Is Science Losing in the Creation and Evolution Debate?

What Is Science?

Science is defined as the knowledge gained from observation and experimentation or the process by which we gain that information. The word science comes from the Latin word ‘scientia’ which is translated as ‘knowledge’. This knowledge is based on things that can be observed with the senses and, therefore, deals with the physical world and universe. Scientific models are formed to explain something that has been witnessed. These models are then tested through experimentation to see if the models are correct or not correct. The process by which a model is tested is referred to as the scientific method.

Science is neither friend nor foe. It is a tool by which we can learn about life, ourselves, and the world around us. Our Creator does not do things haphazardly. He is a Maker of order. The patterns of His handiwork appear time and again. The complexity found in living organisms hides layers of incredibly designed information which is now only beginning to be uncovered.

The Scientific Method The scientific method is a process by which models are made and carefully tested. The model generally first takes the form of a hypothesis or suggestion of how the phenomena under study occurs. After repeated testing which shows support for the hypothesis, it then becomes a theory with widespread acceptance as being accurate in many situations but still capable of being refined or changed with further testing. If a theory is found to be true and accurate in all situations in which it is involved, then it becomes a law. Very few hypotheses or theories make it to the status of a law.

Scientific Models The science model is a testable idea used to describe a phenomena. Models are based on a set of observations and made by finding patterns in what is observed. Generally, because a model works with patterns, it is capable of being applied to many similar situations. Science models need to be testable, falsifiable, or able to be disproved in some way.

Worldviews and Pseudoscience Pseudoscience can be defined as an idea that is presented as scientific but which does not use the scientific method, lacks evidence, or cannot be tested. Pseudoscience is a term that is often used, and abused, by both sides of those involved with the Creation and Evolution debate.

There is no War on Science The March 2015 edition of National Geographic has an article entitled 'The Age of Disbelief' and shows a cover mixing science, religion, and conspiracy theories. The article inside reads like someone on a rant. It contains logical fallacies. It uses fictional books and movies from popular culture as examples to prove a point.

Worldviews and Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience can be defined as an idea that is presented as scientific but which does not use the scientific method, lacks evidence, or cannot be tested. Pseudoscience is a term that is often used, and abused, by both sides of those involved with the Creation and Evolution debate.

Worldviews and Ideologies Worldviews are a concept or image of the universe and man's relationship to it. Ideologies are beliefs or bodies of doctrine that guide an individual or group. Both worldviews and ideologies are primary sources of confirmation bias and pseudoscience. These things encourage a person to jump to a conclusion that goes beyond what the immediate facts state. Whether it is Evolution or Creation that is a the worldview or ideology, it can strongly effect the interpretation of data. In fact, both creationists and evolutionists have the same data and facts to work with ... they just interpret them differently according to their views. True science would take the facts and see which concept is actually supported rather than assuming one or the other.

Science and Pseudoscience Defining Pseudoscience Pseudoscience is a concept or idea which has the appearance of being scientific but which in reality is unscientific, unprovable, or even false. It is not unusual for pseudoscience claims to rely on confirmation of the idea rather than refutation of the idea which is the process usually used in scientific inquiry. It can include exaggerated or unprovable claims and can lack an evaluation by experts.

True Science Actual scientific investigation deals with the physical world which can be studied by empirical research and testing. One of the primary goals of science is to increase knowledge by following where the evidence leads. The opposite of this is the process involving confirmation bias where one has a finished concept and is searching for evidence to support it. Science starts with a solid base of facts and looks for conclusions while confirmation bias starts with a conclusion and then looks for facts to support it.

The Creation and Evolution Debate The Creation and Evolution debate is full of examples of science, pseudoscience, and non-science (perhaps better called nonsense). All of these can be presented by both creationists and evolutionists. The more reputable sources will try to stay strictly with science or distinguish separately those concepts which fall outside of science. However, the less reputable sources of information (non-scientists, internet forum debaters, etc.) will give or pass along much information that is pseudoscience. Therefore, when evolutionists accuse creationists of using pseudoscience or when creationists accuse evolutionists of using pseudoscience they are likely to be overgeneralizing although they could genuinely be dealing with a not so reputable source.

Are Creation and Evolution Science or Pseudoscience? The simple answer is both. At this time in history, both Creation and Evolution are concepts for which people would like to prove and are trying to gather evidence. This leaves both of them ripe for pseudoscience to mix with real science. Often, what is given as fact is just a person's individual interpretation of actual scientific research.

Grand Canyon Example

A common example of this comes from studying the formation of the Grand Canyon. Creation Theory states that it formed in a short time due primarily to large scale flooding and secondarily to subsequent glacial action. Natural Origin Theory states the canyon formed over hundreds of millions of years by river erosion. Interestingly, both sides will use the same geological rock formations to support their theory.

The scientific facts about the Grand Canyon include such items as the composition of the rocks, the layering of the rocks, the fossils within the rocks, the existence of a river within the canyon, fossil footprints that in some areas only go uphill, and such items as that. Comparing the evolutionist and creationist interpretations of these facts can be interesting. For example, it is a fact that there is currently a river running through the canyon. Evolutionists interpret this through a Uniformitarian worldview and state that the river has caused the erosion that has formed the canyon. Creationists will interpret this as what remains after a worldwide flood (a scriptural worldview).

