emotional

It is said that creationism is unscientific because it posits a supernatural explanation. OK. Also, because it's unscientific, creationism has no place in the classroom. So far so good. However, I've heard it argued that because creationism uses a supernatural explanation, it is false. And it is here I have to disagree. I present myself here as a sort of devil's advocate of a philosophical argument.

Saying creationism is false just because it introduces an external indeterministic agent into the equation (God) is a logical fallacy. If you say creationism is false because the evidence is against it, then I agree. But if you say creationism is false ipso facto that it assumes an external indeterministic agent, then I have to respectfully disagree. The scenario of the universe and this world and all life in it having been created by God is a possibility. It may have happened. Certainly it does not explain much to say "God created all living organisms", but lack of explanation does not make the hypothesis false. You might as well say, upon seeing a glass of water with a biscuit in it, that saying "some man put the biscuit inside the glass of water" lacks explanatory power, therefore is false, and a theory of "natural chemical evolution of the biscuit inside the glass of water" is the only possible option.

I do not reject creationism because of its invoking an external creator to try and explain the fact of living organisms. I leave theoretical room for the possibility that THAT'S REALLY WHAT HAPPENED. If that happened, then it wouldn't do to say "it's unscientific" - it's the truth, just like a man putting the biscuit into the glass of water.

My reasons for rejecting creationism are the following: 1) the evidence is against: homologies, vestigial organs, fossils, embryonic recapitulation, gene comparison, computer simulations that show how organised complexity can rise of itself, and other types of compelling evidence for blind-watchmaker creativity and against intelligent design; 2) most creationism is dogmatic, starting from the conclusion (a book or theistic philosophy) and trying to find facts to support the conclusion, which is the reverse way of knowing anything.

Creationism may possibly be true - even supernaturalistic creationism. The reason it isn't is that the evidence is against it. But the philosophical argument that "creationism is unscientific, therefore it is false" is, to my mind, invalid. Of course, even if the evidence were indeed all for intelligent design, the God of the Bible does not follow. But I'm just saying that creation by an external indeterministic agent is in the room of the possible.

Camaban

I hadn't heard that it was false because it was unfalsifiable, simply unscientific.

it's false for a wide variety of other reasons, not because it's unscientific (it being unscientific doesn't even play the smallest part in its being false, just makes it impossible to falsify)

Shadownought

I also haven't heard anyone argue that "Creation says god did it; therefore creation is false." I agree that it's a bad argument, though- arguing from your conclusions is the creationist's job

MrDarwin

Of course, you realize you've already fallen into the creationist trap: if it's unfalsifiable, then how do you know it is false?

It's important to note that creationism makes several claims which can be tested and falsified: the age of the earth, the ages of geological formations, fossils and other artifacts, the order in which different organisms lived on the earth, a worldwide flood, etc.

In fact, I'm starting to wonder if a better tactic to deal with creationists is to agree that "scientific creationism" is both testable and falsifiable, and has been tested and found false.

lpetrich

The most general form of creationism includes hypotheses like the Philip-Gosse "Omphalos" created-appearance hypothesis, and that sort of hypothesis is totally unfalsifiable.

However, the favorite hypotheses of many creationists include many falsifiable -- and falsified -- claims.

Shadownought

I would say that how falsifiable the Creation hypothesis is depends on how specific it is. If, for example, there WAS evidence for a worldwide catastrophic flood, it would be just that- evidence for a worldwide catastrophic flood. That particular claim is testable.

The problem is when someone tries to prove, say, everything in Genesis. There is no way to test whether evil entered the world by eating an apple, for example, or that the first human was made out of dust. I'm not aware of any creationist that offers "evidence" for a claim like that.

To take the whole Biblical story of creation as true, and seek evidence to prove it, is unscientific because, not only are they trying to fit the evidence into their preexisting claims, there are parts of the "theory" that could not POSSIBLY be arrived at from examining any of the evidence on Earth. For a creation theory to be scientific, all creation myths must be thrown out of the mix, and the creationist must formulate a creation theory that fits the evidence.

theyeti

The confusion arises because there are two common uses of the word "scientific". In the first sense, we mean a theory that is derived via the scientific method: observe, theorize, test with empirical evidence, and repeat. You can apply this method and still be wrong. The "plum pudding" model of the atom was scientific, because it was based on then current observations and was open to testing, but it was later found out to be wrong.

Which is where the second definition comes in. In our society when we talk about something being "scientific", we not only mean that it was discovered via the scientific method, but that science has concluded that it's right. Thus we wouldn't call the plum pudding model scientific, simply because we know it to be wrong. We would only call the currently accepted model of the atom scientific, because it's what the scientific community has accepted.

Creationism is not science on both counts. First of all, its claims are not derived via the scientific method. They are not based on any observation, and they are frequently not open to investigation. Instead they are based on the premise that the Bible is literally true, and the scientific method does not recognize any authority besides empirical evidence. Secondly, where creationism does make testable claims, they have been found to be false via the scientific method. Like Mr. D said, they are wrong about the age of the Earth, the contemporaneous existance of all species, the global flood, etc. When we apply the scientific method, we find that these things are wrong, and hence we say creationism is not scientific. But here's the catch: creationists won't accept empirical evidence as overturing biblical literalism. From their point of view, things work in the opposite direction. If the Bible and our observations disagree, it just means that there is something wrong with the way we're interpreting our observations. This is what makes them unscientific in the first sense, because they have set up a system whereby it's impossible to test their claims via empirical evidence. So the real difference is that creationists don't accept the scientific method, else they'd have to admit that many of their claims have been falsified.

theyeti