1

LEAVING CREATIONISM OUT OF SCIENCE

Elizabeth Grace Dauer

RELS 4330: Science and Christianity
October 10, 2015
Scientific thought is based on discoveries, observations, and experimentation. It is aimed
at learning new things about natural phenomena and applying them to life today. It is common to
mistake some ideas as science, but science is not subjective. A scientist cannot say he or she has
discovered a new cure for a disease and then expect hospitals to use this treatment just because
he says it will work. A new cure, or any new concept in science, must be subjected to extensive

2
testing and peer review before it is accepted in the scientific community. The two opposing
views of creationism and evolution have caused controversy regarding which idea is correct on
how life came about on Earth. Although neither idea can be proved correct, one idea stands up
against the other in light of science. Creationism should not be regarded as science because it is
pseudoscience and a religious position.
Science, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is knowledge about or study of
the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.1 Scientists must
follow the universal scientific method when conducting research and formulating their ideas. The
scientific method begins with a hypothesis, or an educated guess that explains why a certain
phenomena to be true. This hypothesis must be a statement that is testable and falsifiable. The
researcher then would conduct experiments and note observations throughout that will ultimately
agree or disagree with the hypothesis. The scientific method must be repeated over and over
again, including modifying the hypothesis, to completely rule out the hypothesis, regard the
hypothesis as theory, or change the course of study in light of new findings. Now a scientist
cannot just say he or she has found the hypothesis to be true and therefore the findings are now a
theory. Research must be peer reviewed by a committee and be published to be considered in the
scientific community. Despite what opponents of evolution believe, Darwins Theory of
Evolution has gone through countless testing and consideration throughout the scientific
community. Creationism cannot be considered science because its findings do not follow the
scientific method and is solely based on religious ideas and lack of proof on the evolutionists
side. Creationism is instead a pseudoscience.

1 Science, accessed September 24, 2015, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/science

3
Pseudoscience is basically claiming some phenomena to be true based only on
observation. For example, acupuncturists claim that placing needles in certain locations of the
human body will cure a number of illnesses and common symptoms such as a headache. While
many people say that they feel acupuncture has been beneficial to their health (and they may be
correct), non-holistic health professionals do not consider this as a credible treatment because no
real scientific evidence has been found for the benefits of acupuncture. Creationists use the same
tactic to explain that their views on the origins of life are correct. Judge John. E Jones, a U.S.
District judge who rendered the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, stopped the
teaching of creationism in the Dover Area school district and said that Creationism takes a
natural phenomena and, instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation, argues that the
explanation is supernatural.2 Creationists claim they have science on their side, but then argue
that their beliefs are correct because these beliefs are based on the supernatural, which no one
can disprove with experimentation. Creationists cannot identify evidence that would disprove
their position. Following the scientific method, a hypothesis must be testable and have the
potential to be deemed false.
Pseudoscience finds its advocates attempting to change the definition of science. Ralph
Barnes, writer for Skeptic Magazine, writes on a debate between Ken Ham, a well-known
creationist, and Bill Nye, science educator, on the core conflict between evolution and
creationism. Barnes notes, the nature of science, not empirical evidence, is at the core of Hams
argument. Ham creates a distinction between what he calls historical science and
observational science. According to Ham, historical science is based on the past state of the
universe (and therefore not trustworthy) and observational science is based on the present state
2 Dowling-Sendor, Benjamin. Drawing the Line Between Science and Religion. American
School Board Journal 193, no. 3 (March 2006): 4961.

4
of the universe. He believes that creationism can be trusted as scientific fact because it is based
on observations that are made in the present time, and evolution is false because it is based on
observations that are applied to a past event and are therefore part of historical science. Barnes
notes that Ham continues his whole argument on the definition of science while Nye uses
scientific evidence to back up his.3 Anyone can change the definition of science to make his or
her statements seem scientifically true, but evidence cannot be ignored. Barnes observes that
Ham is only one proponent of creationism, but that he is not alone in this strategy of changing
the nature of science. He also refers to Phillip Johnson, the author of Darwin on Trial, as being
one who claims, The definition of science has been hijacked by evolutionists because they
falsely assert that science must rely on naturalism.4 Creationists such as Michael Behe use this
strategy along with the idea that evolutionists do not have evidence to support their position.
Michael Behe, biochemist and creationist, uses the concept of irreducible complexity (IC)
to claim that evolution is false and therefore creationism is correct (a common argument for
creationists). Irreducible complexity is the idea that some biological systems are so complex and
when broken down, the system looses it function; therefore, complex biological systems could
not have evolved from smaller parts because these parts would not be functional and the system
would cease to exist. Behe uses the evidence of the blood clotting mechanism as an example.5
Robert Pennock brings up a valid opposition to Behes IC definition. He states that even if a
system is irreducibly complex, with respect to ones defined basic function, this in no way implies
3 Barnes,RalphM.TheCoreConflictBetweenCreationismandEvolution.Skeptic19,no.4
(December2014):4953.
4 Ibid.
5 Boudry,Maarten,StefaanBlancke,andJohanBraeckman.IrreducibleIncoherenceand
IntelligentDesign:ALookintotheConceptualToolboxofaPseudoscience.QuarterlyReview
ofBiology85,no.4(December2010):47382.

