From: bvickers@net1.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Is creationism science?
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 27 Jul 92 01:08:47 GMT


Is creationism science?  It has been debated many times before
on talk.origins (and in the courts), but just so there is no
confusion, I think the question should be answered once again.
After all, it seems there is quite a batch of new creationists
on t.o that I do not remember from a year ago, and I would
personally like to hear what they have to say about it.

The Creation Research Society, established to promote and fund
"scientific" creation research, has a journal called the Creation
Research Society Quarterly.  It is the only journal (that I know
of) where creationists are able to publish their work.  On its
board of directors are prominent creationists such as Duane
Gish, Henry and John Morris, Thomas Barnes, and Harold Slusher.
The society and journal require that all members ascribe to the
following statement of belief.

        Statement of Belief:  Members of the Creation Research
        Society, which include research scientists representing
        various fields of successful scientific accomplishment,
        are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of
        creation and early history, and thus to a concept of
        dynamic special creation (as opposed to evolution), both
        of the universe and the earth with its complexity of
        living forms.

           We propose to re-evaluate science from this viewpoint,
        and since 1964 have published a quarterly of research
        articles in this field.  In 1970 the Society published a
        textbook, _Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity_,
        through Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan
        49506.  Subsequently a Teachers' Guide and both Teachers'
        and Students' Laboratory Manuals have been published by
        Zondervan Publishing House.  All members of the Society
        subscribe to the following statement of belief:
           1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it
        is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically
        and scientifically true in all the original autographs.  To
        the student of nature this means that the account of origins
        in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical
        truths.
           2. All basic types of living things, including man, were
        made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week
        described in Genesis.  Whatever biological changes have
        occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes
        within the original created kinds.
           3. The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred
        to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in
        its extent and effect.
           4. We are an organization of Christian men of science who
        accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.  The account of
        the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and woman and
        their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in
        the necessity of a Saviour for all mankind.  Therefore, salv-
        ation can only come through accepting Jesus Christ as our
        Saviour.

Note first of all that members are required to have a "statement
of belief."  To my knowledge, no major scientific journal in any
discipline requires its submissions be accompanied by a statement
of belief.  Such a practice is clearly anathema to the practice
of science.  The scientific method, put simply, is a method in which
a hypothesis is put forward, evidence is gathered to test the hypo-
thesis, and the hypothesis is modified or discarded if the evidence
disagrees with it.  If continuous trials and evidence support the
hypothesis, it may become accepted by the community of scientists
as a viable theory.  The statement of belief above requires members
to begin with a viable theory -- no, a fixed-in-stone conclusion
(theories can be modified or thrown out) -- and perform the evidence
gathering afterwards.  By the same token, creationists ascribing to
such state- ments of belief are not allowed to alter their "theories"
or "conclu- sions" if evidence should contradict them.  They have
turned the scientific method on its head for the most part, and have
decided to ignore the parts they did not invert.

Surprisingly, these creationists do not discard the scientific method
surreptitiously; they are extremely blunt about the fact that they have
no respect or need for the scientific method as it has stood for the
past several hundreds of years.  The first line of the second para-
graph reads, "We propose to re-evaluate science."  The ultimate goal
of "creation scientists" is not to have creationism accepted as
science; it is to have science accepted as creationism.  They would
like to "re-evaluate" science, since creationism does not and cannot
play by its rules.  Do not ever let a creationist tell you he or she
is doing science; remind him or her of the scientific method, and
explain how it is cavalierly tossed aside by the top proponents of
creationism.

Points 1 through 3 of the statement of belief further reinforce the
non-scientific standing of creationism as it is accepted by the CRS,
ICR, Gish, Morris, et al.  These points require creationists to accept
a conclusion without scientific evidence and to discard any evidence
which might oppose such a conclusion.  They are also heavily inspired
by religion and theology (if that is not obvious).  Science and religion
are like apples and oranges; science does not attempt to explain super-
or para- natural phenomena, while religion does.  Likewise, religion
does not attempt to explain natural or physical phenomena, while science
does.  The creation scientists would like to muddy the waters and have
the supernatural explain the natural.  Science will not tolerate this.

Point 4 makes the religious thrust of scientific creationism extremely
obvious, if points 1 through 3 did not.  No one does a better job than
the creationists at explaining why creationism should not be considered
science.

So, the answer to the title question is a resounding no.

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)