Home > Free Essays > Philosophy > Philosophy of Religion > Pseudoscience – creational science
Cite this

Pseudoscience – creational science Essay


Introduction

Pseudoscience refers to a set of theories, methods, or beliefs that are based on authoritative text yet wrongly considered as scientific facts. There are several examples of pseudoscience and among them is creation science (Kaiser 9). This paper is, therefore, an in-depth analysis of creation science as a pseudoscience by looking at the various fallacies that encompass it.

Creational Science

George Mc Cready Price is the first propagator of creation science. Gideon Henry Morris, a civil engineer, is referred to as the father of creation science (Kaiser 9). The latter further developed the theories of creation science. Concisely, creation science is a pseudoscientific notion that the creation of the entire universe, which is done by a supernatural being, can be proved scientifically.

Creationists dispute the following theories: mutation and natural selection as origin of life, the fact that man evolved from apes, theories of geology, and the big bang theory.

They try to connect the science theories to that of creation. The bible’s book of Genesis claims that God called everything into existence and, on the sixth day, He created man from clay. Woman was later created from the man’s rib.

It is a theory supported by both Christians and non-Christians who, by faith, believe that there are supernatural gods that control and are responsible for all human existence.

The creationists seek to connect this theory with science by connecting experiences from the Bible with the ideas in the evolution and big bang theories. The fossils that Darwin discovered are as a result of the flood that God commanded during Noah’s time to punish sinners.

Only Noah survived in the ark that he built. He is, therefore, regarded as the ancestor of the Earth’s generation. In the rebuilding after the floods, God created one nation that spoke one language and lived together. However, in a form of punishment for ganging up against Him during the building of Babel’s tower, God changed the languages of every one.

This, therefore, explains the origin of languages (Kaiser 10). In Darwin’s theory of natural selection, creationists claim that the samples he used to carry out his experiment were available because God himself commanded their presence in the first place.

They claim that evolution cannot be used to explain the idea of right and wrong, eyes, emotions, and development of lungs, irreducible complexity, and the bombardier beetle. The creationists insist that the reason there is no valid explanation is because God did all these things with knowledge beyond human understanding and only He has the answers to the nature of his creation (Kaiser 9).

Creation science as a pseudoscientific notion that has no scientific evidence to support its basis lacks empirical evidence and has no valid hypothesis. While a scientific theory can be proved and at the same time disapproved, creation science can neither be proved nor disapproved.

The existence of the God who created all flora and fauna can neither be seen nor heard. It is not easy to prove His existence or disapprove the same. Creation science is, therefore, not a scientific theory, it only seeks to dispute and oppose evolution theory instead of proving its own ideas and beliefs.

Creationists pick specific issues in other scientific theories while ignoring others. For example, they do not explain topics like chemistry and chemical reactions, meteorology and medicine. Some of the fallacious reasoning of this pseudoscience community are explained below (Shermer 109).

Eight Fallacies of creational science

Genetic fallacy

Creationists are creating assumptions based on the source of information rather than the context or exact meaning of the assumption. They are forcing ideas into the world just because the idea comes from the Bible or from God himself. The Bible says that God called on the existence of everything in this universe.

There is no physical evidence that justifies creation. That He created a woman out of the man’s rib also sounds ridiculous (Hanen et al. 76). A rib being a bone is hard to comprehend how a human being could be molded from it. However, the creationists expect us to believe because it is written in the Bible as unbelievable as it sounds and they therefore force the presumption on all of us.

The story of the origin of languages is true because it comes from the Bible, and even though it stands to be criticized, creationists believe it is true because it is in the Bible. The fossils found by Darwin according to creationists based on biblical evidence came from the aftermath of the flood during Noah’s time.

Irrelevance

An argument is said to be an irrelevant fallacy when the person is trying to prove or disapprove the wrong point. Instead of justifying their own ideas, creationists tend to concentrate on refuting the evolution theory. They have opposed the fossils evidence that Darwin found, explaining that it came from the floods in the Noah era (Hanen et al 76).

They insist that evolution cannot explain the notion of what is right and what is wrong, the eye, and the development of lungs. The law of thermodynamics has also been under debate. Creationists are dwelling on opposing evolution theories and proving them right or wrong instead of defending their own theories independent of what evolutionists might think.

Appeal to many

Just because the creation theory has been accepted by many people across, the world does not make it a fact. Half of the world’s population believes in the existence of a God regardless of the religion or denomination (Hanen et al 79). Therefore, the belief in the existence of a supernatural being cannot be refuted.

However, creation science is a completely different aspect of looking at it. An attempt to explain this belief in a scientific way is very different from what the people believe in. Creationists have taken advantage of the number of people who believe in creation to try to impose their ideas on others.

They claim to have outnumbered the evolutionists forgetting that what matters is the validity of their theories and not the number of supporters. Most people might not support evolution, not because they do not believe in it but because they do not understand the concepts involved.

Appeal to pity

They use phrases and statements that stimulate emotions. Creationists use emotional appeal to plead with the masses not to adopt the evolutionists’ ways, by claiming that they (evolutionists) seek to completely shadow and remove the creation theory while concealing the many shortfalls of evolution.

