Creation in the classroom. Is Creationism a valid scientific theory?
Creationism be taught in schools? Sounds outrageous doesn't it? Creationism, according to some, is not science at all, or at least "psuedoscience". Whatever it is labeled as by it's nay sayers, they certainly do not consider it legitimate science, being that is not Evolution and that it incorporates the supernatural to some degree. Both Creationism and Intelligent Design are considered not to be real science by many scientists based upon the fact that the two theories are not materialist and hint towards a Creator or creators as the origin of life. These same individuals that dismiss anything but a materialistic explanation, claim that science can only be explained by natural processes and that any notion of the supernatural has no place in scientific teachings being that the supernatural cannot be observed with the five senses.
While it is true that the supernatural cannot be physically scientifically tested, this is not to say that the supernatural should be excluded as a whole from science. But can the supernatural be included in science while allowing science to maintain it's integrity and still be called science? It seems that many would say no, but an increasing number of people, many of them scientists, are saying that it can. Just because the supernatural is included in science does not derate the standing of a field of study or the raw findings of a study. Many researchers see an ample amount of evidence for design and creation in their respective fields of study, as well as many other fields. At the same time, many others proclaim that such claims are based on misinterpretation of evidence, ignorance, lies or a combonation of the preceding combined with religious agenda. How is it that such differing interpretations of evidence exist? And how is it that only one theory is considered scientific and allowed into public classrooms as science while the other is belittled to "magic" and tossed out?
Evolutionary proponents claim that since Creationism and ID involve some sort of intervention by a higher intelligence, they cannot be taken seriously scientifically and therefore are to be left out of the classroom. Creationism and ID supporters dissent from the materialist views of their scientific bretheren by stating that the idea that the naturlist interpretation of evidence is not only bias but unscientific and that design by a higher power best expalins the the things we observe. Creationists also state that there is ample evidence to support their claims for Creation and design from every field of science. Not only this, but that the evidence for Evolution is not only lacking, but most of it is no evidence at all. Creation and ID supporters have come forward with many pieces of evidence to the puzzle of life and origins to support their claims, some new and some decades old, clearly so much evidence cannot be ignored, yet it often is. Supporters of the theory of Evolution have often blindly stated that supporters of Creationism and Intelligent Design not only do not have any scientific facts to support their case, but that they are out to grind a religious axe and to try to take down science and surrogate it with religion, usually Christianity. Such claims on behalf of the Evolutionist community are not only silly but unfounded based upon scientific data.
Creationists have declared no religious axe to grind such as "sneaking God into the classroom" or "taking down science". They do not seek to replace science with magic nor force Christianity on students, but simply introduce scientific facts that support evidence for Creation and let the student decide themselves. Claims of religious dogma and unscientific claims regarding Creationism seem more akin to distracting from the real meat of the debate than actually debating head on, a sort of "side stepping". Evolutionists in turn have openly stated repeated times that since their opponents are Creationists that they are in fact bias in their interpretations of data and their claims, basing their argument more on their fundamental beliefs than scientific findings. If these allegations are true and the evidence all falls on the side of the Evolutionist minds, then why do many of them refuse to debate Creationist reaserchers, and why have they lost virtually every past debate?
"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them." (Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma", p.10)
It seems more as though the Evolutionary community would prefer to avoid debating their opponents all together and simply make backhanded statements about their opponents than confront them with corroborating evidence. This is not to say that many Evolutionists will not still debate their opponents, by no means is that true,but they are more reluctant than they once were as well as more cautious. The evidence from scientific findings has often been cited as supporting Evolution and only Evolution, and claims otherwise are either ill informed or lies. Yet where does it really fall? Does science support Evolution or Creation?
The first thing that must be done is to determine the definition of science and what qualifies as science. Science is defined as "a systematic process to study the natural world and develop testable laws and theories about the universe. It is performed through observation of natural phenomena and experimentation which attempts to replicate natural processes under controlled conditions. It is divided into branches of study pertaining to different aspects of the natural world. It is not restricted to the natural world. It can include social sciences, history, anthropology and economics".
Now, what qualifies as science? It appears to depend on personal belief as much as evidence for most people on both sides of the argument. While Creationist scientists state that evidence should be followed where it leads as well as tested thoroughly to determine its validity, and also that the data cannot contradict the Bible. Evolutionists state that the explanations for evidence are restricted to natural processes and cannot include the supernatural since it is not physically observable (or does not exist in their opinion). And any inclusion of religious texts such as the Bible are unscientific and merely an excuse, eg. "the Bible say it so it's true. Period." So it appears that what qualifies as scientific evidence to Creationists does not always qualify to Evolutionary scientists. Or at least to some degree.
Many fields of scientific study exist and all are claimed to be evidence of an old universe, Earth and of Evolution among organisms. But is this so? While all the evidence will not be discussed here, it will be touched on. Evolutionists state that Evolution is a proven fact and that any claims otherwise are mere lies and misrepresentations, let us see how true these claims are.
Begining as far back as the origin of the universe with the Big Bang, Cosmic Evolution states that out of nothing, an explosion took place creating matter which swirled together and eventually created elements, which in turn formed planets and stars and then, life. First off, the claim of the Big Bang theory stand in stark contrast to First law of Thermodynamics which state that matter cannot be created or destroyed. How can nothingness produce anything? This is not only unscientific, it goes in contrast of common sense logic.
