation of the universe and although we may not understand the facts, they are fixed.

Of course that is a 'fixed' idea Iams.

Its "fixed" because when you say "god did it", you don't ever, ever have to take anything else into account.



Yeah? And? As new data comes in, old ideas get re-examined and changed if they do not fit the new data.

At one time, learned physicians believed that there were 4 'humors' that controlled the bodys health. That has since changed.

At one time, learned men thought that it was impossible for a locomotive to travel faster than 30 miles an hour..... that changed.


Yet somehow, the ability of scientific ideas to grow and change with new information, is somehow seen as "wrong" by those who believe that god waved his pinky and >poofed< everything into existence.

Perhaps we should just chuck science and technology into the trash and go back to living in animal hide tents tending to our flocks, and cowering in fear at every thunderbolt.

From my theory, science and technology are still under the boundaries of a creator because what do we use to create technology and to theorize science? We use the materials and objects ( rescources) in this reality that were created by a creator.

For instance you create a chair from wood. To theorise its creation we break it down and look at it. Ok its made of wood. Wood comes from trees. Trees come from seeds. seeds come from trees. So where did the first seed come from. Something had to create it. And something had to create that. This is the theory of creation used by religion. So you see God doesnt work far from science. God created the seed, it became a tree, that tree spurned more seeds, those seeds became trees we use trees for wood. with the wood we create chairs.

This is why believers of a creator can seem so simple minded because to believe a creator created our reality you must consider the fact that all in reality are created by this creator. Not that God created cars or tvs or houses but that God created the rescources and materials that we use to create such things ourselves.

By that logic ND, anything my children do in their lives, I can claim the credit for, since I created them, no?

Isn't that what Intelligent Design is all about? Tracing everything back to god?

Again, you have already determined that the answer is >god<. Now you just have to make the questions fit the answer.

Not good science, but great theology.

Although I understand what you are saying I cannot agree with the "Something had to create it" idea. Because you have to ask yourself who created God...if he has always existed then you could say the universe has always existed, or if you say he created himself then one could say the universe created itself, if another deity created god then what created that deity?etc.

But isnt science based on study and theory?

study, theory, and PROVABLE experimantation.

No credible scientist states "This is my theory, it is true!!!!!" without testing, and re-testing the theory.

Just because you want a thing, does not mean that it must be so.

And god is unproven at this point in time. Doesn't mean that a creator exists, or doesn't exist. Just that the existence of such is not testably provable.

So, to base a "scientific" theory like ID or creationism with the major cornerstone of the theory unprovable, is NOT science.

Good points. This is why I believe a creator such as God cannot be studied through science because he is not in our reality to study like we could or can something that is.

But for someone to put aside the creator theory they would eventually need another answer. For example with science we breakdown everything in this reality. Just like anything when you break it down far enough you get nothing. So if their is no creator then there is no basis of it being real because it had no foundation for a beginning. Just like a big bang theory I heard. Everything came and evolved from a single cell that expanded and created everything we see and are yet to behold. But then I asked the question of where did the cell come from? Or what created that cell? The answer to my question was answered with this, Nothing created it, its just their.

firstly, as deep as we look into things, on the sub-atomic level, we haven't discovered 'nothing'. LOL

Second, the answer about the first cell ( it was just there) is as unsatisfying to me as 'god did it'.

Unfortunately, our current technology does not allow us to define where the first cell came from, or how. But there are theories.

Whereas with god, many people find the answer of "he has always been', perfectly acceptable. I do not.

As anti-evolutionists have stated: 'nothing comes from nothing'. But then they conveniently forget this axiom when discussing the origin of their deity.

Perhaps, we will one day find out how that first cell came to be. Perhaps in doing so we will uncover the origin of god. Who can tell?

There theory of creationism is however just as valid as everyone elses is it not?
Science builds upon its knowledge, new information may make old data obselete, but that is nature of scientific research, you can not discredit something because there is a possibility it may be found to inncorrect in the future, we can only go with the information we have. It is not hugely common either for science to change massively, the only time this occurs is when a major discovery comes along, most of the time the knowledge is expanded and rearranged to to fit the data, this is what you would expect to occur in such a circumstance that is why papers are reviewed and literature reviews are carried out.
Creationism is mans way of explaining the existance of the universe with out facts, that is why it is fixed.

One point I have allways looked at is under the creator, God we are in the reality that he created so in theory we cant understand or research beyond our capabilities. in that sense we have a boundary which is our reality. For a crude example, God drew a square. God created the universe and everything in the universe in this square. Our boundary would of course be this square our reality is in. Kind of like how the Men in Black movie ended if you saw the movie.

