Philosophy of Science - Does Creationism Qualify as Science - Essay Example

?Philosophy of Science - Does Creationism qualify as science? Introduction The realm of modern science like many religious doctrines reflect a beliefthat the entire universe composed of galaxies, stars, a large number of solar systems and the entire flora and fauna of the earth is created and maintained by the Almighty, God. This view gains ground for it also supports the theory of evolution proposed by science of evolutionary biology. However, the approach of ‘Creation Science’ which holds a trend to the Christian religion is creating controversial viewpoints about the history of the earth’s and universe’s existence. This new aspect erroneously emphasizes that both the earth and universe were born some 10,000 years ago and the present life form of the earth is the outcome of catastrophes like floods. Some creation scientists again hold that human beings were born out of divine intervention for the presence of intelligence absent in others. The creationism aspect of science on account of the above examples is countering problem for the proper teaching of science. (Skehan & Nelson, 1-2). Thus, the activities of creation scientists are aiming to draw a rift between experimental nature of science and a scientific approach based on false dogmas and religious ideologies. Creationism which fails to impart an experimental outlook fails to be qualified as Science. Controversial Theories of Creation Science against Science Scientific Creationism is observed to largely mingle religious ideologies with scientific doctrines causing the formation of erroneous facts which cultivate an environment of misinformation. In fact, the doctrines rendered by Creation Science which states that the formation and destruction of life forms on the planet were the outcome of a deluge were observed to bear close resemblance to Biblical theories. These facts rendered by Creation Science draw controversies for Science has already stated the age of the earth as amounting to some billions of years. With regards to the development of the large diversity of flora and fauna Science has successfully shown that these diversities sprouted out owing to the effects of evolution. The facts stated by Science gain ground for being supported by experimental observations conducted through the study of fossils which claims that evolution is a spontaneous phenomenon and not merely a theory. An endeavor to intensify the realm of Creation Science to reach the Science classrooms was largely contested on several grounds. The Law of the land observed such moves of Creation Science as totally unconstitutional due to mainly three aspects. Firstly, it was observed that such a drive affected the secularity of the region and legislation. It is because the approach of Creation Science is considered to have strong linkages to the Catholic religion. Secondly, it was held that the Creation Science’s approach was involved more in spreading religion than centered on imparting knowledge. Thirdly the approach made by Creation Science was also felt as anti-governmental activity and thus an endeavor was made to restrict its further development. Several schools of the American region were strictly directed to disallow the professing of the doctrines of Creation Science. The activities of Creation Science however did counter less halt as it came out with the doctrine of ‘Intelligent Design’. The theory of ‘Intelligent Design’ is considered to be propounded by the Creation Science theorists to counter the strength of legislative actions imposed upon it. The theory of ‘Intelligent Design’ propounded by the Creation Scientists presents itself in two parts. The first part aimed at totally criticizing the theory of evolution framed by Charles Darwin. It aimed at stating that the theory of evolution was totally wrong and practically suffered from absence of a strong base. In the second part the concept of ‘Intelligent Design’ tried to focus that each of the different life forms on earth including the intelligent human beings were the actions of some supernatural power and did not develop out of its own. Thus the Creation Scientists based on the theory of Intelligent Design’ aim to draw baseless conclusions defacing the main propositions laid down by Science obtained after conducting a long range of experiments. However at a later stage the doctrine of Intelligent Design propounded by the Creation Scientists is endeavoring to draw a relation to the doctrine of Scientific Evolution through the adoption of the theory of natural selection in development of species. The theory of ‘Intelligent Design’ however earns some amount of popularity for it affirms that certain traits develop in the organisms which the Creation Scientists observe as the acts of supernatural power and not merely evolutionary in nature. This view of the Creation Scientists spread through the realm of Intelligent Design helped them to counter the allegations brought against them. This view of the Creation Scientists focusing on the work of an intelligent mind and hand in the development of organisms to create developed species has also been proved wrong by the modern scientific world. Thus Creation Science which only rests on the platform of baseless theories cannot be stated as Science. A body of knowledge to qualify as Science must fulfill the following features. Firstly the theories developed in the body of knowledge must bear resemblance to natural