Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − Advocates of '''Creation science''' lay claim to the methods and empirical practices of science, that is, the [[scientific method]], to assert that scientific evidence supports a [[biblical literalism|literal]] interpretation of the Biblical account of creation (see [[Creation according to Genesis]]). Its advocates, known as creation scientists, primarily include [[Young Earth]] [[Creationist]]s, especially members of [[Evangelicalism|evangelical Christian denominations]] that subscribe to the doctrine of [[biblical inerrancy]]; however, there are examples of [[Islamic creationism|Islamic supporters of creation science]] as well.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims Claim CA111] talkorigins.org edited by Mark Isaak. 2005.</ref><ref>[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4550_antievolutionism_and_creationi_2_13_2001.asp Antievolutionism and Creationism in the United States]</ref><ref> [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/XX/961_creationism_news_from_around_t_11_2_2006.asp Creationism news from around the world]</ref> The worldwide scientific community views creation science as a [[pseudoscience]] that does not conform to the [[scientific method]]: creation science cannot propose an underlying mechanism of creation which can be falsified or investigated by scientific means, as stated by proponents themselves.<ref>Duane Gish, ''Evolution? The Fossils Say No!'', "<cite>We do not know how the Creator created, [or] what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.</cite>"</ref> + − − Creation scientists reject the theory of [[common descent]] of all life via evolution (see [[Evolution as theory and fact]]). − They claim that [[evolution]] is itself [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] <ref>"Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of 'empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based upon a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." [http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt79.html Roman theological forum] Positivism: the father of naturalism, Clement Butel, 1999</ref> − and argue in favor of [[creation biology]]. They may reject scientific estimates of the [[age of the universe]], arguing for creationist cosmologies based on an age of less than ten thousand years. Creation science also regards the usual scientific theories of [[geology]] as being strongly tied to [[Uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarianism]], the concept that that processes occurring in the present have operated in the past and will continue in the future. Nevertheless, modern geology describes volcanic episodes, gross climate changes, and meteoritic impacts large enough to have caused [[extinctions]] as part of the regular cycle of the earth.<ref>[http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/uniformitarian.htm Uniformitarianism]</ref> Standard explanations of many phenomena through gradual processes, such as mountain building by colliding plates, are discarded by Creation scientists in favor of [[catastrophism]] which postulates that at intervals in the earth’s history cataclysms destroyed (nearly) all living things and formed geological features such as mountains and valleys.<ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/65/ca/catastro.html Catastrophism, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001 - 05]</ref> They infer the effects of [[flood geology]] based on the the presumed historical accuracy of the Biblical deluge account in [[Genesis]]. Creation scientists by and large do no laboratory or field research; rather they re-interpret existing laboratory and field data. Creation science literature generally consists of compilations of alleged weaknesses in current models of evolution and geology.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Universe.htm "How The Universe Began"] By Thomas F. Heinze. Revised May 2001. Copyright 2002.</ref> − − The [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] has stated: − * "the [[theory of evolution]] has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines . . . [whereas] the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of [[evolution]] should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes."<ref>[http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook/0309064066/html/2.html Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition] pp. 1-2</ref> and − * "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."<ref> National Academy of Sciences, 1999 [http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/25.html Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition] pg 25</ref> − − Some advocates have spent many years arguing for the inclusion of creation science in the [[science curriculum]] of U.S. public schools; however, in 1987 in the case [[Edwards v. Aguillard]] the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] held that a requirement that public schools teach creation science alongside evolution as an alternative theory violated the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]].<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=482&page=578 EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)]</ref> (See also [[Intelligent Design movement]].) − − ==History and organization== − The [[creation theology|doctrine of creation]] is a fundamental and ancient precept of many [[faith]]s including [[Christianity]]. The vast majority of Christian [[Church Fathers]] and [[Reformers]] accepted a literal interpretation of Genesis, and even the few who did not, such as [[Origen]] and [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]], defended an earth that was on the order of thousands of years old. An understanding of Genesis, literal or otherwise, requires the harmonisation of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25. Some interpretation is required to resolve inconsistencies in the text.