5
that nearby variations might not serve other nearby functions.6 Here a difference arises between
interpretations of the term irreducible complexity: IC in the weak sense and IC in the strong
sense. IC in the strong sense, as Behe takes it, would mean that a system is completely
dysfunctional if broken down into simpler parts. This would indeed be a valid opposition to
evolution if found true, which it has not. IC in the weak sense means that a system is
dysfunctional of its original function if broken down into simpler parts, which has been shown to
be true. Taking the blood clotting example into account, if we eliminate one or even several
elements from the blood clotting cascade, the system still manages to perform its function, albeit
not as swiftly or efficiently as before.7 After criticism, Behe notices this difference and attempts
to change his definition to fit the weak interpretation (which does not even oppose evolution).
Burns recognizes that proponents of IC and Creationism are very inconsistent in their arguments
by changing their definitions and standpoints every time new evolutionary discoveries are made.
If the case for evolution by natural selection becomes too overwhelming, creationists typically
drop their favorite examples of complexity and come up with fresh ones, whose evolutionary
origins are still relatively obscure.8 For example, creationists and IC proponents used the
example of the flagella (structure for bacterial motility) to explain how no simpler, functional
part could have evolved into this structure. The flagellum though has now been shown to have
evolved from a type III-secretory system, a fully functional component in the bacteria, based on
structural similarities. Creationists take note and then shift their attention to another complex
biological system such as the vertebrate eye to continue their same argument.

6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.

6
Creationists correctly note that scientists have failed to prove evolution and therefore
argue that evolution is incorrect. This term prove is an important one in the context of science.
Scientists never claim to have proof for evolution, but instead provide evidence for evolution.
Evidence in science does not point to proof in a hypothesis, and scientists are aware of this and
therefore stray from using this language. Ralph Barnes and his colleague Rebecca Church
conducted a study to understand how creationists use this term and found that a number of
creationists have a distorted view of the nature of science. This study found that one of the most
common mistakes that creationists make is that when they think that they have evidence for
Creationism, they frequently (78 times in our study) refer to it as proof.9 Creationists claim that
evolutionists only have evidence and no proof and then claim that they have proof. This is not
scientific whatsoever. Taking a lack of proof of evolution to prove creationism does not work and
is, in a sense, hypocritical. Science by definition involves looking for evidence. Science takes its
own observations and evidence as arguments and does not base data on lack of data to make a
point, which creationists so often do.
The roots of creationism begin not in scientific observation but in the Bible, and
creationists have no problem admitting this. Ken Ham states in the debate with Nye on his
definitions of science, We admit our origins or historical science is based on the Bible.10 There
is nothing wrong with using the Bible for a personal belief system, but it is not a book for
universal, scientific evidence. Duane Gish, a biochemist and associate director of the Institute for
Creation Research, is a biblical literalist and uses the Bible as one of his prime arguments against
evolution. He states, The first two chapters of Genesis were not written in the form of parables

9 Barnes,TheCoreConflictBetween,4953.
10 Ibid.

7
or poetry but present the broad outlines of creation in the form of simple historical facts.11 He
goes on to say that Genesis contradicts evolution and therefore is evidence against the theory.
Gish is using the Bible as a scientific textbook. The authors of the Bible though were not
concerned with teaching the world about science, but wrote the Bible to explain of an almighty,
saving God. Stanley Jaki, priest and physics professor, explains that the Genesis story is meant to
combat the culture of paganism and explain how the one and only God created the entire
universe. He also mentions that Genesis uses the notion of God resting on the seventh day to
explain the importance of the Sabbath day to the Jewish community.12 The authors of the Bible
do not cite scientific method or explain how natural phenomena came to be. Phillip Johnson, a
Creationism proponent and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, stated in an interview, Our
strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design,
which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.13
Creationists are not concerned about science but about getting their side heard.
Creationism should not be regarded as science and should not be taken as such in the
classroom. Those on the creationist side are not concerned with a well-rounded science education
but are afraid of the threat of God being left out of the origin of life. According to Isaac Asimov,
biochemist and writer, creationists claim they want equal time with the evolutionists to state their
side in the classroom. While this sounds like a fair point, Asimov mentions that creationists leave
11 Duane T. Gish, Evolution-A Philosophy, Not a Science, in Religion and
the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, ed. James E. Huchingson,
(Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005), 271.
12 Stanley L. Jaki, The Biblical Basis of Western Science, in The Limits of a
Limitless Science, ed. Stanley L. Jaki, (Wilmington: ISI Books, 2000), 49.
13 Gropp, Robert E. Evolution Activists Organize to Combat Pseudoscience in Public
Schools. BioScience 53, no. 8 (August 2003): 700.