factors. Secondly, such theories given in the body of knowledge must be amenable to experimentation. Thirdly inferences drawn based on the body of knowledge must be flexible enough to adapt to the changes in the external environment. Fourthly the theories developed by the body of knowledge must lend themselves for criticism. The body of Creation Science in its failure to satisfy the above points cannot be called as a true body of scientific knowledge. (Coyne; Laudan, 48-49). Creation Science vs. Science The body of knowledge developed as Creation Science is strongly opposed to be called in as pure Science. Rather its development holds strong relations to the existence of Christian religious ideologies (Ruse, 38). Furthermore the ambit of Creation Science focuses on the happening of miracles and events, which fail to be tested by the use of experiments. Thus the body of ‘Creation Science’ shows a laxity in the presence of true evidences which can confer its true status like Science. Again the body of Creation Science fails to render needed explanations of the theories stated and also fails to predict the outcome of certain events based on the cause and effect relationship (Ruse, 41). Science on the contrary renders fruitful explanations of the terms and theories stated by it and also draws useful inferences based on observations. These effects countered along future periods get reflected as useful predictions. Creation science often reflects a strong disregard for the scientific body for it focuses more on hypothetical theories rather than on experimental observations (Ruse, 44). The stress rendered by Creation Science based on false set of hypotheses tends to distort the extent of scientific truth. Thus incorporation of the doctrines of Creation Science in the set of scientific teachings would only help in misleading the students and other participants through the rendering of false and inappropriate information. Creation Scientists draw the line of demarcation with Science for their strong hold on religious aspects, which amount to the creation of hypothetical theories. The society developed by them requires the members to strongly believe that the entire existence is the cause of God’s work and thus can result to the happening of miracles not to be understood through experiments and observations (Ruse, 58). However it is also argued that law may not necessarily support a body of knowledge or an event to be called scientific. In fact it is observed that laws of gravity were formed after the happening of an event. It is also argued that Creation Scientists also pose an eye to the natural environment like Science in order to form their theories. Thus the main flaw observed to have a strong link with Creation Science is the lack of experimentation and not of the existence of scientific law and study or observance of nature (Commentary, 77). This lack of proper experimentation has resulted in falsifying the events or information generated by the Creation Science and thereby justifying it as pure Science. The religious nature of Creation Science has made it to be called ‘pseudoscience’ (Commentary, 78). The Creation Scientists in drawing the line of demarcation between them and Science behaves in a stubborn manner showing no such interest to counter changes in their beliefs about Universe and the creation (Creationism and creation science). Conclusion The doctrine of Creationism as followed by Creation Scientists render a claim to have developed a new and innovative scientific approach which counters the existence of the age old theories developed in Science through experimentation and observation. However the Creation Science as it is popularly known as is observed to be more of religious than scientific nature. Creation Science strongly rejects the need of experiments to prove the realm of information developed to be transmitted amongst others. It rather stress more on drawing hypothetical assumptions firmly based on belief of some supernatural power operating to design the different forms of flora and fauna on the earth. The line drawn between Science and Creation Science gets further intensified through the rejection of the former by the latter. Creation Science state that experiments are not needed to prove the work conducted by God. This approach taken by Creation Science leads the theories to be proven false and based on personal doctrines of scientific bodies. References 1. Skehan, W. James and Craig E. Nelson, Creation controversy and the science classroom, Virginia: NSTA Press, 2000. 2. Coyne, Jerry, “The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name”, May 12, 2007, February 16, 2011from: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1058  3. Laudan, Larry. “Commentary: Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern” in Curd and Cover, Philosophy of Science: the Central Issues, New York and London: W.W. Norton & Co, 1998. 4. Ruse, Michael. “Creation-Science is not Science” in Curd and Cover, Philosophy of Science: the Central Issues, New York and London: W.W. Norton & Co, 1998. 5. Ruse, Michael. “Response to Commentary: Pro-Judice” in Curd and Cover, Philosophy of Science: the Central Issues, New York and London: W.W. Norton & Co, 1998. 6. “Commentary” in Curd and Cover, Philosophy of Science: the Central Issues, New York and London: W.W. Norton & Co, 1998. 7. “Creationism and creation science”, skepdic.com. n.d., February 16, 2011 from: http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html Read More