P. Edronkin

Creationism Is A Belief And Not A Scientific Theory

Best Sellers

Adventure Gear


Extreme and Conventional Sports

Travel Services

Photo and Video


Ecology and Gardening

Related Auctions


Jobs and Employment

Creationism is an idea that states that the universe and life could not have sprouted just by coincidence, but as the design of an intelligent being because these are far too complicated things and as such, they supposedly could not have appeared by chance.

There are three questions to address regarding this:

First, as a belief, it is totally respectable; we pretend to live in a free world and thus, anyone may believe whatever sounds best to him or her.

Secondly, this belief is presented as a 'theory'; however, it cannot be that because it has to be demonstrated first. Since the time of the Greek philosophers, a 'theory' is a 'hypothesis' which has been demonstrated. If we talk about 'scientific theories,' then, a 'scientific hypothesis' must be proved first, and in order for an idea to gain that status it has to be, above all, a 'scientific hypothesis.'

It can be an informal or religious 'theory;' that's fine, but it is not science unless it is elaborated following the scientific method. So far, the creationist hypothesis (not a theory) has not been structured in a way proper to be called science while its supporters pretend it to be so. Thus, it is a 'pseudo-scientific' theory.

In science 'certainty' is a really big word, and saying for sure that life has been created by some intelligent being because 'it is impossible' (here it is the certainty of impossibility) for it to have evolved on its own, is just going too far without any sound, scientific demonstration.

And the third point is that, in fact, life may or may not have evolved on its own, but it indeed could, just as a matter of probability: if you play the lottery for thirty years, you will almost surely win one day, then, what do you think would happen if instead of thirty years, you had thirteen thousand million years? You would probably become an archi-gogol-pleximillionaire. And the same thing happens with life: given enough time and resources to re-combine, anything may evolve.

But there is yet another thing that must be addressed when talking about creationism: this is another case of a pseudo-scientific hypothesis refuting the Darwino-Mendelian argument of evolution; it might be the case that it is wrong, after all, science is not a set of fixed principles, but a system of evolution of ideas. Nature indeed finds her way, and so far, the best and more complete explanation of that is what Darwin has given to us. If he was wrong in any way, that needs to be proven beyond doubt using arguments which are strictly scientific.

Darwin's theory is applicable in any case around the world; pretended hypotheses using the argument of an intelligent, superior being reminiscent of God are not because in the end, assuming them for certain does not depend on a logical analysis valid over time and distances, but on beliefs, which are irrational.

With the pretension of having a scientific theory at hand, and using non-scientific arguments and proof with no sound scientific grounds, creationist are trying to force an explanation as to the reason of life which may be agreeable to their ideology.

This is dangerous, and a peek at other pseudo-scientists of our past history might tell us why: just remember Mengele and Lysenko.

Creationism is absurd, but not because it contradicts a scientific 'dogma' like the ideas we have on the evolution of species, but because it pretends to force reality to fit a model of beliefs.

Art is a form of viewing the world, religion is another way of doing so, and science is yet another way. Mixing them to force one of these views upon another usually doesn't bring good results: Today in the Middle East religious fanatics are destroying museums, archaeologcal treasures and works of arte simply because they want to force their religious views upon other people. While supporting creationism as a purely religious idea might be fine, doing so with the intention of competing "scientifically" with theories based upon research and evidence, such as Darwin's has some reminiscences of what those thugs are doing in the Middle East. For the interests of us all, no matter whether we prefer to see the world religiously or scientifically, religiou should be kept out of science.

The Outdoors Search Engine for Exploration, Survival and Adventure Lovers - Andinia.com