Evolution vs. Creation – Science An Induction Based Analysis Pradeeban Kathiravelu email@example.com KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. November 2014 Abstract — Evolution and Creation Science are two of the In the upcoming sections, we will further analyse the different models explaining the origin of life on Earth. Evolution models of origin with theories, examples, and analogies. is considered the scientific approach explaining the life on the Section II defines the scope of this paper. Section III is the planet, by the majority of the scientific community. However, principal section of the paper, where we discuss the scientific Creation-Science is not a stranger either, with a considerable number of followers, claiming it a science or not. In this paper, nature of the models using the multiple inductive approaches. we will discuss whether the creation-science is a genuine Section IV analyses the popular court cases regarding scientific alternative to evolution. This paper takes an induction creation-science and its scientific and legal status, based on based approach, without making much assumptions on the the events. There are even more models of origin, apart from validity of evolution or creation-science, in order to reach an these two. Section V looks at these models and related studies unbiased conclusion, based on the analysis. to these models of origin. Section VI looks at the criticism and support to creation-science in the popular contemporary Keywords – Creation-Science, Evolution, Induction, Origin, Models culture. Finally, section VII will drive us to the conclusion of of Origin, Problem of Induction, Game Theory, Evolutionary Game this paper. Theory. II. SCOPE I. INTRODUCTION Induction is an umbrella term, consists of multiple schools There are many models of origin that fail to impress the of thoughts. This paper discusses the evidence and validity of scientific community, because of their rigorous theological the two models of origin, under the scope of induction. tone. As it is impossible to reproduce the origin by simple Description and Justification are two major concerns of testable experiments, many pseudoscientific theories or claims principles of induction. The problem of justification is the lacking scientific backing, have also been proposed. necessity to show that the inferential methodology is reliable. Evolution is a model of origin, which is commonly The problem of description doesn't require us to show that the accepted as the scientific model. Evolution is the change in inferential practice is reliable. Rather, it merely requires us to the inherited characteristics in the living beings in the long describe their stance. Description is hard, because we can not term, as an adoption to the natural environmental conditions. describe everything that we do as a structured principled Evolutionists believe that all the living beings evolved from a description. This paper focuses on the principles of induction, single ancestor. Evolution is considered to follow a tree while quoting the writings of the philosophers such as Popper, model, where the current living beings are the leaves in the Lakatos, and Reichenbach, during the analysis. tree, still evolving. This tree model shows a timeline, where parents show the ancestors of the creatures in the A. WHY INDUCTION? contemporary Earth. Induction leads towards a general conclusion or theory, Creation-Science is considered a belief with a religious from the given specific examples or observations. Inductive background of Christians and Jews, advocating that the God reasoning is vital for creativity and immature sciences. Most created Earth and all the life on it – “sudden creation of the of the long term scientific processes are underdetermined. So universe, energy, and life from nothing” . Creationists is the origin of life. Inductive logic defines the probability of believe that the creation was a sudden and flat process, where occurrence based on the available total evidence . As more the God created all the plants and animals, as they are, in just evidences are found, the mathematical probability of the six days. Creation-Science is often referred to as, “Young theory becomes higher, which makes the theory qualify as Earth Creationism (YEC)”, as it claims Earth as young as scientific. from 5,700 to 10,000 years old. This is against the widely Unlike the deductive arguments which attempts to reach a accepted scientific age of the life in the planet, which is 3 – 4 logically certain conclusions, inductive reasoning seeks to billions of years. Creation-science is used as a tool by the supply a strong evidence. How probable is this event to religious community to dismiss the evolutionist thoughts. happen, is the question that induction attempts to answer. Because of the religious nature itself, creation-science is often Many of the research papers published by the academics disregarded from being considered anything scientific. frequently use inductive logic. Creativity involved in science is often induction. It lets us derive new theories with a high probability. As a revolutionary theory, evolution, from the III. INDUCTION BASED ANALYSIS beginning, involved lots of theories and derivations, inductive As Reichenbach mentions, “The principle of induction is in the nature. Creation-Science and the other alternatives too unreservedly accepted by the whole of science and that no follow the same model, due to the inherent man can seriously doubt this principle in everyday life either. underdetermination involved in the long life of the living ” Hence we have