How can we teach creationism scientifically?

[Jose]

This is actually one of the main reasons I created this site. I wanted to show (in my own limited way) that it is possible to approach creationism scientifically. Some evolutionists like to spout off, "Creationism is not science." However, that accusation is easy to say, but it has been failed to be supported by discussions here on this forum. As Jose has said, "Thinking makes your head hurt, and just saying 'yep' doesn't. Not only that, but misconceptions are extremely difficult to change." To this, I would wholeheartedly agree.

As usual, otseng goes beyond the rhetoric to the fundamental issues. Is it possible to teach creationism scientifically? How would we do it? These questions make me think of several issues to discuss:

• What are the common misconceptions? This is going to be tricky, since each of us considers our understanding to be correct. We'll need creationists to suggest what misconceptions people have about creationism, and we'll need evolutionists to suggest what misconceptions people have about evolution.
• How do creationists see creationism as science?As otseng's quote above states, evolutionists don't see creationism as science. By what criteria do creationists judge it to be science?
• What are the fundamental issues that creationists believe should be taught about creationism? This is not "what is wrong with evolution." It is "what are the important bits of creationism?"
• How can these important bits be justified scientifically?

Note that I am purposely avoiding a definition of what "science" is. I would like this thread to reveal our understanding of what "science" is by the ways we support our claims.

[ST88]

I can only comment on my personal observation of the misconceptions that Creationists have about the process of evolution. I think a common misconception is that evolution happens because of changes in the environment, therefore evolution is caused by changes in the environment. This view of evolution seems to suggest that it is in itself a singular process with an arrow of progress moving forward.

But it's not such an easy concept to put into a few bullet points to make statements like those above. There are many different types of evolution and many different processes that contribute to them. Pitting evolution against Creationism often fails merely because the bullet points do not match up neatly like two sports teams on a field of play.

It appears that the mindset that produces belief in Creationism somehow demands that competing theories behave in similar ways, as if they just replace the hand of God with some naturalistic process. They are, in fact, two different types of theories that do not oppose each other in convenient ways.

[YEC]

When you teach creationism you also get the flood as they go hand in hand.

[Gollum]

What are the common misconceptions?

From what I have seen here and elsewhere on the net, the differences seem to revolve around the notion of proof. Creationists for the most part, see biblical authority and belief in a diety as ample and sufficient proof of both that diety and his (or her) active involvement in creation of all that exists. Non-creationists are more inclined to the view that the bible is not evidence. It may be an interesting story with much to say about morals and faith but nothing relevant to contribute about defining natural processes. For them, "proof" comes from observed phenomena and measurement. The second view is the one that characterizes what we call science. To teach Creationism as science, you would need to find some way of presenting "proof" of the scientific sort rather than the Creationist sort. To my knowledge, such proofs don't exist. The typical creationist tactic is "You can't give one of your 'scientific' proofs of this (whatever this is) so that means God did it." Scientifically of course, that's opinion ... not proof.

What are the fundamental issues that creationists believe should be taught about creationism?

Not being one, I don't know. Most of what I've seen in creationist proposals is more along the lines of "... teach the problems with evolution ..." They can't come right out and propose that "God did it" should be taught because that is teaching religion and is banned by the constitution. As many of the pro-evolution biologists have stated, there are specific questions about exactly what path some evolutionary development may have taken but there is no evidence that directly contradicts the theory so there's not much to teach about the "problems with evolution".

When you teach creationism you also get the flood as they go hand in hand.

For some creationists they do. There are others (the Intelligent Design crowd for example) whose tactics rather cleverly don't rely on the flood or the bible or even God. They have a "designer" about whom nothing is or can be known. They don't call this "designer", God. (The better to avoid the "teaching religion" label.) Creationists don't seem to be a monolithic, like-minded block of people. They range everywhere from "God started it all and the rest happened from the way he designed the universe." to "The bible is literal truth and no deviation or interpretation is allowed." I suspect that there's as little chance of Creationism and science being reconciled as there is of the extremes of the Creationists to agree among themselves.

[YEC]

For some creationists they do. There are others (the Intelligent Design crowd for example) whose tactics rather cleverly don't rely on the flood or the bible or even God. They have a "designer" about whom nothing is or can be known. They don't call this "designer", God. (The better to avoid the "teaching religion" label.) Creationists don't seem to be a monolithic, like-minded block of people. They range everywhere from "God started it all and the rest happened from the way he designed the universe." to "The bible is literal truth and no deviation or interpretation is allowed." I suspect that there's as little chance of Creationism and science being reconciled as there is of the extremes of the Creationists to agree among themselves.

The ID'ers like to look at the molecular lever and see design.....when they pull back a bit they see the bigger picture and the item..or should I say systems presented in animals that require an intelligent design for explaination.

Give'um time. The truth of creatiuon will win out.

[juliod]

What are the fundamental issues that creationists believe should be taught about creationism? This is not "what is wrong with evolution." It is "what are the important bits of creationism?"

These are question I would like to see answered. But I don't expect them to be. (One of the main claims of "evolutionists" is that creationists rely on the false dichotomy: that if there is an error on evolutionary science then creationism is true by default.)

There is no Theory of Creation, and I don't see creationists working on one. Indeed, given the propensity of religions toward discord, I don't think there ever will be one.

Like YEC has posted, there is a conflict between those who accept the flood and those who want to overlook it. How can they ever come up with a coherent chronology if they cannot agree on the major events of history?

DanZ

[Jose]

Good points, all. Let me explore a few of them.

