ipl-logo

Why Is Creation Science Falsifiable

1206 Words5 Pages

Ashton Altmann
PHIL 244
05/16/2023
Falsifiability and the Place of Creation Science Michael Ruse and Larry Laudan are two prominent philosophers of science who as a result of the Arkansas Creationism trial (McLean v. Arkansas) have examined the question of whether creation science should be considered science. More specifically they debated whether or not creation science was falsifiable. According to Ruse, creation science is not falsifiable because it relies on supernatural explanations, which can not be tested or falsified through empirical observation or experimentation. On the other hand Laudan argues that creation science is falsifiable, but has been repeatedly falsified through empirical evidence and therefore cannot be considered science. …show more content…

The first two characteristics are explanation and prediction, which involve understanding why something will happen and what will happen based on natural laws. Testability is the next characteristic, emphasizing the importance of allowing theories to be tested and challenged against the real world. Confirmation, the fourth characteristic, is derived from testability and requires empirical support for scientific theories. The final and most controversial characteristic is falsifiability. In order for a scientific claim to be considered falsifiable it must be proven false through empirical evidence. According to Ruse, if something does not meet these five characteristics it cannot be considered science. Ruse argues that creation science fails to meet these criteria, particularly because it is …show more content…

While traditional scientific theories often rely on observable phenomena and testable hypotheses, creation science often confides in supernatural explanations that transcend empirical investigation. This poses a dilemma for determining its falsifiability. Because creation science is a belief system, it serves a different purpose than what we think of as traditional science. As a result of this, it may not be applicable to try to use the characteristics of traditional science to categorize creationism. The ambiguity of the supernatural aspects make it hard to concretely determine if creation science is falsifiable, but the best way to approach it in this context is to pull apart each individual claim. In targeting specific claims that creationists beliefs stand on, definitive and concrete ways to determine that creation science is falsifiable and not truthful become evident. Showing that the basis of the creationists beliefs is testable and conclusively false supports creationism being falsifiable. Addressing creationism’s falsifiability as Ruse has is illogical because creation science is not even derived from the same place science is. Approaching it from the standpoint of testing the claims is ultimately a more effective method to demonstrate the falsifiability of creation

Open Document