to adhere to the inductive reasoning for beings in Earth, where we are left with just a few evidences the solutions to the complicated problems of big or such as the fossils and also the limited observations in the complicated scale, which include a long time duration or a natural and controlled test environments. Hence, inductive huge space. We deduce the answers for questions such as the reasoning helps the models to derive theories based on the distance of the Sun, the shape of Earth, the origin of life in limited available information. Earth, as given the large probability of the correctness of B. FALSIFIABILITY existing physical, biological, chemical, and astronomical theories, we can base our explanations on them. Popper takes a strong approach towards defining demarcation criteria, which is science and which is non- A. INDUCTIVE LOGIC science or pseudoscience. He advocates against the inductive Lakatos takes a milder approach towards induction and the logic. “All the swans we have seen so far are white; hence all the potential demarcation criteria. According to Lakatos, the swans are white” is an incorrect use of induction. scientific theories evolve, as heuristics drive them to make Similarly, using “green leaves” as a potential supportive factor predictions which are supported by the evidence . to our theory of white swans is equally bad. We should also Considering the length and timeline of evolution (or the note the popular comment from Popper on Adler's alternative theories), the research on the model of origin is “thousandfold experience” - “And with this new case, I still a young field. Hence, we must treat these budding suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one fold. researches leniently. .” With time, the evidence for evolution is being found. While Popper elaborates that pseudosciences use induction to the rate of finding evidence for evolution is relatively slow generate and formulate theories, and seek experiments to compared to other established scientific theories, this can be support their theories . Popper claims falsifiability as the reasonable considering the time and space complexity of the only way of differentiating science from pseudoscience [3, 4]. problem. Nevertheless no strong evidence is found against If we take the word of Popper, it should be easy for us to evolution, making it stronger each day. Creationists could not dismiss creation-science from considered a science, as the provide any scientific evidence to support their claims intelligent creator or the God, can not be falsified or hence inductively. creation-science can never be refuted. By the believers, it should be taken as the unquestionable truth beyond any B. ROLES OF INDUCTION doubts. An inference is called inductive, if that passes from particular statements to universal statements. A typical C. ELIMINATION OF PSYCHOLOGISM example would be the formation of hypotheses or theories It is not important for us to consider that creation-science is from the observations of experiments. Popper defines the originally proposed based on the religion, with lack of Problem of Induction as the question whether inductive scientific background. Popper advocates that the origin of the inferences are justified, and under which conditions are they theory is irrelevant, where the position of the theory regarding justified. How many of the singular statements should be how the theory explains and predicts the things matters . monitored before considering the theory to be formulated or He claims, the initial stage, the act of conceiving a theory, is corroborated? When we take induction should work, as it has irrelevant to the logical analysis of the scientific knowledge; it worked previously, throughout the history of science, this is is the concern of empirical psychology. Focussing on “rational cyclic, as this is proving induction using inductive logic. reconstruction” to build the situation that lead the scientist Hence, in the strong sense, induction provides a milder towards the discovery is pointless, as many of the discoveries approach in proving something; it rather provides the were often the results of accidents or coincidence, than a probability of occurrence. Based on the limited observations, preplanned activity. we use induction to prove the validity and the probability of Evolution doesn't have to be superior to creation-science evolution or creation-science. for the scientific community, just because it was proposed by Induction plays two main roles, as a logic of discovery and scientists, not the priests. We shall restrict our analysis to how as a logic of justification. These two roles are well-defined evolution and creation-science explain the origin. How these with different focusses, in theory. However, in practice, the models were created or formulated and who proposed these distinction often gets tougher, as discoveries are ideally well models, is not our focus. Also for the research interest, we established, and whatever well-established is justified . shall limit ourself to induction, without paying much attention Now the question arises. How well evolution and creation- to deduction or other approaches. science score in terms of these roles? We will briefly look at these two roles of induction on the two models . 