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.

[USIncognito]

For such a short thread, what a wonderfully dense one. I'd like to address some things in subsequent posts, but I'm on dial-up and trying to catch up on a bunch of forums so I'll just comment on the OP.

What are the common misconceptions?

- A general misconception is that majority of people who argue against Creationism* are arguing against Creation. There's a difference between YECism, which is what most of us object to, and the broader concept that a deity was involved in what we see all around us today.
- That science can address, via the scientific method, whether a creator was involved. Since the supernatural (due to the necessity of repeatability and falsifiability) cannot be addressed by the scientific method, a Creationist can only tangentally point to gaps and say God is there. Unfortunately God of the Gaps has proven devestating to religious belief.

* For my purposes in all posts, "Creationism" refers to YECism, and sometimes Gap Theory, while "creationism" referes to people believing a deity was involved.

How do creationists see creationism as science?

- My perception is that Creationists (see above) try and use a bizarroworld version of science to evidence a literal Genesis. Unfortunately that was falsified by Christian geologists like Sedgewick over 180 years ago.
- Creationists (with a small c) don't see any conflict between the mythological truths of Genesis, nor the existance of sin or need for redemption despite it being inconsistent with the geological record and evidences from biology.

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

- IMO, that creationism is not in conflict with their religion or the truths of Genesis, but that Creationism is.

How can these important bits be justified scientifically?

- This one is particularly problematic since Creationism is falsified by science, and science cannot validly comment on creationism. I really don't have an answer beyond that.

[Dilettante]

nikolayevich wrote:

Before I continue with responses to my post, this particular portion is one which I must call into question- not to defend a dictionary but to speak on "science is something they do". This is said often but to the detriment of maintaining coherence in science. It is patently circular.

Let's restate it thus:
"Science is what scientists do."

Jose interpreted me correctly. I was not trying to offer a tautological definition of science, but only highlighting the inadequacy of our common definitions of science. We should recognize that science is diverse, there is no single thing called science that we can easily define. A mathematician is no more equipped to define biology than a historian is.
And, no, I don't think scientists need to learn about philosophy. They don't need to in order to do better science. However, it would be a good idea for the philosophers to learn more about science, especially if they specialize in the philosophy of science. Karl Popper once believed that natural selection was tautological and hence unscientific, but when he learned about in detail it from the scientists he made a formal recantation.
So, it's the philosopher who would benefit from not isolating themselves from science. A philosopher needs to learn as much as possible about as many things as possible.

[Jose]

How do creationists see creationism as science?

- My perception is that Creationists (see above) try and use a bizarroworld version of science to evidence a literal Genesis. Unfortunately that was falsified by Christian geologists like Sedgewick over 180 years ago.

I think that what I'm trying to figure out is what that Creationist version of science is. One clue came in one of our threads here, in respose to the traditional statement that science can only study the natural world, not the supernatural--to Creationists, God is part of the natural world. This is enlightening, because it explains why the natural vs supernatural logic fails. But it doesn't help me understand how creationists view evidence. The claim is repeatedly made that...well, I'll quote YEC from the thread Question 1: The Fossil Record:

to many the scientific facts confirm Genesis.

But, aren't there facts that contradict Genesis? How can Creationism be science if there are facts that contradict it?

[YEC]

How can Creationism be science if there are facts that contradict it?

Perhaps we should ask the same question of evolutionism?

[Jose]

How can Creationism be science if there are facts that contradict it?

Perhaps we should ask the same question of evolutionism?

Good idea. It might be fun. What are these facts? You might need to start a new thread for this, or maybe just wake up one of the old ones.

[Dilettante]

YEC, if you mean that evolutionism hasn't answered all the questions yet and hasn't found all of the pieces of the puzzle yet, bear in mind that that does not make it unscientific. Rather, a theory is much more likely to be unscientific if it gives you all the answers right from the start and precludes all progress, like astrology. Science changes, pseudoscience does not change. So, what exactly is unscientific about evolution?

[USIncognito]

I think that what I'm trying to figure out is what that Creationist version of science is. One clue came in one of our threads here, in respose to the traditional statement that science can only study the natural world, not the supernatural--to Creationists, God is part of the natural world. This is enlightening, because it explains why the natural vs supernatural logic fails. But it doesn't help me understand how creationists view evidence.

You've happened upon the conundrum that really shouldn't exist. To TEs and Creationists alike, God is, is part of and also transcends the natural world. The issue isn't seeing that, it's how the scientific method works. The scientific method cannot function if there is room for "anything" to intervene or for a lack of falsifiability. How does one falsify the hand of God being involved in anything from starting life to holding individual atoms together in molecules?

The scientific method, properly applied, doesn't say God (or any diety) isn't involved - it just doesn't take the activities of any possible deity into consideration.

The claim is repeatedly made that...well, I'll quote YEC from the thread Question 1: The Fossil Record:

to many the scientific facts confirm Genesis.

But, aren't there facts that contradict Genesis? How can Creationism be science if there are facts that contradict it?

I'll note that YEC's response was a non-response.

