Creation Science As Pseudoscience

In every civilization throughout history, man has searched for the explanation
to his existence. In ancient society’s people created origin myths. Every
civilization had a unique myth. Some myths involved gods and others involved
nature. Sometime around one thousand B.C. the longest standing creation myth was
popularized. This creation myth is still in practice today, almost three
thousand years later. The myth I am referring to is the Genesis recollection in
the bible. In the early 1800’s scientists carried out many experiments in the
attempt to give scientific proof to the Genesis account. In 1859 when Charles
Darwin published his Origin of Species theory, the Genesis “myth” was no
longer regarded as scientifically plausible. Darwin’s theory went against
everything in Genesis and gave a more logical explanation to human existence
than the account in Genesis. Religion and science were separated and were now
fighting for people’s beliefs. Evolution, or Darwinism, offers a reasonable
and highly logical explanation whereas the religious groups offer another
logical explanation though in this explanation you have to presume certain
assumptions taken from Genesis. Most creationists believe that the earth was
created somewhere between five to ten thousand years ago. Their arguments
involve primarily attacking evolution. Evolutionists dispute all of the
creationist claims and have explanations to most if not all of them. Creationism
is a creditable pursuit but due to the fact that it is primarily based in
religion it should not be considered a science as many people deem it to be.

There are two kinds of creationists, pure creationists, which I will be talking
about in this essay, and theistic evolutionists. Pure creationists believe that
the bible is a literal depiction of the creation of the universe; they believe
God created the universe during six 24-hour days, the earth is young, and the
global flood was a real event. Theistic evolutionists believe that the days of
creation are long periods of time in which evolution occurred. They consider
themselves creationists because they believe God started the process and
intervened along the way. This view incorporates evolution and religion.

Theistic evolutions can be religious as well as scientific. It is this
compromise that gives people a believable view of creation while not dismissing
God’s role in creation. Pure creationists do not except theistic evolutionists
as creationists. They believe that if you don’t believe that the bible is
literal then you are not a real creationist. Creationism is rooted in the bible,
but is not entirely unscientific. Modern creationists deal mainly in finding and
presenting scientific fact that will work against evolution or give proof to
Genesis. Creation scientists attempt to disprove evolution in any way possible.

Some of their main arguments include their claim that natural selection, the
backbone of evolution, does not occur outside of the category “kind”; The
claim that there are no fossils indicating transition, meaning that all life was
created in its full form, by god; flaws in radiometric dating and several other
disputable errors in evolutionary thought. The creationists believe that science
is the act of pursuing scientific facts. They believe that their motives in
searching for these facts are irrelevant. They use the scientific method drawing
hypothesis from the bible. In many respects I agree with this view of science. I
agree with the idea of pursing scientific facts but I disagree that all
scientific motives should be equal. Science should be unbiased and when using a
religious hypothesis you will draw a religious conclusion. The main flaw in
creationist thought is that they set conditions that will prove creationism but
they do not stipulate conditions that will disprove creationism. The results of
creationist experiments will either count for creation or not count at all. In a
true scientific experiment the results of an experiment can falsify the
hypothesis, this is not the case with creationist experiments. Since Darwin
separated creation science from the rest of science in 1859 there has been
strong opposition to creation science. Religious belief in creationism is the
one factor that keeps evolution from being considered an absolute fact. If
Genesis was not a fundamental part of two or more widely practiced religions
then people would look at the origin of man as a scientific concern.

Evolutionists do not take creationism seriously. The science community regards
creation science as a pseudoscience. Creationism despite any “proof” working
for it is still based in religion and thus cannot be considered a science. Any
experiment in creation science will be conducted to prove the events described
in the bible. Evolutionists believe that science is the study of the physical or
material universe using the scientific method. In creation science the
conclusions are already drawn and experiments are merely finding certain terms
that will give the desired result ignoring all the facts that will dispute the
conclusion. I agree with the evolutionist view of science, creation science
could be considered a biased science and therefore a pseudoscience. The main
creationist arguments do not attempt to justify Genesis, instead, they attempt
to falsify evolution. The majority of all creationist arguments deal with”errors” in evolution. Their primary argument is that natural selection does
not exist outside of the category of living things, kind. Kind is one level
above species in the categories of living things. According to evolution,
natural selection does effect outside of kind and is responsible for all of
evolution. When natural selection occurs outside the category of kind it is
called macroevolution, when natural selection occurs inside of the category of
kind it is called microevolution. Creationists use examples such as dog breeding
and the English peppered moth to show that microevolution occurs but that
macroevolution does not. Dog breeding is done by combining different species of
dogs to produce a new species of dogs. Though a new species of dogs is created
it is not possible to make a new “kind” from breeding a cat with a dog, this
is an example of microevolution. Looking at the peppered moth study in England
95% of moths were white and the other 5% were black. When pollution turned the
trees the moths lived on black, the population of moths was 95% black and five
percent white. A moth’s color camouflages it. When the trees were white, white
was a good camouflage. When the trees were black, was a good camouflage. The
moth’s that weren’t camouflaged by the trees got eaten and the surviving
moths lived to reproduce moths of their own color. This is an example of a
favorable trait being passed through the population. Both evolutionists and
creationists agree that this is a case of natural selection but this is still an
example of microevolution. It is impossible to demonstrate macroevolution in
action; the process of macroevolution takes millions of years to occur.