1) CREATIVE INFERENCE We can easily come to the decision that this can be better Creative inference is a logic of discovery, that formulates represented as a discrete model, than a continuous. new theories, from the evidence. What are the evidences? Evolutionists haven't found the fossils of the transitional “We do not know how the Creator created, [or] what forms, such as a transition between a reptile and a bird. Given processes He used, for He used processes which are not now more time, more fossils could be found. However, all the operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we fossils found, came as chunks. There is no clear transitional refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by form between a dinosaur and the contemporary living beings scientific investigation anything about the creative processes of the planet, though so many fossils have found so far. used by the Creator.” Duane T. Gish, a creationist has Creationists take the “missing links” as the major supporting elaborated . As from the creationists themselves, there is no factor for their theory. way to explain or elaborate the creation. Creationists Let's consider the below chain of evolution, depicting the themselves are unwilling to investigate this. Hence, creative human evolution. inference does not favour creation-science as a discovery. It Homo Habilis → Homo Ergaster → Homo Erectus → would be a mere belief, unless the required evidence is Homo Heidelbergensis → Homo Neanderthalensis → Homo Sapiens (modern human) provided. Charles Darwin was the first to provide the scientific argument for evolution as a natural selection, based on his Clearly, the above transition is not continuous, according to experiments and observations. However, he was not the first the fossils. In this transition of 3 million years, the fossils one to propose evolution. Observations and evidences let him discovered were all from the above discrete points. But, does formulate natural selection as the evolutionary mechanism. that imply that the evolution is not continuous? Probably not. We will analyse some of these observations deeply, in the Let's say, we find another fossil, which is of a transitional sub-section E. form between Homo Habilis and Homo Ergaster. For the ease of reference, scientists would probably categorize it as either 2) CONFIRMATION Homo Habilis or Homo Ergaster. If there is a considerable Confirmation is a logic of justification, which connects difference for the fossil to be qualified as a new transitional evidence to theories, after they have been formulated. Most of form, it will take its place (Let's name it, Homo Xyz) in the the philosophers of science consider induction as only a above evolution chain. confirmation. However, considering evidence as a Homo Habilis → Homo Xyz → Homo Ergaster → confirmation is often criticized too, due to the spurious Homo Erectus → Homo Heidelbergensis → relationships. Spurious relationship is when two events that do Homo Neanderthalensis → Homo Sapiens (modern not have direct causal relationship are mistakenly inferred as human) they do. This might be due to coincident, or probably due to another factor that is missed, ignored, or is just not considered The modified chain is depicted above, with the inclusion of in the experiment. Creationists and other pseudoscientists are Homo Xyz. However, does that make the transition criticized for using spurious relationships to support their continuous? Probably, not. It just has increased an element in claims. We will look further on this in the “Criticism and the previous discrete structure. In fact, the above case was a Support” section. real example, where a fossil of a 'missing link' between Homo Confirmation of evolution will further be discussed with Habilis and Homo Ergaster was found . Hence, it is not some of the observations that confirmed evolution, in the sub- feasible to argue based on the discrete/continuous models. sections D and E. Creationists confirm creation-science by Evolution is supposed to be a long term process of thousands using it to explain the wonders of nature that are not yet of years. Hence, we can not expect to see a man evolving sufficiently formulated in a scientific way. For example, why further, through our historical eyes of just a few tens of men stopped evolving, if evolution is real? Why evolution is hundreds of years. unobservable in the animals such as cats and dogs, for a long observable period in history? Because the God created D. EVOLUTIONARY GAME THEORY everything as they are. These observations confirm the Evolution occurs in land and sea, where some animals creation-science. This is often called as missing-links, where evolved from land to live in the sea, and vice versa. Limbs in the transitions are not seen. We will analyse this with the help whales is considered a confirmation of evolution, showing the of a discrete mathematical model below. former case . Scientists have developed evidence to short- term evolution, through experiments involving flies or beetles, C. DISCRETE MATHEMATICS AND EVOLUTION in a constrained laboratory environment, where they evolved Discrete mathematics is the study of the numbers and as predicted. Evolutionary Game Theory is developed as a mathematical structures that are not continuous. Graphs, theory to algorithmically derive the evolutionary stable integers, and logical statements take the discrete format, rather strategies . The observations of the experiments support the than following the continuous format of real numbers. Let's evolution in the species. take a deep look at the living beings of Earth, both on land and Sample controlled test environments with large and small on water. Which mathematical model do they fit? sized beetles in competition for the limited food source were created. Here the small beetles are the beetles of their natural Expected payoff: size, where the large beetles are the same beetles that are To a small beetle = 5.x + 1.