ST88 There are many different types of evolution and many different processes that contribute to them.
Gollum Creationists don't seem to be a monolithic, like-minded block of people. They range everywhere from "God started it all and the rest happened from the way he designed the universe." to "The bible is literal truth and no deviation or interpretation is allowed."

Among the different types of evolution is microevolution, about which everyone seems to agree. The agreement, as near as I can tell, came about (relatively recently) as a result of inescapable proof that it happens. It's a natural consequence of genetics. This almost puts all creationists on square #2 or higher. The biblical-inerrancy folks stop there, but the god-just-pushed-the-start-button folks go much farther. Even the biblical-inerrancy folks are moving toward square #3: they are redefining "kind" from "species" to "a group of species" or even "families" or "orders." Again, I think this is a result of hard data that make it very difficult to wiggle out of the conclusions. This suggests to me that a better understanding of evolution might eventually be able to drive another paradigm shift, in which "kinds" is even less specific.

Creationists for the most part, see biblical authority and belief in a diety as ample and sufficient proof of both that diety and his (or her) active involvement in creation of all that exists. Non-creationists are more inclined to the view that the bible is not evidence. ... For them, "proof" comes from observed phenomena and measurement. The second view is the one that characterizes what we call science.

I agree. I suspect that, if we did a better job of teaching science, that the former group would move toward a greater acceptance of "ground truth." There are things that the bible does not speak about, and for which science offers good understanding. Unfortunately, we usually present these things as "facts to memorize" without giving the evidence and scientific reasoning behind the conclusion that they are true. Hence, many people see science as "received wisdom" in which the teacher is the Authority. This puts science on a par with religion, in which the bible is the Authority. If we make the role of evidence more clear, then science and religion will actually seem to be as different as they really are.

The ID'ers like to look at the molecular lever and see design.....when they pull back a bit they see the bigger picture and the item..or should I say systems presented in animals that require an intelligent design for explaination.

Yes, the IDers can look almost anywhere and see design. But then, their entire "science" is based upon seeing design in everything. Their political agenda is to make "design theory the dominant paradigm in science." [The Wedge Document, Discovery Institute] They have chosen the molecular level, I suspect, because most people have a very poor grasp of molecular biology. Therefore, IDers can make bald assertions and get their audience to believe them because the audience thinks science is received wisdom handed down by an Authority. The IDers don't present all of the evidence, or the logic that indicates how wrong their assertions are.

When you teach creationism you also get the flood as they go hand in hand.

Like YEC has posted, there is a conflict between those who accept the flood and those who want to overlook it. How can they ever come up with a coherent chronology if they cannot agree on the major events of history?

The Flood, of course, is said to be a real, historical event. Flood Geologists like to point to specific geological features and say that they were caused by The Flood. So, here is a great place to examine creationism scientifically. The Flood Hypothesis makes clear predictions. Are they met? Do we find evidence that supports The Flood, or do we find evidence that argues against The Flood? Unlike the Act Of Creation itself, The Flood is something we can examine, yet "goes hand in hand" with it. Our thread, The Flood As Science does this--yet, there has not been much enthusiasm among creationists for providing data to support their favorite model. I wonder...is this why IDers try so hard to pretend that their "theory" is not based on the bible?

...which gets us back to the questions of this thread, such as: what are the important parts of creation that creationists want to have taught? Apparently not the flood...

[seventil]

How do creationists see creationism as science?

Evolutionary and Creation science are both the pursuit of truth, of knowledge.

As a Creationist, I can vouch that Creationists want to know how everything came to be just as evolutionists. Our pursuit is the same, that of knowledge.

The difference between the two come with the philosophical bias that goes along with the beliefs. Some evolutionists try to use their theories to disprove Creation; and some Creationists use their theories to disprove a non-Creation. Take all the bias, presumptions, personal views and tradition away from it - and our quest is once again the same: the pursuit of truth. (Not Absolute Truth though... !)

I'll post more tomorrow - good topic here. It's valentines day... time running short!

[Gollum]

As a Creationist, I can vouch that Creationists want to know how everything came to be just as evolutionists.

Perhaps I'm laboring under some misapprehension. My impression is that Creationists claim that they do know how everything came about (i.e. God created it.) Evolutionists (or scientists generally) claim to know those things for which evidence exists. Questions like "Is there a God?"; "How did the universe originate?"; "What was the specific mechanism by which life arose from non-living matter?" are generally unknown because no (or insufficient) evidence exists to allow a definitive statement about them. There are of course hypotheses (Big Bang, Abiogenesis) but no scientist would claim that those are proven beyond doubt. In science it is possible to say "we don't know the answer yet". To the creationist, a lack of evidence is regarded as evidence of divine action.

[juliod]

Flood Geologists like to point to specific geological features and say that they were caused by The Flood. So, here is a great place to examine creationism scientifically. The Flood Hypothesis makes clear predictions. Are they met?

This is in the catagory of "asked and answered". Remember, a few hundred years ago all geologists were creationists. All educated people accepted the bible as a scholarly work, and all but a few marginalized radicals accepted it as truth.

The investigation of science (i.e. Nature) was to be a support of faith.

But over the years, generations really, something else happened: the facts turned out otherwise. Science became an impediment to faith.

It was shown long ago that the flood never happened, and that the earth is very very very old. And since then the evidence has piled on layer after layer continueing to support the Old Earth and falsifying the Young Earth. At the present time there are no actual geologists who support Young Earth Creationism.

There are no theories or alternate interpretations of the data. Nothing but a rear-guard effort, shouting "is not, is not" at every advance of real science.

DanZ