The heart of the matter: why “Creationism” is not scientific

I couldn’t pass this up: Bill Nye and Ken Ham Debate Whether Creationism Is Science.  Before starting, I note that this is only a debate because the side that has already lost countless times insists on bringing it up time and time again.  It should be obvious that scientists are in the best position to determine what is science.  From the scientists’ standpoint, this issue is long over.

From wikkipedia:

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

And this interesting survey reported here shows that philosophers tend to lean the same way that scientists do, generally away from non-naturalistic explanations of reality. I was surprised by that.

So, scientists, philosophers, and the courts are generally in agreement that science classes should teach evolution and not creationism.

The end of the debate shows exactly the difference between the two positions and why creationism is clearly not science.

The questioner asked what evidence, if any, would change either Nye or Ham’s mind about their world view.

Nye answered that a single piece of evidence supporting creationism would sway him immediately. Ham responded differently.

“No one’s ever going to convince me that the word of God is not true,” he said.

Isn’t that interesting?  The scientist says that he would change his mind if evidence were presented.  The creationist?  Nothing could ever change his mind.  And that sums up the difference: the religious view of the world simply assumes that it is right and that is the end of the issue.

I don’t fault people for wondering about supernatural explanations where science cannot provide answers.  But as history has shown us time and time again, science has a much better chance of getting things right for the things that fall within its domain.  And the development of life on this planet is clearly in the domain.  If the fact that life on this planet evolved is trouble for your religious views…it’s up for you to change your views, not for science to act like it doesn’t know what it is talking about.  So please quit trying to change science so that it comports to your own world view.


This entry was posted in Science vs. Religion, Things that make you go hmmm.... Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s