Creation science

Creation science is the attempt to find scientific evidence that would justify or rationalize a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation. There are variants of creation science which draw on other religious texts.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the term "creation science" is a misnomer. Scientists criticize creation science as a pseudoscience that does not conform to the scientific method since creation science does not attempt to propose or test any mechanisms by which creation could occur.

Most of the published material advocating creation science consists of criticisms of the data that support evolution or geology. This work is normally published in specialized periodicals established by religious organisations.

When the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in 1975, in the case Daniel v. Waters, that teaching creationism in United States public schools was unconstitutional, various states introduced legislation defining "creation science" and requiring that it be taught alongside evolution. McLean v. Arkansas concluded that this was also unconstitutional, and that "creation-science" is simply not science. Some Creationists subsequently changed the name to intelligent design.

Beliefs and activities

Most creation science proponents hold fundamentalist or evangelical Christian beliefs in biblical literalism or biblical inerrancy, as opposed to the higher criticism supported by Liberal Christianity in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy. However, there are also examples of Islamic creationism and members of other religious communities which exhibit similar attitudes.

There are two main branches of creationism, one starting with a belief in an old earth and the other starting with a belief in a young earth. Historical scientists, or natural philosophers, such as Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, may be described as holding Old Earth creationist views. The Old Earth creationist view is compatible with standard scientific models of a very old universe. In contrast, the relatively recent Young Earth Creationist view holds the age of the universe to be approximately six thousand years.

Creation science rejects the common descent of all life through evolution. Instead, it asserts that evolutionary biology is itself pseudoscientific or even a religion and argues in favor of creation biology.

Creation science also rejects the science of geology as it uses uniformitarianism, which is the concept that processes occurring in the present have operated in the past and will continue in the future. As a result, explanations of gradual processes, such as mountain building by colliding plates, are discarded by creationists in favor of catastrophism, which asserts that occasional cataclysms formed geological features such as mountains and valleys. Through study of such features, they attempt to infer the effects of flood geology based on their belief in the historical accuracy of Genesis.

Sometimes creation scientists attack other scientific concepts, like the big bang cosmological model or models of radioactive decay. The Young Earth Creationist branch of the creation scientists may also reject current estimates of the age of the universe, arguing for creationist cosmologies with ages much less than the standard scientifically-accepted ages.

When the ideas encompassed by creation science are subjected to the scrutiny of scientific criticism or peer-review, they are found to be lacking in scientific foundation, objective criticism of evidence, and scientific reasoning and method. The science community does not take creation science seriously for these and other reasons.

Some creation science advocates have spent many years arguing for the inclusion of creation science in the science curriculum of U.S. public schools. However, in 1987 in the case Edwards v. Aguillard the Supreme Court of the United States held that a requirement that public schools teach creation science alongside evolution as an alternative theory violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

History and organization

Main article: history of creationism

The doctrine of creation is a fundamental and ancient precept of many faiths including Christianity. The vast majority of Christian Church Fathers and Protestant Reformers accepted a literal interpretation of Genesis, and even the few who did not, such as Origen and Augustine, defended an earth that was on the order of thousands of years old. An understanding of Genesis, literal or otherwise, requires the harmonisation of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25. Some interpretation is required to resolve inconsistencies in the text.[1][2]. A literal interpretation of Genesis cannot be considered to be the Christian consensus. According to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, world leader of Anglicans: "[for] most of the history of Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time. "

The widening of literacy associated with the Protestant Reformation brought a more literal way of thinking about creation. At the same time a new interest in natural history found that there were far more species of organisms than had been anticipated, and findings in geology directly contradicted the Biblical timeframe for the age of the Earth as detailed for instance in the Ussher chronology. From the late seventeenth century through to the mid nineteenth century natural theology increasingly popularized the concept that Christian faith should be based on what can be rationally demonstrated, and the study of nature should reveal the intelligence, benevolence, and power of God. In a complex and lively debate between various viewpoints including deism and materialism, several of the ideas put forward to explain the discoveries anticipated modern creationist arguments. For example, catastrophism attempted to reconcile geological findings with the Biblical flood.

