Editing Creation science (section)

===Scientific criticism===
{{main|Creation–evolution controversy}}
{{Infobox pseudoscience
|topics=[[Anthropology]], [[biology]], geology, [[astronomy]]
|claims=The Bible contains an accurate literal account of the origin of the Universe, Earth, life and humanity.
|origyear=1923
|origprop=[[George McCready Price]], [[Henry M. Morris]], and [[John C. Whitcomb]]
|currentprop=[[Institute for Creation Research]], Answers in Genesis
}}
The National Academy of Sciences states that "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested" and that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes."<ref name="NAS 1999" /> According to Joyce Arthur writing for ''[[Skeptic (U.S. magazine)|Skeptic]]'' magazine, the "creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics" and "seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Arthur |first=Joyce |year=1996 |title=Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience? |url=http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html |journal=[[Skeptic (U.S. magazine)|Skeptic]] |volume=4 |issue=4 |pages=88–93 |issn=1063-9330 |access-date=2013-09-01 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130609203040/http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html |archive-date=2013-06-09 }}</ref>

Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987, the United States Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Edwards v. Aguillard |vol=482 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=578 |court=U.S. |year=1987 |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/578 |quote=The legislative history demonstrates that the term 'creation science,' as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching.}}</ref> Most mainline Christian denominations have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/religion/denominational-views |title=Denominational Views |date=October 17, 2008 |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=National Center for Science Education |access-date=2014-09-18}}; This view is shared by many religious scientists as well: "Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each." — [[#NAS 1999|NAS 1999]], p. R9</ref>

A summary of the objections to creation science by scientists follows:
* ''Creation science is not falsifiable'': An idea or hypothesis is generally not considered to be in the realm of science unless it can be potentially disproved with certain experiments, this is the concept of ''falsifiability'' in science.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge|year = 2002|isbn = 978-0415285940|last1 = Popper|first1 = Karl Raimund| publisher=Psychology Press }}</ref> The act of creation as defined in creation science is not falsifiable because no testable bounds can be imposed on the creator. In creation science, the creator is defined as limitless, with the capacity to create (or not), through fiat alone, infinite universes, not just one, and endow each one with its own unique, unimaginable and incomparable character. It is impossible to disprove a claim when that claim as defined encompasses every conceivable contingency.<ref>[[#Montagu 1984|Root-Bernstein 1984]], "On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered"</ref>
* ''Creation science violates the [[Occam's razor|principle of parsimony]]'': Parsimony favours those explanations which rely on the fewest assumptions.{{citation needed|date=February 2014}}<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Principle of Parsimony |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31019147}}</ref> Scientists prefer explanations that are consistent with known and supported facts and evidence and require the fewest assumptions to fill the remaining gaps. Many of the alternative claims made in creation science retreat from simpler scientific explanations and introduce more complications and conjecture into the equation.{{sfn|Alston|2003|p=21|ps=}}
* ''Creation science is not, and cannot be, empirically or experimentally tested'': Creationism posits supernatural causes which lie outside the realm of methodological naturalism and scientific experiment. Science can only test empirical, natural claims.
* ''Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive'': Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth," the "word of God," which is not open to change. Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be disregarded.<ref>[[#Montagu 1984|Gallant 1984]], "To Hell with Evolution," p. 303</ref> In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it.

By invoking claims of "abrupt appearance" of species as a miraculous act, creation science is unsuited for the tools and methods demanded by science, and it cannot be considered scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Gould |first=Stephen Jay |author-link=Stephen Jay Gould |year=1987 |title='Creation Science' is an Oxymoron |url=http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/creation.htm |journal=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=152–153 |access-date=2007-01-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131103102613/http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/creation.htm |archive-date=2013-11-03 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Scientists and science writers commonly characterize creation science as a [[pseudoscience]].<ref name="philofscience" /><ref name="skepticencyclopedia" />{{sfn|Derry|2002|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=G657qGLMwoUC&pg=PA170 170]|ps=}}{{sfn|Feist|2006|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=SlFwaW82VngC&pg=PA219 219]|ps=}}