“Bread crumbs”(perhaps how you got here)

Creation Science

See McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Why would anyone worry about Sarah Palin’s views on teaching “creationism” in public schools? The answer is that the concern is above all about the teaching of “creationism” as if it were science.

There are many versions of  “creationism” (aka “creation science”, “intelligent design”, etc.); I suppose it’s possible that there might be versions that are not distinctly Christian in orientation , but I’m unaware of them if they exist. It is not the Christianity that worries me most, however. What is troubling is that all versions of “creationism” seem to hold that the observable Universe makes manifest that a single intelligent creator created the Universe. In other words, the Universe shows order and beauty, and these traits could only have come from a divine source.

It happens that I believe these things. I believe that the Universe really does show order and beauty, and I believe that a Creator did in fact create the Universe.

That does not mean that I know even the slightest thing about how the Universe came into existence, and it is not in any way a scientific statement.

Science proceeds by setting up explanatory systems (“theories”) from which are derived specific predictions (“hypotheses”) about what we should observe if the theory is valid. Observations are made; as a general rule, the observations either confirm or refute the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is refuted by observation, the theory from which the hypothesis came is called into question.

This simple but very powerful method rests, above all, on honest, dispassionate recording of observational results. There have, in the history of science, been occasional cases in which someone faked data (e.g., at least some of the “cold fusion” data, or “Piltdown man”). These cases have been major scientific scandals that have ruined careers.

Before proceeding, let’s give a little more detailed example. Let us suppose that we have a theory that allows us to make predictions about the positions of the Solar System’s planets. Using this theory, we then hypothesize that Jupiter will be at such-and-such a position at such -and-such a time. The astronomer then turns his telescope (or other instrument) to the predicted position at the predicted time and checks to see if Jupiter is there. If it is, we have one more test of the theory, a test that confirms the hypothesis and does not call the theory into question. If Jupiter is not where it’s supposed to be, then we have news : specifically, we have a result that calls the theory into question. A valid theory should not give rise to false predictions.

In this case, the theory is, of course, what is sometimes called “Kepler’s Theory of Planetary Motion”, the test is one that, in many forms, has been carried out thousands of times over several centuries. Kepler’s Theory of Planetary Motion is one of the most heavily tested theories in all of science. There are today few that would deny it, although probably the well -informed observer would harrumph a bit and mutter something about “relativistic effects”, for the Theory is today known not to be quite correct. Most of the time, it still works well, but there are cases in which the warping of space-time associated with “relativistic” effects produces a measurable effect. With this correction, minor for a wide range of purposes, Kepler’s Theory still stands.

Kepler’s Theory is scarcely ever questioned by the proponents of “creationism”, at least not today (there were once high Church officials that really did question it, but that’s another story). There seem, rather, to be two main theories that the “creationists” claim are not supported by evidence: (1) theories about the age of the Universe (or, in some variations, only the age of the Earth); and (2) Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

Theories that lead to statements about the age of the Universe rest on a complex system of observations and mathematics. Although the details vary, because much fundamental work is still being done in this area, all of the widely-accepted theories concerning the age of the Universe (and hence of the Earth) hold that the observable Universe is at least several billion years old. This is certainly much older than Bishop Ussher’s theory (that the Earth and Universe were created in 4004 BCE) claims. Ussher’s system of dates rests only on the Christian (specifically, Protestant) version of the Old Testament, a source that, whatever else you might think, obviously cannot be taken “literally” (which would mean nothing, in any case ) because the Old Testament, especially in portions dealing with the Creation, is clearly poetic . It does not report “data” in any meaningful sense. Although the Biblical narrative may have other profound meanings, its meaning does not take the form of statements that can be verified by independent observers (a key test of scientific data collection).

As to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, it is much simpler (and more extensively confirmed, for Darwin’s Theory is probably the most tested of all scientific theories). Darwin held that species respond to the conditions in which their members live; the species whose members are most fitted for the environment(s) are those that will tend to survive.

Before going on, stop and think. Would you really want to live in a Universe where Darwin’s Theory was false? That is, one in which the unfit would survive?

From Darwin’s theory, hypotheses can be developed such as the following: in an environment where grass is plentiful but broad-leafed plants are not present, a species that can eat only broad-leafed plants would not survive.

This is hardly a surprise, and it is easy to imagine data collection to confirm or refute the hypothesis. Notice that Darwin’s Theory does not say that a species will “evolve” new features to enable it to survive. New features may evolve and become heritable in the species , but that is not the same thing as purposeful change. Darwin’s Theory also does not say that the species will “instantly” disappear. Whatever it means, “instant” is not a word commonly used by scientists of any kind. The species that is not adapted to a hostile environment will eventually disappear, unless changes occur, but the disappearance might take place over a very long time : perhaps years, hundreds of years, tens of thousands of years, or even longer. No biological or geological phenomenon takes place “instantly”.

The “creationists” hold that the beauty of the stars, the orderly movement of the galaxies in their clusters, the splendid adaptations of bees and birds, and of many other creatures, all show the hand of a Creator. That might be so, but scientists apply Ockham’s Razor, and seek the simplest explanation of phenomena. No scientific observation has yet been made that requires reference to a Divine Creator to explain or record it.

And we can go further: no test has contradicted Darwin’s simple theory.

It was once held, for example, that the lack of  “intermediate” fossils between “Man and the Apes” showed that Darwin must have been wrong, at least about how human beings came to be. This is obvious nonsense. The so-called “missing link” only meant that we had not yet found the relevant fossils : and, to no one’s great surprise, every year seems to bring more and more examples of fossils that would have been called “missing links”. We are gradually building up a substantial inventory of fossils that indicate various kinds of linkages between homo sapiens and the other primates, or between the primates as a whole and other animals.

There is no “missing link”. There is no valid or meaningful evidence that should call into question the Theory of Evolution.

But we can say more. The Creationists insist on their narrow notion of a “literal” understanding of the Bible. Even in such a constricted prison for their thoughts, they themselves cannot agree entirely upon a Chronology or upon what every passage in the Bible means.

But even this is a moot point, for there is not the slightest reason to assume that the God to whom a thousand ages in His sight are but as a single day would be unable to get away from some human-designed clock when engaged in the work of Creation. The so-called “creationists” insist on using their own poor notion of “intelligence” and “time”; they cannot imagine a Creator that creates using a mechanism such as evolution.

This failure is the greatest of all the intellectual failures of  “Intelligent Design”. The frivolity of those that insists on measuring Creation by their own notions of intelligence and time is so great that we must laugh.

So I see that Sarah Palin has said that “creationism” should be taught alongside “conventional” science in the public schools. I have not the slightest objection to the teaching of “creationism”, so long as it is not sectarian or religious, but it cannot be taught as science, for it is not science. “Intelligent design” is faith, a matter in which the scientific disciplines of hypothesis and observation are not involved. Not even the slightest trace of scientific evidence in any respect confirms Bishop Ussher’s dates; there is no “alternative” to evolution as Darwin established it, although the details remain to be developed.

But perhaps I am wrong. After all, perhaps it’s the case that the views of Sarah Palin and those like her, that “creationism” is science in some sense, provide proof that the truth cannot survive, proof that folly and lies really are more adapted to political reality. Perhaps it is actually the case that the unfit survive.

 All text on this page is the work of J W Durham and is licensed only under terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Other licensing terms may be available. E-mail me