Various ideas of transmutation of species were put forward, and though they conflicted with the doctrine of fixity of species (now known as "special creation") and were harshly condemned as a threat to the aristocratic social order and the established Church of England, by the 1840s they had wide public acceptance and were favored by liberal theologians, Unitarians and some Dissenters as well as by Freethinkers and atheists. When the eminent scientist Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859 this work of natural theology won over the scientific establishment, and by the 1900s evolution through descent with modification was widely accepted as the unifying principle of biological development.

Twentieth century creationism

Teaching of evolution was introduced in public schools in the United States, but in the aftermath of the First World War the growth of fundamentalist Christianity led to the creationist movement successfully prohibiting such teaching with legislation such as the Butler Act of 1925. When the 1957 Sputnik raised concerns, the National Defense Education Act introduced new programs including the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study starting in 1959 which introduced up-to-date textbooks teaching evolution as the foundation of biological science. These were used in almost half of high schools, though the prohibitions were still in place and a 1961 attempt to repeal the Butler Act failed.

Creation science (dubbed Scientific Creationism at the time) emerged as an organized movement during the 1960s. Some consider the first serious creation science writer to be Canadian George McCready Price who wrote several books, most notably The New Geology of 1923, which attempted to contradict mainstream geological understandings of timeframes and geologic history, and was cited at the Scopes Trial of 1925. His views did not become common among creationists at the time, but were revived with the 1961 publication of The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb. Subsequently, advocates of creation science expanded their critiques into biology and cosmology, and sought to have the subject taught in United States public schools.

Legal definition, creation science found not to be science

The various state laws prohibiting teaching of evolution were challenged in 1968 at Epperson v. Arkansas which ruled that they were unconstitutional, and the creationist movement turned to promoting creation science as equal to evolutionary theory. In 1981 Arkansas Act 590 mandated that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution. Creation science was defined as follows:

"Creation science means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those evidences. Creation science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:

1. Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing.
2. The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism.
3. Changes only with fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals.
4. Separate ancestry for man and apes.
5. Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of worldwide flood.
6. 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 above "is simply not science". The judgement defined the essential characteristics of science as being:

1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
5. It is falsifiable.

and found that "creation science" failed to meet these essential characteristics for the following reasons.

1. Sudden creation "from nothing" is not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law, is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable.
2. "insufficiency of mutation and natural selection" is an incomplete negative generalization.
3. "changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds" fails as there is no scientific definition of "kinds", the assertion appears to be an effort to establish outer limits of changes within species but there is no scientific explanation for these limits which is guided by natural law and the limitations, whatever they are, cannot be explained by natural law.
4. "separate ancestry of man and apes" is a bald assertion which explains nothing and refers to no scientific fact or theory.
5. Catastrophism and any kind of Genesis Flood depend upon supernatural intervention, and cannot be explained by natural law.
6. "Relatively recent inception" has no scientific meaning, is not the product of natural law; not explainable by natural law; nor is it tentative.
7. No recognized scientific journal has published an article espousing the creation science theory as described in the Act, and though some witnesses suggested that the scientific community was "close-minded" and so had not accepted the arguments, no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused, and suggestions of censorship were not credible.
8. A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist, and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory.
9. While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation. The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in [the Act] Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it.

The Act took a two-model approach to teaching identical to the approach put forward by the Institute for Creation Research, which assumes only two 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. Creationists take this to mean that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism. The judgement found this to be simply a contrived dualism which has no 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. In 1982 Louisiana passed a "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction" Act, and the Supreme Court found that it also violated the First amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987.

Creation science renamed as intelligent design

In 1984 Dean H. Kenyon had presented an affidavit for what became Edwards v. Aguillard, giving the definition that "Creation-science means origin through abrupt appearance in complex form, and includes biological creation, biochemical creation (or chemical creation), and cosmic creation.", "Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts."