(1 – x) = 1 + 4x genetically mutated to have a larger size. In a mixed To a large beetle = 8.x + 3.(1 – x) = 3 + 5x environment, when a large beetle competes with the small, the large always wins the major share of the food source, leaving 3 + 5 x > 1 + 4 x the small a very little quantity of food. When the same sized beetles compete, they always share the same amount of For small enough x, large beetles' fitness is higher, hence benefit from the food source. However, due to the size of the 'large' is evolutionarily stable. That means, introducing some big beetles, the nutrients they receive from the same food small beetles into the colony will not disturb its equilibrium or source is much lower than that for the smaller beetles, when the inhabitants (large beetles) of the colony. two same-sized beetles have to share the food source. In this In the above equation, we can also notice that even for way, the bigger beetles have an inherent disadvantage, larger value of x, large beetles' fitness is higher. Hence, regardless of their obvious advantage over the small beetles in introduction of large beetles to a colony of small beetles will the competition. put the large ones in an evolutionarily advantageous situation. We can depict the above scenario in a table, showing the Introducing small beetles to a colony of large beetles will lead benefit they receive from the same source of food, upon the small beetles to starvation, regardless of how many beetles competing with each other. The numerical representation of are introduced. From the above two cases, we can come to the the benefit received by the beetles, from the experiments and conclusion, which would later be supported by further approximations, makes the model as close as possible to the observations, that genetically mutated beetles to become observations, to test the evolutionarily stable strategies. larger in size as above, are evolutionarily stable, than their Beetle 2 smaller colleagues, which are natural and unaltered. Small Large E. INDUCTIVE REASONING The evidence supports this evolutionary prediction and Beetle 1 Small 5, 5 1, 8 evolutionary game theory on which of the species will Large 8, 1 3, 3 survive, when new species (such as a genetically modified Table 1: The Body-Size Game for food bugs, which are bigger in size) are introduced into the colony of an existing species (the bug in its original size, without Case 1 – Introducing 'large' into a colony of 'small': genetic intervention). First let's consider introducing a few large beetles into a The above Body-Size game is also observed in many other colony of small beetles, making the population of beetles to cases, to support evolution. One is the survival of the long- have a probability of 'x' to be large (and hence, '1-x' to be necked giraffes where the short-necked giraffes eventually small). disappeared due to the scarcity of food, as the long-neck was evolutionarily stable in the body-size game. Similarly, two Expected payoff: To a small beetle during a random encounter = trees in proximity tend to grow taller to grab as much as sun 5 * probability of meeting another light possible, in the competition for light. Though shorter tree small + 1 * probability of meeting a is in an advantage as it doesn't need much energy to have a large = sustainable life, it will be overshadowed by the taller tree. 5 (1 – x ) + 1. x = 5 – 4x. Hence the requirement to grow taller arise. The best case would be both trees remaining short. But as with the case To a large beetle in a random encounter = study of beetles, given the mixture of both short and tall trees, 8 * probability of meeting a small + 3 * meeting a large = taller trees are highly likely to sustain. 8 * (1 – x) + 3 . x = 8 – 5x. Evolution could even be noticed in the natural habitats such as the change of colour of peppered moths in many parts of For a small enough fraction of x (x << 1), Britain. Moths became black, following the industrial 8 – 5 x > 5 – 4 x (since 8 > 5) revolution. This was due to the change of the colour of the tree trunk, branches, and leaves from white to black, as they For a small enough value of x, the fitness of a large beetle were covered by soot, following the industrial revolution. This exceeds that of a small. Hence, 'small' is not evolutionarily gave a competitive advantage to the black coloured moths, stable. That means, introducing a few large beetles into the while the white ones fell prey to the predators. However, as colony will disturb its equilibrium, against the inhabitants the stains and soot of industrial revolution is long gone, the (small beetles) of the colony. number of white moths are noticed to be on the rise, with a Case 2 – Introducing 'small' into a colony of 'large': considerable downfall in the count of the black moths Conducting the experiment in a colony of large beetles to recently. This shows that the nature has reverted itself to its see whether large is evolutionary stable, by introducing a few original state, after the few decades of post-industrial small beetles in the colony, making the population to have x revolution . Similar examples are used to elaborate the factor of small beetles. evolution in the natural habitats. Given the proof and evidence of evolution in the controlled This is an attempt towards using induction as a tool, to laboratory environments as well as the observations in the question the scientific beliefs. It is a form of conservative natural habitats, evolutionists use induction to show that induction – “Science has been wrong in multiple times. It will