[WikiEN-l] Creationism and pseudoscience

[Karl A. Krueger]

On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 05:24:49AM -0400, Leif Knutsen wrote:
> The argument for creationism (which I don't buy) is that the fossil
> record and other physical evidence leaves unanswered questions in the
> "theory" of evolution.  Hence, they argue, you can't reject
> creationism as a valid form of scientific inquiry.  The fallacy is
> that if one explanation doesn't explain everything, then all other
> explanations are equally valid.  

The argument for (Christian) creationism is "The Bible says so."  That
is where creationists ground their beliefs -- not in the fossils; not in
radiocarbon dating; not in taxonomy; not in molecular biology; but first
and foremost in the Bible.  Creationism is a profoundly and centrally
religious belief; trying to understand it as an attempt at scientific
explanation is not going to get you very far.

I do not think you will find a creationist who says, "I believe in
creationism _because_ the fossil record leaves unanswered questions in
the theory of evolution."  After all, if someone merely doubted
evolution they would have no particular reason to jump on the bandwagon
of creationism.  They could instead believe in a steady-state Earth
(uncreated and eternal), or simply say, "I don't know how the species of
Earth came to be."

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.

-- 
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>