Immediately after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, drafts of the creation science school textbook Of Pandas and People written by Kenyon and Percival Davis were revised to change all references to "creation" to relate to "intelligent design", and when this was published in 1989 it included the definition that "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." This introduced intelligent design in all its essentials, and its publisher the Foundation for Thought and Ethics launched extensive campaigning by a movement promoting intelligent design. In the mid 1990s the movement was further developed under the leadership of the Discovery Institute, and attracted more creation science adherents to support the teaching of intelligent design under its 'big tent' strategy. The allied Teach the Controversy campaign claims that intelligent design is on par with the scientific theory of evolution and therefore that both should be taught in schools as equally worthy of consideration.

Creation science is distinguished from Neo-Creationism, which is largely associated with the intelligent design movement, in that most advocates of Creation science accept scripture as a foundation for their claims with their primary goal being to the validation of scripture as historical fact through the use of science. Neo-Creationism eschews references to scripture altogether from its polemics and stated goals as a matter of principle (see Wedge strategy). By so doing, intelligent design proponents hope to succeed where creation science has failed in securing a place in public school science curriculum. Carefully avoiding any reference to the identity of the intelligent designer as God in their public arguments, intelligent design proponents believe that their movement will return a version of creationism back to science classrooms without violating the First Amendment. However, this effort was struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Today, creation science as an organized movement is primarily centered within the United States, although creation science organizations are known in other countries, most notably Answers in Genesis which was founded in Australia. Proponents are found primarily among various denominations of Christianity described as evangelical, conservative, or fundamentalist. While creationist movements also exist in Islam, and Judaism, these movements do not use the phrase creation science to describe their beliefs.

Issues

Creation science has its roots in the ongoing effort by young-earth creationists to dispute modern science's description of natural history (particularly biological evolution, but also geology and physical cosmology) while attempting to offer an alternative explanation of observable phenomena compatible with the Biblical account.

The proponents of creation science often argue that many observable phenomena fit more easily into the Biblical account than with the naturalistic worldview. The overwhelming majority of scientists take a secular approach and argue that this premise runs counter to the core principles of coherent scientific methodology, thus literal interpretations of the Bible which demand a global flood, a young Earth, or special creation of created kinds can be shown to be unsupported by scientific evidence.

Creation science proponents openly state that their oppositional stance is based on religion. Duane Gish, a prominent creation science proponent, has argued that "We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." Although intelligent design does not officially identify the designer, its leading proponents justify this with similar arguments, stating that "the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy", and their writings show the designer to be the God of Christianity. In 1984 Dean H. Kenyon, joint author of the textbook later retitled Of Pandas and People, also distanced his views from religious doctrines when he stated in an affidavit that "Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts."

Metaphysical assumptions

Creation science makes the a priori metaphysical assumption that the Creator exists. Christian creation science holds that the description of creation is given in the Bible and that empirical scientific evidence corresponds with that description. Creationists in general see a doctrinaire commitment to exclude the supreme being and miracles as a motivating factor in Darwinism, a term used in a derogatory fashion to refer to evolutionary biology. Critics consider creation science to be religious, rather than scientific, because it stems from faith in the Bible, rather than by the application of the scientific method. The United States National Academy of Sciences (NAS), has noted, "Religious opposition to evolution propels antievolutionism. Although antievolutionists pay lip service to supposed scientific problems with evolution, what motivates them to battle its teaching is apprehension over the implications of evolution for religion."

Creation science advocates argue that mainstream scientific theories of the origins of the universe, the earth, and life are rooted in a priori presumptions of methodological naturalism and uniformitarianism, each of which is disputed. In some areas of science, for example chemistry, meteorology or medicine, the default assumptions of a naturalistic universe and uniformitarianism are not considered problematic to creation science proponents. As a matter of principle, creation science advocates single out only those scientific theories that they have determined are most in conflict with their beliefs, and it is against those theories that they concentrate their efforts.

