Is creationism provable?

If you can disprove evolution, write a paper about it, get it peer-reviewed, and collect your Nobel prize. Seriously.

Update:

@No chance without Jesus: what's ridiculous about something being peer-reviewed?

13 Answers

Relevance
  • 7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    "Is creationism provable?

    If you can disprove evolution ..."

    All claims of the unobserved past are logically unfalsifiable by the scientific method. Whether Biblical creation, Common Ancestry or Standard Cosmology (incorporating Big Bang theory), there is no weight of evidence that could necessitate their rejection. Any apparent inconsistent evidence could be explained away as "we just don't know how this evidence fits our model yet". And it is logically possible that future discoveries will find a way to reconcile the contrary evidence to the theory - but its that possibility which makes it unfalsifiable. It's that possibility which allows for contrary evidence to be sidelined.

    "write a paper about it, get it peer-reviewed ... what's ridiculous about something being peer-reviewed"

    What's ridiculous is the common assumption that peer review represents some unbiased pillar of objectivity. Bias in peer review is well described in the peer review literature itself.

    For example;

    "Confirmatory bias is the tendency to emphasize and believe experiences which support one's views and to ignore or discredit those which do not. The effects of this tendency have been repeatedly documented in clinical research. … In addition to showing poor interrater agreement, reviewers were strongly biased against manuscripts which reported results contrary to their theoretical perspective."

    (Mahoney MJ (1977) ‘Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System’, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 161-175(161))

    [Available at: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1097087/908376224/nam... ]

    "peer review is impossible to define in operational terms (an operational definition is one whereby if 50 of us looked at the same process we could all agree most of the time whether or not it was peer review) …

    Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked ‘publish’ and ‘reject’. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. When I was editor of the BMJ I was challenged by two of the cleverest researchers in Britain to publish an issue of the journal comprised only of papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. I wrote back ‘How do you know I haven’t already done it?’ (p178)

    there is no agreed definition of what constitutes a good paper or a good research proposal. …

    we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused. …

    People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process. …

    peer review is a subjective and, therefore, inconsistent process." (p179)

    (Smith R (2006) ‘Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 99, pp. 178-182.)

    [Available at: http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full.pdf ]

    "Throughout the literature, charges of systematic bias—not just isolated incidents—are repeatedly aired … (p3)

    the stringency and consistency with which peer review procedures are applied across this population are variable. … (p4)

    There are many reasons to challenge this ideal notion of impartiality in peer review. … (p5)

    Confirmation bias is the tendency to gather, interpret, and remember evidence in ways that affirm rather than challenge one’s already held beliefs (Nickerson, 1998). Historical and philosophical analyses have demonstrated the obstructive and constructive role that confirmation bias has played in the course of scientific inquiry, theorizing, and debate (Greenwald, Pratkanis, Leippe, & Baumgardner, 1986; Solomon, 2001). In the context of peer review, confirmation bias is understood as reviewer bias against manuscripts describing results inconsistent with the theoretical perspective of the reviewer (Jelicic & Merckelbach, 2002)." (p9)

    (Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G & Cronin B (2013) ‘Bias in Peer Review’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 64(1), pp.2-17.)

    [Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.227... ]

    "collect your Nobel prize"

    More ridiculous is the assumption that the Nobel Prize committee would ever consider an outspoken creationist for the prize. They already have form - issuing the 2004 Nobel Prize for MRI technology, but excluding its actual inventor (creationist - Dr Raymond Damadian).

  • nosson
    Lv 4
    7 years ago

    Yes.

    Fact, we are here.

    Fact. random mutations and natural selection can't created information. If you doubt this please write a math paper showing how it can work or show it imperially and get your Nobel prize.

    Fact, the DNA code is information

    Fact, the universe is finite.

    Fact, there is no other possibility other then creation.

    Done.

    Creation vs evolution is a false dichotomy. I believe in both.

    If you think that is a crazy idea then that's because you don't see whats in front of you.

    You came from a single cell and evolved to a full person and yet it was not through random mutations.

  • Paul
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Based on what's claimed about "creationism," it's neither "provable" nor "falsifiable" -- because what's claimed is largely a fallacy of arguments from ignorance and incredulity.

    Were "creationists" to formulate proper scientific hypotheses about their "creation" claims, then perhaps they could be address like any other hypotheses -- one reason they *don't* do that, however (in addition to the fact that they don't understand the scientific method), is because evidence would falsify their hypotheses in a heartbeat.

    So instead they take dishonest, ignorant, fallacious "pot shots" at evolution, which in the feeble minds of the ignorant and gullible believers means "if evolution is false, then my creation myth is true." Which of course isn't the case, even if evolution WERE shown false.

    Delusion, ignorance, and dishonesty don't merit anything but ridicule and criticism, so that's what rational people give "creationism." Rightly so.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Scientific method: Make observation; develop or modify a hypothesis to explain observation; make predictions based on hypothesis; perform experiments to test predictions; analyse results; if FAIL, go back and develop another hypothesis; if PASS, submit results to be repeatedly tested in peer review.

    Creation ‘science’ method: Assume conclusion; affirm conclusion.

    1. "creation science" is an oxymoron.

    2. "creation science" has only ever stifled any human endeavour.

    3. "creation science" has contributed NOTHING to human progress.

    4. "creation science" has NOT discovered anything to benefit humanity.

    Intelligent design is not a scientific matter; it is a free speculation based on a fiction.

    There is NO "theory of creation".

    There is belief in supernatural creation, but there is no "theory", no mechanism, no predictions, no observability, no falsifiability, nothing to give creationism (or intelligent design, or creation science) the label of "theory".

    ~

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Did you know that the Catholic church actually believes that evolution is a valid theory? Now, unlike leading atheists like, Dawkins, Catholics do not believe that evolution can explain everything in the known universe such as the start of the world and universe as we know it. But, the Church agrees that evolutional theory has sound statements and reasoned theories. You see, it's interesting that alot of non-believers believe that just because you are Christian it means that you disregard all science. Which is simply not true. We do believe that God created the world and evolution is all apart of his design and creation. Evolution does not prove that there is no God.

  • 7 years ago

    with things like religion some people wil never believe no matter what proof you show them and it has nothing to do with the facts and everything to do with the fact that belief is not in their nature.

  • 7 years ago

    It is neither provable, nor falsifiable, which is why it is not considered by the scientific community,

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Peer reviewed....what a joke

  • 7 years ago

    No that's why religious people are always talking about having faith. They're brain washed, delusional and want god to be real.

  • 7 years ago

    No, it is impossible to prove false ideas as facts.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.