P
pasta911
Guest
Creationists keep asking that their theory be taken seriously, as a scientific theory. Well, this is where we discover yet another problem with Creationism: there is no Creation Theory. No creationist has ever submitted a formal scientific research paper on this nebulous concept known as "creation theory"; they prefer to bypass the scientific community and take their case directly to laypeople and politicians (who presumably are better qualified to judge scientific merit). Every creationist has a different idea of what "creation theory" is, and the majority of them prefer not to pin it down, so that they can alter it "on the fly" in order to evade your criticisms.
Although there have been, as previously noted, no formal scientific research papers submitted to peer-reviewed journals regarding this "theory", and there are a virtually infinite number of permutations, most "creation theories" tend to fall into the following categories:
Biblical inerrancy-based "Young Earth Creationism". This theory claims that Genesis is 100% factual and literal. Of course, that is impossible, since a purely literal interpretation of Genesis fails the fundamental test of self-consistency as described in the previous section. It is also inconsistent with all of the geological and astrophysical evidence, since it proposes that the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old. Naturally, a lot of pseudoscience is advanced to "explain" how scientists are completely wrong about the age of the universe, but it always falls apart upon close examination. Click here if you're interested in learning more about Young-Earth Creationism.
"Each according to their kind" creationism. This theory accepts that Genesis cannot be taken literally, but it makes a curious exception for the "each according to their kind" statement. Even if we disregard this obvious hypocrisy, this theory is easy to disprove since it is based on the notion that evolutionary speciation is impossible. Since evolutionary speciation has already been observed in nature, this theory is just as worthless as Biblical "young Earth" creationism.
The "intelligent designer" theory. This is the most contemptible of all creation theories because it lacks the honesty and integrity to openly declare its religious basis. Its proponents know, and we know that the "intelligent designer" is just a "nudge nudge, wink wink" way of saying "God", obviously in an effort to bypass constitutional prohibitions against using public schools to promote one religion over others. This is creationist fallback position #1: keep the same theory, but try to call it "science" by not explicitly mentioning God. They expect us to forget that all proponents of "intelligent design" just happen to be Christian, or that none of them can explain what mechanisms this "designer" might have used, or more importantly, why this "designer" would have performed this design process over billions of years, in a linear progression precisely matching the predictions of evolution theory.
Vague creationism. This is the creationist fallback position #2. When they realize that the specifics of creation theory are completely indefensible from a scientific standpoint, they soften the argument to a vague statement like "at some point in the process, there must have been some outside intervention." They often state this "theory" with the triumphant declaration that it can't be disproven. The problem is that it is so vague that it doesn't qualify as a theory. It doesn't even attempt to explain what sort of intervention occurred, or when, or how. It can't be disproven because it says nothing of substance.
Creationists also fail to explain the mechanism. If every species arose from the dust in its current form, and God made this happen, then how did he do it? Did he seize the necessary elements and make them bond, molecule by molecule, cell by cell, until a complete life form existed? Did he repeat this process for every single animal and plant? How long did this process take, per creature? Which organs were created first? How did each creature survive, since the organs cannot function outside of the environment of a complete organism? How did he manipulate all of this matter? Electromagnetic fields? Intense localized space-time distortions? Machinery which he built and then destroyed? Exotic chemical reactions which have now become impossible?
And finally, creationists violate a fundamental aspect of the scientific method; they fail to assume the existence of a mechanism (this relates to the previous problem). Every schoolchild learns the "Coles Notes" version of the scientific method (observe, analyze, hypothesize, experiment, etc.), but many of them don't realize that this method is designed to find the underlying mechanism for any given phenomenon. It inherently assumes that the mechanism exists, and this basic assumption is common to all scientific theories because it follows from the conclusion (based on observation) that the universe is not random. It appears to follow a set of rules, and this means that those rules are out there, waiting for us to figure them out. Creationists are fond of stating that evolution is based on the "humanist assumption" that natural mechanisms exist to explain everything, but they ignore the fact that this "humanist assumption" is part and parcel of all scientific theories. Are they going to throw the theory of gravity or plate tectonics out the window because it's based on a "humanist assumption"? If we were to accept "Creation Theory", we would be accepting the only theory in all of science which assumes that the universe does not follow rules (despite the lack of evidence for such arbitrary behaviour), and that its events are subject to the random whims of a supernatural deity.
Creationists want their "theory" to be taken, and examined, as if it were like any other scientific theory. But it fails to qualify as a theory. The numerous variants are either unworkable or hopelessly vague, with no attempt whatsoever to explain the mechanisms involved. A legitimate scientific theory proposes equations, rules, and mechanisms to explain observed phenomena. Creation theory does none of this! Where is the mechanism? Where is the explanation of how God created living beings in their current form? What chemical reactions, or physical forces did he use, and in what configuration? How long did it take to create each being? How were the creatures kept alive during the process? In what precise order were they made, since some species (such as parasites) require living hosts?
These are questions which creationists have never asked themselves. Their instinctive response to all of these questions is that God doesn't have to obey any of the laws of physics (or biology, or chemistry, or logic ...). But if God doesn't have to obey any of the laws of physics, and he therefore created the Earth's life in a process that expressly violated the laws of physics, then creationists are essentially saying in order for their theory to work, the laws of physics must be ignored! How can they expect anyone to take this seriously, as a "scientific theory?"
