Creationism and Falsification
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Introduction
It is a principle of science that to even make the first cut to qualify as scientific, a proposition must be falsifiable: that is, we must be able to imagine a set of observations that, if we made them, would prove that proposition false.
To take a simple example, the theory of gravity predicts that planets should orbit the Sun in elliptical orbits. If, then, we observed that they traveled in triangular orbits, then so much for the theory of gravity. But if the theory made no such predictions, if it allowed for any observations whatsoever, then it would not be a theory at all, it would be a mere mumbo-jumbo of words with no scientific significance: in the famous words of Wolfgang Pauli, it would be "not even wrong".
In the light of this, we may ask: is creationism falsifiable? At first this may seem like a trivial question. We know that creationism is falsifiable, because it can be proved false. We can show that the Earth is old --- so much for Young Earthism. We can prove that species evolved --- so much for fiat creationism.
However, this overlooks one resource "creationist scientists" have for defending their beliefs that is not available to real scientists, as we shall discuss in the next section of this article.
[edit] The Ad Hoc Miracle: Examples
This device we might call the "ad hoc miracle". Some examples:
- The most famous example of the ad hoc miracle is the Omphalos hypothesis of Philip Gosse, which proposes that God created the world only six thousand years ago, in accordance with Biblical chronology, but created it with all the apparent marks of age on it that convinced geologists that it was much older.
- The fact that we can see stars millions of light-years away, and that light travels at one light-year per year, also refutes the idea of a young universe. Or does it? For creationists can always suppose that God created the light from these stars already in transit, for reasons of his own, with the effect, if not the deliberate intention, of fooling astronomers.
- The Argument from Undesign seems like a good argument against fiat creationism. To summarize it briefly: organisms have faults and flaws which can be explained beautifully by considering their evolutionary heritage, and which therefore are on the face of it strong evidence for evolution, and against them being the creations of a perfect God. To this creationists can answer with what we might call the "Mysterious Ways Excuse": that in the eyes of God there were excellent reasons for him to create life in this way, and that it's our problem if we mere mortals don't know what that reason was.
- Radiometric dating provides strong evidence against a young Earth. However, it is open to creationists to claim that Noah's Flood mysteriously changed the radiometric dates of all the rocks. In vain would scientists point out that water doesn't have this effect, because, of course, this was a miraculous flood.
- The Flood raises problems of its own: why, for example, is there no evidence for it? However, creationists are equal to an explanation:
- The Fllod [sic] is not a myth, scientific evidence or not. God could have erased all the scientific evidence if He wanted to, because He is God!
- Then we might wonder about Noah's Ark. Given the number of species required, and the dimensions of the Ark given in the Bible, would not life on the Ark be impossible? In answer to this, we have seen one creationist explain that God used his miraculous powers to make the Ark bigger on the inside than the outside:
- Has anyone considered that our conception of time and space is different from God's? Could it be the ark was bigger on the inside than it was on the outside? Through God all things are possible.[1]
- The existence of intermediate forms, and just such intermediate froms as the theory of evolution would predict, would again seem to be a blow to creationism. Most creationists deal with this by a flat denial that such forms exist. However the creationist Kurt Wise, who is, so far as we know, the world's only creationist paleontologist, does not have this option. Instead, he lives in hope that one day creationists will figure out a reason why God should have produced all these forms in the course of fiat creation, and why he should have produced just such forms as to fit the predictions of evolution rather than falsifying them. This you will recognize as another example of what we have called the "Mysterious Ways Excuse".
[edit] The Ad Hoc Miracle: Discussion
So as not to mislead the reader, we should emphasize that these excuses are not universal amongst the creationist movement. On the contrary, it is characteristic of creationists that although they all know what evidence they need to explain away, they are incapable of agreeing on one single set of excuses by which to do so. (See our main article on Creationist Arguments for further discussion of this phenomenon.)
However, the point remains. Creationists always, as a last resort, have the option of attributing to God motivations and miracles not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and of using these hypothetical miracles to explain away any evidence contrary to their dogma. Now, so long as they have this option, then creationism cannot be falsified.
Indeed, under these conditions, no proposition can be falsified. I cannot, for example, falsify the proposition that I have only one leg under such conditions: for it might be the case that God, for ineffable reasons of his own, is using his divine powers to make me think that I have two legs.
And the same might be said of the creationist excuses that we have listed above. We cannot deny that an omnipotent God could have used his powers to create the Earth 6,000 years ago but used the same powers to make it look older than that. Also, we cannot deny that an omnipotent God could have used his powers to create the Earth last Thursday and miraculously made it look older than that.
[edit] Conclusion
In conclusion, we can falsify the propositions that the Earth is young and looks young, or that fiat creation occured and that it looks as though evolution didn't happen. In the same way, I can falsify the proposition that I have only one leg and that it looks like I have only one leg: because it certainly looks like I have two legs.
But so long as creationists have the option of appealing to the ad hoc miracle and the Mysterious Ways excuse, creationism is not falsifiable, no matter how much evidence contradicts creationist beliefs --- because they can always explain away this contrary evidence by introducing another miracle, for which (by the nature of a miracle) they can produce no mechanism, and for which (because God moves in mysterious ways) they need produce no motivation.
By availing themselves of this sort of excuse, they put their beliefs outside of the scientific method.
