Creation Science As Pseudoscience Essay, Research Paper

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.

34a