How can we teach creationism scientifically?

[Jose]

This is actually one of the main reasons I created this site. I wanted to show (in my own limited way) that it is possible to approach creationism scientifically. Some evolutionists like to spout off, "Creationism is not science." However, that accusation is easy to say, but it has been failed to be supported by discussions here on this forum. As Jose has said, "Thinking makes your head hurt, and just saying 'yep' doesn't. Not only that, but misconceptions are extremely difficult to change." To this, I would wholeheartedly agree.

As usual, otseng goes beyond the rhetoric to the fundamental issues. Is it possible to teach creationism scientifically? How would we do it? These questions make me think of several issues to discuss:

• What are the common misconceptions? This is going to be tricky, since each of us considers our understanding to be correct. We'll need creationists to suggest what misconceptions people have about creationism, and we'll need evolutionists to suggest what misconceptions people have about evolution.
• How do creationists see creationism as science?As otseng's quote above states, evolutionists don't see creationism as science. By what criteria do creationists judge it to be science?
• What are the fundamental issues that creationists believe should be taught about creationism? This is not "what is wrong with evolution." It is "what are the important bits of creationism?"
• How can these important bits be justified scientifically?

Note that I am purposely avoiding a definition of what "science" is. I would like this thread to reveal our understanding of what "science" is by the ways we support our claims.

[Jose]

Evolutionary and Creation science are both the pursuit of truth, of knowledge.... ....The difference between the two come with the philosophical bias that goes along with the beliefs. Some evolutionists try to use their theories to disprove Creation; and some Creationists use their theories to disprove a non-Creation. Take all the bias, presumptions, personal views and tradition away from it - and our quest is once again the same: the pursuit of truth. (Not Absolute Truth though... !)

Admittedly, there are evolutionists who claim that science disproves creation--but they all agree that science can never disprove the version of creation in which everything was created to look exactly as it is now. Wen The Eternally Surprised may be right: the universe is destroyed and re-created every instant. This kind of creation is untestable.

Also, there are creationists who try to disprove evolution. They go about it in a way that is both like the scientific method and very unlike it. It is like it in that any finding that is impossible according to the theory disproves the theory. It is unlike it in that findings must be shown to be valid before they can be taken as evidence either for, or against, a theory. Take Robert Gentry's polonium haloes, for example. If his interpretation were correct, he might have a point. However, he carefully overlooks several terribly important facts that render his interpretation wrong. Therefore, his finding does not contradict the theory of evolution (in this case by contradicting the data on the age of the earth), but simply reflects incomplete analysis of the data. Thus far, the creationist anti-evolution arguments have all been shown (repeatedly) not to be valid.

But that's basically a digression from the real issue here. You say: "Take all the bias, presumptions, personal views and tradition away from it - and our quest is once again the same: the pursuit of truth." I hear this frequently, so I ask: what are the presumptions, personal views, and traditions that you mean? I would have said that the difference is that one reasons from the bible, and the other reasons from the evidence offered by the world itself. Are these merely traditions, or do you see it differently? This could be interesting, if you've suggested a fundamental difference in "what counts" as evidence.

Perhaps I'm laboring under some misapprehension. My impression is that Creationists claim that they do know how everything came about (i.e. God created it.) Evolutionists (or scientists generally) claim to know those things for which evidence exists.

I suspect that your misapprehension is shared by many of us, but it may be a stereotype that is inaccurate in detail. We'll have to see what the creationists tell us. From what Seventil has said (see above), I would say that creationists may not believe they know how everything came about, but are also seeking answers.

The investigation of science (i.e. Nature) was to be a support of faith.

But over the years, generations really, something else happened: the facts turned out otherwise. Science became an impediment to faith.

It was shown long ago that the flood never happened, and that the earth is very very very old. And since then the evidence has piled on layer after layer continueing to support the Old Earth and falsifying the Young Earth. At the present time there are no actual geologists who support Young Earth Creationism.

