On Jul 1, 2005, at 10:24 AM, Karl A. Krueger wrote:
Creationism cannot be understood as simply "doubting evolution", as if there were only two possibilities. Creationism is not simply an absence of belief in evolution; it is, rather, an asserted belief in creation. It is also not a belief rooted in science, in evidence or observation, but rather in faith. It is a fundamentally religious belief; that is, it is directly tied up in the believer's belief in and concept of the divine.
For these reasons, I do not think that we can accurately describe creationism itself as "a form of scientific inquiry" of any sort -- neither scientific nor pseudoscientific. The religious beliefs themselves are no more an attempt at science than are religious beliefs in karma, angels, salvation, or miracles.
However, it sometimes happens that people who have particular beliefs make up "science-ish" arguments in favor of them. This is not unique to religious beliefs -- political and nationalistic beliefs sometimes attract this very same behavior. This is where pseudoscience comes in. The pseudoscientific arguments conjured up to defend creationism are usually called "creation science" or "intelligent design"; and they are every bit as pseudoscientific as Lysenkoism.
Yes, exactly. Creationism in and of itself is not science or pseudoscience, but Creation Science is pseudoscience because it tries to sound like science without producing any testable predictions by which to disprove it. It is fundamentally faith masquerading as science.
Laurascudder