Next, how could anything have come together in a vacuum? If matter had originated with an explosion, the vacuum effect would have prevented the matter from coming together since their would be nothing pulling it together. The matter would have simply kept going outward, forever.
Now, even if the matter had somehow formed our planet (along with all the natural laws in our universe), how would life have come about on a lifeless planet? The law of Biogenesis states that life cannot come from something non living, life must always come from life. How then could anything living develop if there was no pre existing life for it to come from? Evolutionists have come up with a number of theories to answer this question yet none have actually answered it. On top of this, How can DNA, with all its perfections and seemingly fine tuned qualities, have come about from unguided processes?
If life had somehow came about, By what means would more and different life forms develop? It is a well established fact that genetic information never increases in an organism, it only decreases. A protazoan could not develop into an invertebrate, then a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile, then a mammal.
How can the set kinds of animals that are observed both today and in the fossil record be explained as having evolved in such a way without transitional forms needed to fill in the gaps between species? Also, if Evolution produced all the known life forms we know of today, there should be far more intermediate forms or "missing links" than set species and kinds that would show the progression. And how would the genetic bounderies be overcome that would change one kind of animal into another, such as a lizard into a bird or bear into a whale? these changes have in actuality, never been observed. Only Microevolution has been observed, yet it is change within a species, not across kinds such as Macroevolution.
These are only some of the weaknesses that Creationists point out in the theory of Evolution, yet not all of them.
Evolutionary proponents state that such claims are rediculous and that Evolution is an established fact. Yet if the following statements are scientificaly accurate, and change from one species to another has never acutally been observed, how can Evolution be an established fact as they say? Indeed many Evolutionists have been so puzzled by the answers to these questions and many more that they have in fact abandoned Evolution, declaring it impossible and anti scientific. It seems that if the claims of evidence by the Evolutionary scientists have in reality not been observed, then they are in fact not scientific facts. If they are not scientific fatcs, how can they be established as so? If these claims are in fact not established and in fact, are they not just beliefs?
One major pillar of the Creationist argument is that so many things in nature appear so perfectly designed, and that logic follows that where there is design, there is a designer. In fact, DNA, the building block of life, has been compared countless times to computer coding, only much, much larger and intricate. The inner workings of a cell are so complex that many say it would be beyond impossible for such a structure to have come into existance by unguided processes. Yet Evolutionists state that these are all explanable by natural laws and Darwinian Evolution.
Evolutionists state that Creationism is not scientific on the grounds that it is Biblically based and cannot be tested or has been proven false through tests. They state that only natural processes can be included in science and that these views are unbiased. In other words, no miracles allowed. However these claims are quite contradictory upon analysis. Saying that since Creationism is Biblically based and therefore unscientific is not only an invalid argument but it is also both biased itself and self defeating. Simply because a view has a pre made basis does not discredit it as a scientific theory. In fact the same argument can be made against Evolution since the majority of its proponents are Atheist, and therefore have a pre concieved belief that there is nothing supernatural and therfore dismiss any claims or views that are not Atheistic. It is not scientific to claim that since an opponent has a religious basis in life or that a said person incorporates their beliefs into their interpretations of scientific evidence that their interpretation of data is wrong. Basically, both sides of the argument have pre concieved beliefs that will influence how they see the world and interprate scientific findings.
Yet how can Creationism be both untestable and at the same time have been tested and found unscientific? It must be one or the other. In fact these claims are based on the pre concieved beliefs of Evolutionary followers and not on scientific scrutiny of the Creationist model. Creationist models and data are indeed very testable being that they have been tested and found not only authentic but perfectly valid, as well as intriguing. At the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, the researchers have used hyperbaric chambers to mimic pre Flood conditions, showing how organisms used to grow so large and live so long. This finding was so astounding that it attracted the attention of NASA. Indeed Creationist models have not been found false by testing, indeed their findings have often been backed up by non Creationist scientists without intending to. The only way Creationism science has been declared unscientific is by unsupported claims of opponents to Creationism science. Creationism science has yet to be clearly or scientifically disproven.
Evolutionists may also accuse Creationists of lieing to support their beliefs and discredit Evolution. Yet this also has yet to be observed. Clearly proponents of both theories are capable and guilty of making mistakes but this is hardly cause to call ones opponent a liar or religious zealot. Creationsim simply asks for equal hearing in the scientific community, something that has yet ot happen, Darwinists say it is because it is unscientific and therefore not worth hearing or being given equal footing in the scientific community. How can it be scientific however to call a theory unscientific when it is not given a fair hearing of its evidence and blindly dismissed?
One of the primary problems in the controversy is the term "Creation Science". In reality the data that both Creationists and Darwinists recieve and use is the same. But by labeling the opposition "Creation Science", it creates the illusion that Creationists make up the data they present or purposely interprate data to fit their predictions. This is false. Creationist researchers use legitimate scientific methods and known formulas and data to produce the scientific findings they coem up with, one difference however is that Creationist scientists do not use methods that are known to produce unreliable results, such as Carbon dating. Creationists suggest that unreliable methods will produce unreliable results and if they are unreliable they cannot be trusted as accurate science.
*Under continued construction.