Sort of like the Model A trying to explain Henry.

One time, the 'reality' was that the Earth was flat......
One time, the 'reality' was that man could not fly......
One time, the reality was that man would never reach space.......

It is the nature of our species to research "beyond our capabilities", to ever seek the new boundaries, and then surpass them. If it weren't, then we would still be sitting in the european/african/asian continent wondering what was over the horizon.

We strive to find the answers to our questions. We look for new ways to improve ourselves and our lives. We make mistakes, hopefully learn from them and move on.

To me, seeking refuge in ID is taking a thousand steps backward along the path we have traveled.


But, at the end of the day, if it brings you comfort to think that "god did it all", then who am I to disabuse you of the idea.

I've said my piece, but I know in my heart that it won't budge the creationists one millimetre, so I'll end it here.

Intelligent Design in its simplest form (a being created the universe as we know it), could be a possibility. But, of course, it's not at all provable. It's merely a belief. I think if you believe in universal evolution, then what would logically be the next step in your line of thinking? Perhaps, the thought of how things will continue to evolve and/or thoughts of a source from which all matter and energy originate to provide the workings of evolution. I don't think ID and evolution have to be exclusive in a person's POV, it's just when you get into the realm of ID, it becomes more of a religious idea. I don't see a problem with believing it, and I would hope that there would be scientists that would try to approach the issue with a scientific mindset... of course I know testing the idea of ID might be impossible.

Hmmm woulld a person that has already accepted "evolution" as the answer be open to other possible answers? Evolution may be real. Yet what about the whole galaxy - universe and space. The Earth is a speck of sand in comparisant to all the universe. You cant just say "Okay i accept evolution" and not scope out and think "hey what do i know about whats OUTSIDE of earth".

What do we know about what is outside the box? THAT is when a evolutionist has to expand his mind from "Evolution" and into "Creative" thinking. Theres much,much more to life than Earth.

Yes but creationism has nothing to support it, there is no evidence, so it is never and should never be involved in science. Creative thinking in science needs evidence to back it up. Simple saying this is an interesting idea lets believe it will get you discredited. We can not go speculating about the biology of other planets when we don't even know if they have life on them.

Evolution is simply defined as "change". So while believers express outrage at the notion, in a way it's related to that very definition. They simply can not allow themselves to accept that what their god created, changes according to "his" plan. It's as if it's an either or proposition. Either one accepts creation, which boasts the next question, which myth would one be referring to exactly!? Or they accept humans and the earth changes, evolves, over time. Hell, even religion evolves, but that's not anything most stead fast creationists consider either, when reflecting on a faith just a little over 2000 years old.

Sorry, JM, but you did not create your children, you procreated, but in and of yourself you could not have actually given life to them.


Not without facts, I use the same evidence that you use to say "can't see a creator, so it's not creation," except I say "Look, a being way more powerful and intelligent than I could ever hope to grasp obviously planned and made this, and I call Him God." The evidence is the same, but I am willing to acknowledge a being outside of my range of understanding exists and you're not. And because this being exists outside of what we can directly experience or study, you can't prove He doesn't exist and I can't prove He does.


And that's why so many, and not just fundamentalist Christians, see the whole Evolution thing as just bunk. It's set up so you can't pin it down. "Evolution just means 'change,'" is a way to wriggle out of a discussion. When the proponents of evolutionary processes use it they start out by simply using it as interchangeable with "change" and somewhere down the line it means "how life came to be all by itself," but when someone tries to point this out, all of a sudden they're back to "I don't know what you're getting so upset about, evolution just means 'change.'"

Actually, pro-creation is exactly that. So JM did assist the process of bringing to life, his children. Anything behind that, is faith. The fact is the biology.

Actually, that's an applicable definition for "Evolution".

Evolution does mean change. One doesn't have to accept that, but that doesn't mean it's not an inherent part of the evolutionary process. Furthermore, creationists are at a disadvantage because when they claim their philosophy explains all that exists, they are at a loss for answering the question: what first created the creator!? (Besides man, before smarty pants on board beat me to it! ~glances at Kratos~ ) When asked that, however, creationists are at a loss and defer to the defense of; god just always has been. Which is no answer at all, however to imagine that god and change is a mutually exclusive proposition of hypothesis and philosophies, says more about god than it does about evolution. If god created everything that exists, and the fossil record shows there to be change in the first things created, that in itself proves if one believes in god they have to believe god made things to change, so as to survive. Things that do not change, or adapt, to the environment become extinct. The climes of this planet, the ice age, etc.. would have precluded survival of un-adaptable species, and did in many cases. If things did not possess the capacity to change, on a cellular level at the very least, you and I , Son, would not be having this discussion. Because the first humans did not have had the capacity to be what is the homosapien of this age.

