Evolutionists often referred to creationism as pseudoscience. While there are some areas of thought that fall under the legitimate use of the word pseudoscience, it is primarily used in practice as a derogatory term, rather than any legitimate meaning to the word. The question before us is does creationism qualify as a pseudoscience. Do creationists engage in actual scientific activity? Part of the problem turns out to be the way evolution is defined both scientific activity and evidence. It produces the illusion that their side has all the evidence in creationists or any other perspective for that matte,r has none.
What is pseudoscience?
The word pseudoscience itself means fake science. In its most proper usage, it would refer to something that is fraudulently presented as science. If used in any other sense, then that usage of the term is highly subjective. For example, if you are using it as referring to something mistakenly referred to as science, then there is the problem of subjectivity. On what are you basing the claim that it is a mistake? More likely than not it is something in the conclusions or activity of those promoting the idea. This makes it highly subjective and possibly based on insufficient knowledge or even misinformation.
The simple fact of the matter is that most of the time when this label is applied it is simply being used as a derogatory term, to attack a viewpoint that they disagree with. It is a convenient excuse for completely ignoring and summarily dismissing any results or conclusions supporters of a given position may come up with. Now this does not mean that there are not actual cases of things that are legitimately fake science, however in such cases they are literally acts of fraud. Not someone simply conducting research and coming to conclusions That the scientific establishment disagrees with.
What is creationism?
Creationism is often referred to as the creationist alternative to evolution, with evolutionists claiming that it is pseudoscience. A major problem with this argument is that creationism is not itself science but the philosophical alternative to naturalism, and the philosophical starting point for creation science. The point is that to qualify as a pseudoscience it has to be presented as being a science, when it is actually a philosophical starting point.
Creationism is the philosophical position that God created and controls the universe. It is highly supported by quantum mechanics which makes sense when looked at from this perspective. This is particularly true when quantum reality is seen to be fundamentally information. From a creationism perspective this information system and the information it contains would have been programmed and is being operated by God.
Creationism forms of philosophical foundation for specific scientific understandings about origins, such as creation science and intelligent design. It is at these levels where the actual science is done. The use of this language by evolutionists suggests that they are being sneaky and their use of language, that is at least those that originate these ideas.
What is Creation Science?
Creation science is the term used to refer to the actual scientific work done by creationists. Has it been perfect? No of course not, no scientific endeavor is going to be perfect. Sometimes it is also necessary to make sure that you understand different strengths of evidence. For example, having actual artifacts is better than rumors of the existence of a creature or some other possible evidence. When information is at the hearsay level, it should only be presented as suggesting a possibility, and not as actual evidence. This is a problem when you are dealing with areas such as zoology, where accounts of even real creatures are likely to start off as nothing more than hearsay.
Creation science however also includes increasing examples of lab work that demonstrate the accuracy a Biblical timelines and other aspects of the Biblical account. For example, genetics shows that all living humans have had a common female and male ancestor in the recent past, and direct measurements a mutation rates are consistent with Creation and the Genesis Flood respectively,
Contrary to claims made by evolutionists, creationists do produce theories that can be falsified. Some of these have been falsified while others have passed the test. A large part of the problem is that from the position of most evolutionists it only qualifies as evidence or science when it is on the scientific establishment side. In other words, they tend to define science based on acceptance of a community that is dominated by atheism.
The point is that creation science has its weak spots, but it also has its strong spots. The weaker spots need to be treaded on lightly and used to suggest the need for further research, or simply possible answers. It is only when you get into hard data that hard stands can be made. That is the nature of science.
The pseudoscience label has no authority behind it.
Part of the problem with the pseudoscience label is that there is absolutely no authority by which it can be applied to anything. The only claim for any basis for its application to something is consensus among scientists that accept the positions of the scientific establishment. Like with all references to consensus within establishment science, there is no basis for how this consensus was actually established as existing. Is it actually based on some poll taken by everyone with the appropriate degree. Somehow, I doubt it. Scientific consensus is another one of these terms that is thrown around a lot but has no real basis. This is particularly true, since those who disagree with the consensus are often criticized and attacked as not being real scientists. See the problem?
Now, because there is no official authority behind the label pseudoscience, there is also no way it can be appealed. It is literally nothing but a derogatory term that is applied because of disagreement with a concept, so that its opponents can simply ignore anything the individuals who hold a particular position may have to make their case.
Once again, I am not saying that the label is never legitimate. However legitimate use of this label should only apply to demonstratable acts of deliberate fraud. Otherwise, it is simply the application of a derogatory term used to attack a position that the user disagrees with.
How evolutionists define both science and evidence.
One of the problems that evolutionists have that keeps them locked into their mindset besides philosophical naturalism, is how they define both science and evidence. To most evolutionists that I encounter online, they define both science and evidence by acceptance by the scientific establishment. In other words, if something is rejected by the scientific establishment, regardless of how well it fits the scientific method, it is neither science nor evidence. On the contrary, if it is accepted by the scientific establishment, even if it is nothing but a just so story, it is considered science and or evidence.
