Aniceto, Chio, Lee, Patriarca, Tesion PH 133

Creation-Science Is Not Science - Michael Ruse

Overview: Theory of Natural Selection
The ideology started with Charles Lyell and Uniformitarianism vs. Catastrophism, where Lyell argued that geologic activity happens gradually
over time. After a few years, the main proponent, Charles Darwin’s, entered a voyage on the HMS Beagle to the Galapagos Islands. Darwin
studied the Galapagos finches, and noticed that while similar, had different characteristics such as beak sizes, with each other. He theorized
that this might be due to their adaptation with different diets. In their keynote paper, Peter and Rosemary Grant published research regarding
Galapagos finches. They noticed that a change from dry to wet season within the Galapagos Islands induced a change in beak sizes of different
finches1. They found a correlation between shifts in weather patterns to shifts in beak sizes due to shifts in diets of the birds in the area. The
basic premise of the Theory of Natural Selection is the consideration of a.) variation of traits within a population, b.) difference in reproduction
rates due to external factors and c.) heredity between parent and offspring.
Context of the Case:
In 1981, the Governor of Arkansas signed into law Act 590 of 1981, entitled, “Balanced Treatment for Creation Science and Evolution
Science Act”, mandating that, "Public schools within this State shall give balanced treatment to creation-science and to evolution-science."
As such, the signing of this act necessitated that creationism be taught as a science in public schools for the year 1981, until May 27, 1981 a
suit filed by McLean and other plaintiffs argued for the unconstitutionality of the Act, as it violates the First Amendment to the constitution
concerning the state’s establishment of one religion, academic freedom, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Fundamentalism, the movement promoting creation as the sole doctrine about origins, rose as a response to social changes, new religious
thought and Darwinism.2 The modernization of science effected a decline in traditional morality attributable to the primacy once given to the
biblical explanations for the origin of the universe. The agenda of creation scientists was to rationalize its commitment to a literal reading of
the Genesis accounts of creation by attempting scientific support for its claims. Fundamentalists argued to give equal regard or scientific
legitimacy to both creationism and evolution, on the basis that neither of the two could be proven nor disproved, that evolution is an
authoritarian system, and the uncertainty of the existence of a pre-existing God.3 A dichotomy between fundamentalism and evolution was
created for the two thoughts were logically irreconcilable. Thus, the method undertaken by the opposing parties rested in establishing what
could be categorized as scientific or pseudoscientific.
The trial is significant because it does place evolution science and creation science in the same grounds even though they are from different
fields of understanding. Because of this, rather than argue for creation science as a proper religious understanding of creation, they are both
placed in the scrutiny of the scientific method. This is where Michael Ruse draws the line in his article for the trial.

Point of Contention: What is the status of creation-science? (Does creation-science fit the accepted definitions of a religion?/Does creation-
science fit current definitions of science?)
The Problem of Definition: What is Science? The term “Science” is not self-evident, insofar as the concept is not contained within the term
like the concept triangle is contained in the term triangle. Thus, the need for clarification regarding the nature of what is scientific is necessary.4

Creation-Science is Not Science | Michael Ruse

Central Question: Does Creation-Science have any of the essential features of Science?
Central Claim: Creation Science contains none of what constitutes as Science. It is dogmatic religious Fundamentalism; a blasphemous
distortion of God-given reason.

Genuine Science Creationism

Essential Science attempts to understand this empirical world, invoking Creation Science invokes happenings and causes outside of law
Claim a search for order. Science looks for natural regularities, or laws (miracles). It champions in its definition the belief that “sudden creation
that explain a set of paths. It is “naturalistic” which means that of the universe, energy and life from nothing.” It omits the term
it is “subject to empirical law.” “naturalistic” so that it does not adhere to empirical law.

Explanation Science should be able to describe why things are the way they Creation-Science gives no explanation and makes no predictions.
& Prediction are such that they either follow or fall beneath from the law.
Science is able to estimate that a specific thing is a consequence
of a certain phenomena.

Testability Science lays itself open for possible scrutiny so that various
scientists could see if the inferences made are genuinely
mirrored in nature. Two aspects should be considered: (1)
Confirmation: there must be a measurable and repeatable
support for a hypothesis given (2) Falsifiability: Must be open
to possible refutation
Creationists merely form ad hoc hypotheses to save their core
assumptions. There is a virtual absence of any experimental or
observational work by creation scientists and they blatantly disregard
empirical evidence. Arguments proceeds by showing evolution is
wrong, rather than by showing Creationism is right. Thus, its hypotheses
can neither be confirmed nor falsified.

Tentativeness A scientist must be prepared to reject his own theory. If a theory Creationists are very firm in their position; such that there is no
is powerful, some problems will be tolerated but scientists must consideration for its rejection. The Creation Research Society affirms
be prepared to change their minds in the face of empirical that the Bible is literally true. This ‘fanatical dogmatism’ is simply not
evidence. acceptable in Science.

Integrity A scientist does not cheat or falsify data or quote out of context. Creationists distort evolutionists’ positions. Aside from this, they often
They must always be intellectually honest. use inappropriate or incomplete quotations to push their point forward.

1
Grant, Peter and Rosemary. Natural Selection in a Population of Darwin’s Finches. American Society of Naturalists. Mar 1989.
2
McLean v. Arkansas Bd. of Ed., 529 F. Supp. 1255 - Dist. Court, ED Arkansas 1982
3
Morris, Henry, ed. Scientific Creationism (Master Books, 1985), 5.
4
Ruse, Michael. “Creation Science Is Not Science.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 7, no. 40 (1982), 39.
Aniceto, Chio, Lee, Patriarca, Tesion PH 133