Well assuming that anyone that has accepted evolution is at least vaugely scientific in thier outlook they should do! New evidence always changes the theory, but I suspect if we ever do find life on another world we'll see exactly the same process of evolution, though of course the path it would have taken would be very different...Though considering the number of different creatures on earth whos ancesters managed to evolve identical tricks, maybe not so different, E.g Dolphins and sharks both manged to evolve a very similar streamlined shape despite one being a fish and the other a mammal, and bats, reptiles/birds and fish all seem to have evolved wings seperately. Traits like that are known as universals, (as opposed to pariochals) becouse they are universally useful and help creatures survive.

The exact way evolution works though is logical and natural and simple (though we struggle to describe it, for which I blame our language, even scientists use the term "built in" which gives the impression someone built. Thanks Paley!) its hard to imagine what else could do the job.
But back to the question: Scientists and people who maybe aint scientists but who think they generally get it right should always be prepared to change their theory if some evidence is confirmed to contradict it. Science doesnt set out to prove anything generaly, though that tends to be a byproduct of disproving everything else. In most areas disproving something is considered almost impolite, in science its the best way to get results!
Science doesnt alwys get answers. Sometimes it just gets you a whole load of more interesting questions.

I hope ive gotten over an important difference to you there that science in any field never ever accepts anything fully as being the one and only truth. If new evidence come along that changes the equation then equation will be changed! Not so with religion.
HOWEVER if anything can be true then evolution is the most real concept/process in the universe. The evidence against it on this planet is nonexistant despite what many creationists would hope.

I would suggest a few books to anyone interested (and who doesnt mind having their faith challanged!)
Depending on how good you basic understanding of science is I would suggest either R Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker" (or any of his other books, though his most recent one seems more to be a general atack on religion rather than a pop. science book. I agree with some of his points and I agree he should be allowed to voice them but even i think he comes across a bit arrogant and militant ) Im currently reading it and keep having to stop every few paragraphs and stare at a wall for a bit whilst I assimilate the ideas hes putting across.
A book thats probably a better starter on this topic (or rather two books) are Science of Discworld III and Science of Discworld III: Darwins Watch both by Terry Pratchett, Ian stewart and Jack Cohen. Despite their titles these books are not those "science of startrek" style things which try and explain how fictional concepts might be made reality. Instead they take a new persepctive of science on Earth, looking at it from the perspective of characters who have a good grounding in magic and common sense but who are put in the position of trying to undertand our universe which runs on logic alone. They are very funny and very well written and I found them very informtaive. Between them and book II(which tends more towards social evolution) they corrected my view on an awful lot of things I had completely misunderstood (stuff that maybe I didnt pay atention to at school, or just read in book by that silly von Daniken, or watched on discovery etc)

Whichever one you read though dont be surprised if they change the way you see the world.

Yes but we can show strong evidence for evolution and much of what has used against evolution has been disproven. People have problems with evolution because they do not understand it correctly and this lack of knowledge means they believe in the nonesense spouted by ID.
It has been said before, you believe something can just exist, but life can't come from nothing? Though technically it did not come from nothing it is just a complex chemical reaction and we know the needed chemicals are naturally occuring.
Creationism is not a viable alternative to evolution and no one has every been able to disprove evolution.

matt this is well said the understanding of evolution by relgion is, well: distorted you have to understtand alot of stuff is passed on in hearsay they don't utilize any avenues of credibiblity to understand things...its not in the bible it isn't so..... but then again I understand that within the construct or frame they have to dismiss and discount and deny anything that isn't from the bible, its about followig god its about following the bible and the rewards that they beleive they will recieve, by keeping the relgion alive, sort of a sales force for 'god' ,the one created by relgion to pimp the construct....( a billion dollar tax free industry ) with your sales force working for free well what could be better...LOL ....I always think of telemarketers you have just won a trip to hawaii but we need your life savings to get it and your required to give us leads to get others life savings.... .... But, there is really no trip to hawaii....

The New Genesis:

On the first day God created Hydrogen, on the second day, God created Oxygen, on the third day God created Carbon, on the fourth day God created Nitrogen, on the fifth day God created Neon, on the sixth day God created Argon... on the seventh day God gave it all a good stir and was pleased with his new recipe for life.

I can buy that until something changes my mind.