Creationism and Science

Dr Peter W Evans

11 April, 2013

Last Lecture

Popper’s theory of falsification renders creationism aspseudoscience;

but it also puts a question mark over examples of normalscientific practice.

Today

A better response to the demarcation problem

Creationism in science classrooms in the US

Pastafarianism

Popper on science

Popper:

deduce from theory an observational prediction;check if the prediction comes out as per the theory;if prediction fails then we have refuted, or falsified, thetheory;if prediction is as predicted then we have not yet falsifiedthe theory.

Thomas Kuhn

Kuhn

Scientific progress:

disorganised and diverse activity → prescience;adherence naturally emerges to a scientific paradigm:

a shared belief within a community to a set of theoreticalstructures, values, instruments and experimentaltechniques, as well as metaphysics and ontology;

scientists working within a paradigm are undertakingnormal science.

Kuhn

Normal science:

puzzle-solving;inevitable difficulties with apparent falsifications of thetheory;accumulation of solutions to the puzzles that a particularparadigm presents.

Kuhn

Normal science:

anomalies are ignored or explained away if at all possible;

‘crisis’:

difficult to continue doing normal science with confidence.

Kuhn cycle

Prescience

Normal Science

CrisisRevolution

Paradigm Change

Scientific revolution

Popper:

revolutionary overthrow of a theory is one that is logicallyrequired by a falsifying observation;

Kuhn:

decision to opt for a revision of a paradigm is not one thatis rationally compelled.

Imre Lakatos

Research programs

Lakatos:

research program contains related theories where latertheories developed in response to earlier;research program lives on in face of falsifying observations;scientists typically have some commitment to the program;they try to modify their theories to deal with the problem;research programs are sometimes abandoned.

Research programs

Two possible states of a research program:

degenerating:

falling behind in its attempt to deal with anomalies;

progressive:

manages to accommodate anomalous observations andextends itself to cover new phenomena.

Demarcation criterion

Lakatos:

Popper’s criterion could mistakenly render a theoryscientific when there is no evidence supporting it;and could render a theory pseudoscientific when all theevidence supports its truth.

Criterion of falsification:

applied to whole research programs;degenerative research programs are pseudoscience.

Demarcation criteria

Thagard:

degenerative research programs are pseudoscience;

the community of practitioners makes little attempt todevelop the theory towards solutions of the problems, showsno concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation toothers, and is selective in considering confirmations anddisconfirmations

What does this mean for creationism?

Manufactured explanations should expand the theory tocover new phenomena → progressive;

If manufactured explanations are ad hoc → degenerative;

if creationists aren’t even trying to keep programprogressive → pseudoscience.

Compromising creationism

‘Creation scientists’ very rarely do any research of theirown.

Compromising creationism

Proponents of intelligent design mistake arguments againstorthodox evolution as arguments for creationism.

Compromising creationism

Natural beginning to life violates the second law ofthermodynamics.

Compromising creationism

The fossil record is given too much prominence at theexclusion of other important areas of biological study.

Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District

School board members changed biology curriculum torequire intelligent design be acknowledged as alternative toevolution;

Eleven parents sued Dover Area School District over thefact that such a change violates First Amendment rights.

Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District

The ruling:

intelligent design is just religion and can’t be taught—a winfor the good guys!

Irreducible Complexity

Pastafarianism

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Finishing quote

Ruse:

The creation scientists like to portray themselves as martyrs. Theyclaim that they do not want to exclude evolution. All they want isthe right to have their own ideas brought before the world—or,more accurately, brought before the classroom. Hence, creationistsargue that it is not they who are the bigots. It is the evolutionists.It is the established scientists who exclude ideas, insisting that noviews other than their own may be taught in the classroom. But,conclude the creationists, this dogmatic approach obviously iscontrary to the principles of sound education. Children should beexposed to all ideas, and then allowed to choose for themselves theone they prefer.

Finishing quote

Ruse:

Nevertheless, smooth as it looks, this argument is perniciouslyfallacious. Sound education has never implied an indifferentpurveying of wares before children, letting them pick and choose forthemselves. The good teacher has always given to his or herchildren the truest and the best, as he or she knows it. A goodphysics teacher teaches astronomy not astrology, even though farmore people look to the stars for their destiny than for confirmationof the Copernican revolution. Similarly, the good biology teacherteaches biology, not dogmatic religion. This is not dogmatic bigotrybut professionalism.

Finishing quote

Ruse:

Sound education is one thing. Teaching lunatic ideas to children isquite another. Creation science is plainly and unmistakably fraud,and should not be taught alongside evolution.

Image references

The image on slide 5 is courtesy of Wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas Kuhn.jpg

The image on slide 11 is courtesy of Wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Professor Imre Lakatos, c1960s.jpg

The image on slide 23 is courtesy of Wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flagellum base diagram en.svg