Religious criticism

Fideists criticize creation science on the grounds either that religious faith alone should be a sufficient basis for belief in the truth of creation, or that efforts to prove the Genesis account of creation on scientific grounds are inherently futile as reason is subordinate to faith and cannot thus be used to prove it.

Many Christian theologies, including Liberal Christianity, consider the Genesis narrative to be a poetic and allegorical work rather than a literal history, and many Christian churches – including the Roman Catholic, Anglican and the more liberal denominations of the Lutheran, Methodist, Congregationalist and Presbyterian faiths – have either rejected creation science outright or are ambivalent to it.

These churches rejecting creation science hold theological positions which have been described as Theistic evolution.

Scientific criticism

The United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such." and that "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested." According to Skeptic Magazine, the "creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics" and "seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution."

For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

• consistent (internally and externally)
• parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
• empirically testable and falsifiable
• based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
• correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
• progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
• tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is. If it meets two or fewer of these criteria, it cannot be treated as scientific in any useful sense of the word.

Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms. Most major religious groups have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins.

A summary of the objections to creation science by mainstream scientists follows:

• Creation science is not falsifiable : Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, no claim about his existence can be supported or undermined by observation. Thus, creationism, the argument from design and other arguments for the existence of God are a posteriori arguments. (See also the section on falsifiability below.)
• Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Many explanations offered by creation science are more complex than alternative explanations. Parsimony favours explanations that make the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities.
• Creation science is not empirically testable : Creationism posits the supernatural which by definition is beyond empirical natural testing, and thus conflicts with the practical use of methodological naturalism inherent in science.
• Creation science is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments : That creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomena that it tries to explain.
• Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", instead of a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data as well as any future data. It is often given as a justification for the naturalistic basis of science. In any practical sense of the concept, creation science is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.

Creation science's lack of adherence to the standards of the scientific method mean that it (and specifically creation science) cannot be said to be scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined by the leading world science organisations. Creation science has been described as an oxymoron by Stephen Jay Gould. For more discussion, see creation-evolution controversy.

Historical, philosophical, and sociological criticism

Historically, the debate of whether creationism is compatible with science can be traced back to 1874, the year science historian John William Draper published his History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. In it Draper portrayed the entire history of scientific development as a war against religion. This presentation of history was propagated further by followers such as Andrew Dickson White in his essay A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Their conclusions, however, have been disputed.

Some opponents consider creation science to be an ideologically and politically motivated propaganda tool, with cult-like features, to promote the creationist agenda in society. They allege that the term "creation science" was chosen to purposely blur the distinction between science and religion, particularly in countries that are religiously-neutral by law (such as the United States), in an attempt to gain official government sanction and recognition of specific religious tenets above those of other faiths. In the United States, the principal focus of Creation Science advocates is on the government-supported public school systems, which are prohibited by the Establishment Clause from promoting specific religions.

Areas of study

Subjects within creation science can be split into three main categories, each covering a different area of origins research: creation biology, flood geology, and creationist cosmologies. These subjects correspond to the mainstream scientific disciplines of evolutionary biology, earth sciences and cosmology respectively. Other topics include planetology and geophysics (including radiometric dating and radiohaloes).

Creation biology

Main article: Creation biology

Creation biology centers around an idea derived from Genesis that states that life was created by God in a finite number of "created kinds" rather than through biological evolution. Creationists who involve themselves in this endeavor believe that any observable speciation took place through inbreeding, deleterious mutations and other genetic mechanisms designed for rapid "downhill rearrangements" during an alleged population bottleneck after the great flood of Noah's ark, which they claim was an actual historical event that happened in a manner consistent with its description in the Bible. Mainstream scientists argue that there is no physical evidence for a global flood event that is consistent with the methods and standards of scientific evidence (see below).

