The essential problem with creationist theory is that most people are tricked into treating it like science when it's not, arguing about the fossil record or flood data and so on. By engaging with their discourse, we start to legitimise it. We should take a step back.
Karl Popper believed that scientific theories are never confirmed. Science does not proceed by means of theories being confirmed, but by means of arguments being falsified. E.g., my hypothesis is that all swans are white. An observation of a single non-white swan is enough to falsify this.
Any genuinely scientific theory must have empirically testable consequences.
The first problem with creationism is that it's not precisely stated: it's difficult to say exactly what we should observe given that creationism is true. It is hard to falsify, which suggests already that it is a bit 'fishy'.
More importantly, the method employed by creation 'scientists' is NOT to test their theory by trying to falsify it, rather almost all their energies are expended on trying to protect their theories from being falsified. New bits are being added ad hoc in order to account for what would otherwise be anomalous data.
Let's say I believe that (to steal an example) all house cats are Martian spies. The fact that cats have small brains, do not seem to be able to communicate telepathically or with technology and so on, is not a problem for me. Perhaps they do communicate telepathically, perhaps their brains are extraordinarily efficient...etc. By constantly adding to my theory, I shift the goals around enough so that it can never be falsified. In short, it's bad science, just like creationism.
[for additional reading, "The Philosophy Gym" by Stephen Law is a good start]
Karl Popper believed that scientific theories are never confirmed. Science does not proceed by means of theories being confirmed, but by means of arguments being falsified. E.g., my hypothesis is that all swans are white. An observation of a single non-white swan is enough to falsify this.
Any genuinely scientific theory must have empirically testable consequences.
The first problem with creationism is that it's not precisely stated: it's difficult to say exactly what we should observe given that creationism is true. It is hard to falsify, which suggests already that it is a bit 'fishy'.
More importantly, the method employed by creation 'scientists' is NOT to test their theory by trying to falsify it, rather almost all their energies are expended on trying to protect their theories from being falsified. New bits are being added ad hoc in order to account for what would otherwise be anomalous data.
Let's say I believe that (to steal an example) all house cats are Martian spies. The fact that cats have small brains, do not seem to be able to communicate telepathically or with technology and so on, is not a problem for me. Perhaps they do communicate telepathically, perhaps their brains are extraordinarily efficient...etc. By constantly adding to my theory, I shift the goals around enough so that it can never be falsified. In short, it's bad science, just like creationism.
[for additional reading, "The Philosophy Gym" by Stephen Law is a good start]
