Science Isn't, Science IsPart 1Creationscience is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Creation, they suggest,is theological.
Science is empirical. Religion and science, likeoil and water, don't mix. They represent two entirely different magisteriums,in Gould's words. Science is the domain of fact and reason.Religion is the domain of belief and faith.The exclusion of intelligent creation from the realm of science is arbitraryfor two reasons. First, the fact is there is no clear line of demarcationbetween science and non-science. Second, even if there were such a line,it wouldn't automatically mean that well justified conclusions from otherdisciplines could not have a bearing on
scientific thinking.Three things are required to establish a clear lineof demarcation between science and non-science. First, onewould have to identify necessary
conditions that any discipline must satisfy toqualify for the label "scientific." A necessary condition is aminimal requirement, an essential element that must be present in everycase. It allows us to point to clear examples of things that are immediatelyexcluded as science.Second, one would have to identify sufficient conditionsthat any discipline must satisfy to qualify for the label"scientific." What constellation of factors are adequate for adefinition? When is enough enough? Sufficient conditions allow usto point to clear examples of things that are immediately included in theclass.To get a good grade on an essay test it is necessary that one know thematerial, but that is not enough. He must also be able to articulate thecorrect answers clearly in writing. That would be sufficient.Both boundaries are needed. If there are only necessary conditions,then you can clearly know some things that are not scientific, but you can'tstate with certainty what things are. On the other hand, if there areonly sufficient conditions, you can clearly know some things that are science,but you can never state with certainty what things are not.The third requirement for a valid definition of science isthat the necessary and sufficient conditions must include everything we alreadyunderstand to be science and exclude those things that clearly are not. This is where the real problem lies. Virtually any attempt to listnecessary and sufficient conditions for a definition of science either includesthings clearly not scientific, or excludes things that clearly are.Let me give some examples. When the question "What are theelements of science?" comes up, certain components are cited.Characteristics are offered like observation, experimental repeatability,falsification, conformity to natural laws, etc. But are any of theseelements either necessary or sufficient to identify an activity as scientific?None of these are really necessary, in our sense of the term. Toomany bona fide scientific procedures do not use them. No one has observeda magnetic field itself. It's hard to imagine a repeatable experimentthat would address the issue of the extinction of the dinosaurs. Theconcept of "survival of the fittest" is not falsifiable. Andthe Big Bang is allegedly a singularity that is the source of natural law, andtherefore could not be caused by it. However, each of these isunquestionably within the realm of science.