Creation "science" is spurious science. To treat it as science we would have to overlook its intolerable vagueness. We would have to abandon large parts of well-established sciences (physics, chemistry, and geology, as well as evolutionary biology, are all candidates for revision). We would have to trade careful technical procedures for blind guesses, unified theories for motley collections of special techniques. Exceptional cases, whose careful pursuit has so often led to important turnings in the history of science, would be dismessed with a wave of the hand. Nor would there be any gains. There is not a single scientific question to which Creationism provides its own detailed problem solution. In short, Creationism could take a place among the sciences only if the substance of methods of contemporary science were mutilated to make room for a scientifically worthless doctrine. What price Creationism?(Hat tip: Doctor Spurt).
Friday, July 11, 2008
Philip Kitcher's book Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature was an absolute travesty, but his earlier Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (and later The Advancement of Science) seem pretty darn good. A quote from Abusing Science: