Editing Creation science (section)

==Issues==
Creation science has its roots in the work of young Earth creationist George McCready Price disputing modern science's account of [[natural history]], focusing particularly on geology and its concept of uniformitarianism, and his efforts instead to furnish an alternative empirical explanation of observable phenomena which was compatible with strict Biblical literalism.<ref>{{harvnb|Numbers|2006|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&pg=PA107 107–111]}}</ref> Price's work was later discovered by civil engineer Henry M. Morris,<ref>{{harvnb|Numbers|2006|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&pg=PA217 217–219]}}</ref> who is now considered to be the father of creation science.<ref>[[#Petto & Godfrey 2007|Scott 2007]], "Creation Science Lite: 'Intelligent Design' as the New Anti-Evolutionism," p. 59</ref> Morris and later creationists expanded the scope with attacks against the broad spectrum scientific findings that point to the antiquity of the Universe and common ancestry among species, including growing body of evidence from the fossil record, [[absolute dating]] techniques, and [[cosmogony]].<ref name="evc" />

The proponents of creation science often say that they are concerned with religious and moral questions as well as natural observations and predictive hypotheses.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.originsresource.org/creationsci.htm |title=How can creation have anything to do with science? |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=Origins Research Association |location=Kenner, LA |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Universe.htm |title=How The Universe Began |last=Heinze |first=Thomas F. |website=www.creationism.org |publisher=Paul Abramson |location=Evansville, IN |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref> Many state that their opposition to scientific evolution is primarily based on religion.

The overwhelming majority of scientists are in agreement that the claims of science are necessarily limited to those that develop from natural observations and experiments which can be replicated and substantiated by other scientists, and that claims made by creation science do not meet those criteria.<ref name="NAS 1999" /> [[Duane Gish]], a prominent creation science proponent, has similarly claimed, "We do not know how the creator created, what processes He used, ''for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe.'' This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." But he also makes the same claim against science's evolutionary theory, maintaining that on the subject of origins, scientific evolution is a religious theory which cannot be validated by science.<ref name="DG">{{cite journal |last=Lewin |first=Roger |author-link=Roger Lewin |date=January 8, 1982 |title=Where Is the Science in Creation Science? |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume=215 |number=4529 |pages=142–144, 146 |bibcode=1982Sci...215..142L |doi=10.1126/science.215.4529.142 |pmid=17839530 |issn=0036-8075 |quote='[[Stephen Jay Gould]] states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory,' wrote [[Duane Gish|Gish]] in a letter to ''Discover'' magazine (July 1981). 'This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious).'}}</ref>

===Metaphysical assumptions===
Creation science makes the ''[[A priori and a posteriori|a priori]]'' metaphysical assumption that there exists a creator of the life whose origin is being examined. Christian creation science holds that the description of creation is given in the Bible, that the Bible is inerrant in this description (and elsewhere), and therefore empirical scientific evidence must correspond with that description. Creationists also view the preclusion of all supernatural explanations within the sciences as a doctrinaire commitment to exclude the supreme being and miracles. They claim this to be the motivating factor in science's acceptance of Darwinism, a term used in creation science to refer to evolutionary biology which is also often used as a disparagement. Critics argue that creation science is religious rather than scientific because it stems from [[faith]] in a religious text rather than by the application of the [[scientific method]].<ref name="McLean_vs_Arkansas" /> The United States [[National Academy of Sciences]] (NAS) has stated unequivocally, "Evolution pervades all biological phenomena. To ignore that it occurred or to classify it as a form of dogma is to deprive the student of the most fundamental organizational concept in the biological sciences. No other biological concept has been more extensively tested and more thoroughly corroborated than the evolutionary history of organisms."<ref name="Scott_1997" /> [[Anthropology|Anthropologist]] [[Eugenie Scott]] has noted further, "Religious opposition to evolution propels antievolutionism. Although antievolutionists pay lip service to supposed scientific problems with evolution, what motivates them to battle its teaching is apprehension over the implications of evolution for religion."<ref name="Scott_1997" />

Creation science advocates argue that [[Scientific theory|scientific theories]] of the origins of the Universe, Earth, and life are rooted in ''a priori'' presumptions of [[Naturalism (philosophy)#Methodological naturalism|methodological naturalism]] and uniformitarianism, each of which they reject.<ref name="Scott_1997"/> In some areas of science such as [[chemistry]], [[meteorology]] or medicine, creation science proponents do not necessarily challenge the application of naturalistic or uniformitarian assumptions, but instead single out those scientific theories they judge to be in conflict with their religious beliefs, and it is against those theories that they concentrate their efforts.<ref name="Ruse" /><ref name="Scott_1997"/>