evolution occurs with a very high probability, in all the living be wrong again”. “Earlier, scientists claimed that Earth is flat beings, and the fittest survives adhering the natural selection and they were wrong, and now they are claiming it is model. Patterns recognized and recorded from the fossils are spherical, which will be wrong too.” This is often an argument used to infer that we all are from a common ancestor. from analogy. Since all the living beings are proven to follow the natural 3. Subjective nature of science selection and the Darwinian evolution, any living being to be As Kuhn pointed out, science is mostly subjective. Politics, found in the future too will follow the same principles, Gender bias, nepotism, religious and racial bias are presence following the statistical syllogism. The unobserved part of the in the scientific community. Creationists tend to use these nature looks like the observed part of the nature , as of the gaps for their advantage. They try to position creation-science idea of uniformity. Many phenomena of the nature are derived as a scientific alternative to evolution, and depict evolutionists from this idea. While evolution uses this idea to reason out the as having subjective opinions, hence demanding equal unobservable history or the far future, creationists could not treatment for evolution-science and creation-science. get much use of this, as for creationists, the creation itself is 4. Divine Intervention never observable. Nevertheless, without much scientific If something can not be explained, that could be explained theories or observations to back, creationists too inductively by a divine intervention. Creationists tend to use the principle reason out creation-science as the model of origin in the same of revolutionary induction (as opposed to the case discussed in grounds. All the known living beings were created by the (2) above), whenever scientists were able to provide scientific God. If a new one is found, it must have been created by the reasoning for the wonders of the world. Science was able to God too. explain a few things correct; but this time it will fail. The past success merely makes an event highly likely; it doesn't make F. CREATIONISTS' LOGIC it always successful. Concerned with the increasing number of such evidences Can evolution finely explain why a few frogs such as the for evolution being found, creationists tend to add some ad South-American false-eyed frog could turn to show their hoc assumptions to the creationist theories, agreeing with backside, while changing their colours to resemble a bigger evolution to some extend as a defence. Creationists have face, when threatened by their predators? This clever mentioned that “the God allows minor changes among the approach saves the frog's life. Why the other frogs could not species; That means, short-term natural evolution among achieve this mastery? If evolution is real, all the frogs or at existing living beings is possible, without the intervention of least those similar to these frogs or those who live in a close the God. Nevertheless, it is never possible for the nature to proximity to these frogs, should possess this ability. Can turn a dog into a cat, or a monkey into a man. The initial evolution perfectly explain the anatomy of the worker bees? creation was not from the evolution itself.” There are a huge number of complicated creatures that are not Countering this argument using observable nature is completely explained by the theory of natural selection. They impossible, as evolution itself is a long term process. In can be easily explained by the creation-science – by the divine Popper's terminology, this ad hoc assumption makes it intervention. impossible to refute creation-science further, as short-term 5. Flood Geology evolution is the only observable evolution, and the long term Flood Geology, often criticized as a pseudoscience, evolution is mostly deduced with inductive logic, from fossils, describes the process where God uses flood as a mean of de- where creationists tend to explain that the fossils are indeed creation and re-creation. Flood Geology myth is used by the not old, but are due to the flood created by the God to destroy Young Earth Creationists to “explain” the fossils. and create the life in the planet. 6. Using outdated information Young Earth Creationism is the pure form of creation- Science is progressive. Darwin's model was not so close to science, which conflicts and disagrees with almost all the perfect. It was immature. Many theories have been derived in scientific findings and principles, by claiming the planet and the study of natural selection, at the early days using its life is just around 6000 years. How do they prove their induction, as it was not mature enough to come up with theories? Generally, they do not prove; rather they try to find deductive explanations or deduction based theories. However, faults with the modern science. evolution-science has improved a lot lately, from many other 1. Quote Mining contributions. Scientists often disagree upon different theories. If a Similarly, during the formulation of Darwin's natural scientist disagrees with natural selection, that doesn't make selection theory, those who were of different opinions from him a de-facto creationist. Rather, he may be trying to deduce Darwinian evolutionists, used induction to come up with another competing theory. Creationists tend to use parts of the alternative ideas and solutions. However, Darwinian quotes from scientists out of context, to show that the Evolution and the theory of natural selection have