As soon as you attempt to subject Creation theory to the most cursory evaluation "as a scientific theory", it is quite obvious that it breaks down completely. It begins with the central postulate that the laws of physics must be ignored, in favour of what is essentially magic! Creationists have become accustomed to the luxury of not being placed under scientific scrutiny. They attribute this scientific apathy to dogma and of course, the vast global cover-up. But they should be careful what they wish for, because if you actually do examine Creation theory as a "scientific theory", it looks even worse than it did before.
Although there have been, as previously noted, no formal scientific research papers submitted to peer-reviewed journals regarding this "theory", and there are a virtually infinite number of permutations, most "creation theories" tend to fall into the following categories:
Biblical inerrancy-based "Young Earth Creationism". This theory claims that Genesis is 100% factual and literal. Of course, that is impossible, since a purely literal interpretation of Genesis fails the fundamental test of self-consistency as described in the previous section. It is also inconsistent with all of the geological and astrophysical evidence, since it proposes that the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old. Naturally, a lot of pseudoscience is advanced to "explain" how scientists are completely wrong about the age of the universe, but it always falls apart upon close examination. Click here if you're interested in learning more about Young-Earth Creationism.
"Each according to their kind" creationism. This theory accepts that Genesis cannot be taken literally, but it makes a curious exception for the "each according to their kind" statement. Even if we disregard this obvious hypocrisy, this theory is easy to disprove since it is based on the notion that evolutionary speciation is impossible. Since evolutionary speciation has already been observed in nature, this theory is just as worthless as Biblical "young Earth" creationism.
The "intelligent designer" theory. This is the most contemptible of all creation theories because it lacks the honesty and integrity to openly declare its religious basis. Its proponents know, and we know that the "intelligent designer" is just a "nudge nudge, wink wink" way of saying "God", obviously in an effort to bypass constitutional prohibitions against using public schools to promote one religion over others. This is creationist fallback position #1: keep the same theory, but try to call it "science" by not explicitly mentioning God. They expect us to forget that all proponents of "intelligent design" just happen to be Christian, or that none of them can explain what mechanisms this "designer" might have used, or more importantly, why this "designer" would have performed this design process over billions of years, in a linear progression precisely matching the predictions of evolution theory.
Vague creationism. This is the creationist fallback position #2. When they realize that the specifics of creation theory are completely indefensible from a scientific standpoint, they soften the argument to a vague statement like "at some point in the process, there must have been some outside intervention." They often state this "theory" with the triumphant declaration that it can't be disproven. The problem is that it is so vague that it doesn't qualify as a theory. It doesn't even attempt to explain what sort of intervention occurred, or when, or how. It can't be disproven because it says nothing of substance.
Creationists also fail to explain the mechanism. If every species arose from the dust in its current form, and God made this happen, then how did he do it? Did he seize the necessary elements and make them bond, molecule by molecule, cell by cell, until a complete life form existed? Did he repeat this process for every single animal and plant? How long did this process take, per creature? Which organs were created first? How did each creature survive, since the organs cannot function outside of the environment of a complete organism? How did he manipulate all of this matter? Electromagnetic fields? Intense localized space-time distortions? Machinery which he built and then destroyed? Exotic chemical reactions which have now become impossible?
And finally, creationists violate a fundamental aspect of the scientific method; they fail to assume the existence of a mechanism (this relates to the previous problem). Every schoolchild learns the "Coles Notes" version of the scientific method (observe, analyze, hypothesize, experiment, etc.), but many of them don't realize that this method is designed to find the underlying mechanism for any given phenomenon. It inherently assumes that the mechanism exists, and this basic assumption is common to all scientific theories because it follows from the conclusion (based on observation) that the universe is not random. It appears to follow a set of rules, and this means that those rules are out there, waiting for us to figure them out. Creationists are fond of stating that evolution is based on the "humanist assumption" that natural mechanisms exist to explain everything, but they ignore the fact that this "humanist assumption" is part and parcel of all scientific theories. Are they going to throw the theory of gravity or plate tectonics out the window because it's based on a "humanist assumption"? If we were to accept "Creation Theory", we would be accepting the only theory in all of science which assumes that the universe does not follow rules (despite the lack of evidence for such arbitrary behaviour), and that its events are subject to the random whims of a supernatural deity.
Creationists want their "theory" to be taken, and examined, as if it were like any other scientific theory. But it fails to qualify as a theory. The numerous variants are either unworkable or hopelessly vague, with no attempt whatsoever to explain the mechanisms involved. A legitimate scientific theory proposes equations, rules, and mechanisms to explain observed phenomena. Creation theory does none of this! Where is the mechanism? Where is the explanation of how God created living beings in their current form? What chemical reactions, or physical forces did he use, and in what configuration? How long did it take to create each being? How were the creatures kept alive during the process? In what precise order were they made, since some species (such as parasites) require living hosts?
These are questions which creationists have never asked themselves. Their instinctive response to all of these questions is that God doesn't have to obey any of the laws of physics (or biology, or chemistry, or logic ...). But if God doesn't have to obey any of the laws of physics, and he therefore created the Earth's life in a process that expressly violated the laws of physics, then creationists are essentially saying in order for their theory to work, the laws of physics must be ignored! How can they expect anyone to take this seriously, as a "scientific theory?"
As soon as you attempt to subject Creation theory to the most cursory evaluation "as a scientific theory", it is quite obvious that it breaks down completely. It begins with the central postulate that the laws of physics must be ignored, in favour of what is essentially magic! Creationists have become accustomed to the luxury of not being placed under scientific scrutiny. They attribute this scientific apathy to dogma and of course, the vast global cover-up. But they should be careful what they wish for, because if you actually do examine Creation theory as a "scientific theory", it looks even worse than it did before.