Creation biology disagrees with biological evolution, in particular common descent (see Creation-evolution controversy). Creationists contend that there is no empirical evidence that a new plant or animal species with beneficial types of structures or functions has ever originated as a result of the gradual accumulation of DNA mutations through natural selection.

Popular arguments against evolution have changed over the years since the publishing of Henry M. Morris's first book on the subject, Scientific Creationism, but some themes remain common: missing links as an indication that evolution is incomplete; arguments based on entropy, complexity and information theory; arguments claiming that natural selection is an impossible mechanism; and general criticism of the conclusions drawn from historical sciences as lacking experimental basis. The origin of the human species is particularly hotly contested; the fossil remains of purported hominid ancestors are not considered by advocates of creation biology to be evidence for a speciation event involving Homo sapiens.

When asked what would disprove evolution in favor of creationism, biologist J.B.S. Haldane replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era", a period more than 542 million years ago. This is an era during which scientists claim that life on Earth consisted largely of bacteria, algae and plankton. Richard Dawkins explains that evolution "is a theory of gradual, incremental change over millions of years, which starts with something very simple and works up along slow, gradual gradients to greater complexity ... If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found."

Flood geology

Main article: Flood geology

Flood geology is a concept based on the belief that most of Earth's geological record was formed by the Great Flood described in the story of Noah's ark. Fossils and fossil fuels are believed to have formed from animal and plant matter which was buried rapidly during this flood, while submarine canyons are explained as having formed during a rapid runoff from the continents at the end of the flood. Sedimentary strata are thought to have been predominantly laid down during or after Noah's flood. Flood geology is a variant of catastrophism and is contrasted with mainstream geology in that it rejects standard geological principles such as uniformitarianism and radiometric dating. For example, the Creation Research Society argues that "uniformitarianism is wishful thinking."

Mainstream geologists conclude that no such flood is seen in the preserved rock layers and moreover that the flood itself would be physically impossible today. For instance, since Mount Everest is approximately 8.8 kilometres in elevation and the Earth's surface is 510,065,600 km², the volume of water required to cover Mount Everest to a depth of 15 cubits (6.8 meters), as indicated by Genesis 7:20, would be 4.6 billion cubic kilometres. The Earth's atmosphere, however, only has the capacity to store water in vapor form sufficient to blanket the globe to a depth of 25 millimeters. Nevertheless, there continue to be many creationists who argue that the flood can explain the evidence from geology and paleontology that are often used to dispute creationists' claims. Recent years have seen the proposal of theories such as catastrophic plate tectonics.

Astrophysics

Creationist cosmologies

Main article: Creationist cosmologies

Several attempts have been made by creationists to construct a cosmology consistent with a young universe rather than the standard cosmological age of the universe, based on the belief that Genesis describes the creation of the universe as well as the Earth. The primary challenge for young-universe cosmologies is that the accepted distances in the universe require millions or billions of years for light to travel to Earth.

Cosmology is not as widely discussed as creation biology or flood geology, for several reasons. First, many creationists, particularly old earth creationists and intelligent design theorists, do not dispute that the universe may be billions of years old. Also, some creationists who believe that the Earth was created in the timeframe described in a literal interpretation of Genesis believe that Genesis describes only the creation of the Earth, rather than the creation of the entire universe, allowing for both a young Earth and an old universe. Finally, the technical nature of the discipline of physical cosmology and its ties to mathematical physics prevent those without significant technical knowledge from understanding the full details of how the observations and theories behind the current models work.

Planetology

See also: Planetary science

Various items of evidence are claimed by creationists to prove that the age of the solar system is of the order of thousands of years (in contrast to the scientifically accepted age of 4.6 billion years). Commonly used arguments relate to the numbers of comets and the recession of the moon from the Earth, and have been thoroughly refuted by planetologists.

In response to increasing evidence suggesting that Mars once possessed a wetter climate, some creation scientists have proposed that the global flood affected not only the Earth but also Mars and other planets. People who support this claim include creationist astronomer Wayne Spencer and creationist cosmologist Russell Humphreys.