[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194][http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/creationint.html]. A literal interpretation of Genesis cannot be considered to be the Christian consensus. According to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, world leader of Anglicans: "[for] most of the history of Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time. "<ref>[http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/0603221a.htm '''Archbishop of Canterbury''', Transcript of interview with the Guardian] </ref> − − By the [[1830s]], [[scientific evidence]] contrary to the doctrine of "[[special creation]]" had begun to accumulate. In [[1859]] [[Charles Darwin]] published ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'' and by the [[1900s]] [[natural selection]] and descent with modification was widely accepted as the unifying principle of biological development. Opposition to this [[scientific consensus]] became codified as the [[creationism|creationist]] movement. − − The [[history of creationism|history]] of Creation Science begins with writers who looked to studying geology within the Biblical timeframe, detailed for instance in the [[Ussher chronology]]. Such a timeframe directly contradicted that provided by geologists for the [[age of the Earth]]. Some consider the first serious Creation Science writer to be Canadian [[George McCready Price]] who wrote several books, most notably ''The New Geology'', which attempted to contradict mainstream geological understandings of timeframes and [[geologic history]]. Creation Science (dubbed '''Scientific Creationism''' at the time) emerged as an organized movement during the [[1960s]] following the publication of ''[[The Genesis Flood]]'' by [[Henry M. Morris]] and [[John C. Whitcomb]]. − − Creation science was defined in Arkansas Act 590 as follows: − − "Creation science means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those evidences. Creation science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: − :#Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing. − :#The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism. − :#Changes only with fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals. − :#Separate ancestry for man and apes. − :#Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of worldwide flood. − :#A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds." − − Subsequently, advocates of Creation Science have expanded their critiques into [[biology]] and [[physical cosmology|cosmology]], and sought to have creation science taught in United States public schools. However, these efforts were halted by the Supreme Court's application of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First amendment]]'s [[Establishment Clause]] in [[Edwards v. Aguillard]], 1987. − − Following the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, some adherents lent support to the teaching of [[intelligent design]] under its [[Intelligent design movement#Origin of the movement|'big tent' strategy]].<ref>"<cite>The promise of the big tent of ID is to provide a setting where Christians (and others) may disagree amicably, and fruitfully, about how best to understand the natural world, as well as Scripture.</cite>" [http://www.equip.org/free/DL303.pdf Life in the big tent: traditional creationism and the intelligent design community]</ref> The allied ''[[Teach the Controversy]]'' campaign claims that intelligent design is on par with the scientific theory of evolution and therefore that both should be taught in schools as equally worthy of consideration. − − Creation Science is distinguished from [[Neo-Creationism]], which is largely associated with the [[intelligent design movement]], in that most advocates of Creation Science accept scripture as a foundation for their claims with their primary goal being to the validation of scripture as historical fact through the use of science. Neo-Creationism eschews references to scripture altogether from its [[polemics]] and stated goals as a matter of principle (see [[Wedge strategy]]). By so doing, intelligent design proponents hope to succeed where creation science has failed in securing a place in public school science curriculum. Carefully avoiding any reference to the identity of the [[intelligent designer]] as God in their public arguments, intelligent design proponents believe that their movement will return a version of creationism back to science classrooms without violating the [[First Amendment]].<ref name="johnson_bible_out">"...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact." Phillip Johnson. "The Wedge", Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. July/August 1999.</ref><ref name=debate_won>[http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/evolutiondebate.asp the Evolution Debate Can Be Won.] Phillip Johnson. Truths that Transform.