Science and Creation Science


The first and second lectures have been posted
to the Church’s website under “Adult classes”
and a link can be found on the Church’s
Facebook page. The rest will be posted there
after I present them
Sticky notes (which contain additional
information) cannot be viewed on the web so I
recommend downloading the PDF file and
opening it with your Adobe Reader (Right click
the file and choose “Open with Adobe
Reader”)

Class 1


Worldwide, the majority of Christians accept evolution
95% of the scientific community accepts evolution and 40% of them
also believe in a personal God
 In the Life Sciences (Biology, genetics ect) the number of creationists drops
to below 1%


Historically, the anti-evolution movement has its roots in American
Christian Fundamentalism which is why this controversy is so
profound in the United States and not really such an issue elsewhere
in the world
Class 2
“Creationism” covers a wide range of beliefs with varying
acceptances of modern science but all hold an anti-evolution stance
 There have been several famous hoaxes in evolutionary science but
all have been uncovered by scientists and not a single one by
creationists
 “Teach The Controversy” was an Intelligent Design campaign
designed to avoid scientific scrutiny by advocating that the
controversy be taught. This controversy does not exist in the scientific
community and public controversy are not grounds for requiring it
be taght (eg Holocaust Denial)
 Creationist organizations continue to target primarily the public in
relaying their ideas, rather than convincing the scientific community
first as any other scientific idea would do.


It rains on the sun








Except it’s not water, it’s plasma: an electrically charged gas that
can condense into drops
However, these drops are the size of Ireland and fall to the sun at
200,000 km per hour
This rain can be “cold” (7,000 C) or hot (80,000 C)
Special solar telescopes have allowed observation of this
phenomenon up close and have finally determined the process
that produces it, 40 years after it was first observed.
Explosions from the sun eject plasma and form loops (arcades)
due to the magnetic field.
Some material can be shot into space (in a coronal mass ejection)
and the mass of this material can be about one billion tons
Other material hits the sun’s surface, causing it to heat up and
evaporate which fills the magnetic arcade and traces the loop
The hot material cools down and falls in drops once it’s massive
and dense enough

In order for a group or individual to successfully
move to a new area, the benefits of the move must
outweigh the costs
Benefits: new resources, escaping unfavorable conditions,
avoid competition, avoid inbreeding
 Costs: energy to move, risks during move (injury,
mortality), settling in an unfavorable environment, time
spent dispersal (less time growing/reproducing), and
outbreeding depression, loss of social rank


In addition to these costs, other barriers might
prevent a species from dispersing
 Physical Barriers: rivers, mountains, deserts
 Population barriers: The local population might be better
adapted than immigrants and thus will outcompete them



Marsupial ancestors likely split off from placental
mammals during Jurassic (although no fossils from this
period are known)
The first fossil marsupial ancestor (as identified by the
number of molars: marsupials have 4, placental never
have more than 3) lived in China around 125 mya
100 mya- the super continent Pangea was splitting into
Laurasia and Gondwana







Marsupials headed west into North America (still
attached to Eurasia) where the earliest true marsupials
are found.
They then spread to South America (connected to N.
America until about 65 mya
Laurasian Marsupials went extinct (possibly due to
placental mammal competition)
But in S. America ( where there were no placental
mammals) these groups dominated
S. America and Antarctica remained connected until 35
mya as shown by the unique fossils there. N and S
America reconnected 3 mya and placental mammals
invaded, driving many S. American marsupials to
extinction (Oppossums were one of the groups to
survive)
Terrestrial placental mammals died off in Australia (for
unknown reasons) prior to marsupial invasion allowing
them to dominate the continent
Australia’s 40 million year isolation has helped maintain
this dominance. It has also lead to some very unique
adaptations there as well as some giant marsupials



The use of evidence to construct testable
explanations and predictions of natural phenomena,
as well as the knowledge generated through this
process
In its most purist form, science is curiosity. It is the
drive to understand how our world works: from
weather and evolution, to atomic interactions and
star formation
Although the knowledge that science provides is
very often useful (though not always immediately)
it need not have useful applications; science is
primarily concerned with furthering our knowledge
of our world and the acquisition of such knowledge
is reward enough




Fact: An observation, measurement or other form of
evidence that can be expected to occur the same way
under similar circumstances BUT can also refer to an
explanation that has been tested and confirmed so
many times that there is no longer any compelling
reason to keep testing or looking for additional
examples
Scientific Law: a universal rule of nature, a principle
deduced from particular facts. The phenomena in the
Law will always occur if certain conditions are
present
Hypothesis: Testable, potentially falsifiable
explanation of facts/laws
Scientific Theory: Unifying framework and wellsubstantiated explanation of the natural world
explaining facts, hypotheses and laws (NOT a guess).
Repeatedly and continually confirmed through
observation and experimentation


Facts are meaningless by themselves
In order to make sense of them, we need theories




These provide us with the explanations why these facts
exist and other, opposing ones do not
By understanding the mechanisms in theories, we can make
predictions of future observations. These predictions must
be falsifiable, that way we’ll know whether we’re on the
right track or not
If an observation disagrees with the theory it must be
modified to accommodate this new information or be
rejected
No theory is perfect and every theory has some flexibility
with regards to observations, but each has future
observations which it could not explain and would thus
invalidate it

3, 4.5, 6, 7.5, 9….