An ongoing problem for creationists is the presence of impact cratering on nearly all solar system objects, which is consistent with mainstream scientific explanations of solar system origins but difficult to account for within a young-universe framework. Creationist astronomers are undecided as to whether meteoritic bombardment of the solar system occurred during creation week or during the subsequent Great Flood.

Geophysics

Main article: Creation geophysics

Young Earth creationists make a number of claims in the field of geophysics, mostly related to flood geology and the age of the Earth. The scientific community have heavily criticised and refuted these claims.

Radiometric dating

See also: radiometric dating

Creationists point to experiments they have performed, which they claim demonstrate that 1.5 billion years of nuclear decay took place over a short period of time, from which they infer that "billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay" have occurred, a massive violation of the principle that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying nuclear physics generally, and radiometric dating in particular.

The scientific community points to numerous flaws in these experiments, to the fact that their results have not been accepted for publication by any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and to the fact that the creationist scientists conducting them were untrained in experimental geochronology.

Although scientists have demonstrated that the decay rates of isotopes which decay by an electron capture mechanism can be varied slightly, these variations are of the order of 0.2 percent, far below a level that would give support to the Creationist results, and at a level that it is argued that they would not invalidate radiometric dating, nor is there any evidence of a variation in decay rates or physical constants over time. The consensus of professional scientific organisations worldwide is that no scientific evidence contradicts the age of approximately 4.5 billion years. It is further argued that "[i]t is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates."

Radiohaloes

See also: Radiohalo

In the 1970s, young Earth creationist Robert V. Gentry proposed that radiohaloes in certain granites represented evidence for the Earth being created instantaneously rather than gradually. This idea has been criticized by mainstream physicists and geologists on many grounds including that the rocks Gentry studied were not primordial and that the radionuclides in question need not have been in the rocks initially.

Thomas A. Baillieul, a geologist and retired senior environmental scientist with the United States Department of Energy, disputed Gentry's claims in an article entitled,"Polonium Haloes" Refuted: A Review of "Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological and Cosmological Perspective". Baillieul noted that Gentry was a physicist with no background in geology and given the absence of this background, Gentry had misrepresented the geological context from which the specimens were collected. Additionally, he noted that Gentry relied on research from the beginning of the 20th century, long before radioisotopes were thoroughly understood; that his assumption that a Polonium isotope caused the rings was speculative; and that Gentry falsely argued that the half-life of radioactive elements varies with time. Gentry claimed that Baillieul could not publish his criticisms in a reputable scientific journal, however, some of Baillieul's criticisms rested on work previously published in reputable scientific journals.

See also

• Adnan Oktar - a Muslim advocate of creation science
• Cargo cult science
• Natural theology
• Omphalos (theology)
• Rapid-decay theory
• Conflict thesis
• List of creationist museums

Further reading

Proponents

• Don Batten (ed.), The Answers Book ISBN 978-0-949906-23-6 (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
• Duane T. Gish, Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics ISBN 978-0-932766-28-1 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)
• Henry M. Morris (ed.), Scientific Creationism ISBN 0890510032 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)
• Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? ISBN 978-0-89051-081-0 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)
• Terry Mortenson, The Great Turning Point: The Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology — Before Darwin ISBN 978-0-89051-408-5 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004)
• Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off, ISBN 978-1-57683-344-5 (Navpress Publishing Group, 2004)
• Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation and Early Man ISBN 978-1-887904-02-5 (Saint Herman, 2000)
• Ariel A. Roth, Origins – Linking Science and Scripture ISBN 978-0-8280-1328-4 (Hagarstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1998)
• Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution ISBN 978-0-89051-258-6 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999) forward and introduction
• Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2 ISBN 978-0-89051-387-3 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2002) table of contents with links to chapters
• Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise ISBN 978-0-89051-411-5 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004) introductory chapter and some reviews
• John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood ISBN 978-0-87552-338-5 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)
• A. E. Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny ISBN 978-0-87123-356-1 (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)
• A. E. Wilder-Smith, Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory ISBN 978-99921-39-67-7 (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)
• John Woodmorappe, Studies in Flood Geology ISBN 978-0-932766-54-0 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)
• John Woodmorappe, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study ISBN 978-0-932766-41-0 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)
• John Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods ISBN 978-0-932766-57-1 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)

