What is creation science?

Seriously, I have no clue. Some 'creation scientists' claim to be looking for evidence of creation in their respective disciplines, others claim to be looking for evidence of a literal 6-day creation, seeing it as 'opposed to Darwinian evolution' (even though evolution isn't even concerned with how life came about, a subject beyond the discipline of biology altogether). It seems to me that building a 'science' on an unproven premise is not science at all, but simply theoretical speculation.

There are countless youtube videos on 'creation science', but I don't consider youtube a science medium (I hadn't even heard of 'creation science' until I stumbled upon of these vids). So I would be interested if anyone can shed some light on this subject.

Well, you answered your own question. It's the 'good' ol' creationism posing as 'science' for the uneducated Joe who can't see the difference. It's all about appearing to be applying the scientific method in order to gain legitimacy; in reality nobody who has any right to call him/herself scientist can take it seriously.

It is pseudo-science, a prime example of what Feynman called cargo cult science. They are going through the motions of science, but the substance is missing. The reason is that its goal is an entirely different one: Science is trying to discover the truth about nature, but Creationists believe to already know the truth, so 'Creation Science' is an apologetic endeavor to explain the facts to fit their preconceived story. Because facts have to fit their world view, even if they do not, there is a considerable lack of honesty. And honesty is the core principle that is required for doing good science.

Thanks for the replies, but I was actually hoping for a response from a supporter of creation science. It is my understanding that CFC has at least a few creationists, so I was hoping for an explanation from that side.

It's my belief that whilst roughly half the US population professes belief in creationism (possible the YEC variety), very many would not be concerned with finagling scientific results to confirm the Genesis story. C_H is CFC's most outspoken creationist, naturally.

What is evolutionary science? Do they (scientist) claim to be looking for evidence of evolution in their respective disciplines?

Evolutionary biologists study the process of evolution.

Creation "science" is a misnomer.

But if you really want to hear is straight from one of the world's more famous promoters of Creationism, tune in to a live debate between Bill Nye (Sensible Party) and Ken Ham (Silly Party). It's scheduled for 9 hours from this post:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/event/Nye-Ham-Debate/

If you want to see it, though, you'll have to give Answers in Genesis your email address. If you use gmail you can set up a disposable email address:

LifeHacker said:

Let's say you need to sign up for a mailing list that interests you, but you're afraid spammers might get your address. We'll call the list "exoticflowers". Sign up with the list using the address "johndoe+exoticflowers@gmail.com". Email to that address will still come to your "johndoe@gmail.com" address even though the "To:" will include that "+exoticflowers" in it. Then set up Gmail filters to shuttle that +exoticflowers email past the inbox to a specific label.

Click to expand...

Isn't he in the nick right now? I'm a bit surprised he's out already.

Besides, if Ham's debating style is anything like the infamous Gish Gallop, Bill Nye will hardly get a word in edgeways.

Arakhor said:

Isn't he in the nick right now? I'm a bit surprised he's out already.

Click to expand...

I think you're thinking of Kent Hovind.

It's not even pseudo-science, that's a term which refers to non-hard sciences. It's not supposed to be a slander at all, merely a descriptor of sciences which are technically and theoretically very in-depth, but lack the novel predictive quality of the "true, hard sciences." Biology, for example, would meet the definition of pseudo-science, while physics and chemistry would not.

"Creation science" isn't anything remotely like science, it's an ideology which cherry-picks data to support its point and disregards the rest, including the concept of drawing conclusions based upon evidence. It's not a system of analysis, it's not a lens for understanding anything, it's a political clique which is manipulating history to suit its own fundamentalist ends. It's already decided what's what, now it just needs selective data to back that up.

Cheezy the Wiz said:

Biology, for example, would meet the definition of pseudo-science,

Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't.

engineering=creation science, because that's science in which you create.

sanabas said:

No, it wouldn't.

Click to expand...

That's it, I'm convinced now.

I have never heard of biology as a "pseudo-science", so you might expand on the "novel predictive" part.

sanabas said:

I think you're thinking of Kent Hovind.

Click to expand...

Oh well. Well-known creationist whose initials are KH. Easy mistake to make, I suppose.

Cheezy the Wiz said:

It's not even pseudo-science, that's a term which refers to non-hard sciences. It's not supposed to be a slander at all, merely a descriptor of sciences which are technically and theoretically very in-depth, but lack the novel predictive quality of the "true, hard sciences."

Click to expand...

Where did you get that definition of pseudo-science? It's quite wrong.

Not to mention the notion that 'hard' sciences would have any predictive qualities. Probabilities, yes. But that's not quite the same thing.

Anywho, I reckon creationists or 'creation science' adepts don't follow the Science forum. So I guess my question will remain redundant. But thanks for the responses so far.

Hygro said:

I have never heard of biology as a "pseudo-science", so you might expand on the "novel predictive" part.

Click to expand...

See the article Cribb posted in AAR recently by Lakatos. Or this. A novel prediction is one which can be falsified by testing. Mendeleev predicted that certain elements as yet undiscovered would have certain atomic weights. When we found them, we found that his calculations were correct; thus, his theory was validated. Kepler calculated where planets should be, which we had not discovered yet, based upon his discoveries about gravity and orbits. We looked where he said they should be, and found Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Those are novel predictions. Biology is incapable of making this kind of prediction, it can only analyze what has happened in the past. Biologists cannot accurately predict anything in the future. They can talk about probabilities and possible dynamics, but they cannot make a definitive statement upon which the validity of their theories can be hinged, which we can directly test and determine to be correct or not, unless it is some sort of reaction which has already been determined to be true in the past. Psychology is in the same boat. It doesn't devalue them, that's my point: pseudo-science isn't supposed to be a slander, but it is a statement of heirarchy. The things which are popularly called pseudo-science today, like creation science, homeopathy, eastern medicine, etc., are not sciences at all, pseudo or otherwise. They're cult practices and quackery.

Just think about it: what is the theory of evolution? It's not an analysis of the future, is it? It's analysis of the past. It makes no predictions. Genetics as well (although it's possible it's made some predictions I don't know of). On the other hand, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, these things make predictions about future events which can be validated or proven wrong, the results of which would expand the knowledge of humanity. Nothing which lay in the future can falsify the theory of evolution, only better analysis of the past has the chance of doing that.

Cult practices and quackery are vogue terms for heterodox medicine but their categorical dismissal is on the wrong side of history, for certain.

But while I understand biology is a super messy process and predictions are often confounded with far too many feedbacking variables, it is a "novel predictive" science. We just need faster computers and need to identify more unique functions. Remember, biology is literally just the advanced margins of physics.

Everything is the advanced margins of physics. It's what makes the universe exist and function.