I agree with your historical assessment, and your summary of geology up to the present time. Yet, there are a great many people who choose to believe otherwise. Many of them really want creationism taught in schools, and think it is equal to science in validity. Thus, there must be fundamental misconceptions (or differences of opinion) about what science is, what constitutes proof or support for a theory, and even what is most important about our origins.

What do creationists think science is? ...and what do scientists think are the impediments to understanding evolution? ...and what do creationists think are the bits about evolution that just are not clear?

[juliod]

but they all agree that science can never disprove the version of creation in which everything was created to look exactly as it is now.

Ah, but that is a possability that we need not consider. AFAIK, no religion teaches a god-as-deciever. Science is not obligated to consider hypothetical philosophical questions.

Yet, there are a great many people who choose to believe otherwise. Many of them really want creationism taught in schools, and think it is equal to science in validity. Thus, there must be fundamental misconceptions (or differences of opinion) about what science is, what constitutes proof or support for a theory, and even what is most important about our origins.

It's not a question (IMHO) of science instruction, but in standards. Many people have ludicrously low standards. Not just low, ludicrously low. Creationism is not in fact the most immediate threat to the educational system. Astrology and homeopathy are constantly on the verge of establishing themselves in academia. People really believe those are true, in spite of them being equally as falsified as creationism.


DanZ

[seventil]

What are the fundamental issues that creationists believe should be taught about creationism? This is not "what is wrong with evolution." It is "what are the important bits of creationism?"

Fundamental issues of Creationism:

• Explain, scientifically, the creation of the known universe and it's expansion or evolution to it's current state in the allocated amount of time.
• A divine abiogenesis explanation would be needed after that
• A realistic, scientific Flood model - from how the animals were on there, how big it was, and how the earth was filled with water
• Population growth and civilization studies and models that show Noah and his descendants (and animals) could be responsible for the people and life we see today, 4000 years later.
  
  That's just a rough list, I'm sure there are a bunch I'm leaving out.

[Jose]

What are the fundamental issues that creationists believe should be taught about creationism? This is not "what is wrong with evolution." It is "what are the important bits of creationism?"

Fundamental issues of Creationism:

• Explain, scientifically, the creation of the known universe and it's expansion or evolution to it's current state in the allocated amount of time.
• A divine abiogenesis explanation would be needed after that
• A realistic, scientific Flood model - from how the animals were on there, how big it was, and how the earth was filled with water
• Population growth and civilization studies and models that show Noah and his descendants (and animals) could be responsible for the people and life we see today, 4000 years later.
  
  That's just a rough list, I'm sure there are a bunch I'm leaving out.

You may be leaving some things out, but this is plenty to work on for starters. I'd ask others to add to this as we go along, if you'd like...

OK, we have some issues here. To proceed, we'll need to know the answers to two more of the questions I posed: (1) what do creationists consider to be "science" and (2) how can the "important bits" of creationism be justified scientifically.

I think that it will be most important for us to figure out the answer to question #1, because it is necessary before we can deal with #2. If I say that scientific justification requires data (or what Bush's generals refer to as "ground truth"), but the creationist definition of "science" doesn't involve data, or doesn't require that all of the data fit the model, then we'll be talking at cross purposes.

[nikolayevich]

OK, we have some issues here. To proceed, we'll need to know the answers to two more of the questions I posed: (1) what do creationists consider to be "science" and (2) how can the "important bits" of creationism be justified scientifically.

I think that it will be most important for us to figure out the answer to question #1, because it is necessary before we can deal with #2. If I say that scientific justification requires data (or what Bush's generals refer to as "ground truth"), but the creationist definition of "science" doesn't involve data, or doesn't require that all of the data fit the model, then we'll be talking at cross purposes.