===Religious criticism===
Many mainstream Christian churches<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/theologyandworship/evolution/|title=Mission statement of Presbyterian Church|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150115050927/http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/theologyandworship/evolution/|archive-date=2015-01-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/what-is-the-united-methodist-churchs-position-on-evolution|title=view from methodist Church|access-date=2015-01-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160513181222/http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/what-is-the-united-methodist-churchs-position-on-evolution|archive-date=2016-05-13|url-status=dead}}</ref> criticize creation science on theological grounds, asserting either that religious faith alone should be a sufficient basis for belief in the truth of creation, or that efforts to prove the Genesis account of creation on scientific grounds are inherently futile because reason is subordinate to faith and cannot thus be used to prove it.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision|last=Capra|first=Fritjof|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2014|isbn=978-1316616437|location=New York}}</ref>

Many [[Christian theology|Christian theologies]], including [[Liberal Christianity]], consider the [[Genesis creation narrative]] to be a poetic and [[allegory|allegorical]] work rather than a literal history, and many Christian churches—including the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]], the [[Roman Catholic]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/media/voices/roman-catholic-church-1996 |title=Roman Catholic Church (1996) |date=October 22, 1996 |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=National Center for Science Education |access-date=2014-09-18}} Message to [[Pontifical Academy of Sciences]].</ref> [[Anglicanism|Anglican]] and the more liberal denominations of the [[Lutheranism|Lutheran]], [[Methodism|Methodist]], [[Congregational church|Congregationalist]] and [[Presbyterianism|Presbyterian]] faiths—have either rejected creation science outright or are ambivalent to it. Belief in non-literal interpretations of Genesis is often cited as going back to [[Augustine of Hippo|Saint Augustine]].

[[Theistic evolution]] and evolutionary creationism are theologies that reconcile belief in a creator with biological evolution. Each holds the view that there is a creator but that this creator has employed the natural force of evolution to unfold a divine plan.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Scott |first=Eugenie C. |author-link=Eugenie Scott |date=July–August 1999 |title=The Creation/Evolution Continuum |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |volume=19 |issue=4 |pages=16–17, 23–25 |issn=2158-818X |access-date=2009-01-28}}</ref> Religious representatives from faiths compatible with theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism have challenged the growing perception that belief in a creator is inconsistent with the acceptance of evolutionary theory.<ref>{{cite press release |last=Resseger |first=Jan |date=March 27, 2006 |title=NCC releases a faith perspective on teaching evolution in public school |url=http://www.ncccusa.org/news/060330evolution.html |location=New York |publisher=[[National Council of Churches|National Council of Churches USA]] |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref><ref name="vatican">{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Vatican, ally defend legitimacy of evolution |url=https://prev.dailyherald.com/story/?id=235372 |newspaper=[[Daily Herald (Arlington Heights)|Daily Herald]] |location=Arlington Heights, IL |date=September 16, 2008 |agency=[[Associated Press]] |access-date=2009-01-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141222053814/https://prev.dailyherald.com/story/?id=235372 |archive-date=December 22, 2014 }}</ref> Spokespersons from the Catholic Church have specifically criticized biblical creationism for relying upon literal interpretations of biblical scripture as the basis for determining scientific fact.<ref name="vatican" />

===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=}}

===Historical, philosophical, and sociological criticism===
Historically, the debate of whether creationism is compatible with science can be traced back to 1874, the year science historian [[John William Draper]] published his ''History of the Conflict between Religion and Science''. In it Draper portrayed the entire history of scientific development as a war against religion. This presentation of history was propagated further by followers such as [[Andrew Dickson White]] in his two-volume ''A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom'' (1896). Their conclusions have been disputed.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bede.org.uk/university.htm |last=Hannam |first=James |date=December 8, 2009 |title=Medieval Science, the Church and Universities |website=Bede's Library |publisher=James Hannam |location=Maidstone, England |access-date=2013-09-01}}</ref>

In the United States, the principal focus of creation science advocates is on the government-supported public school systems, which are prohibited by the [[Establishment Clause]] from promoting specific religions. Historical communities have argued that [[List of Bible translations by language|Biblical translations]] contain many [[Bible errata|translation errors and errata]], and therefore that the use of biblical literalism in creation science is self-contradictory.{{sfn|Alston|2003|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=YGRKhtWCh2cC&pg=PA23 23]|ps=}}{{sfn|Moore|2002|p=[https://archive.org/details/fromgenesistogen0000moor/page/27 27]|ps=}}