180 years ago Christian geologists were trying to evidence YECism, and after looking at the facts about our topology, they realized that YECism was contradictory to the facts and was untennable. Nothing has changed and the evidence against YECism has only grown more robust.

[Dilettante]

One clue came in one of our threads here, in respose to the traditional statement that science can only study the natural world, not the supernatural--to Creationists, God is part of the natural world. This is enlightening, because it explains why the natural vs supernatural logic fails. But it doesn't help me understand how creationists view evidence.

This is funny, because, if God was part of the natural world, it would be possible for science to discover God, and theology would become scientific. However, this is not the case (at least for the moment). Also, if God was part of the natural world, maybe scientists would discover a natural cause for God. But YEC claims only seem to work with a supernatural God.

There is anoher possibility, the one defended in the 17th century by Benedict Spinoza and summarized by his Latin phrase "Deus, sive natura" (God, or Nature). In other words, God and nature are one and the same. Einstein famously said that God didn't play dice. This is frequently misinterpreted to support the assertion that Einstein was a believer in the ordinary sense of the word. But Einstein also made it very clear that he believed in the God of Spinoza, a god with little (if anything at all) in common with the god of revelation. Einstein's "god" was a pantheistic deity, not a personal god or a creator god.
USincognito wrote:

The scientific method cannot function if there is room for "anything" to intervene or for a lack of falsifiability. How does one falsify the hand of God being involved in anything from starting life to holding individual atoms together in molecules?

Actually, the falsifiablity criterion is not satisfactory by itself. There are things in science which cannot be falsified. But I agree that if scientists could study God, they would be able to predict the way God affects things on earth without consulting the Bible. Such is not the case, and I doubt that YECs are willing to throw away their Bibles to undertake a scientific study of God. The argument from authority has no place in science. What if the God they discovered contradicted the God of the Bible? To be scientific, they should be able to put the Bible aside and look at things in strictly scientific ways. But their attitude reminds me of that of the philosopher who refused to look through Galileo's telescope for fear of finding somethimg that contradicted Aristotle.

So, if we wanted to teach creationism scientifically, the first thing to do would be to put away the Bible and start from scratch. Then we would have to consider every possible creation scenario as a working hypothesis and see which one (if any) fits the facts. Finally, we would have to be willing to rewrite or reinterpret the Bible if necessary to make it fit our discoveries about "the God of science". Revelation and authority are not part of the scientific method, and we would end up with a very different concept of God. A scientific creationist would probably defend the Big Bang rather than attack it.

[Jose]

To TEs and Creationists alike, God is, is part of and also transcends the natural world. The issue isn't seeing that, it's how the scientific method works. ... The scientific method, properly applied, doesn't say God (or any diety) isn't involved - it just doesn't take the activities of any possible deity into consideration.

In general, I'd say this is true. However, to say that science doesn't take deities into consideration is, I think, the very notion that (some) creationists take issue with. "God is eliminated from the beginning, and isn't allowed to be considered." We often phrase this as "natural science studies the natural world, but supernatural beings are above it and cannot be studied." This seems to be rephrased by philosophers as naturalistic materialism. This, in turn, provokes YECs to label science and evolution as a philosophy--an "ism"--and infer that it is therefore unscientific.

I think it is more correct to describe it this way: science looks at the evidence that exists in the world, and uses that evidence to build logical explanations about how the world works. If a deity were involved, and if that deity left any clues whatsoever, then scientific methodology should find those clues, and would lead to the conclusion that a deity was involved--just as Dilettante said:

if God was part of the natural world, it would be possible for science to discover God, and theology would become scientific.

That is, there is no a priori exclusion of God from consideration. It's just that the data do not indicate whether he had a role or not. It is as you said,

180 years ago Christian geologists were trying to evidence YECism, and after looking at the facts about our topology, they realized that YECism was contradictory to the facts and was untennable. Nothing has changed and the evidence against YECism has only grown more robust.

As you point out, early scientists did not exclude God at all from their worldviews, and expected that their studies would help describe his glory. The data forced them to conclude differently, not their initial assumptions.

So, if we wanted to teach creationism scientifically, the first thing to do would be to put away the Bible and start from scratch. Then we would have to consider every possible creation scenario as a working hypothesis and see which one (if any) fits the facts. Finally, we would have to be willing to rewrite or reinterpret the Bible if necessary to make it fit our discoveries about "the God of science".

And therein lies the problem. YECism relies on infallibility of the Bible, and will not reinterpret it (as we see from the discussions we've had here). Instead, YECism reinterprets the data, omitting the "uncomfortable bits" that make it inconsistent with the model.

Yet, YECs are insistent that YECism be taught in schools as if it were science. They are even willing to go so far as to try to sneak in ID first, even though its basic tenets force us to accept the evolution of humans and chimps from a common ancestor (which they must not realize). So, I keep coming back to the basic conundrum: to a YEC, what constitutes science? What is the role of data? Do YECs have a different understanding of what these are, or do they have the identical understanding as evolutionary biologists, but they intentionally misrepresent the science? Most people assume the latter, judging from the tenor of the debates we read elsewhere.