In answer to question one, I believe The American Heritage Dictionary has a suitable definition:

sci·ence
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Something which it seems is often misunderstood about creationism is the reality that creationists have the same definition of science as the rest of the world. As far as I have observed, the reason for the misperception is that the conclusion looks different. It is often thought that if we have one answer for a thing based on a particular piece of evidence, it is inescapable and opposing views must be wrong. Alas, little is more frequent than two scientists differing over just about anything, perhaps from different angles of view or perhaps more simply because evidence all too often does not "speak for itself". I think of the now famous debate over a unified quantum theory of gravity between Hawking and Penrose as an accepted example of two with--in some cases--vastly different views of reality, but still owing debate credit for advancing the pursuit of truth. The dialog will go further when both sides of the origins debate treat each other blindly (jurisprudentially, not faithfully-speaking) and argument by argument is critiqued not by calling into question each other's understanding or learnedness but all arguments one at a time.

For question two, "important bits" of creationism can only be scientifically established as the most reasonable explanation for life upon examination according to the above definition of science. This should not mean that it is wrong to believe certain things prior to finding proof, as with the case of Adam as formed from the dust of the earth. Special Creation could be proved long before such a thing is confirmed and does not make present belief in that thing wrong- it simply means it is presently an article of faith. Something similar could be said of abiogenesis. Evolution could be proven long before abiogenesis were established as reliable fact. I can imagine a way in which evolution would be true and abiogenesis false. Likewise with Adam and creation. So it is important to have our events in their hierarchically suitable order of importance.

Understanding that most creationists do not place their trust solely in the scientific method is important, but not in the way often contrived by evolutionists- that creationists are therefore less dedicated to proper science. The reality is simply that they value the Supernatural more than the natural. It says nothing about the way they perceive or measure the natural. We still bake with measuring cups (except for my wife who somehow just understands what food requires to be delicious), look both ways when crossing the street, and run from disaster because we understand on a fundamental level that these things involve natural, measurable / perceivable outcomes.

[Jose]

sci·ence
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

I might suggest that in my field, this is insufficient. We would add to it as follows:

science
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, where the explanations are based upon, consistent with, and derived from the prior observation, identification, description, and experimental investigation.

No one is allowed to "get away with" an explanation that is not based upon the data. Journals have a little check box on their manuscript review sheets that asks whether the conclusions are justified by the data, or whether the conclusions extrapolate too far beyond the data, and are thus not supported. By this definition, supernatural intervention is an extrapolation for which there is--so far--no supporting data. Unlike the "theory" of ID, an incomplete data set, and thus incomplete explanation, is not considered proof of the supernatural. It is merely proof that we don't know the full story yet.

By this logic, I infer that creationists probably use a different definition--perhaps the one you offered, which goes as far as the theoretical explanation, but provides no bounds within which the explanation is considered a scientific explanation.

It is often thought that if we have one answer for a thing based on a particular piece of evidence, it is inescapable and opposing views must be wrong. Alas, little is more frequent than two scientists differing over just about anything, perhaps from different angles of view or perhaps more simply because evidence all too often does not "speak for itself".

It is, indeed, often the case that scientists argue over explanations of phenomena. Usually, this is because they are basing their explanations on different datasets beyond the immediate observations, and on different "intuitive leaps" by which they connect different aspects of the data. Usually, each is arguing for his or her own explanation as the best one, but rarely as the "inescapable" one. If the data force us to an inescapable conclusion, then everyone is usually on board.

If I may infer, perhaps incorrectly, that your first sentence above refers to creation as an opposing view, and evolution as "one answer based on evidence," I would offer that this is not the view of scientists. It is not that creation must be wrong because it is different. It is that creation is an explanation for which there is no supporting evidence. It is the lack of evidence that makes it a non-scientific explanation. It may be right, of course, but so far, there is no evidence.

This is why I think it is important to figure out what our definitions of "science" are. I suspect that, as with most words (like "starch" and "fruit"), there is a more restricted and explicit definition within science than in general English.

This should not mean that it is wrong to believe certain things prior to finding proof, as with the case of Adam as formed from the dust of the earth. Special Creation could be proved long before such a thing is confirmed and does not make present belief in that thing wrong- it simply means it is presently an article of faith.

I agree entirely. It is not at all wrong to believe things before finding proof. This is one of the driving forces of innovation in science--someone comes up with a novel explanation, and then sets about testing whether that explanation is viable. As you say, it must remain an article of faith until there are sufficient data to make it scientifically justifiable as an explanation.