</ref> However, this effort was struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause in [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]. − − Today, Creation Science as an organized movement is primarily centered within the [[United States]], although Creation Science organizations are known in other countries, most notably [[Answers in Genesis]] which was founded in Australia. Proponents are found primarily among various denominations of [[Christianity]] described as [[evangelicalism|evangelical]], conservative, or [[fundamentalist Christianity|fundamentalist]]. While creationist movements also exist in [[Islam]], and [[Judaism]], these movements do not use the phrase ''creation science'' to describe their beliefs. − − ==Issues== − Creation Science has its roots in the ongoing effort by [[Young Earth creationism|young-earth creationists]] to dispute [[science|modern science]]'s description of [[natural history]] (particularly biological evolution, but also [[geology]] and [[physical cosmology]]) while attempting to offer an alternative explanation of observable phenomena compatible with the Biblical account. − − The proponents of Creation Science often argue that many observable phenomena fit more easily into the Biblical account than with the naturalistic worldview.<ref>"<cite>We can then apply the scientific method to test our predictions and see which set fits better with what we actually observe.</cite>" [http://www.originsresource.org/creationsci.htm How can creation have anything to do with science?]<br>"<cite>By this definition it would not be scientific to even consider any of the evidence that God created.</cite>" [http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Universe.htm How The Universe Began]</ref> The vast majority of mainstream scientists argue that this premise runs counter to the core principles of coherent [[scientific method]]ology and that literal interpretations of the Bible which demand a global flood, a young Earth, or special creation of [[created kinds]] can be shown to be unsupported by [[scientific evidence]].<ref>[http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html nap.edu]</ref> Creation science proponents admit that their oppositional stance is based on religion. [[Duane Gish]], a prominent creation science proponent, has argued that "We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator."<ref>[http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/robert_l_hall/ISB1F01/ScienceInCreationScience.html people.hofstra.edu]</ref> − − ===Metaphysical assumptions=== − Creation Science makes the ''a priori'' metaphysical assumption that the Creator exists. Christian Creation Science holds that the description of Creation is given in the Bible and that empirical scientific evidence corresponds with that description. Creationists in general see a doctrinaire commitment to exclude the Supreme Being and miracles as a motivating factor in [[Darwinism]], a term used in a derogatory fashion to refer to [[evolutionary biology]]. Critics consider Creation Science to be religious, rather than scientific, because it stems from [[faith]] in the Bible, rather than by the application of the scientific method.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html talkorigins.org] – mclean-v-arkansas</ref> The [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] (NAS), has noted, "Religious opposition to evolution propels antievolutionism. Although antievolutionists pay lip service to supposed scientific problems with evolution, what motivates them to battle its teaching is apprehension over the implications of evolution for religion."<ref>[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4550_antievolutionism_and_creationi_2_13_2001.asp National Center for Science Education]</ref> − − Creation science advocates argue that mainstream [[scientific theories]] of the origins of the universe, the earth, and life are rooted in ''a priori'' presumptions of [[Methodology|methodological]] [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]] and [[Uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarianism]], each of which is disputed. In some areas of science, for example [[chemistry]], [[meteorology]] or [[medicine]], the default assumptions of a naturalistic universe and uniformitarianism are not considered problematic to creation science proponents. As a matter of principle, creation science advocates single out only those scientific theories that they have determined are most in conflict with their beliefs, and it is against those theories that they concentrate their efforts. − − ===Religious criticism=== − [[Fideism|Fideists]] criticize creation science on the grounds either that religious faith alone should be a sufficient basis for belief in the truth of Creation, or that efforts to prove the Genesis account of creation on scientific grounds are inherently futile as reason is subordinate to faith and cannot thus be used to prove it. − − Some [[Christian theology|Christian theologies]], including [[Liberal Christianity]], consider the [[Creation according to Genesis|Genesis narrative]] to be a [[poetry|poetic]] and [[allegory|allegorical]] work rather than a literal history, and many Christian churches – including the [[Roman Catholic]],<ref>[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8712_message_from_the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp ncseweb.org]</ref> [[Anglican]] and the more liberal denominations of the [[Lutheran]], [[Methodist]], [[Congregational church|Congregationalist]] and [[Presbyterian]] faiths – have either rejected creation science outright or are ambivalent to it. − − Many{{Fact|date=February 2007}} churches reject creation science in favour of some version of [[Theistic evolution]]. − − ===Scientific criticism=== − − The [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] states that ''"creation science is in fact [[pseudoscience|not science]] and should not be presented as such."''