Critics

• Vernon Blackmore, and Andrew Page, Evolution, The Great Debate (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 1989)
• V. L. Bates, Christian Fundamentalism and the Theory of Evolution in Public School Education: A Study of the Creation Science Movement (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis: 1976).
• R. M. Frye, Is God a creationist? The religious case against creation-science ISBN 978-0-684-17993-3 (New York: Scribner's, 1983)
• P. Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism ISBN 978-0-262-61037-7 (Boston, MA: The MIT Press, 1983)
• R. Lewin, Where is the Science in Creation Science? (Science v.215, pp.142–146.)
• R. Pennock, Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism ISBN 978-0-262-66165-2 (The MIT Press, Reprint edition, February 28 2000)
• B. Vawter, Creationism: Creative Misuse of the Bible, in R. M. Frye (ed.), ibid. p.71–82.
• R. L. Numbers, The Creationists ISBN 978-0-679-40104-9 (New York: A. A. Knopf / Random House, 1992)
• D. B. McKown, The mythmaker's magic: Behind the illusion of "creation science" ISBN 978-0-87975-770-0 (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1993)
• L. Tiffin, Creationism's Upside-Down Pyramid: How Science Refutes Fundamentalism ISBN 978-0-87975-898-1 (Prometheus Books, August 1 1994)
• M. Zimmerman, M. Science, Nonscience and Nonsense ISBN 978-0-8018-5774-4 (The Johns Hopkins University Press: Reprint edition, December 1 1997)
• Synoptic Position Statement of the Georgia Academy of Science with Respect to the Forced Teaching of Creation-­Science in Public School Science Education, Georgia Academy of Science: March 22 2000 (ISBN B0008JBPNY)

External links

Neutral

• Edwards v. Aguillard 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling preventing the teaching of creation science in public school science classrooms
• McLean v. Arkansas 1981 challenge to Arkansas' Act 590, which mandated that evolutionary biology instruction be balanced with "creation science".

Proponents

• Answers in Genesis
  • 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry A response to Scientific American's article 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
• Institute for Creation Research
• Cryptozoology, Living Dinosaurs, and Origins — "Attacking the Evolutionary view of dinosaurs and supporting the Biblical view that man and dinosaurs have lived together and may still live."
• Answers In Creation
• CreationWiki
• The True.Origin Archive
  • List of Articles Supporting Creation
• Creation Science Movement
• Creation Research Society
• CreationDigest.com
• Creation-Evolution Headlines
• Creation Insights
• Center for Scientific Creation
• 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American's Nonsense (ApologeticsPress.org rebuttal)
• Creation Science
• Case for a Creator
• God and Science
• Creation Science Evangelism Hosts MP3s of Seminars spoken by Kent Hovind.
• Historical Proof - A Jewish viewpoint chabad.org
• Muslim viewpoint
• Interactive Bible Association Creation Site
• Master Books Publishes creation science resources

Critics

• Evo Wiki
  • List of creationist arguments with responses
• No Answers in Genesis website
• Creationism vs. Science
• Talk.Origins Archive
  • Index of Creationist claims with rebuttals
  • Talkorigins.org article on What is Creationism?
• National Science Teachers Association Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution
• National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution
• National Center for Science Education
• About creationism
• creationism
• Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences by the Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences
• Skeptics Dictionary Introduction and criticism of creationism.
• Origin Myths Introduction to a number of alternative origin myths from varied cultures around the world
• 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense by John Rennie- Scientific American
• Introduction to creationism
• Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?
• Roy Zimmerman's "Creation Science 101"