8
their argument with the assumption of Creationism as the only possible alternative. Science is
about being open to credible possibilities and about fair debate between the possibilities. Asimov
states, In the scientific world, there is free and open competition of ideas, and even a scientist
whose suggestions are not accepted is nevertheless free to continue to argue his case.14 The
problem is not believing in the possibility of a creator, but opening the door in science
classrooms to religious ideas as scientific evidence. Evolution is highly regarded in the scientific
community and gets downplayed as just a theory by the creationists. Students who plan to
study in the biological sciences are expected to understand evolution and apply it to a number of
biological concepts, such as in the study of mutations in DNA. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area
School District, the judge concluded that the creationists aim to include a statement in public
schools about creationism being a possibility misinterprets its [evolution] status in the scientific
community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students
with a religious alternative masquerading as scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist
text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the
public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere.15 Although
creationism is not science, one physicist makes a good point about keeping intelligent design in
science.
The best argument for Creationism as science comes from Stephen Barr, a physics and
astronomy professor at the University of Delaware. In his book, Modern Physics and Ancient
Faith, Barr suggests that throwing out the possibility of intelligent design goes against the openmindedness that scientists must have. He says, it is unscientific to go beyond the evidence. A
14 Isaac Asimov, The Threat of Creationism, in Religion and the Natural
Sciences: The Range of Engagement, ed. James E. Huchingson, (Eugene:
Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005), 279, 281.
15 Dowling-Sendor, Drawing the Line Between, 4961.

9
truly scientific person should keep an open mind on how evolution happened.16 It is true that
science is about being open to possibilities. Some argue that keeping creationism in classrooms
teaches students critical thinking which could very much be true. Being open to possibilities and
debating between ideas exercises the mind in a way that facilitates learning and preparation for
higher education. These benefits that come with critical thinking about the origins of life do not
need to enter science classrooms though. Creationism deals with other fields of study such as
philosophy and sociology. Although being open to change is important to the scientific method, it
does not justify the acceptance of Creationism as science. The reasoning for this goes back to the
previous points made such as science involving objective observation and evidence which
creationism does not have.
Creationism is not science, but is a religious position based on biblical texts and false
scientific methods. One could easily make his or her ideas seem scientific by changing science
definitions and concepts to fit his or her findings. Creationism, a pseudoscience, is full of
inconsistent arguments that weave around the evidence of evolution. Science must stay universal
and consistent because the principles of nature are constant. Although science is about finding
evidence for explanations of the natural world, it does not aim to prove certain phenomena to be
true with absolute certainty. Creationism is concerned with proof. Proponents of it claim that
Creationism is the only option because evolutionists do not have proof for their side. This sort of
thinking is not scientific and should especially not be used in a science classroom where children
should be taught the correct scientific method. Deeming Creationism as an absolute possibility
downplays the importance of evolution in the scientific community and would cause confusion
in the classroom as well. Science should stay science and not open its doors to religious
16 Stephen M Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame, 2003), 110.

10
principles and biblical evidence. The problem with creationism is not believing in a possible
creator, but in believing that it is a scientific concept worthy of scientific merits.

Bibliography
Barnes, Ralph M. The Core Conflict Between Creationism and Evolution. Skeptic 19, no. 4
(December 2014): 4953.
Boudry, Maarten, Stefaan Blancke, and Johan Braeckman. Irreducible Incoherence and
Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience. Quarterly
Review of Biology 85, no. 4 (December 2010): 47382.
Dowling-Sendor, Benjamin. Drawing the Line Between Science and Religion. American
School Board Journal 193, no. 3 (March 2006): 4961.
Duane T. Gish, Evolution-A Philosophy, Not a Science, in Religion and the Natural Sciences:
The Range of Engagement, ed. James E. Huchingson, (Eugene: Wipf and Stock
Publishers, 2005), 271.

11
Gropp, Robert E. Evolution Activists Organize to Combat Pseudoscience in Public Schools.
BioScience 53, no. 8 (August 2003): 700.
Isaac Asimov, The Threat of Creationism, in Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range
of Engagement, ed. James E. Huchingson, (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005),
279, 281.
Science, accessed September 24, 2015, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
Stanley L. Jaki, The Biblical Basis of Western Science, in The Limits of a Limitless Science,
ed. Stanley L. Jaki, (Wilmington: ISI Books, 2000), 49.
Stephen M Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame,
2003), 110.