Claims of infallibility and the demand for absolute certainty characterize not science but pseudoscience. The idea of creationism is a good example of a non-scientific theory because it cannot be falsified. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Creationism will remain forever unchanged as a theory. It will engender no debate among scientists about fundamental mechanisms of the universe. It generates no empirical predictions which can test the theory. It is taken to be irrefutable. No evidence will ever be accepted which would falsify it.
The history of science, however, clearly shows that scientific theories do not remain forever unchanged. The history of science is not the history of one absolute truth being built upon other absolute truths. Rather, it is the history of theorizing, testing, arguing, refining, rejecting, replacing, more theorizing, more testing, etc. It is the history of theories working well for a time, anomalies occurring i. Of course, it is possible for scientists to act unscientifically, to be dogmatic and dishonest. But the fact that one finds an occasional oddball or charlatan in the history of science or a person of integrity and genius among pseudoscientists does not imply that there really is no difference between science and pseudoscience.
Because of the public and empirical nature of scientific debate, the charlatans will be found out, errors will be corrected and the honest pursuit of the truth is likely to prevail in the end. This will not be the case with pseudosciences, where there is often no method of detecting errors much less of correcting them. Some theories are so broad or vague that they predict just about anything. They can't be refuted, even in principle. Everything is consistent with them, even apparent contradictions and contraries!
Advocating progressive values and equality for humanists, atheists, and freethinkers
A rather intricate mineral pattern in the rocks might qualify here. Suppose we have veins of precious metals set in other materials, the whole being intricate and varied — certainly not a pattern you could simply deduce from the laws of physics or chemistry or geology or whatever. Nor would one think of it as being a breakdown mess, as one might a bad mutation. Is this now design? Almost certainly not, for there is no way that one might pre-specify such a pattern. It is all a bit ad hoc , and not something which comes across as the result of conscious intention.
And then finally there are phenomena which are complex and specified. One presumes that the microscopical biological apparatuses and processes discussed by Behe would qualify here. They are not contingent, for they are irreducibly complex. They are design-like for they do what is needed for the organism in which they are to be found.
- Philosophical and Theological Aspects of Creation.
- Science and Creation.
- Poesie giovanili (Italian Edition).
- Every Other Thursday: Stories and Strategies from Successful Women Scientists.
- Creationism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy);
- Dealing With “Scientific” Creationism.
- Creationism isn’t about science, it’s about theology (and it’s really bad theology).
That is to say they are of pre-specified form. And so, having survived the explanatory filter, they are properly considered the product of real design. Given the explanatory filter, a bad mutation would surely get caught by the filter half-way down. It would be siphoned off to the side as chance, if not indeed simply put down as necessity. It certainly would not pass the specification test. Dembski stresses that these are mutually exclusive alternatives. The key assumption being made by Dembski is that design and law and chance are mutually exclusive.
This is the very essence of the explanatory filter. But in real life does one want to make this assumption? Suppose that something is put down to chance.
Does this mean that law is ruled out? Surely not! If one argues that a Mendelian mutation is chance, what one means is with respect to that particular theory it is chance, but one may well believe that the mutation came about by normal regular causes and that if these were all known, then it would not longer be chance at all but necessity.
The point is that chance in this case is a confession of ignorance not, as one might well think the case in the quantum world, an assertion about the way that things are. That is, claims about chance are not ontological assertions, as presumably claims about designers must be. More than this, one might well argue that the designer always works through law. This may be deism and hence no true Christianity — some Christians would insist that God does sometimes intervene in the Creation.
But truly Christian or not, a deity who always works through law is certainly not inconsistent with the hypothesis of a designing intelligence. The pattern in a piece of cloth made by machine is as much an object of design as the pattern from cloth produced by a hand loom. In other words, in a sense that would conform to the normal usage of the terms, one might want to say of something that it is produced by laws, is chance with respect to our knowledge or theory, and fits into an overall context of design by the great orderer or creator of things.
If the designer can make — and rightfully takes credit for — the very complex and good, then the designer could prevent — and by its failure is properly criticized for — the very simple and awful. The problems in theology are as grim as are those in science.
Evidence for Scientific Creationism? | Science
The intelligent design theorists have provided work for many philosophers eager to refute them. Pennock and Sober are good places to start. See the entry on teleological notions in biology. Let us now try to tackle the somewhat complex issue of the relationship between Intelligent Design Theory and traditional Creationism, as discussed earlier in this essay. In significant respects, they are clearly not the same.
Creationism isn’t about science, it’s about theology (and it’s really bad theology)
Most Intelligent Design Theorists believe in a long earth history even the scientific estimation of a universe of about 15 billion years in age and most accept overall common descent. First, politically, the Creationists are more than willing at the moment to let the ID theorists do the blocking. Openly they support the ID movement, believing in taking one step at a time. If ID is successful, then is the time to ask for more.
- Meet the Pics.
- Endstation Rotterdam (German Edition)!
- Youth Futures: Comparative Research and Transformative Visions!
A major funding and emotional support for the ID movement is the Discovery Institute, a privately-supported think tank in Seattle. One of its prominent members is University of Chicago educated philosopher Paul Nelson, who is a young-earth creationist and a strong believer in the eschatological significance of Israel. Second, do note that both Creationists and ID enthusiasts are committed to some form of non-naturalist account of origins. The ties of course are stronger. ID enthusiasts pretend to be neutral about the Intelligent Designer, but they clearly do not think that he or she is natural.
No one pretends that the earth and its denizens are a lab experiment being run by a grad student on Andromeda. In fact, in their own correspondence and works written for followers, they make it very clear that the Designer is the Christian God of the Gospels. Some ID enthusiasts are quite strong literalists. Johnson for instance thinks that Genesis Chapter Six might be right about their beings giants in early times — a point made much of in Genesis Flood. Forrest and Gross do a superb job of ferreting out much of the unstated biblical foundations of Intelligent Design Theory.
Third there is the moral factor.
There is a very strong streak of anti-postmillennialism in the writings of ID theorists. They share the same concern about the moral values of the Creationists — anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, pro-capital punishment, pro-Israel for eschatological reasons and so forth. Phillip Johnson feels very strongly that the tendency to cross-dress, including apparently women who wear jeans, is a sign of the degenerate state of our society Johnson In short, while there are certainly important differences between the position of most literalists and most ID supporters, the strong overlap should not be ignored or downplayed.
Creationism in the sense used in this discussion is still very much a live phenomenon in American culture today — and in other parts of the world, like the Canadian West, to which it has been exported. Popularity does not imply truth. Scientifically Creationism is worthless, philosophically it is confused, and theologically it is blinkered beyond repair.