Don't Call It Science!

I happened upon a discussion precipitated by a blog entry over at Day by Day Discoveries. I found the blog post through this post over at Doc's Sunrise Rants.


The discussion was began due to Dawn's ( of Day by Day Discoveries) reaction to a new homeschooling blog opposing the teaching of the theory of evolution by homeschoolers. The discussion involved proper and improper definitions of a scientific theory and law, and also discussion of the controversy about teaching alternative viewpoints in science class.

I wrote a short comment on this entry at Day by Day on Thursday, just before going to give a presentation on some interesting new results in the neurophysiology of ADHD at the university. In this post I want to expand my comment a bit in order to present my view about this whole issue.

To begin with, my credentials as a scientist, with a background in evolutionary biology, ought to make it clear what I think about this issue. To put it quite plainly, I oppose the presentation of 'alternative viewpoints' in science class. People taking classes in science expect to be taught science, and are paying to be taught science, and deserve to have this expectation met. Neither so-called 'creation science' nor the new take on it--intelligent design--are scientific theories and therefore should not be taught in science classes.


To understand why these ideas do not meet the criteria for science, we must first understand what science is and what it is not. A simple and accurate definition of science is that it is the investigation of the physical world using the scientific method. By 'physical world' we mean the observable world of matter and energy. Observations can be made with the senses or with extensions of the senses, through instruments that allow us to see the very small, the very large, and the very far away; instruments such as microscopes and telescopes. Other extensions of the senses would include the instruments through which we ascertain the properties of the physical world. These would be instruments of measurement.


The scientific method, invented during the enlightenment, is a procedure through which observations can be systematically qualified and/or quantified to make predictions about what we would expect of nature. Not all observations count as scientific observations. Only those gathered for the purpose of hypothesis testing count. For example, Van Gogh made some very detailed observations of nature when he painted his beautiful Sunflowers still-life. But even though his observations were very accurate and beautifully rendered, we would not his work science. He was certainly observing the physical world with his senses, but he was not using the scientific method. He was using the sensitivity and tools of an artist and not those of a scientist. He was doing art, not science. And I think the great Impressionistic artist would be insulted if we called his work 'science.'



Science is, after all, only one way of human knowing. It is limited to making obervations about the physical world through use of the scientific method. Scientists, when they work as scientists must limit themselves to these objectives as well, although as human beings, they can enjoy a range of human endeavors different than science, and see that they all have value. I enjoy and recognize the value of great art and literature, and I appreciate the usefulness of rational human endeavors such as philosophy and ethics. None of these is science, however, and the world would be poorer if we tried to shoehorn them into being what they are not.



Creationism, and the new expression of it called Intelligent Design are not science, either. Creationism posits apriori that species originated by a singular act of a supernatural being. In so doing, Creationism puts itself outside the realm of science by an appeal to the supernatural, which by definition exists outside the physical world. Such an appeal cannot be tested by any means within the scientific method, nor can it be observed by the senses or extensions thereof. It is, in the language of the philosophy of science, unfalsifiable. Therefore, although the concept of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), as is expounded in the first creation story in Genesis chapter 1, is really intriguing as a priestly story to explain the goodness of the physical world, and the goodness of embodied being, it does not meet the criteria for science. It does make a mythic statement and a moral implication. But it does not make a scientific statement.



Religious statements about origins from a supernatural being cannot be tested. They must be taken on faith and so are not falsifiable. This is why one can talk about 'belief' in creationism. Scientific theories must be built from evidence that has been tested by the scientific method. This, by the way, is why it is wrong to say that one 'believes' in evolution. Such a faith statement only confuses the issue. Rather, one should say that the evidence supports the theory of evolution of species by natural selection. (And there is a plethora of such evidence coming from such scientific fields as geology, biochemistry, genetics, and physics, to name but a few).



The statements and implications of Genesis (and that is what we are really talking about as the so-called 'scientific creationists' do not make arguments against evolutionary theory for the sake of the Cosmic Egg story) are all well and good, and quite interesting to discuss, as a religious statement about the world that comes from a particular world view and challenges another ancient world view. I could happily discuss these ideas with other knowledgable people all day, as religion.



Creationism's pedigree comes to us through religion and theology. Advocates of scientific creationism go further by making the false claim of a scientific pedigree for their religious belief. Pseudoscience is the false claim of scientific origins for an idea that has none. So this claim that creationism, which appeals to the supernatural origin of the material universe, is pseudoscience.



Now my view is this: this is a free country. If people want to take the Genesis Creation stories (there are two such stories in Genesis) literally, that is their right. And if they want to believe that the world was created as the result of a cosmic battle of gods and goddesses, in which the body of Tiamat the Dragon Goddess was split in half to make the heavens and the earth, that is also their right. And I have no argument with it, so long as I am not asked to believe in Tiamat. And I also respect a person's right to teach his/her children those beliefs. Again, as long as I may teach my own children my take on B'reshit (which is what Jews call the book of Genesis), and as long as I am free to teach my children science, I have no problem with such people. Mind you, I think they are wrong about it, but it's a free country. I have no argument with them.

But I do have a problem and an argument with those who go beyond an honest belief in a religious idea, to a claim that creationism has a scientific pedigree when it does not. This kind of claim is false, and it also dishonest. Such a person is going beyond his/her own freedom to believe as they think is right to an attempt to foist unscientific ideas upon others who are paying for and expecting to learn what science teaches.



Everyone in the United States, even the Evangelical Christians, have a right to adhere to and teach their children their own religious world view. Just be honest about it. Call it what it is: religion. Don't call it science.



PS: The Cartoons were forwarded to me from a Biochemistry Discussion List with a great but suggestive title along the lines of: If Helicase Can Part DNA, Can I Unzip Your Genes? The other pictures are from Wiki Commons.