Calling it Science doesn’t it make it Science
1/6/10
So, UBC Okanagan seems to have an infestation of creationists. We have a Creationist Club, and even a few noted professors are out-and-out creationists. Now, I don’t care about beliefs and superstitions. You’re free to have them. What I do take offense to is claiming that Creationism is science, and that it is equal to the theory of evolution.
It’s not.
It’s not science by any stretch of the definition, and evolution isn’t threatened.
I’ll break it down so it’s simple, so even the creationists can understand it. Not that they’ll accept anything I have to say either, nothing ever gets past the cognitive dissonance stage with them. It doesn’t fit their superstitions, so it will be rejected. That’s okay.
Science is fundamentally a way of determining what is known about the world. It is a basic concept. Science is about models, and observations that support those models. Models help explain why what we observe to happen, happens. Its rather simple. Its all about what can be observed and predicted. Two of the fundamental tenets of science are: models are not reality(positivism) and models are falsifiable. In science, models are merely concepts, and they do not indicate reality exactly. Just because we have a model of subatomic particles, and partial charges doesn’t mean they actually exist, only that the model explains current observations, and makes predictions. The other part of science, where models are falsifiable, means that good models make predictions that can be tested. And when those predictions are tested in experiment, if the results do not match the predictions, then the model needs to be either revised or thrown out. You can never prove anything in science, only disprove things. Proper science means using the phrase, “These observations support the hypothesis.” That is the basis of science: falsifiable models. This is where the Creationists will chime up, and no, you can’t talk yet. They will make a ridiculous claim that evolution cannot be observed or tested, therefore its not science. Wrong. Evolution makes many, many, many predictions in a huge variety of fields. It affects fields like anatomy, medicine, developmental physiology, genetics, and so on. One recently published experiment actually observes the process of evolution in explicit genetic detail. A bit of background: to differentiate bacteria that look similar, biologists use the food sources and what kills the bacteria as markers of a species. E.coli, the safe kind in our intestines, does not live on a certain chemical. A researcher, then an associate professor in 1988, began breeding E.coli on a chemical that normally kills it. He saved a sample from every generation of bacteria, and with recent advancements in genetic sequencing, was able to examine the minute genetic changes over each generation. By generation 20,000 or so, the E.coli bacterium had started being able to digest a chemical that normally kills it, which makes it a distinct species. Speciation was observed in the laboratory. What is really interesting is how the genetic changes progressed, but I don’t have the space here. Needless to say, evolution provided predictions for how genes would behave, and how the E.coli bacterium would evolve, and it was right. This is only a recent experiment. There have been many more, many of which I’m not familiar enough with to talk about. Now here’s the thing: Creationism says that it was all done by a god, a deity, whatever. How can you test this? Why do you call creationism science again? Oh yeah... because creationists don’t understand science. Creationism isn’t science. Evolution is. So why do you persist in claiming it is? Why do you try to create doubt, when there is none in the scientific field? (And please don’t point me at PhDs in Chemistry) Why do you try to get creationism inserted into science textbooks, when it is not science? Creationism is bunk. I have yet to see any predictions made by creationism. What are the implications of creationism? How do they affect biology, medicine, zoology, anatomy, and so on? If you can’t give me any of that, creationism is not on par with evolution. I’m going to take a moment, and dismantle the arguments of one creationist here at this school: In 150 years, evolution has actually gotten weaker as a theory as we discover more about the world around us. The evolution of the horse has been modified (or discarded) as new fossils have come to light. Archeopteryx, while interesting, can’t be the ancestor of birds because fossils of crow-sized birds have been discovered in “older” rock samples. Our attempts to make the building blocks of the cell have been a complete failure let alone trying to get them together to construct a cell. Dr. Ed Neeland, Associate Professor of Chemistry, from http://www.alivebc.com/alive-blog/evolution-disproves-creation.html So first he makes a claim and barely backs it up. Where are the references and links to the scientific literature showing the weaknesses of evolution? I thought you were a scientist and provided evidence for your beliefs? Okay, fine, we’ll skip that sentence then.
The next one is quite absurd. Dr. Neeland, when chemistry starts using a new model to explain chemical interactions and behaviour, does that make chemistry weak as a “theory”? Chemistry has gone through several different models, at least two in the last century. The real absurdity is the illogic and misunderstanding of science in the statement. See, think about this. As we discover new evidence, we modify what we guessed was happening. [cue the detractors: “Oh no! It’s FRAUD! LIES!”] This is how science works. It modifies itself as new evidence comes to light. This is the strength of science. Over time, mistakes, inadequate theories, fraud, etc, all get thrown out. Science gets continually more and more correct as time goes along. The ancient greeks thought the earth was a sphere, and they were almost correct. (Its an oblate spheroid, by the way.) As we discovered new evidence, the thinking about the shape of the earth became more correct. This is how science works, so I don’t see how this is a proof against evolution, because all science works this way, even chemistry.
The next sentence is even more absurd. Where is his citation? Still, I took a look, and lo and behold. What Dr. Neeland calls a “bird” is actually a fossil that bears remarkable similarity to coelurosaurs, and may or may not have feathers and the features of birds. Nice accuracy there.
For specific reference so others can look this up, it is a species referred to as protavis. It is quite controversial in the paleontology field, but this doesn’t mean that suddenly evolution is wrong. They’re working off of very fragile, limited information, and people do make mistakes. This doesn’t mean evolution is wrong, just that science is working the way it is supposed to.
Creationism: not science. Don’t call it science.
5 comments
Reid Betts on Jan 8, 2010 at 5:48pm
Why is this in the opinion section. It is rather factual.
Amber Choo on Jan 12, 2010 at 9:30pm
The professor who he bashes sent in a retort for the next issue. This is going to be fun.
Ed on Jan 20, 2010 at 5:15pm
I'm all for the professor sending in a retort; if it is a poorly argued and factually light as the things he's written online, then he'll be doing anti-creationists a real favour!
Gavin Gamache on Jan 26, 2010 at 9:05pm
Oh, I better get somebody to save me a copy of that edition for when I get back to town. I love a good roast.
Additionally, I take small issue with the assertion about two-thirds along that large central paragraph about there being "no doubt in science". The fact that science DOES have its doubts is really what makes it attractive to me. Faith-based reasoning says "this is how things are, period," while science-based reasoning says "we're pretty sure this is how things are" or "we're not sure how things are, but we're working on it." And really, that's the more realistic and less arrogant worldview.
Jay on Jan 29, 2010 at 8:02pm
I am REALLY glad you published this article! I totally agree! I go to ubc not trinity western...
Add a comment
Comments published on this website are the opinion of the commenter and not the Phoenix Newspaper. The Phoenix reserves the right to withdraw submissions from publication for any reason. Any reason could be material deemed to be sexist, racist, homophobic, or of poor taste or quality.