Chris Tassone
Creation Science: Is it Science?
The debate over the teaching of creation science is raging constantly. As time passes
more people are pushing for creation science to be taught in science classrooms along side
evolutionary theory. As creation scientists publish more research the push to get it into the
classroom only strengthens. At the crux of this argument is the crucial question: is creation
science legitimate science. Evolutionists tend more and more to throw out creationist research off
hand without really looking into what it says. The scientific community clings to the idea of
evolution, excluding “fringe” ideas immediately. While creationists fanatically believe in the literal
creation and take any evidence, no matter how minute, as utter proof of a sudden creation.
To clearly examine both arguments a clear definition of science must be given. “Good”
science is typically defined as following the scientific method. The scientific method, as described
by Dr. Wolfs of Rochester University, has four steps:
[One] Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena,
[two] formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena, …[three] use of
the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena or to predict
quantitatively the results of new observations, [four] performance of
experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and
properly performed experiments (Wolfs).
Following this method is what separates good science from wild claims. When a scientist makes
a claim in a journal article their peers review their experiments for accuracy. The credibility is
thoroughly scrutinized to make sure that the scientist did not skew their data to favor one
hypothesis over another. This definition of the scientific method is reflective of the scientific
community. It is through following these four simple rules that science is separated from wild
prediction. Simply, this professor defines science as forming a hypothesis and then proving or
disproving this hypothesis by consistent observations. This view fits the view of science presented
by creation scientists as well. The Center for Scientific Creation purports a similar view of
science, they define scientific evidence as, “Something that has been observed with instruments or
our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or refute possible explanations or phenomena” (Brown
256). Both of these definitions appear to agree, and yet both sides continue to call into question
the science of the other. To really get to the root of this issue the publications of creationists
must be examined to see if the studies that they are doing are consistent with this model of
research.
Following this definition of science, creation science falls largely short of the bar. Instead
of following the four steps of the scientific method the creationist model of research tends to
follow the model of firstly, taking the literal view of creationism as the hypothesis, collecting data
that supports this view, and finally ignoring all other data. Furthermore, when the scientific data
falls short of a valid explanation the scientific articles insert biblical passages as historical fact with
no further backing. Creation scientists are very good at steps two and three of the scientific
method but over and over again fail to recognize the importance of the first and fourth steps,
which are the steps that guarantee that science is being practiced.
Due to the fact that most scientific publications hold creationist theory in low regard, there
are very few journal articles printed in mainstream scientific literature. Other than creationist
journals, the largest numbers of creation science studies are found archived on the Internet. There
are many creationist sites that contain supposedly scientific proof for a sudden creation;
unfortunately most of these sites present propagandist literature with little or no scientific
backing. One such organization is the Evidence for Creation Museum. This site claims to be
doing research in order to refine the creation model through the performance of scientific
experiments. In one of the scientific papers on this site the group claims that there is a rapid
degeneration of the earths magnetic field, and given this the earth cannot be more than 10,000
years old. The article claims that:
Scientists have made many careful measurements of the magnetic field over
150 years. These measurements show that the magnetic field is slowly
shrinking. The intensity of the field decreases by half in 1400 years. This
means that as time goes on we have less protection from cosmic radiation and
the solar wind (The Earths Magnetic Field).
This statement is then followed by no data or a citation to any study containing these
measurements. This is a blatant disregard for the scientific method. Without a reference to these
“scientists” or their “measurements” the article is making an unsupported claim, that cannot be
proved, a clear violation of step four of the scientific method. This is model of science is clearly
illustrated throughout creation research. In the book, Compelling Evidence for Creation and the
Flood, Dr. Walt Brown, attempts to build a case for creationism by examining evidence from life
science, physical science and earth science. From his section on ice ages Dr. Brown writes:
Another problem is stopping an ice age once it begins—or beginning a new ice
age after one ends. As glaciers expand, they reflect more of the Sun’s radiation
away from earth, lowering earth’s temperature, which causes glaciers to grow
even more. Eventually the entire globe should freeze. Conversely, if glaciers
shrink, as they have in recent decades, the earth should reflect less heat into
space, warm up, and melt all glaciers forever (Brown 174).