<ref name = "NAS">[http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html National Academy of Sciences]</ref> and that "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."<ref name = "NAS" /> According to [[Skeptic Magazine]], the "''creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics''" and "''seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution''."<!--Joyce Arthur, Published in the Skeptic, magazine of the Skeptic Society, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1996, pp. 88-93--><ref>[http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?]</ref> − − For a [[theory]] to qualify as [[Scientific method|scientific]] it must be: − * consistent (internally and externally) − * [[Parsimony|parsimonious]] (sparing in proposed entities or explanations) − * useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena) − * empirically testable and [[Falsifiability|falsifiable]] − * based upon controlled, repeatable experiments − * correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data) − * progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more) − * tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) − − For any [[hypothesis]] or [[conjecture]] to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is. If it meets two or fewer of these criteria, it cannot be treated as scientific in any useful sense of the word. − − Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms.<ref>"<cite>The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching.</cite>" [http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZS.html Edwards v. Aguillard]</ref> Most major religious groups have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins.<ref>"<cite>Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.</cite>" [http://newton.nap.edu/html/creationism/preface.html Science and creationism]</ref> − − A summary of the objections to creation science by mainstream scientists follows: − * ''Creation science is not falsifiable'' : [[Theism]] is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, no claim about his existence can be supported or undermined by observation. Thus, creationism, the argument from design and other arguments for the existence of God are ''[[a posteriori]]'' arguments. (See also the section on [[#Creation science and falsifiability|falsifiability]] below.) − * ''Creation science violates the principle of parsimony'' : Creationism fails to pass [[Occam's razor]]. Many explanations offered by creation science are more complex than alternative explanations. [[Parsimony]] favours explanations that make the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities. − * ''Creation science is not empirically testable'' : Creationism posits the [[supernatural]] which by definition is beyond empirical natural testing, and thus conflicts with the practical use of [[naturalism (Philosophy)|methodological naturalism]] inherent in science. − * ''Creation science is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments'' : That creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomena that it tries to explain. − * ''Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive'' : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", instead of a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data as well as any future data. It is often given as a justification for the naturalistic basis of science. In any practical sense of the concept, creation science is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories. − − Creation science's lack of adherence to the standards of the [[scientific method]] mean that it (and specifically creation science) cannot be said to be scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined by the leading world science organisations. − Creation science has been described as an [[oxymoron]] by Stephen Jay Gould.<ref>[http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/creation.htm Article] by [[Stephen Jay Gould]] in the [[Skeptical Inquirer]] (Vol. XI, no. 2 / Winter 1986-87)</ref> − For more discussion, see [[creation-evolution controversy]]. − − ===Historical, philosophical, and sociological criticism=== − Historically, the debate of whether creationism is compatible with science can be traced back to [[1874]], the year science historian [[John William Draper]] published his ''History of the Conflict between Religion and Science''. In it Draper portrayed the entire history of scientific development as a war against religion. This presentation of history was propagated further by followers such as [[Andrew Dickson White]] in his essay ''A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom''. Their conclusions, however, have been disputed.