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