Although this argument appears logical it has no scientific basis. Brown does not give any
precedent why this would happen. There are no studies given that show this type of model
happening on earth now or in the past. This argument does not present the data or follow the
scientific method because it cannot. The author is using logic to cover up the lack of evidence for
his case; this is a major reason for the need of the scientific method to ensure good science. The
author is thus making a critical error in attempting to understand the scientific method logic is not
necessarily science. Science is often counter-intuitive and cannot always be explained like a logic
problem, but given careful observation patterns that are not immediately apparent show
themselves. This trend is apparent in many creationist research articles. These articles maintain
the appearance of science by substituting in complex theoretical explanations for their data.
Although creation science studies tend to be lacking in supportive data they are heavily
weighted with theoretical models explaining the truth of creationism. The Evidence for Creation
website provides an excellent example of this type of behavior in its article regarding the magnetic
field. In the previous paragraph it was shown that this study had no data showing that the
magnetic field is degrading at a rapid rate. Fortunately for the reader the article provides an in
depth explanation of how this could be happening. The article puts forth the Humphrey model as
its explanation. Humphrey uses the cataclysmic time period of The Flood to explain how the
magnetic field could have shifted very rapidly. A brief summary of Dr. Humphrey’s model is
provided below:
Dr. D. R. Humphreys has studied the physical evidence of magnetic-field
reversal and decay and developed a model that describes the magnetic field as
having a high initial strength, a series of rapid reversals during the flood year,
slower variations until the time of Christ's earthly ministry, then gradual steady
decay (The Earths Magnetic Field).
Although this is a very fine model for a possible explanation of how the earth is less than 10,000
years old, it relies on the assumption that the magnetic field went through a period of rapid
decrease due to the cataclysmic events of the flood, this model is therefore not substantiated by
any evidence. The diagram below, taken from this study, illustrates the necessary gyration of the
earth’s magnetic field for it to decay at a rate that would make the earth less than 10,000 years
old.
This model relies on data that has not yet been gathered and in fact goes against the current
collected data. The period labeled fluctuations, shows the necessary rate increase to substantiate
this theory. This rate increase is enormous. Furthermore, the entire graph is extrapolated from
the tiny amount of data in the furthest right side of the graph labeled present. This study violates
the first rule of the scientific method presented earlier in this paper, that the hypothesis should be
based on observable data. This entire theory is based upon unobservable fact but rather upon the
possibility of the biblical flood. This study also violates the scientific method by discretely
discarding the data, the initial 150 years of measurements, and extrapolating an entirely different
curve. Creation science research is plagued by such data-less models. These models represent
unsubstantiated theories, with no scientific backing whatsoever. The Institute for Creation
Research has many such models as well. In one such study entitled “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics:
A Global Flood Model of Earth History” several scientists collaborate to give a model for the
possible plate tectonics if the during the time of the flood. This model is very in depth and covers
the history from a pre-flood era to post flood earth. In the abstract a summary of this model is
provided:
Sedimentologically, we begin with a substantial reservoir of carbonate and
clastic sediment in the pre-Flood ocean. During the Flood hot brines associated
with new ocean floor added precipitites to that sediment reservoir, and
warming ocean waters and degassing magmas added carbonates — especially
high magnesium carbonates. Also during the Flood, rapid plate tectonics
moved pre-Flood sediments toward the continents. As ocean plates subducted
near a continental margin, its bending caused upwarping of sea floor, and its
drag caused downwarping of continental crust, facilitating the placement of
sediment onto the continental margin. Once there, earthquake- induced sea
waves with ocean-to-land movement redistributed sediment toward continental
interiors. Resulting sedimentary units tend to be thick, uniform, of unknown
provenance, and extend over regional, inter-regional, and even continental
areas (Austin. et. al.).
Although this model gives a probable explanation of rapid movement of the tectonic plates it lies
in the realm of an unsubstantiated idea as well. Throughout the rest of the article the authors give
no evidence that any of these necessary conditions were apparent during this time period. This
model gives a good explanation of this occurrence if the conditions of the earth fit these
criterions; still, this does not fulfill the entire criterion of the scientific method. Without consistent
observations there is no science.