The use of the word, remove is used to stimulate an emotion of pity. They gain pity from the masses who think it is unfair that their ideas be completely suppressed by the evolutionists. This is a pathetic attempt to gain support by portraying the other party as the ‘bad one’ instead of letting the theories speak for themselves.

Appeal to force

Fear is also instilled in people through quoting Bible verses, for example, the one that says that we should not question the word of God. This is meant to be a warning to those who have doubts about the various issues in the Bible.

All human intelligence comes from God, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1), therefore, no human being is smarter than God himself is (Hanen et al. 76).

Instead of proving to the people reasons why they should adopt and follow creation science, these creationists use their positions as church leaders and the bible to intimidate people through instilling fear of this God.

The Bible stories on the Noah era and the Sodom and Gomorra story show that God will eventually punish all those who did not believe in his word and chose their own ways of life. This is meant to force people to accept the creationists’ ideas for fear of God’s wrath lest they choose the evolutionists path (Müller and Harmund).

Appeal to authority

By providing just a single source of their evidence and, at the same time, denying any evidence that the source could be wrong, the creationists are lying to us. Since there is a supernatural being who controls all human existence, then this being should not at all be doubted ( Shermer 65).

Creationists use the Bible to quote God, Jesus and insist that ‘it was true because Jesus the son of God said so’, or ‘because God himself said so’. God and Jesus being in authority here are not at all to be questioned in their statements or presumptions.

Creationists impose these facts on people and justify them by saying ‘God/Bible/Jesus said so’. They refute all evolution theories using the Bible as authority and the final say as the only source to explain their argument (Smith 56).

Reification fallacy

Anthropomorphic description of God in the many evidences presented by creation scientist raises the question of reality and ambiguity. Science focuses on the realities of life things we see, feel, and can used to draw conclusion. God revealed himself through nature.

When creationists assert that a big flood destroyed the entire universe it raises doubt. We see that God commands everything in the universe into life and He is still the one in control of evolution we wonder where is this God.

He commands all nature and prophets in the Bible never really got to see Him, but still delivered messages for Him to His people. Other abstract stories are Moses encounters a talking burning bush and Elisha is flown to heaven.

All these anthromorphic stories by creationists create a lot of doubt since they are abstract things that cannot be validated or explained. Creationists claim that it is really true that God created the Earth in six days (Hanen et al. 84).

They explain that the ancient people concentrated more on bringing chaos to order in contrast to the current society (Wolters 45). However, it is illogical to think that in approximately one hundred and forty four hours God had created the whole universe and all its life. This is another anthromorphic description of God by scientist, which is totally abstract and unreal (Kaiser 9).

Circular reasoning

Most creationists used conclusions to explain events that happened. They evaded questions of ‘how’ and instead answered with ‘eventually we see’. Their ideas and beliefs lack concrete explanations since they are based on ambiguity and anthromorphism, which was hard to explain (Walters 33).

In their defense, they claimed that God himself says in the Bible: ‘thou shall not question the name of the Lord’. Their circular reasoning only proves their inadequate proof on the theories they intend to defend (Walters 33).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is clear that creation theory should be separated from science. The power of the supernatural being is beyond all human understanding and no amount of science can disapprove or prove God’s work in creation.

Creationists should, therefore, focus on the spiritual part of the creation theory and stop trying to compete with the science world on theories and concepts of the origin of earth (Cioffi 210). They should instead focus on nurturing the souls of these scientists and giving those reasons why they should believe in God and His creation.

Denying the existence of God knowing that He exists is itself one huge mistake made by most scientists. Coming up with theories to prove their belief is even worse. Imposing scientific explanation to spiritual matters only pushes the believers further from religion and deeper into science. Creationists should instead focus on ways to merge with scientists to explain that the two are not enemies (Cioffi 210).

Works Cited

Cioffi, Frank. Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience. Chicago, Ill: Open Court, 1998. Print.

Hanen, Marsha et al. Science, Pseudo-Science, and Society: Essays. Waterloo, Ont: Published for the Calgary Institute for the Humanities by Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1980. Internet resource.

Kaiser, Christopher. Creational Theology and the History of Physical Science: The Creationist Tradition from Basil to Bohr. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Print.

Müller, Tibor, and Harmund, Müller. Modelling in Natural Sciences: Design, Validation and Case Studies; with 16 Tables. Berlin: Springer, 2003. Print.

Shermer, Michael. The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2002. Print.

Smith, Jonathan. Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker’s Toolkit. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.

Wolters, Albert. Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2005. Print.

This essay on Pseudoscience – creational science was written and submitted by your fellow student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly.

Need a custom Essay sample written from scratch by
professional specifically for you?

Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar

301 certified writers online

GET WRITING HELP
Cite This paper

Select a website citation style:

Reference

IvyPanda. (2019, March 29). Pseudoscience – creational science. Retrieved from https://ivypanda.com/essays/pseudoscience-creational-science/

Work Cited

"Pseudoscience – creational science." IvyPanda, 29 Mar. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/pseudoscience-creational-science/.

1. IvyPanda. "Pseudoscience – creational science." March 29, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pseudoscience-creational-science/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Pseudoscience – creational science." March 29, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pseudoscience-creational-science/.

References

IvyPanda. 2019. "Pseudoscience – creational science." March 29, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pseudoscience-creational-science/.

References

IvyPanda. (2019) 'Pseudoscience – creational science'. 29 March.

Related papers