Why Creationism Isn't Scientific, and Why that Doesn't Necessarily Mean It's False

"A recent newspaper article advocating Christian Science was headed 'Science speaks and says the Christian Bible is provedly true,' and went on to tell us that, "even the scientists themselves believe it these days."

-Alan Chalmers

I'm still not entirely sure if Chalmers is talking about Christian Scientists or scientists who are Christians (my bet's on the former), but both groups could certainly have come up with this audacious headline. I've grown up in the Evangelical milieu of prophecy proving and Young Earth Creationism, and I've watched how, in seeking to make science dependant on revealed truth, so many devout individuals have dedicated themselves to the task of making revealed truth dependant on science. Chalmers' superb, lucid critique of naive inductivism makes one wonder why anyone with such a firm foundation for knowledge as "Thus saith the LORD" would want to board that sinking ship.

I am only familiar with the philosophies of science advocated by Popper and Kuhn, philosophies which Chalmers hints that he will yet attempt to critique and refine. But from within both these paradigms, more sophisticated than that of the naive inductivist, Creationists and Christian Scientists certainly have some ground to stand on. The belief in a young earth is as subject to falsifiability as the belief in an old one, and each rests on an essentially valid paradigm. A question of which paradigm is more valid, in the words of Thomas Kuhn, "cannot be resolved by proof. To discuss their mechanism is, therefore, to talk about techniques of persuasion."

Nonetheless, if the essential characteristics of science are as defined by an Arkansas judge in a case very pertinent to the teaching of high school science–if the essential characteristics of science include "naturalness, tentativeness, testability, and falsifiability," then much of revealed truth, most importantly for the concerned educator, the doctrine of creation, must be considered decidedly unscientific for lack of naturalness.

In reflection upon this decision, with due respect for the Scientific Aristocracy, I must admit that I don't see any reason to limit explanations of natural phenomena to natural causes. It seems right that we should search for the truth regardless of its naturalness. However, to do so is to step outside the realm of science and into a more holistic approach to understanding, that of natural philosophy–a paradigm for understanding within which science, even induction, may still have a part to play. 

Take my musings with a grain of salt. I don't expect to see Natural Philosophy 30 in the Saskatchewan curriculum any time soon.