FALSIFYING CREATION SCIENCE

FALSIFYING CREATION SCIENCE

I do not care if you believe in Creationism or not.  You are free to believe in whatever you  want for whichever theological or philosophical reasons you want. Just do not tell me you believe in Creationism (of whichever form) because it is scientific and is supported by scientific facts.

Creation Science claims to be a science therefore it makes predictions that can be tested. Karl Popper argued that one of the qualities of science is that its theories, propositions, hypotheses, etc. are falsifiable. This doesn’t mean that they are false but that it is, in principle, possible to make an observation, an experiment, contrary to the theory, proposition, hypothesis, etc. The statement “the Sun always rises in the east” is open to falsification, in principle, by an observation of the Sun not rising in the east. Such an observation would disprove, be fatal, to the statement. This statement is also a prediction of both the Ptolemaic and Copernican cosmologies, so it cannot be used to show that one of them is correct and the other is not. The statement is a necessary property of the Earth’s rotation about its axis, if Copernicus is correct, but not a necessary property of a geocentric solar system. On Venus, the Sun rotates from west to east, if you could see it through the thick cloud cover (clouds of CO2). However it still orbits around the Sun. So the observation of a west-rising Sun is not fatal.

The best way to test a theory is an experiment that provides observations, facts, that would be fatal to the theory. The Sun has always risen in the east but someday, in principle, it may not. It is not practical or possible for us to test (observe) all the risings of the Sun, so in a sense, the statement remains unproven. But, again in principle, it is falsifiable. So you need to chose a predicted property of the theory that is both falsifiable and practical to test. The hypotheses of Creation Science provides several falsifiable and practical to test predictions.

The basic hypothesis of Creation Science is that the world was created, in its present form, in six days about 6000 years ago. This  hypothesis predicts that nothing can be older than about 6000 years, that all the plants and animals appeared suddenly and in their modern form. Falsifiable hypotheses would include:  there are things older than 6000 years, there are physical “processes” present that have taken more than 6000 years to happen, plants and animals have appeared at various times and there are /were plants and animals that are not in their modern forms (that is primitive forms of them or forms that simply to not exist today). These predictions can be tested. Dendrochronologists, those who study tree rings and use them for dating, have a constructed, from overlapping ring sequences, a continuous sequence that extends back more than 8500 years for North America and over 10,000 years for Europe. Any starry night you can go outside and look up at the stars, many of which it took more than 6000 years for the light to travel from. With a telescope you can see galaxies thousands to millions of light years away. The fossil record demonstrates that the plants and animals have appeared gradually and that there are many who do not exist today. Even some who do exist today first show up as fossils in primitive forms, not their modern forms. These observation are fatal to the hypothesis of Creation Science.

Creation scientists have proposed numerous ad hoc hypotheses to defend their theory. These explanations generally take the form “God did something”: such as create the world with an apparent prehistory. The world “only” has appearance of being billions of years old, God has created a false reality. This has some serious theological implications that the Creationists seem to avoid. These ad hoc explanations render their theory un-falsifiable and therefore not scientific.

Creation Science is not consistent with external facts either. When water condenses to form raindrops (or snow flakes) it releases a little bit of heat (the heat of condensation). The condensation of enough water vapor to rain for 40 days and flood the earth would raise the temperature worldwide to the boiling point. The sheer mechanics of getting two of each kind into some kind of floating vessel, the time needed tor feeding, watering, having enough of the proper feed on board, enough potable water, and cleaning up after all these animals is, to say the least, problematical. Modern zoos have small armies of keepers.

Creation Science, rather than unifying things, tends to divide. There are separate causes for every thing. Each scientific fact seems to require some different ad hoc reason or cause. Plate tectonics explains why there are marsupials (and basically no placental mammals) in Australia and a few marsupials in South America (and one in North America). The distribution of all plants and animals in the world is explainable by the combination of evolution and plate tectonics. Creation Science has basically no explanation for anything and when it comes to productive research that expands our knowledge there is nothing. Creation Science’s research concentrates on defending itself. Its proponents claim that the scientific journals are practicing censorship and refusing to publish their “scientific” papers. The major scientific journals do not publish what few research papers presented by the creation scientists because they do not meet the standards. These journals are “peer-reviewed.” Which means that all papers presented to them for publication are sent for review to other scientists in the appropriate field for comment. The reviewers help to ensure that the papers are scientifically, factually accurate, meet scientific standards and methods (e.g. proper and up-to-date procedures), cite relevant papers, and deal with counter-evidence. The paper with reviewer’s
comments will be returned to the author who can then make appropriate revisions to the paper and resubmit it. Creation Science does not get published in these scientific journals because they cannot or will not meet the standards, not because of any censorship of their beliefs.

There is also one other reason they do not do much research. At any point that they meet some unexplained phenomena they point to it as “because of God” and stop researching. True science tends to take the “unexplained” as a challenge and a point to start research. Over the years an incredible volume of “unexplained” has been explained, and explained by natural causes. Even phenomena that nobody knew existed has been explained. Old questions answered produced more and newer questions that have been answered. Creation Science stopped asking or answering a long time ago.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.