Evolutionists claim that there are very few differences between micro- and
macroevolution. They believe that there is no difference between micro- and
macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes
within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species
evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes
that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such
as the evolution of different sexual apparatus. Another main creationist
argument is that there are no fossils demonstrating transition between
organisms. Organisms can share traits but according to creationists an ape with
a human trait is still an ape. The creationists say that if evolution were true,
there should be so many intermediates that we would not be able to categorize
them. As the author of “The Creation Science Web P age” says, “It should
not be possible to tell where one type of animal ?ends’ and another
?begins’. Look at the evolutionary ?tree of life’ and you will find only
the leaves, with speculative branches showing few if any common
intermediates”. Creationists claim that there is a clear line in the fossil
record, at which point fossils can be categorized as one type of species or
another. Evolutionists claim that there are fossils demonstrating transition. A
study was taken to in which creationists were shown pictures of fossilized
skulls, some pre-ape and some pre-human. The creationists could not agree which
fossils were apes and which were human. Although creationists are adamant that
none of the skulls are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are
not able to tell which are which. Evolutionists believe that there are
transitional fossils but creationists refuse to acknowledge them. Creationists
believe that radiometric dating is flawed. The basic premise behind radiometric
dating is that a parent isotope in a rock or any other object containing the
isotope decays over time into a daughter isotope at a known rate, specified by
its “half-life”. The validity of radiometric dating depends on three
assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant, what the parent to
daughter ratio was when the object was “created”; and that there has
been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its
history. Creationists argue that the second two assumptions are incorrect. They
say that the parent to daughter ratio is arbitrary and the notion that there
would be no external loss or addition of parent or daughter components is very
unlikely over millions of years. Evolutionists argue that they account for these”flaws” in the dating process. Creationists argue that evolution defies the
second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that when
an imbalance exists between two systems there exists an opportunity for
developing work that would be irrevocably lost if the systems were allowed to
come into equilibrium in an uncontrolled way. Creationists believe that
evolution, by creating highly complex creatures from chaos, contradicts this
law. Evolutionists believe that the second law of thermodynamics applies only to
closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. If thermodynamics forbids
evolution, then it would also forbid babies from growing to be adults, and
parents from having children. Creationists also have less scientific claims.

They say that humans, being complex beautiful creatures with the ability to
think, create and love, could not have possibly been created by simple chance.

Evolutionists when confronted by this argument just refer to essential facts of
evolution. Creationists argue that evolution did not happen but they give very
little evidence that suggest that Genesis did. The majority of their arguments
deal with so called “flaws” in evolution. In some cases they provide
information such as dating that has shown the earth to be seventy-six million
years old. In this example, creationists attempt to disprove evolution by saying
that using this information there was not enough time for evolution to occur. If
this information were true it would probably change or disprove evolution but it
would also disprove Genesis. It seems that creation science’s primary goal is
to disprove evolution. Even if creationists disproved evolution they would be
asking people to believe them due to a lack of any other alternative.

Creationists and evolutionists use the same facts but come up with completely
different conclusions. Both sciences have a common goal being the explanation of
the origin of man. The only difference between the two is that creation science
has a motive. Creation science tries to prove that the details in Genesis
actually happened and ultimately they are trying to prove their religion.

Evolution has a much more objective approach to the origin of man. Evolutionists
have nothing to lose if their “theory” is proven incorrect they will take on
the new theory and attempt to prove that. Creationists have everything to lose
if they are proven wrong so they distort and disregard facts so that their
theory is accurate. Science is unbiased. True scientists develop and or test
theories with no personal stake in their experiment. When dealing with a subject
such as the origin of man it is impossible to have no personal stake in your
subject. Where we come from is as fundamental of a question as any other to
humans. It explains at least in part who we are and why we are here. Creation
science and evolution both seek answers to this question. Evolutionists do their
best to be unbiased; they put aside their religious convictions in the name of
science. Creationists bring all their religious convictions into their
experiments so their experiments are biased. Creation science is a respectable
practice. Creationists are deeply religious people who dedicate their lives in
the attempt to prove their religion. Though commendable creation science is
biased and therefore, must be considered a pseudoscience.