By themselves, these numbers (these facts) have no
significance, they merely exist
The real question is why they exist in the pattern
that they do
 Why is every second number a half?
 Why isn’t 5 included in the series?
 What are the next numbers?

In order to answer these questions and make sense
of the pattern, we need a theory to explain them
 Y=(3+3X)/2

The theory allows us to answer these questions and
many more, which is why scientists consider it to be
the highest level of understanding (above facts,
hypotheses and Laws)

As stated before, theories can become so well
substantiated that we no longer have valid reason
to question it but they still remain falsifiable.
Evolution is considered one of these but here are
some other theories in science that fall under this
category:
Cell Theory: All life is made of cells
 Germ Theory: some diseases are caused by
microorganisms
 Atomic Theory: Matter is made up of atoms
 Plate Tectonic Theory: The outer crust of the planet is
broken into tectonic plates


Although these are so well substantiated that no
one would really call them anything but facts, they
remain theories just in case we are wrong.

Scientific knowledge and understanding
accumulate from the interplay of observation and
explanation





Scientists gather information by observing the natural
world and then conduct experiments
They then propose how the studied system behaves,
based on the experimental data
They test these explanations by conducting additional
observations and experiments under different conditions
Other scientists confirm the observations independently
and carry out additional studies that may lead to more
sophisticated explanations and predictions about future
observations and experiments
This is how scientists continually arrive at more accurate
and comprehensive explanations

Requirements:






Falsifiable: all theories/hypotheses must be falsifiable in
order to demonstrate whether it is wrong or not. Unfalsifiable
ideas are useless
Tentative: all theories remain tentative since they can always
be falsified with new observations. Promoting a theory as
“absolute truth” would assume we know all we need to
know and we didn’t make any mistakes. Neither is possible
so we must remain open to the possibility (however small)
that we are wrong
Mechanistic: Science requires all theories propose a
mechanism to explain how the theory works
Simplicity/Occam’s razor: The theory should be as simple
and require as few assumptions as possible
Explanatory: All theories must explain a large body of facts
and describe why they are the way they are and not another
way
Predictive: Theories must make definite predictions about
results of future observations. Making incorrect predictions
leads to theory revision or rejection

Methodological Naturalism



All hypotheses, theories and events are to be explained and
tested by reference to natural causes and events
This does not assume there isn’t anything supernatural
(unlike philosophical naturalism), but since supernatural
forces lie outside the natural world, science can’t say
anything about them (that’s why anyone of any faith can be
a scientist). We can’t study, test or examine any force
outside the natural world.
Uniformitarianism



Assumes the same natural processes that operate in the
universe now have always operated in the universe in the
past and apply everywhere
Modern uniformitarianism includes periodic catastrophes
If past events can be explained with present forces there is
no need to create new ones

Obviously creationists reject methodological
naturalism in order to explain creation in terms
of the supernatural works of God but they have
an interesting love/hate relationship with
uniformitarianism. On the whole they reject it
(since it invalidates a lot of their ideas, such as
the decay rate of radioactive elements, the
evolutionary rate of “kinds”, the speed of light,
continental drift rates ect) but if
uniformitarianism can support their ideas then
they will embrace it

In an AiG article about the dinosaurs, Ken Ham
invoked this explanation to answer why the
dinosaurs died out after Noah’s flood
 “The factors that cause extinction today….are the same
factors that caused the dinosaurs to become extinct”





A distinction only made by the Answers in
Genesis foundation and their disciples
Historical Science: Is involved in reconstructing
the past.
Observational Science: Science done in the
present (experiments, observations ect)
The distinction is made in order to undermine
the power of inference
Insist that these two sciences require different
methods and that in Historical science, neither
side can verify its claims about past events

Philosophers of science do make a distinction
between research direct towards identifying laws and
research which seeks to determine how particular
past events occurred. They DON’T claim that the line
between the two is clear or that historical claims are
any less verifiable than others
The distinction is made between means and ends: If a
scientist ends are to infer properties of an object/event it is
historical and it will use laws as its means. If the goal is to
infer laws then the means will be the descriptions of
particular objects
 Although inferring laws and reconstructing history are
distinct scientific goals they are often fruitfully pursued
together and both approaches can be used to address the
same question

 Eg To investigate the origins of life, scientists can investigate
earth’s oldest geological layers or recreate the conditions of
early earth in the lab to test hypotheses and predictions. Those
results then send the researchers back into the field to test the
predictions generated in the lab

There appears to be an imaginary line in time that
creationists draw after which events are deemed
unprovable
Eg Forensics in criminal investigations is certainly
historical science but no one would say that means we
cannot actually determine what happened with accuracy
 Doctors have to make a diagnosis by making inferences
from the symptoms


In addition to this, even experimental science
requires looking into the past. The only thing you
do in the present is gather the data but the
experiment itself took place in the past and we use
the data to reconstruct that past
Eg Looking at a petri dish of bacteria tells you the history
of that population (how fast they grew, metabolizing a
specific chemical ect)
 Similarly a NMR reading only tells you the current
chemical state but we can use that to understand the
chemical reactions that produced that state.