evolved evolution-science is challenged by the scientific community. into a matured science, lately. Quoting the outdated science 2. Science has been wrong before and claiming to have found faults with them doesn't make V. RELATED STUDIES creation-science any better, or bring it closer to be a science. Many other theories have also been proposed, as Evolution is a long term process. Similarly, creation is a alternatives to evolution and creation-science. Some of them one-time process, according to the creationists. Since creation are of theological nature, whilst the others try to be scientific, can not be reproduced by humans, without the intervention of while lacking the evidences and principals to claim the the God or the intelligent designer, it can not be justified or scientific status. falsified by experiments. Creationists tend to use this as an evidence of absence. “Dragons are green” is a good analogy to A. NON-THEISTIC THEORIES say that the world was created by an intelligent agent using N. C. Wickramasinghe and F. Hoyle claim that life indeed methods that can not be formulated, reproduced, or came from outer space, brought by comets from space to understood by humans. Humans can indeed not be able to Earth . Unlike Creation-Science, their thoughts are not of recreate life in a planet. At least, not in the foreseeable future. religious background, and hence could be considered a serious Since the dragons are absent, the theory is inevitably true. alternative to evolution, given supportive evidences to their Quoting the theoretical physicist Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, on the theory are found. theories or theses that do not belong within the realm of Revolution Theory is a belief that claims that creation of science as they are untestable or unevaluatable, “Not only is it the universe and the living beings is better explained by a not right, it’s not even wrong! ”. revolutionary process, that involves a collection of infinite Interestingly, creationists tend to use induction and the number of revolutions . However, there is no further scientific models such as hypothetico-inductive model to research is done to back this claim. This is just a proposal disprove other theological models of origin and evolution. But without any credibility. the problem with their approach is, they consider the Bible as a scientific literature, and take it literally, hence rejecting B. THEISTIC THEORIES anything that contradicts with the Bible as false. Theological beliefs as the models of origin have no For example, creationists disprove the fact that Earth is old, scientific credibility whatsoever, as we have discussed so far. using the below 'scientific facts' . None of these is superior to other, though they contradict and 1. It will be difficult to map six Genesis days. If Earth is support each other in multiple different factors. Having old, evolution should be true. But evolution is not evolution and creation-science (young age creationism) as the true. God created everything. So Earth and its life two ends of the spectrum, multiple theories have been formed, can not be old. trying to explain the origin. Even though inductive models are 2. According to the Bible, no death before the first sin considered over-permissive, using multiple theories of of the man. If Earth was old, there was no death induction, the theories given below can be proven before Adam committed the sin. It is not probable. pseudoscience. These statements are cyclic – similar to Popper's comment “Theistic evolution” is essentially an evolutionary theory, on induction, “Using induction to prove induction.” They tend “with the guidance of the God”. Hence its corroboration to prove creation-science a science, using induction and other depends on evolution. It is favoured by neither evolutionists models, using the Bible as a reference. nor creationists, as this tends to take a compatibilistic approach. When evolution explains itself, why do we need a IV. LEGAL STATUS OF CREATION-SCIENCE supernatural creator? This is the major criticism against the Young Earth Creationists consider the Bible accurate and theistic evolution from the evolutionists (can be called as non- factually perfect. Creationists have even attempted to theistic evolutionists, to be clearer. However, it should be manipulate the state laws to achieve scientific status, such that clear even without mentioning non-theistic). The inclusion of it can be taught in public schools as an alternative scientific the God into the already established evolutionary theory is theory to evolution. While it is common for any theist to have considered an Occam's razor , as the hypothesis should be faith on his religious book, mere belief of masses doesn't explained by the fewest assumptions possible. qualify a religious belief as a science. Theological Evolutionists explain the gaps in the scientific Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution- knowledge, the immature scientific theories, the theories that Science Act (Act 590), is an act made in Arkansas which aren't formulated completely yet, using the intervention of the mandated the teaching of creation-science in the public God. “If something can not be explained by science, it must schools. Parents and several other organizations found this have been done by the intelligent creator – the God”. This unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the point of view of science and God is considered “God of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In this gaps”. However, such inclusion of the God into science is an popular McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. “argument from ignorance” – “The proposition is true, as it Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982) case of year 1981, hasn't been proven false yet”. Progressive Creationism is a Judge William Overton gave a clear demarcation criteria of similar belief, that God, the intelligent creator allows natural science, and concluded that creation-science is not a science selection and some other natural processes such as gene . mutation. Old Earth Creationism believes that Earth and its life are evidence to the spherical model of the planet, their arguments indeed old. Hence, their thought is compatible with the are often of the theological ground, and dogmas along the scientific age of the planet. Day-age creationism is a type of same lines of creation-science, with a religious bias. The Flat old Earth creationism. The day-age creationists believe that Earth Society doesn't consider the scientific evidences in though the God created the universe in six days, those 6 days favour of a round planet. are not the regular days composed of 24 hours. Rather they are Several similar theories could be developed or longer periods such as a million years. corroborated, based on inductive measures. Demon theory of After the creation-science was rejected its scientific status disease (demons bring us disease; not the germs. Hence, by law and many scholars, attempts were made to create a prayers heal) as an alternative for germ theory of disease, is new theory supposed to be free from its religious background another example. These theories are often started as a to appear scientific. Creationists thus formed the Intelligent superstitious dogmas, and eventually the followers even try to Design theory, with almost the same concepts, with the use the scientific models, or models such as inductive intelligent design of the creator as the model of origin. reasoning to portray them as science, demanding equal weight for them in the science education for the young students, to let VI. CRITICISM TO CREATIONISM them decide. Critics often use fabricated theories such as the Creation-science and the other pseudoscientific beliefs of demon theory of disease, and the theory of the stork as creation are often criticized and mocked by the contemporary parodies, to criticize the demand of equal weight to scholars and the community. Analogies are used to depict how creationism in the scientific education. the theological beliefs are non-scientific. Parody religions are developed with the intention to mock the theological beliefs. Church of the Flying Spaghetti A. SPURIOUS RELATIONSHIPS Monster is a belief that a Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) The theory of the stork , originated from a story told to created the world . This is a parody religion, mocking the the children by their parents, “When a married couple pray the biblical belief of creationism. Invisible Pink Unicorn  is God for a baby, the God sends a stork to place a baby inside another such parody from atheists, where the unicorn is a pink the mom's womb.” Some religious fanatics have extended this goddess and at the same time invisible, hence making it story a bit more, “If an unmarried couple have sex, the stork impossible to refute the claim, letting it be true always. will get confused and will place someone else's baby into the Similarly, Intelligent Falling, a pseudoscientific belief that woman's womb. Hence, they are stealing someone else's baby falling objects are not falling because of gravity, rather by the by having intercourse before the marriage.” God's decision – an intelligent force, is a parody to the The above story, which was later titled, “The Theory of the intelligent design movement. Interestingly, these parodies rely Stork (ThoS)” was proposed as a scientific alternative to the on the same logic that are used by the creationists to defend theory of sexual reproduction (ThoSR) by Höfer et al., as a their beliefs. research paper , as an attempt to show how scientific endorsement could be reached based on the popular dogmatic VII. CONCLUSION beliefs along with the support of low quality references and Evolution-scientists have elaborated and reproduced the coincidental statistical references. This is a well-cited example evolutionary behaviour of the test animals in a controlled for a spurious relationship. Here the number of babies born environment. However, creation-scientists fail to provide such outside the hospitals increased, with the population of storks. solution to the problem of justification, except following the Results providing a positive correlation between the number dogma. of storks, and the birth rate, were published, giving scientific This induction based analysis points out that evolution evidence to the theory of the Stork . This is referred to as could be considered a valid science where creation-science is “Scientific Storkism,” to parody creationism and intelligent not really a science, though it tries to justify itself by design. criticizing evolution based on potential facts or observations, Most of the theories such as the ThoS are often initially such as missing links, along with a few supportive claims, taken the form of Lie-to-Children. “Children” here refers to mostly using the evidence of absence. The evolution-science anyone without much prior knowledge of scientific or the itself is young and weak, regardless of its general approval. relevant domain specific expertise adequate enough to However, alternative scientific theories to evolution are still comprehend the complex explanation