Evolution vs Creation Science - An Induction Based Analysis.pdf by pradeeban


More Info
									                         Evolution vs. Creation – Science
                                             An Induction Based Analysis
                                                      Pradeeban Kathiravelu
                                     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.
                                                                                                  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” [1]. 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 [2]. 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            [4]” 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 [2].
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.
[3].”                                                                     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 [4]. 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
                                                                      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 [4].          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 [5].
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 [6]. 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)
   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 [7]. 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 [8]. 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 [9]. 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 [10]. 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 [11], 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 [14]. 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! [12]”.                                revolutionary process, that involves a collection of infinite
   Interestingly, creationists tend to use induction and the          number of revolutions [15]. 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' [13].                              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 [16], 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
[1].                                                                  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 [17], originated from a story told to    created the world [19]. 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 [20] 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 [17], 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 [17]. 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 [18]. Given the amount of
   While evolution can be described by induction and the                      [6]    Duane T. Gish, “Evolution – The Fossils Say No!”
                                                                              [7]    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.
                                                                              [8]    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                   [9]    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                    [10] 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                [11] Peter Lipton, “Induction”.
as the scope of this research paper.                                          [12] 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                  [13] 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.
                                                                              [14] 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                                       [15] “The Revolution Theory of Creation” The Revolution Institute,
                                                                              [Online] Available: http://www.revolutiontheory.org/ Retrieved on: 8th of
[1]    "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
                                                                              [16] W. M. Thorburn, "Occam's razor", Mind, 24, pp. 287—288, 1915.
Clark Dorman. Last Update: January 30, 1996. [Online] Available:
                                                                              [17] 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
[2]    Imre Lakatos, “Science and Pseudoscience,” Philosophical Papers, Vol
                                                                              [18] The          Flat      Earth       Society.      [Online]     Available:
1. Cambridge University Press, 1977.
                                                                              http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php Retrieved on : 12th of
[3]    Popper, Karl. "Science: Conjectures and refutations." (1980): pp-33.
                                                                              October, 2013.
[4]    Popper, Karl. "The problem of induction." Popper selections (1985):
                                                                              [19] Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. [Online] Available:
                                                                              http://www.venganza.org/ Retrieved on: 8th of October, 2013.
[5]    Carl R. Kordig, “Discovery and Justification” Philosophy of Science
                                                                              [20] 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.

To top