<ref>[http://www.bede.org.uk/university.htm Medieval Science, the Church and Universities]</ref> − − Some opponents consider creation science to be an [[ideology|ideologically]] and [[politics|politically]] motivated [[propaganda]] tool, with [[cult]]-like features, to promote the creationist agenda in society. They allege that the term "creation science" was chosen to purposely blur the distinction between [[science and religion]], particularly in countries that are religiously-neutral by law (such as the United States), in an attempt to gain official government sanction and recognition of specific religious tenets above those of other faiths. In the United States, the principal focus of Creation Science advocates is on the government-supported [[Public school|public school system]]s, which are prohibited by the [[Establishment Clause]] from promoting specific religions. − − ==Areas of study== − Subjects within creation science can be split into three main categories, each covering a different area of origins research: [[creation biology]], [[flood geology]], and [[creationist cosmologies]]. These subjects correspond to the mainstream scientific disciplines of [[evolutionary biology]], [[earth sciences]] and [[cosmology]] respectively. Other topics include [[radiohalo]]es and [[planetology]]. − − ===Creation biology=== − {{main|Creation biology}} − Creation biology centers around an idea derived from Genesis that states that life was created by God in a finite number of "[[created kind]]s" rather than through biological evolution. Creationists who involve themselves in this endeavor believe that any observable [[speciation]] took place through inbreeding, deleterious mutations and other genetic mechanisms designed for rapid "downhill rearrangements" during an alleged [[population bottleneck]] after the [[great flood]] of [[Noah's ark]], which they claim was an actual historical event that happened in a manner consistent with its description in the Bible. − <ref>{{cite web − | last = Sarfati − | first = J − | authorlink = Jonathon Sarfati − | coauthors = − | title = How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark? − | work = Creation Vol 19 Issue 2. − | publisher = − | date = 1997 − | url = http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp − | format = − | doi = − | accessdate = }} </ref> − Mainstream scientists argue that there is no physical evidence for a global flood event that is consistent with the methods and standards of [[scientific evidence]] (see [[Creation science#Flood geology|below]]). − − Creation biology disagrees with biological evolution, in particular [[common descent]] (see [[Creation-evolution controversy]]). Creationists contend that there is no empirical evidence that a [[speciation|new plant or animal species]] with beneficial types of structures or functions has ever originated as a result of the gradual accumulation of [[DNA]] mutations through [[natural selection]].{{Fact|date=March 2007}} − − Popular arguments against evolution have changed over the years since the publishing of [[Henry M. Morris]]'s first book on the subject, ''Scientific Creationism'', but some themes remain common: [[missing links]] as an indication that evolution is incomplete; arguments based on [[entropy]], [[complexity]] and [[information theory]]; arguments claiming that natural selection is an impossible mechanism; and general criticism of the conclusions drawn from [[natural history|historical sciences]] as lacking experimental basis. The [[human evolution|origin of the human species]] is particularly hotly contested; the fossil remains of purported [[Hominidae|hominid]] ancestors are not considered by advocates of creation biology to be evidence for a speciation event involving [[Homo sapiens]].{{Fact|date=March 2007}} − − When asked what would disprove evolution in favor of creationism, biologist [[J. B. S. Haldane|J.B.S. Haldane]] replied "fossil rabbits in the [[Precambrian era]]", a period more than 540 million years ago.{{Fact|date=March 2007}} This is an era during which scientists claim that life on Earth consisted largely of bacteria, algae and plankton.{{Fact|date=March 2007}} [[Richard Dawkins]] explains that evolution "is a theory of gradual, incremental change over millions of years, which starts with something very simple and works up along slow, gradual gradients to greater complexity ... If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found."<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1090909,00.html Time Magazine, [[15 August]] [[2005]], page 32]</ref> − − ===Flood geology=== − {{main|Flood geology}} − Flood geology is a concept based on the belief that most of Earth's [[geology|geological]] record was formed by the [[Great Flood]] described in the story of [[Noah's ark]]. [[Fossil]]s and [[fossil fuels]] are believed to have formed from animal and plant matter which was buried rapidly during this flood, while [[submarine canyon]]s are explained as having formed during a rapid runoff from the continents at the end of the flood. [[Sedimentation|Sedimentary]] [[rock strata|strata]] are thought to have been predominantly laid down during or after Noah's flood. Flood geology is a variant of [[catastrophism]] and is contrasted with mainstream geology in that it rejects standard geological principles such as [[uniformitarianism]] and [[radiometric dating]]. For example, the [[Creation Research Society]] argues that "uniformitarianism is wishful thinking."<ref>[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/notes/39/39_1/Note0206.htm creationresearch.org]</ref> − − Mainstream geologists conclude that no such flood is seen in the preserved [[rock layers]] and moreover that the flood itself would be physically impossible today. For instance, since [[Mount Everest]] is approximately 8.8 kilometres in elevation and the Earth's surface is 510,065,600 km², the volume of water required to cover Mount Everest to a depth of 15 [[cubits]] (6.8 [[meters]]), as indicated by [[Genesis]] 7:20, would be 4.6 billion cubic kilometres. The [[Earth's atmosphere]], however, only has the capacity to store [[Water vapor#Water vapor in Earth's atmosphere|water in vapor form]] sufficient to blanket the globe to a depth of 25 millimeters. Nevertheless, there continue to be many creationists who argue that the flood can explain the evidence from geology and [[paleontology]] that