Discussing evolution/creation has led me to wonder is creation pseudo science?
Why or why not?
Many people who argue creationism are not even scientists. A lot of creationists become theistic evolutionists because of the evidence. You cant just shout 'Evolution is a lie'.
This should be interesting.
Please, please, please don't get "creationism" and "creation" mixed up. "Creationism" typically refers to a specific origins theology based on one particular interpretation of the Bible. I realise you may be thinking that if you believe in creation, then you are a creationist, which is semantically correct - but typically creationism refers to a literal young earth view.
(Intelligent Design insists it isn't creationism, however there's a lot of reason to think it's essentially a cut-and-paste job, not that association with creationism alone is enough to prove it wrong, it's got lots of flaws in and of itself)
I'm a theistic evolutionist (there exist also "evolutionary creationists", but I'm not sure if they're the same thing). I believe that God did create everything via the naturalistic mechanisms that science attempts to define. In that sense, I am still a creationist. Just because I accept evolution doesn't mean I think that creation is pseudoscience and therefore a bad idea.
However, my approach to mechanism is different to that of most creationists - I simply don't believe that God is going to conclusively show up in the mechanism, I believe that would cheapen the notion of free will and choosing to have faith in God, because as soon as God starts becoming logically and empirically demonstrable it makes less sense to reject him.
Each process used in creating the earth appears empirically like there is no God acting there. You just have to have faith that He is, because He said He created everything. This system renders everything down fully to a choice, rather than the feverish attempts of creationists to find any shred of manipulated science they can to justify a few details in their interpretations of Genesis.
You do raise a good point - it isn't enough to poke holes in the opposing theory, you have to find evidence that supports yours too, and in terms of empirical evidence, creationists are most definitely not in a good position.
So, as to why creationism is pseudoscience:
- As has been stated already, a supernatural, allpowerful entity is not scientifically verifiable or demonstrable, and allowing it into the lab also kills scientific inquiry. When you allow the actions of an omnipotent deity into the mix, pretty much anything can be answered by "God did it." Why should one assume laws of nature that are consistent, interconnected and capable of creating order in matter and energy when this omnipotent figure can arbitrarily alter and suspend them without warning whenever they choose?
- Generally speaking, while there are some notable exceptions, particularly in the ID crowd, some well-known creationists really don't have a clue about science. A great example of this is Kent Hovind, who stated utterly straight-faced that "clouds block X-rays" (among many other howlers). The God-did-it problem also arises here again, because if you correct some creationists on these scientific blunders, often the retort is "well, God would have made it work", "or the laws of nature were different back then" - totally unjustifiable, a total killer of scientific enquiry, essentially equivalent to just making whatever the heck you want up - hey, if God is all-powerful, He could have done it, right?
- One has to wonder why, for a world that is apparently specially created and in which speciation does not occur, the observed evidence sure does LOOK like the opposite is the case. Assuming you don't get lumbered by an accusation of making stuff up or a conspiracy among scientists (short of looking at the data yourself, there's not much one can do to sway you out of that mindset, but to be honest, if you are that paranoid then nothing's probably going to convince you anyway), why would God create a world that appear much older than it is? The typical response is that God had to make aspects of the world old for Adam's benefit.
Apart from the fact that this implies a limitation on God, that he HAD TO make the earth a certain way, i.e. limited by His own designs, it it not only the case that the earth appears old, but that it contains a history. It appears that we have evolved from older creatures over millions of years, on a planet that is billions of years old, in a universe that is even older. Why do all the things we see in the universe follow a logically coherent, empirically observable and definable pattern over time, if it didn't happen? To me, this is deception - pure and simple, and the Bible does state that God does not lie.
I realise I've gone on a bit for this one, and you may disagree with my take on it - but my point is, regardless of the implications of a young earth appearing old, the responses of creationists to the evidence is typically to either cry conspiracy or resort to yet more tenuous Biblical interpretations - neither of which are scientific.
I'm sure there's more I could say, but I think I'll leave things at that for now.