Started in the 1960’s as a direct result of evolution
being reinforced in the schools and anti-evolution
laws being removed
Since religion could not be taught in the classroom,
creation science was a way to try and present their
ideas scientifically
Edwards Vs Aguillard (1987) declared creation
science to be inherently a religious concept
Pseudoscientific: Presented as scientific but does
not adhere to valid scientific methods or status.
Religious Dogma: religious authority taken to be
incontrovertibly true
Creationists will rightly point out that the starting
point for science is important to the conclusions it
makes.


For creation science, the only real starting point
is that the Bible is the unaltered word of God,
and as such is infallible in all aspects. It is to be
used as a starting point, not just for matters of
theology, but for all matters of thought
including science. It is the first line of evidence
and all explanations must be done in light of
scripture.
This leads to the most drastic difference
between science and creation science…

All Creation Science institutions have a statement of
faith or something similar, in which members must
adhere to the unquestionable authority of the Bible
For example, Answers in Genesis states: “By definition, no
apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field,
including history and chronology can be valid if it
contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is
the fact that the evidence is always subject to interpretation
by fallible people who do not possess all the information”
 The Institute for Creation Research is less direct but still
asserts that Biblical authority of Genesis is “factual,
historical”, “infallible and completely authoritative on all
matters that they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific
and historical as well as moral and theological”


The events in Creation Science (the flood, the age of
the earth, special creation ect) are not up for debate
at all. The truth is not important, what you believe
in is




Not only does this ignore the fact that the decision to
interpret the Bible as literal is in fact a fallible
interpretation but it also means they are completely
unable to change their minds, regardless of the
evidence.
It wouldn’t matter if every last one of their
requirements for evolution were met, if the Bible (and
this really means the interpreter) says this happened
than this happened. End of story.
Their position is the definition of a closed mind and is
everything science isn’t. Every scientist has had to
concede that they were wrong about something and
that they could be wrong about everything but creation
scientists cannot and will not admit the Bible or their
interpretation can be wrong.
This also means that creation science is useless as it
already posits to know everything it needs to know.
The only reason it exists at all is to defend itself against
scientific ideas as evidenced by the fact that it didn’t
come into existence until the 1960s


Whereas science exists to test ideas and discard
them as need be and to follow the evidence no
matter where it may lead, creationists have to
strictly follow their pre-conceived conclusions. The
only evidence that matters at all is that which
agrees with what they believe already.
Since their claims (such as the age of the universe,
Noah’s flood ect.) are deemed infallible they
cannot be corrected. However wrong they are now
is however wrong they always will be whereas
science is a self correcting mechanism. That’s why
it’s always changing because it’s always getting
more accurate explanations as it includes more
observations.

Recall the scientific requirements






Falsifiable: Creation Science is unfalsifiable since it deems
that its conclusions come directly from an inerrant source (the
Bible)
Tentative: Creation Science is absolute truth, revealed in
scripture and as such is not open to change or dismissal
Mechanistic: Creation Science assumes “special creation” as
its mechanism for the origin of species. This mechanism is
supernatural, unidentifiable, unknowable and not
understandable
Simplicity: Requires the assumption of a very complex deity
Explanatory: Creation Science cannot explain why the world
exists in the way it does because God could have created it
any other possible way
Predictive: Some creation science can be predictive (such as
Biblical History) and a few predictions have even been
confirmed. However, there are numerous other failed
predictions that this science makes but its accuracy is not
attributed to its failures, only to its success, and as such it
makes no attempt to correct these failures






Rain on the Sun http://www.sen.com/news/40-yearmystery-solved-of-why-it-rains-on-the-sun
How Plasma Globes Work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2szqjgTvYGg
Tales of Evolution By Richard Dawkins
http://books.google.ca/books?id=rR9XPnaqvCMC&pg=PA2
23&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
Science, Evolution and Creationism By the National Academy
of Sciences
http://www.evcforum.net/DataDropsite/NAS_EvolutionBo
ok.pdf
Historical Science: A Response to Ken Ham
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/dear-creationmuseum-all-science-is-historical-science-heres-why/
Historical Science By the NCSE
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/historical-science-vsexperimental-science