If these examples represented the totality of creation science then it is apparent that
creation science is not science at all. The sampling so far does not represent all that creation
science has to offer. There have in fact been large scientific gains made by creation scientists.
The Institute for Creation Research has many papers that clearly follow the scientific method up
to the last step. These papers take their findings and apply them to a global scale where there is
no precedent or evidence that this should be done. In Steven Austin’s paper entitled “Rapid
Erosion at Mount St. Helens” a clear case of the rapid formation of geological formation is
documented. Austin presents a clearly scientific view of this erosion correctly documenting the
geological changes that occur. He supplies data, and interpretation to fit this data without
excluding any of the information to support a particular hypothesis (Austin). The flaw that Austin
makes, although not largely in the case of this paper, is to suggest that this type of activity can
explain the geological formation of the earths extreme geologic features where there is not such
activity for cataclysmic events:
The observations at Mount St. Helens and elsewhere, however, show in
miniature that adjustments toward the graded equilibrium condition can occur
rapidly, especially when a critical energy threshold is exceeded by erosion
processes. Even the first four years of erosion at Mount St. Helens was
noticeably discontinuous. Mudflow erosion on March 18, 1982, established the
dendritic drainage which could be regarded as approaching a "mature"
landscape on the North Fork of the Toutle River with canyons over 100 feet
deep. Mass wasting has been most significant in headward erosion forming rills
and gullies within a period of a few days. What conventional geomorphic
theory says takes thousands of years may, instead, be accomplished within a
few years. Geomorphologists have learned that the time scale they have been
trained to attach to landform development may be misleading.
Austin’s paper is a brilliant piece when limited to the scope of the formation of large geologic
formations near areas of extreme volcanic activity but when applied to a whole earth view it falls
short. The difference between this paper and the others examined thus far is that the science in
this paper is not flawed. The flaw lies in the conclusion drawn from this science. This tends to be
a common mistake in these sorts of papers. When looking at a very specific example the creation
scientist tends to extrapolate this to a worldview. Albeit that modern science may do this as well
but for a conclusion like this to be correctly drawn, according to the scientific method, the
conditions that you are applying this theory to must be similar to the conditions that the
experiment was done in.
By and large creation science has many flaws in its scientific method. The three
paramount among these is a lack of data, prominence of unsubstantiated theories and the
application of a documented phenomena to a dissimilar situation. This is not to say that creation
science is completely flawed. Creation science as it exists today is still in its stages of infancy.
Many of Albert Einstein’s most important theories started out as ideas, similar to the creationist
models examined in this paper, which were not proven until decades after his death. Creation
science needs time to either prove or disprove its theories through observation of the existing
evidence in the earth today. Furthermore, creationists need to cull the science that they are
practicing by disassociating itself from the theories that are not rooted in science at all, such as
Dr. Browns logic.
As it stands today creation science is not science, and thus should not be taught in schools
or represented as valid theories to the public. However, given time society will most likely be
looking back on the theories today as haughtily as we view the early models of the earth. To truly
be a scientist entails keeping an open mind to all possibilities, and in the current state of
mainstream science a lot of good science is being discredited simply because of its source.
Mainstream science would benefit to truly look at some of the flaws brought up by creationist
research as an opportunity to hone its own theories. In examining the flaws and either
recognizing them or discrediting them both parties can only strengthen their arguments.
Works Cited
Austin, Steven. “Rapid Erosion at Mount St. Helens.” Institute for Creation Research.
<http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r04.htm>
Austin, S; Baumgardner, J; Humphreys, R; Snelling, A; Vardiman, L; Dr. Wise, K.
“Catastrophic Plate Tectonics”. Institute for Creation Research.
<http://www.icr.org/research/as/platetectonics.html>
Brown, Walt. In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and The Flood.
Center for Scientific Creation. 2001. 7th Ed.
“The Earths Magnetic Field.” Evidence for Creation Museum.
< http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/magnetic_fld/magnetic
_fld.html>
Wolfs. “Introduction to the Scientific Method.” < http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/
phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html>