Understanding that most creationists do not place their trust solely in the scientific method...

We should remember that most scientists don't use "the scientific method." How this got into the textbooks as dogma is a mystery. There are some fields that use it, but most others follow different logical frameworks for experimental design and analysis. "The scientific method" is not some special method that is required to make something be "science."

Understanding that most creationists do not place their trust solely in the scientific method is important, but not in the way often contrived by evolutionists- that creationists are therefore less dedicated to proper science. The reality is simply that they value the Supernatural more than the natural.

Again, this gets us back to the definition of science. We define a scientific explanation as one that is backed up by evidence--by data, observations, measurements, etc. We may value the supernatural tremendously (and many scientists do), but without evidence, it cannot be a part of an explanation. Partly, this is because we want our explanations to lead to further exploration, more and better data, and therefore deeper understanding. As soon as we invoke the supernatural, we know that we can investigate no further, because science has no tools for investigating the supernatural.

Evolution could be proven long before abiogenesis were established as reliable fact. I can imagine a way in which evolution would be true and abiogenesis false.

I think everyone would agree with this. Abiogenesis is a difficult scientific topic, that requires rather skillful forensic methods to reconstruct what happened. A full understanding is still a long way off. Evolution, on the other hand, is specifically the process through which life has changed since it appeared. At this point, just about every individual bit has been proven, even to the satisfaction of the creationists. Evolution is microevolution and speciation. We may not have all of the details of every microevolutionary change of every individual that has ever lived, but we do seem to be in agreement about microevolution and speciation. The rest is just a matter of how long these two operate.

[micatala]

nikolayevich wrote:
This should not mean that it is wrong to believe certain things prior to finding proof, as with the case of Adam as formed from the dust of the earth. Special Creation could be proved long before such a thing is confirmed and does not make present belief in that thing wrong- it simply means it is presently an article of faith.

Jose wrote: I agree entirely. It is not at all wrong to believe things before finding proof. This is one of the driving forces of innovation in science--someone comes up with a novel explanation, and then sets about testing whether that explanation is viable. As you say, it must remain an article of faith until there are sufficient data to make it scientifically justifiable as an explanation.

Copernicus is an example of this. At the time of his writing, there was really no observational evidence to support his theory as a better explanation than the geocentric system of Ptolemy, and there were lots of 'common sense' reasons to think Copernicus was out in left field (even though there was no such thing as left field back then ).

Copernicus believed in his system more because of his own sense that it was somehow more beautiful, and fit in with his neo-Platonic worldview.

[Dilettante]

In support of what Jose wrote, I think we need to keep in mind that dictionaries are usually not a good source of philosophical definitions. Defining science and separating it from pseudoscience is a hard task which falls within the province of the philosophy of science. Scientists themselves are not necessarily capable of defining science. Science is something they do, not something they spend time thinking about. Each scientist may have his or her peculiar definition, but it will typically reflect their particular field within science rather than science in general. Philosophers are better equipped for the task of defining science. Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, and (in my neck of the woods, Gustavo Bueno) wrote extensively about what is usually called "the demarcation problem".

I agree with Jose that there is no single "scientific method". Besides scientists do not really rely so much on an inductive approach as on a hypothetico-deductive one. Sort of like Sherlock Holmes.

Copernicus' theory was accepted not because it was beautiful or because it was more consistent with observed data, but because it was simpler than Ptolemy's. And in science the simpler explanations are usually the correct ones.

[nikolayevich]

In support of what Jose wrote, I think we need to keep in mind that dictionaries are usually not a good source of philosophical definitions. Defining science and separating it from pseudoscience is a hard task which falls within the province of the philosophy of science. Scientists themselves are not necessarily capable of defining science. Science is something they do, not something they spend time thinking about.

Before I continue with responses to my post, this particular portion is one which I must call into question- not to defend a dictionary but to speak on "science is something they do". This is said often but to the detriment of maintaining coherence in science. It is patently circular.

Let's restate it thus:
"Science is what scientists do."

