Is Young Earth Creationism a Science?

[harvey1]

Recently, I've had some discussions in the Christianity sub-forum where we argued about whether academia has the right to define what academic used terms mean. And, it seems that the consensus seems to be that the populace has a majority share in what terms mean. So, since many people believe that Young Earth Creationism is a science, I thought that a majority in this sub-forum would have no problem calling YEC a science. Is that true? Can we dispense with YEC as being unscientific because some certain populace now has defined science differently than the academic departments throughout the world? Any thoughts?

[micatala]

Well, seeing as I was tangentially involved in the discussion I think harvey is referring to, and have suggest that common usage be a measure of how we should define terms, I guess I should own up and make a response.


Science is a large subject with a long tradition, and the usage of the word science, although I think it has changed some over time, is fairly stable.

Recently, creationists and especially proponents of ID have explicitly sought to redefine what science is, by proposing to include the possibility of supernatural phenomenon or causes within science.

No. I do not support such a change.


At least to some extent, this change is purposeful and politically motivated. It is not the result of what might called a 'natural change in usage.'

It is probably fair to say that the differences in perception regarding what science is or should be between supporters of YEC or ID and the academic community or the wider lay population is due in part to a misunderstanding, or at least an incomplete understanding of what science is and does. I think the leading proponents of YEC and ID play upon this phenomenon to further their agenda.

However, there is probably not much that can be done in most cases to persuade the proponents and supporters of YEC or ID to abandon their 'private definition' of what science is.

The best that the scientific community can do is to continue to educate the public as best they can on how science works, and why it is important to maintain the practice of science as it currently exists.

[QED]

There was a time when "scientists" took astrology seriously. A process which is constantly in action has changed this situation. The same process should ensure that creationism remains a philosophy rather than a science until such time as it demonstrates an independently verifiable connection with the world of experience.

[Jose]

Well, you know, calling a sheep's tail a leg doesn't actually make it a leg. But, the critical thing is the use of scientific methodology. Basically, it's like this:

• make some observations
• think about them, and try to come up with a reasonable explanation/understanding--or even better, consider multiple alternative explanations
• try to devise various tests that can help determine whether your understanding might be valid, and to distinguish among various alternative explanations--i.e. if your explanation (or "model") is right, then XXX should occur, and YYY should not
• do experiments or other manipulations, gather more observations, etc and use them to evaluate your proposed model--i.e. if YYY occurs, then your model is wrong; if XXX occurs, then your model might be OK but still needs further testing. Use this approach to rule out various of your alternative explanations.
• during all of this, keep your eyes open for observations/data/findings from other scientists, because your model must also fit their data if it is actually valid (and vice versa).

OK. Here's a little list of scientific activities. Regardless of whether we call YECism science, we find that its basic logical structure doesn't fit. All that fits is the first two steps: make some observations, and propose a first-generation hypothesis. [i.e. The earth exists; god created it.] That's fine so far. But, to be scientific about it, we have to keep going, and evaluate alternative explanations, test the implications of this particular hypothesis, etc.

These sorts of tests have been done. The YEC hypothesis makes very clear and very specific predictions about the numbers of possible tree rings, the numbers of possible river varves, the numbers of possible layers of Greenland ice, the maximum percentages of daughter isotopes derived by decay of radionuclides, etc. etc. etc. At this point, YEC research is primarily an effort to show that, even though all of the different YEC predictions fail to be met when we actually collect the data, the YEC hypothesis must still be true because the bible implies that it should be. In science, hypotheses are discarded when they are shown to be incompatible with the data; in YECism, they are not. (well, one is not; those that challenge this hypothesis are all discarded, along with the data upon which they are based.)

It turns out not to be sufficient to do as Kansas has done, and redefine science to include supernatural explanations. When we do that, we run into the inability to test ideas (bad science, or at least useless science), or we run into previously-performed tests that argue against particular aspects of the supernatural explanations. That is: bringing YECism into science classes opens it up to scientific testing. Do we want this?

[juliod]

In science, hypotheses are discarded when they are shown to be incompatible with the data; in YECism, they are not.

This point needs to be amplified. Once something has been falsified, it is no longer part of science. Science (and basic honesty) require us to move on when our view has conclusively shown to be false. To continue to believe your theory is to be a crank or a looney or a maniac.

No theory has been as thouroughly falsified as YECism. It fatally conflicts with every field of human scholarship from history and linguistics to astrophysics and biology.

So, no, YECism can't be a science. It has already been shown to be false, every prediction it makes about the world or the universe has been shown to fail, and there is currently a complete lack of data that would suggest a reconsidration of the theory.

No honest person should be giving YECism any consideration. It should be treated as false. We can reconsider the issue if someone someday acquires some new evidence.

DanZ

[harvey1]

Recently, creationists and especially proponents of ID have explicitly sought to redefine what science is, by proposing to include the possibility of supernatural phenomenon or causes within science.

I agree, but they don't agree. Their numbers are pretty sizable, and they have history on their side where creationism was considered a science prior to biological evolutionary theory, even though in those pre-evolutionary periods the "creation science" could have been no more than speculation by today's standards, right? That suggests that the definition of science was not always to the level that it is today, and it says that creationists never accepted that change when it occurred.

So, who has the right to define what science is if we say that academic departments throughout the top universities certainly do not have that right? Is this something that you would accept in putting to a vote in the next elections in democratic countries throughout the world (assuming that this kind of issue was of major interest to people)? I'm afraid that this might indeed occur at U.S. state level elections where creationists will lobby for the people to define what science is--not academic departments in universities.

[harvey1]

Once something has been falsified, it is no longer part of science. Science (and basic honesty) require us to move on when our view has conclusively shown to be false.

Of course I agree with you, but you're only preaching to the choir. Those who don't attend that "church" are very numerous, and they don't share the view that academia should define the labels they use to make their concepts clear and easy to describe. Would you say the definition of science then depends on usage? If the alternate definitions are both in common usage (e.g., Christian Scientist, creation science, etc.), then on what objective basis could we say "use only this one"? How about if biological textbooks just say there is a disagreement on the definition of science and leave it at that?

[harvey1]

But, to be scientific about it, we have to keep going, and evaluate alternative explanations, test the implications of this particular hypothesis, etc.

Not to play devil's advocate, but I will. Why does the label "scientific" have to be what academia says it is? Christian scientists have used that "science" label for over a century without coming close to being compliant with the academic methodology of science. I know that atheism, for example, has been defined by academia as the non-existence of God, but only since message boards arrived people began changing both the definition of atheism and agnosticism so that atheism is seen as compatible with agnosticism. Isn't this an example of how academia has less say so than usage in the public domain in terms of how academic labels are defined and re-defined?

[Lotan]

So, since many people believe that Young Earth Creationism is a science, I thought that a majority in this sub-forum would have no problem calling YEC a science. Is that true?

I have yet to see an argument about definitions that was anything more than an attempt to bias the playing field. You can call Creationism a 'science' or the 'Truth' or anything else that you wish, but you will not change its inherent nature one bit by doing so. This is no less true of the atheist/agnostic issue.

[harvey1]

I have yet to see an argument about definitions that was anything more than an attempt to bias the playing field. You can call Creationism a 'science' or the 'Truth' or anything else that you wish, but you will not change its inherent nature one bit by doing so. This is no less true of the atheist/agnostic issue.

So, am I to understand that you think academic departments are not the ones responsible for defining the labels used in their profession?