Creation Science As Pseudoscience Essay Research Paper

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