With further study, the facts include: #1. the river does not start at the top but instead enters the canyon 3,000 feet below #2. there is no alluvial plain where the river would have dumped the eroded sediments #3. there are routes the river could have taken around the Colorado Uplift rather than taking time to erode a passage through it. Do these facts prove or disprove Evolution and/or Creation? No. Taken together, the few facts given here only show that, most likely, the Colorado River did not carve the Grand Canyon. [Please note that there are many, many more facts and conclusions regarding the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon ... this is just a sampling to make a point.]

Are Creationists Waging War Against Science?

Groups that support evolutionism will often make a claim similar to ‘Creationists deny science’. What usually follows such a statement is a number of logical fallacies which misrepresent both creation and evolution. This misrepresentation hinders the scientific process and the ability to truly learn about the universe, our world, and life itself.

The most common fallacy is to compare the Theory of Evolution (a scientific model) with creationism (a worldview belief). This is an unfair tactic. The scientific Theory of Evolution should be compared to the scientific Theory of Creation and the beliefs of evolutionism should be compared with the beliefs of creationism. This maintains a fair comparison and separation of both science and belief.

A second fallacy often made is to equate the Theory of Evolution with science itself. Under this false assumption, challenging evolution becomes a challenge against science. However, you do not need evolution (an idea) to do science (a process of testing ideas and following evidence). Both the theories of Creation and Evolution are ideas that can be tested within the structure of science.

A third fallacy is made when svolution advocates state the the Theory of Creation has no evidence. To the contrary, both evolution and creation have exactly the same research and evidence available to examine. Creationists do not deny science or challenge scientific data. What they do challenge is evolutionary interpretations of the scientific data.

Creationists are not against science. In reality, Creationists like science, find the scientific method useful, and have contributed to the scientific knowledge of our world.

Is it War Then?

The March 2015 edition of National Geographic has an article entitled ‘The Age of Disbelief’ and shows a cover mixing science, religion, and conspiracy theories. The article inside reads like someone on a rant. It contains logical fallacies. It uses fictional books and movies from popular culture as examples to prove a point.

The article seems to equate the Theory of Evolution (and other topics) with science itself. Under this false assumption, challenging evolution becomes a challenge against science. However, you do not need evolution (an idea) to do science (a process of testing ideas and following evidence). Both the theories of Creation and Evolution are ideas that can be tested within the structure of science. The article goes on to accuse groups of problems like confirmation bias and viewing data through a ‘filter’, but seems to miss or neglect that evolutionists can be guilty of the same problem.

The cover of the magazine, by itself, demonstrates they are not truly talking about science. It states that genetically modified organisms are evil … ummm, excuse me, but ‘evil’ is not a scientific term—this is a moral or theological judgment. For that matter, genetically modified organisms are not ‘science’ either; be it good or bad, they are a result of knowledge gained from science. The mention of the moon landing and vaccinations are also things achieved with knowledge gained from science, but they are not science themselves. Evolution and climate change are interpretations of data which might be disputed, but again they are ideas and interpretations and not the scientific process itself.

Science refers to the knowledge gained from observation and experimentation or the process by which we gain that information. There is no war against science itself. I will admit that there is disagreement with evolutionary interpretations of scientific data. I will also admit there is a distrust of large organizations that state their own product is safe. But neither of these is a war on science or the scientific process. This is a healthy level of skepticism which produces checks and balances in society. If a concept cannot be questioned it is not science. If an organization cannot be questioned, then it is a system ripe for abuse.

The article talks of rationalists, intellectual acceptance, and similar terms which place reason above all else. Rationalism is a philosophy that states reason is itself is a source of knowledge and superior to sensory perceptions, experience, authority, or spiritual revelation.

What does rationalism in use look like?

What if a company decided to build a nuclear power plant outside of your town; they can say that with the latest safety techniques and controls the likelihood of a meltdown, serious incident, or even a small release of radiation is extremely small. This rationalization might allow them to build. Yet how many people would really want such building nearby? Do their ‘acceptable risk’ estimates really consider the consequences if something were to go wrong?

Experience (considered below reason by rationalists) tells us that mistakes and unexpected events happen; that one cannot genuinely prepare for every contingency. Every couple of decades or so, a major event has happened at nuclear power plants, including Three Mile Island, Chernobyl (caused by workers trying an experiment during a regular shutdown of the plant which went awry), and most recently the ongoing Fukushima disaster caused by a large natural disaster. We know human error happens and this produces fallacies in reasoning.

National Geographic is known as a pro-evolution magazine. I expect that viewpoint in their articles. However, this article meets a much lower standard than usual. The ‘Age of Disbelief’ applies much better to the veracity of the projects being undertaken than it does to the people’s acceptance of science.

This page is under construction. My apologies for any misspellings, repeated text, missing references, etc. Please visit again later for a more complete treatment of this topic.