This is the entire basis on which they claim that there is no evidence for a global flood or for Biblical creation. It is also the entire basis for claiming that creation science is unscientific. It is an entire way of thought that works together to lock a person into what is essentially an atheistic worldview, even if somewhere in their thinking they believe in God.
Furthermore, this insistence that it has to be accepted by the scientific establishment also provides them with an excuse for summarily rejecting any references a creationist may give them, while claiming that we are the one rejecting evidence. In other words, they have an entire system of thought that rejects anything as science and evidence that is not part of that system of thought.
Why creationism cannot be pseudoscience.
The number one reason that creationism cannot be pseudoscience is that it is a philosophical position rather than a scientific one. In other words, whether they are creationists or not, anyone who thinks that creationism is a term for creation science is wrong. What it is really, is the philosophical underpinnings of creation science and intelligent design. This is in contrast to philosophical naturalism which is the underpinning of the entire Big Bang to man atheistic Mythology.
Creationism is the philosophical perspective on science that God is working behind the scenes but sometimes operates overtly. This means that something can be a miracle without being overtly supernatural. For example, there is a statistical probability of all of the air molecules in a room ending up in one corner of the room near the ceiling. Now this does not violate the laws of physics if it happens it is simply extremely improbable, however, God would be capable of overcoming those odds and producing such an event. Furthermore, this type of probability manipulation is quite capable of also producing such events as the parting of the Red Sea and of the Jordan river.
While God would Also be capable of actions that would qualify as violations of the laws of nature, this is no different than the programmer and administrator of a game Tweaking things to produce things beyond the rules of the game. However, in order for such actions to fit the scientific method it would have to produce results that would be detectable afterwards.
Why Creation Science is not pseudoscience.
Contrary to the claims made by evolutionists, creationists do follow the scientific method, even at least insofar as it is possible when dealing with historical sciences. There have been multiple creationist theories proposed that are indeed falsifiable, which is the main criteria for the scientific method. Furthermore, some of these have indeed been falsified, while there are others that have passed the test.
The number one problem is it evolutionists tend to define both science and evidence in terms of what is acceptable to the scientific establishment. When you look at everything from that perspective by its very nature no alternatives to the Big Bang to man story are going to stand a chance. This is because it will have the appearance of being supported by the evidence, and being science, while nothing else will.
Ultimately, creation science does not qualify pseudoscience because it is an honest scientific effort. Are there some people who do not know what they are doing? Yes of course there are, but there are plenty that fit that description on the evolutionist side of things. However, this does not change the fact that there are professional scientists among creationists who are doing good quality work.
Why is the derogatory term pseudoscience used.
Ultimately, the label of pseudoscience is nothing but a derogatory term that is used to attack ideas that the person using it does not like. Such derogatory terms are frequently used by people who cannot defend their own position against the other perspective. The use of this and other derogatory terms gives the person using it a sense of superiority in an excuse to ignore anything the other person has said, and any references that they have given.
Why the Big Bang to man evolutionary story can be considered pseudoscience.
The irony in all of this, is that there are plenty of reasons why you could label the entire Big Bang to man evolutionary story pseudoscience. The simple fact of the matter is that these models have been patched so many times to solve problems between them and reality that in any practical sense they have become unfalsifiable.
The number one example of this is dark energy. The Big Bang cosmology predicted two possible fates for the universe. The first is that the mass of the universe would be sufficient for gravity to stop the expansion resulting in a collapse and possibly another Big Bang. The second would be that the mass of the universe was not sufficient to stop the expansion completely but slowing it down never reaching a full stop. However, when the necessary measurements were made, calculations from within The Big Bang model resulted in the conclusion that the expansion rate was accelerating. Rather than questioning the overall model, they invented what is called dark energy, something for which there is no actual evidence but whose existence has only been surmised to save The Big Bang from reality. This is despite the fact that a bounded universe with the solar system near the center would produce the same observations without dark energy. This of course would be untenable from an atheistic perspective because it would imply that we are in a special place in the universe.
I have also recently read of the idea that a star passed near our solar system a couple of billion years ago. This idea was invented for the sole purpose of explaining moons around the gas giants that are in retrograde orbits. These orbits are contrary to the nebula hypothesis, but this close approach of a star was invented to solve the problem. There is no other evidence for the existence of this star. That is, we cannot point to a particular star calculate its path back and place it at the right place and time. This is purely an idea invented to save the nebular hypothesis from reality.
These types of patches can be seen throughout the entire Big Bang to man mythology. Given all this the only thing that saves the idea from being labeled pseudoscience is the fact that it is popular within the scientific establishment, and that atheists are happy with it.
Conclusion
In conclusion neither creationism nor creation science really qualifies pseudoscience. Creationism is the philosophical basis for creation science and those engaged in creation science use the scientific method. But have produced falsifiable theories that have passed the test. The Big Bang to man atheistic mythology on the other hand has more patches in it, than is reasonable for anything that can legitimately be called science.