are often used to dispute creationists' claims. Recent years have seen the proposal of theories such as [[catastrophic plate tectonics]]. − − ===Creationist cosmologies=== − {{main|Creationist cosmologies}} − Several attempts have been made by creationists to construct a cosmology consistent with a young universe rather than the standard cosmological [[age of the universe]], based on the belief that Genesis describes the creation of the universe as well as the Earth. The primary challenge for young-universe cosmologies is that the accepted distances in the universe require millions or billions of years for light to travel to Earth. − − Cosmology is not as widely discussed as [[creation biology]] or [[flood geology]], for several reasons. First, many creationists, particularly [[old earth creationists]] and [[intelligent design]] theorists, do not dispute that the universe may be billions of years old. Also, some creationists who believe that the Earth was created in the timeframe described in a literal interpretation of Genesis believe that Genesis describes only the creation of the ''Earth'', rather than the creation of the entire universe, allowing for both a young Earth and an old universe. Finally, the technical nature of the discipline of [[physical cosmology]] and its ties to [[mathematical physics]] prevent those without significant technical knowledge from understanding the full details of how the observations and theories behind the current models work. − − ===Radiohaloes=== − {{see also|Radiohalo}} − In the [[1970s]], young Earth creationist [[Robert V. Gentry]] proposed that radiohaloes in certain granites represented evidence for the Earth being created instantaneously rather than gradually. This idea has been criticized by mainstream physicists and geologists on many grounds including that the rocks Gentry studies are not primordial and that the radionuclides in question need not have been the initial conditions of the rocks. − − Thomas A. Baillieul, a geologist and retired senior environmental scientist with the Federal government, disputed Gentry's claims in an article entitled, ""Polonium Haloes" Refuted: A Review of "Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological and Cosmological Perspective"".<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html "Polonium Haloes" Refuted - A Review of "Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological and Cosmological Perspective" by Robert V. Gentry] by Thomas A. Baillieul. Copyright 2001-2005. Last Updated 22 April 2005.</ref> Baillieul noted that Gentry was a physicist with no background in geology and given the absence of this background, Gentry had misrepresented the geological context from which the specimens were collected. Additionally, he notes that Gentry relied on research from the beginning of the 20th century, long before radioisotopes were thoroughly understood; that his assumption that a Polonium isotope cause the rings was speculative; and that Gentry falsely argues that the [[half-life]] of radioactive elements varies with time. − − ===Planetology=== − {{see also|Planetary science}} − Creation scientists advance various items of evidence which are claimed to prove that the age of the [[solar system]] is of the order of thousands of years (in contrast to the scientifically accepted age of 4.6 billion years). Commonly used arguments (which have been thoroughly refuted by planetologists<ref>[http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims Claim 110] talkorigins.org edited by Mark Isaak. 2005.</ref><ref>[http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261.html TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims Claim 261] talkorigins.org edited by Mark Isaak. 2004.</ref>) relate to the numbers of [[comet]]s and the recession of the [[moon]] from the Earth.<ref>{{cite web − | author=[[Jonathan Sarfati]] − | title=The moon: the light that rules the night − | url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/moon.asp − | date=September 1998 − | accessdate=2007-02-14}} − </ref><ref>{{cite web − | author=[[Jonathan Sarfati]] − | title=Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth? − | url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i3/comets.asp − | date=June 2003 − | accessdate=2007-02-14}} − </ref> − − In response to increasing evidence suggesting that [[Mars]] once possessed a wetter climate, some creation scientists have proposed that the [[flood geology|global flood]] affected not only the Earth but also Mars and other planets. People who support this claim include creationist astronomer Wayne Spencer and creationist cosmologist [[Russell Humphreys]].<ref>{{cite web − | title=Water on Mars: A Creationist Response − | author=Dr Russ Humphreys − | url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/203.asp − | date=August 1997 − | accessdate=2007-02-14}} − </ref> − − An ongoing problem for creationists is the presence of [[impact crater]]ing on nearly all solar system objects, which is consistent with mainstream scientific explanations of solar system origins but difficult to account for within a young-universe framework. Creationist astronomers are undecided as to whether [[meteorite|meteoritic]] bombardment of the solar system occurred during creation week or during the subsequent [[Great Flood]].