Next, if you'll forgive another dictionary definition to make my point:
sci·en·tist
:a person learned in science and especially natural science :a scientific investigator
Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary

: a person with advanced knowledge of one of more sciences
WordNet 2.0, Princeton University

So then:
Science is what scientists--who are learned in science--do.

The definition of science as "what scientists do" therefore creates a totally subjective framework for science.

Each scientist may have his or her peculiar definition, but it will typically reflect their particular field within science rather than science in general. Philosophers are better equipped for the task of defining science.

I would agree. I would also submit that all scientists should be learned in the philosophy of science, logic and critical thinking. Isolating the philosophers from the scientists allows some scientists to continue in logic which is circular or otherwise nonsensical.

[Jose]

Scientists themselves are not necessarily capable of defining science. Science is something they do, not something they spend time thinking about.

Before I continue with responses to my post, this particular portion is one which I must call into question- not to defend a dictionary but to speak on "science is something they do". This is said often but to the detriment of maintaining coherence in science. It is patently circular.

It is circular indeed. I doubt that Dilettante meant it as a definition, and I think you doubt that as well. It just provides a springboard to the discussion of the lousy definition it would be. It's especially lousy because different flavors of scientists do things very differently.

There are commonalities, however. They all "poke at stuff" either figuratively or literally, trying to find out how things work. They all gather information (data, observations, whatever you want to call it). They all try to use the information that they and others have gathered to understand the things they are trying to figure out.

If I may make a parallel here to religious scholars, I will attempt to do so. Suppose we want to figure out what scripture really means. We get out the relevant texts and examine them closely. We record passages that support a particular interpretation. From these, we develop an understanding of Meaning. We then delve deeper, and record passages that seem to contradict this interpretation. We use the combined information to try to reach a more consistent interpretation. Logically, this is pretty much a scientific approach, which bases its conclusions on the data, and re-evaluates the conclusions in the light of new data.

So, being somewhat heretical at times, I will also say that "science is what auto mechanics do." They even follow the Scientific Method. From the initial description of what's wrong (the car won't start), they form an initial hypothesis (I bet the battery is dead). They devise a means of testing this hypothesis (check the battery). They gather data (the battery has a good charge). From the data, they re-evaluate their understanding and revise the hypothesis (hmmm...it must not be the battery; it may be the starter motor). In other words, scientific approaches are used by all sorts of people in all sorts of inquiries.

So, to say "science is what scientists do" is not only circular, it's inaccurate. It's too limited. Nonetheless, scientists do, in fact, do it, rather than sit around thinking about how to phrase a definition of what they do. Indeed, a number of studies have been done, aimed at learning from scientists just what it is they do...and the finding is that different scientists offer wildly different descriptions. It is from these studies and personal experience, that I gathered the commonalities I mentioned above.

I would also submit that all scientists should be learned in the philosophy of science, logic and critical thinking. Isolating the philosophers from the scientists allows some scientists to continue in logic which is circular or otherwise nonsensical.

No, I don't think so. Isolating scientists from the philosophers keeps them away from the development of new terminology that attempts to categorize them artificially. It wasn't scientists who invented "natural materialism" or "secular humanism" or any of the other labels that have been applied to scientists (inaccurately, IMHO). As Dilettante said, they're too busy with their investigations to sit around wondering what to call what they do. Furthermore, inherent in doing science is one heck of a dose of logic and critical thinking. Sloppy thinking and circular reasoning are rapidly trashed by colleagues (preferably) or by grant or manuscript reviewers (if it gets that far).

I agree that some science seems circular or nonsensical. I have (mentally, not verbally) accused some people in distant fields of just such sins. However, upon closer examination (by which I mean one heck of a lot of work trying to figure out what is known in that field, and what the burning questions are), I've learned that it was not, in fact, circular or nonsensical. I just hadn't understood it. Worse, I assumed I knew the terminology, and therefore formed false and rather wacky conclusions.

I take this as a valuable lesson--when someone's expertise seems to me to be nonsense, based upon my personal common sense, it probably means that my common sense is based on insufficient understanding.