4.3 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creation science | 3/8 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T09:18:20.205476+00:00 | kb-cron |
Sudden creation of the universe, and, in particular, life, from nothing; The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; Changes only with fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; Separate ancestry for man and apes; Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of worldwide flood; and A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds." This legislation was examined in McLean v. Arkansas, and the ruling handed down on January 5, 1982, concluded that creation-science as defined in the act "is simply not science". The judgement defined the following as essential characteristics of science:
It is guided by natural law; It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law; It is testable against the empirical world; Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and It is falsifiable. The court ruled that creation science failed to meet these essential characteristics and identified specific reasons. After examining the key concepts from creation science, the court found:
Sudden creation "from nothing" calls upon a supernatural intervention, not natural law, and is neither testable nor falsifiable Objections in creation science that mutation and natural selection are insufficient to explain common origins was an incomplete negative generalization 'Kinds' are not scientific classifications, and creation science's claims of an outer limit to the evolutionary change possible of species are not explained scientifically or by natural law The separate ancestry of man and apes is an assertion rather than a scientific explanation, and did not derive from any scientific fact or theory Catastrophism, including its identification of the worldwide flood, failed as a science "Relatively recent inception" was the product of religious readings and had no scientific meaning, and was neither the product of, nor explainable by, natural law; nor is it tentative The court further noted that no recognized scientific journal had published any article espousing the creation science theory as described in the Arkansas law, and stated that the testimony presented by defense attributing the absence to censorship was not credible. In its ruling, the court wrote that for any theory to qualify as scientific, the theory must be tentative, and open to revision or abandonment as new facts come to light. It wrote that any methodology which begins with an immutable conclusion that cannot be revised or rejected, regardless of the evidence, is not a scientific theory. The court found that creation science does not culminate in conclusions formed from scientific inquiry, but instead begins with the conclusion, one taken from a literal wording of the Book of Genesis, and seeks only scientific evidence to support it. The law in Arkansas adopted the same two-model approach as that put forward by the Institute for Creation Research, one allowing only two possible explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Scientific evidence that failed to support the theory of evolution was posed as necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism, but in its judgment the court ruled this approach to be no more than a "contrived dualism which has not scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose." The judge concluded that "Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact," and that it violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The decision was not appealed to a higher court, but had a powerful influence on subsequent rulings. Louisiana's 1982 Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act, authored by State Senator Bill P. Keith, judged in the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, and was handed a similar ruling. It found the law to require the balanced teaching of creation science with evolution had a particular religious purpose and was therefore unconstitutional.