<ref>{{cite web − |title=A biblically-based cratering theory − | author=Danny Faulkner − | url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/crater.asp − |date=April 1999 − |accessdate=2007-02-14 − }} − </ref><ref>{{cite web − |title=Response to Faulkner’s ‘biblically-based cratering theory’ − | author=Wayne R. Spencer − | url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/cratering.asp − |date=April 2000 − |accessdate=2007-02-14 − }} − </ref> − − ==See also== − * [[Adnan Oktar]] - a Muslim advocate of creation science − * [[Cargo cult science]] − * [[Omphalos (theology)]] − * [[Rapid-decay theory]] − * [[Conflict thesis]] − * [[List of paradigm shifts in science]] − − ==References== − <references/> − <!-- − IT SEEMS THESE REFERENCES AREN'T ACTUALLY USED IN THE ARTICLE − {{mnb|dicdef|1}} [http://www.bartleby.com/61/42/C0734200.html American Heritage Dictionary definition of ''creation science'']<br> − {{mnb|quinn|2}} "The philosopher of science as expert witness", p. 43, in Cushing, J., Delaney, C.F. & Gutting, G., Science and reality: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Science, University of Notre Dame Press, 1984.<br> − {{mnb|nap|3}} [http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/2.html ''Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition''], 1999, National Academy of Sciences.<br> − {{mnb|steve|4}} [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5945_the_faqs_2_16_2003.asp Project Steve: FAQs] National Center for Science Education, 2003-2005<br> − --> − − ==Further reading== − ===Proponents=== − * Don Batten (ed.), ''The Answers Book'' ISBN 978-0-949906-23-6 (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999) − * Duane T. Gish, ''Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics'' ISBN 978-0-932766-28-1 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993) − * Henry M. Morris (ed.), ''Scientific Creationism'' ISBN 0890510032 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985) − * Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, ''What is Creation Science?'' ISBN 978-0-89051-081-0 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987) − * Terry Mortenson, ''The Great Turning Point: The Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology — Before Darwin'' ISBN 978-0-89051-408-5 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004) − * Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, ''Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off'', ISBN 978-1-57683-344-5 (Navpress Publishing Group, 2004) − * Seraphim Rose, ''Genesis, Creation and Early Man'' ISBN 978-1-887904-02-5 (Saint Herman, 2000) − * Ariel A. Roth, ''Origins – Linking Science and Scripture'' ISBN 978-0-8280-1328-4 (Hagarstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1998) − * [[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'' ISBN 978-0-89051-258-6 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999) [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/intro.asp forward and introduction] − * Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'' ISBN 978-0-89051-387-3 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2002) [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/index.asp table of contents with links to chapters] − * Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Compromise'' ISBN 978-0-89051-411-5 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004) [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/rc/intro.asp introductory chapter and some reviews] − * John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris, ''The Genesis Flood'' ISBN 978-0-87552-338-5 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) − * A. E. Wilder-Smith, ''Man's Origin, Man's Destiny'' ISBN 978-0-87123-356-1 (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968) − * A. E. Wilder-Smith, ''Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory'' ISBN 978-99921-39-67-7 (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987) − * John Woodmorappe, ''Studies in Flood Geology'' ISBN 978-0-932766-54-0 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993) − * John Woodmorappe, ''Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study'' ISBN 978-0-932766-41-0 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996) − * John Woodmorappe, ''The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods'' ISBN 978-0-932766-57-1 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999) − − ===Critics=== − * Vernon Blackmore, and Andrew Page, ''Evolution, The Great Debate'' (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 1989) − * V. L. Bates, ''Christian Fundamentalism and the Theory of Evolution in Public School Education: A Study of the Creation Science Movement'' (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis: 1976). − * R. M. Frye, ''Is God a creationist? The religious case against creation-science'' ISBN 978-0-684-17993-3 (New York: Scribner's, 1983) − * P. Kitcher, ''Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism'' ISBN 978-0-262-61037-7 (Boston, MA: The MIT Press, 1983) − * R. Lewin, ''Where is the Science in Creation Science?'' (''Science'' v.215, pp.142–146.) − * R. Pennock, ''Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism'' ISBN 978-0-262-66165-2 (The MIT Press, Reprint edition, [[February 28]] [[2000]]) − * B. Vawter, ''Creationism: Creative Misuse of the Bible'', in R. M. Frye (ed.), ''ibid.'' p.71–82. − * R. L. Numbers, ''The Creationists'' ISBN 978-0-679-40104-9 (New York: A. A. Knopf / Random House, 1992) − * D. B. McKown, ''The mythmaker's magic: Behind the illusion of "creation science"'' ISBN 978-0-87975-770-0 (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1993) − * L. Tiffin, ''Creationism's Upside-Down Pyramid: How Science Refutes Fundamentalism'' ISBN 978-0-87975-898-1 (Prometheus Books, [[August 