involved. The lacking. Existing alternatives are either with religious and motivation for such stories and depictions is to converge the political motivation, or are without proper evidence to be otherwise incommensurable worlds together, by explaining considered a scientific theory. At the same time, we should the concepts or rather educating others in a simpler term using not fall prey to the false dilemma. It is not just creation- a metaphor or analogy, without really going into details. science, evolution, and the theories along the spectrum. If the currently accepted evolution is refuted, or is proven B. DOGMAS AND PARODIES insufficient or weak to explain the origin, further studies Movements such as the Flat Earth Society are strong in should be made to rectify this and make a paradigm shift on their beliefs, claiming Earth is indeed flat, and the current this. spherical model is just a lie . Given the amount of While evolution can be described by induction and the  Duane T. Gish, “Evolution – The Fossils Say No!”  Martin, Daniel, “Scientists discover 'missing link between man and other theories and models such as evolutionary game theory, apes'” April 2010. [Online] Available: creation-science is beyond description. It rather conflicts with http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1263488/Missing-link- anything that goes against the Bible, not only evolution, but evolutionary-chain-resolved-new-species-discovered-cradle-humanity.html also a considerable number of theories in the fields of physics, Retrieved on: 6th of October, 2013.  Bejder, Lars, and Brian K. Hall. "Limbs in whales and limblessness in chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, and many others. other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental This paper has analysed the scientific status of the creation- transformation and loss." Evolution & development 4.6 (2002): 445-458. science and evolution based on inductive theories. While we  Easley, David., Kleinberg, Jon, “Networks, Crowds, and Markets: can conclude that evolution-science can be considered a Reasoning about a Highly Connected World,” Cambridge University Press, 2010: 209 – 225. genuine science, and the creation-science lacks scientific  James Tozer, "Darwin's 'evolution' moth changes back from black to credibility, this research doesn't necessarily prove that white thanks to soot-free skies," Mail Online, June 2009. [Online] Available: creation-science is wrong. It just focusses on the scientific http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1194281/Darwins-evolution- aspects of the studies concerned. The validity based on moth-changes-black-white-thanks-soot-free-skies.html Retrieved on: 12th of October, 2013. theological beliefs are beyond the concern of science, as well  Peter Lipton, “Induction”. as the scope of this research paper.  Wolfgang Pauli: The Truth Of Science And The Phrase “It's Not Even Wrong” Decemeber 2010. Cambridge Forecast Group Blog. [Online] VIII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Available: http://cambridgeforecast.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/wolfgang- pauli-the-truth-of-science-and-the-phrase-its-not-even-weong/ Retrieved on: The Philosophy of Science module we had at KTH 12th of October, 2013. provided me the preliminary knowledge that made this paper a  Browning, Jason; “The Age of the Earth and the Universe,” 1998 reality. The author would like to thank Prof. Magnus Boman [Online] Available: http://www.bestbiblescience.org/agetalk/sld001.htm for conducting the class and providing constructive feedbacks Retrieved on: 6th of October, 2013.  N. C. Wickramasinghe and F.Hoyle,“Evolution of Life: A Cosmic on this research and the paper. Perspective” [Online] Available: http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/wick_hoyle.html Retrieved on: 3rd of October, 2013. REFERENCES  “The Revolution Theory of Creation” The Revolution Institute, [Online] Available: http://www.revolutiontheory.org/ Retrieved on: 8th of  "McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education – Decision by U.S. District October, 2013. Court Judge William R. Overton". Dated this January 5, 1982. Transcribed by  W. M. Thorburn, "Occam's razor", Mind, 24, pp. 287—288, 1915. Clark Dorman. Last Update: January 30, 1996. [Online] Available:  Höfer, Thomas; Hildegard Przyrembel and Silvia Verleger (2004). http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html Retrieved On: 12th "New evidence for the Theory of the Stork". Paediatric and Perinatal of October, 2013. Epidemiology 18 (1): 18–22. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3016.2003.00534.x  Imre Lakatos, “Science and Pseudoscience,” Philosophical Papers, Vol  The Flat Earth Society. [Online] Available: 1. Cambridge University Press, 1977. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php Retrieved on : 12th of  Popper, Karl. "Science: Conjectures and refutations." (1980): pp-33. October, 2013.  Popper, Karl. "The problem of induction." Popper selections (1985):  Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. [Online] Available: 101-117. http://www.venganza.org/ Retrieved on: 8th of October, 2013.  Carl R. Kordig, “Discovery and Justification” Philosophy of Science  The Invisible Pink Unicorn and atheism. [Online] Available: Vol. 45, No. 1 (Mar., 1978), pp. 110-117 Published by: The University of http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/Home/About Retrieved on: 8th of Chicago Press. [Online] Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/186901 October, 2013. Retrieved on: 8th October, 2013.