Creation, science and false comparison

The creation/evolution debate is as hot as ever these days. All too often during the course of these discussions/rants, I see things that are not comparable being compared. The most annoying is when debates are framed in terms of Creationism versus science. Science being process of progressing from observation to understanding via concrete, reproducible steps (observe->theorize->experiment->revise->repeat). Creationism is an explanation of the beginnings of the universe in which we live. Science is not at odds with Creationism. It’s an apples and oranges comparison. One is an explanation, the other is a process.

Have other people noticed this?

  1. Science is basically in the business of creating and testing explanations, or hypotheses, for physical phenomena. Creationism doesn’t seem to represent a scientifically useful hypothesis, however, which is why scientific interest tends to run from disinterest to antipathetic outrage.

    I don’t really think the two ideas are strictly opposed, though there’s a long history of friction between religious belief and scientific inquiry. (How much of that has to do with scientific inquirers seeking refuge from religion in scientific proof, I’m not sure!) That’s mostly because I think Creationism belongs properly in the realm of philosophical/religious thought and doesn’t really answer the same question as, e. g., Big Bang theory.

  2. I’ve noticed problems with this as well, and it’s tiring. Too many people of all backgrounds are more than willing to turn the discussion into a confrontational headache.

    Both parties usually wind up talking past each other, and any hope at useful dialog ends badly.

    When I reflect on it, I have discussions that end that way quite a lot. I’m probably part of the problem.

Leave a Comment

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>