1]] [[1994]]) − * M. Zimmerman, M. ''Science, Nonscience and Nonsense'' ISBN 978-0-8018-5774-4 (The Johns Hopkins University Press: Reprint edition, [[December 1]] [[1997]]) − * ''Synoptic Position Statement of the Georgia Academy of Science with Respect to the Forced Teaching of Creation-Science in Public School Science Education'', Georgia Academy of Science: [[March 22]] [[2000]] (ISBN B0008JBPNY) − − ==External links== − ===Neutral=== − * [http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZS.html Edwards v. Aguillard] 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling preventing the teaching of creation science in public school science classrooms − * [http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/index.htm McLean v. Arkansas] 1981 challenge to Arkansas' Act 590, which mandated that evolutionary biology instruction be balanced with "creation science". − − ===Proponents=== − * [http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis] − * [http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research] − * [http://www.livingdinos.com Cryptozoology, Living Dinosaurs, and Origins] — "Attacking the Evolutionary view of dinosaurs and supporting the Biblical view that man and dinosaurs have lived together and may still live." − * [http://www.answersincreation.org Answers In Creation] − * [http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry] Answers in Genesis' response to [[Scientific American]]'s article [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense] − * [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] − * [http://www.trueorigin.org/ The True.Origin Archive] − ** [http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp List of Articles Supporting Creation] − * [http://www.csm.org.uk Creation Science Movement] − * [http://www.creationresearch.org/ Creation Research Society] − * [http://www.creationdigest.com/ CreationDigest.com] − * [http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200510.htm Creation-Evolution Headlines] − * [http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/index.htm Creation Insights] − * [http://www.creationscience.com Center for Scientific Creation] − * [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2575 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American's Nonsense] (ApologeticsPress.org rebuttal) − * [http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ Creation Science] − * [http://www.reasons.org/ Reasons To Believe] − * [http://www.caseforacreator.com Case for a Creator] − * [http://www.godandscience.org/ God and Science] − * [http://www.drdino.com/ Creation Science Evangelism] Hosts MP3s of Seminars spoken by Kent Hovind. − * [http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword.asp?kid=2451 Historical Proof - A Jewish viewpoint] chabad.org − * [http://www.harunyahya.com/ Muslim viewpoint] − * [http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ Interactive Bible Association Creation Site] − * [http://www.masterbooks.net/ Master Books] Publishes creation science resources − − ===Critics=== − * [http://wiki.cotch.net Evo Wiki] − * [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_Creationist_arguments List of creationist arguments with responses] − * [http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm No Answers in Genesis website] − * [http://www.creationtheory.org Creationism vs. Science] − * [http://www.talkorigins.org Talk.Origins Archive] − ** [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html Index of Creationist claims with rebuttals] − ** [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html Talkorigins.org article on What is Creationism?] − * [http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=10 National Science Teachers Association] Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution − * [http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp National Association of Biology Teachers] Statement on Teaching Evolution − * [http://www.ncseweb.org/ National Center for Science Education] − * [http://atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/cs/creationism/index.htm About creationism] − * [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/ creationism] − * [http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/ Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences] by the Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences − * [http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html Skeptics Dictionary] Introduction and criticism of creationism. − * [http://www.scicom.lth.se/fmet/myths.html Origin Myths] Introduction to a number of alternative origin myths from varied cultures around the world − * [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense] by [[John Rennie (editor)|John Rennie]]- Scientific American − * [http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html Introduction to creationism] − * [http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?] − * [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs Roy Zimmerman's "Creation Science 101"] − − <!--Categories--> − [[Category:Creation Science| ]] − [[Category:Creationism]] − [[Category:Pseudoscience]] − [[Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation]] − − <!--Other languages--> − [[bg:Научен креационизъм]] − [[de:Schöpfungswissenschaft]] − [[ko:창조과학]] − [[ja:創造科学]] − [[ru:Научный креационизм]] − [[uk:Науковий креаціонізм]]
Reverted edits by AdamNelson (Talk); changed back to last version by 50something
Creation Science is the wonderful field of truth about the work of Our Lord. He created everything we see around us, in six days.