Editing Creation science (section)

===Views on science===
{{See also|Objections to evolution|List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting intelligent design}}
{{primary sources section|find=creation science|find2=views|date=February 2020}}
Creation science rejects [[evolution]] and the [[common descent]] of all living things on Earth.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopædia Britannica Online]] |title=creationism |url=https://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9026809 |access-date=2014-09-18 |publisher=[[Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.]] |location=Chicago, Illinois}}</ref> Instead, it asserts that the field of [[evolutionary biology]] is itself [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]]<ref>{{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Antidote to Superstition |url=http://creation.com/antidote-to-superstition |journal=Creation |date=March 1998 |volume=20 |issue=2 |page=4 |issn=0819-1530 |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref> or even a religion.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wright-v-hisd1.html |title=Wright v. Houston I.S.D.: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas |website=TalkOrigins Archive |last=Fair |first=Kenneth |date=September 20, 2003 |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |type=Transcription |access-date=2013-09-01}}</ref> Creationists argue instead for a system called baraminology, which considers the living world to be descended from uniquely created kinds or "baramins."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/ |title=Created Kinds (Baraminology) |website=Answers in Genesis |location=Hebron, KY |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref>

Creation science incorporates the concept of [[catastrophism]] to reconcile current landforms and fossil distributions with Biblical interpretations, proposing the remains resulted from successive cataclysmic events, such as a worldwide flood and subsequent [[ice age]].<ref>See [[#Ham 2006|Ham 2006]], {{cite web |url=https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/where-does-the-ice-age-fit/ |title=Where Does the Ice Age Fit? |last=Oard |first=Michael J. |date=November 22, 2007 |website=Answers in Genesis |location=Hebron, KY |access-date=2014-09-18}}, and {{cite web |url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/iceage16.asp |title=What about the Ice Age? |last1=Ham |first1=Ken |author-link1=Ken Ham |last2=Sarfati |first2=Jonathan |author-link2=Jonathan Sarfati |last3=Wieland |first3=Carl |author-link3=Carl Wieland |editor-last=Batten |editor-first=Don |website=Answers in Genesis |location=Hebron, KY |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071215125024/http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/iceage16.asp |archive-date=2007-12-15 |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref> It rejects one of the [[Geology#Relative dating|fundamental principles of modern geology]] (and of [[Science#Renaissance|modern science]] generally), [[uniformitarianism]], which applies the same physical and geological laws observed on the Earth today to interpret the Earth's geological history.<ref>[[#NAS 1999|NAS 1999]]</ref>

Sometimes creationists attack other scientific concepts, like the [[Big Bang]] cosmological model or methods of scientific dating based upon [[Geochronology#Radiometric dating|radioactive decay]].<ref name=AmSci>{{cite journal |author1=Donald U. Wise |title=Creationism's Geologic Time Scale: Should the scientific community continue to fight rear-guard skirmishes with creationists, or insist that "young-earthers" defend their model in toto? |journal=American Scientist |date=1998 |volume=86 |issue=2 |pages=160–173 |issn=0003-0996 |jstor=27856982 |doi=10.1511/1998.21.912}}</ref> [[Young Earth creationism|Young Earth creationist]]s also reject current estimates of the [[age of the universe]] and the [[age of the Earth]], arguing for creationist cosmologies with timescales much shorter than those determined by modern [[physical cosmology]] and [[Geological history of Earth|geological science]], typically less than 10,000 years.<ref name=AmSci/>

The scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected the ideas put forth in creation science as lying outside the boundaries of a legitimate science.<ref name="Edwards_v_Aguillard_amicus" /><ref name="NAS 1999">[[#NAS 1999|NAS 1999]], [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=1 pp. 1–2]</ref><ref>[[#Larson 2004|Larson 2004]], p. 258: "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of creation science; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific arguments for their position." See [[#Poling 2003|Poling 2003]], p. 28, and {{cite journal |last1=Martz |first1=Larry |last2=McDaniel |first2=Ann |date=June 29, 1987 |title=Keeping God Out of the Classroom |url=http://kgov.com/files/docs/Newsweek-1987-God-Classroom.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121027142150/http://kgov.com/files/docs/Newsweek-1987-God-Classroom.pdf |archive-date=2012-10-27 |url-status=live |journal=[[Newsweek]] |pages=23–24 |issn=0028-9604 |access-date=2014-09-18 |quote=By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientist) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'}}</ref> The foundational premises underlying scientific creationism disqualify it as a science because the answers to all inquiry therein are preordained to conform to Bible doctrine, and because that inquiry is constructed upon theories which are not empirically testable in nature.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Cornish-Bowden | first1=Athel | last2=Cárdenas | first2=María | title=The threat from creationism to the rational teaching of biology | journal=Biological Research | date=21 November 2007 | volume=40 | issue=2 | pages=113–122 | pmid=18064348 | doi=10.4067/s0716-97602007000200002 | url=https://scielo.conicyt.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-97602007000200002&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en | doi-access=free }}</ref>

Scientists also deem creation science's attacks against biological evolution to be without scientific merit.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Williams |first1=James David |title=Creationist Teaching in School Science: A UK Perspective |journal=Evolution: Education and Outreach |date=21 November 2007 |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=87–95 |doi=10.1007/s12052-007-0006-7|doi-access=free }}</ref> The views of the scientific community were accepted in two significant court decisions in the 1980s, which found the field of creation science to be a religious mode of inquiry, not a scientific one.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gieryn |first1=Thomas F. |last2=Bevins |first2=George M. |last3=Zehr |first3=Stephen C. |title=Professionalization of American Scientists: Public Science in the Creation/ Evolution Trials |journal=American Sociological Review |date=June 1985 |volume=50 |issue=3 |pages=392 |doi=10.2307/2095548|jstor=2095548 }}</ref>