Scientific Creationism as a Pseudo-science

1. Entity type Lemma
2. Original titleმეცნიერული კრეაციონიზმი, როგორც ფსევდომეცნიერება
3. Language term English
4. lemma author Pataridze, Tamara
5. lemma category Modes of interaction > Orthodox critique of science - Various approaches to the problem of correlation between science and theology
6. lemma manifestations Academia.edu
7. Keywords Zaza Osmanov
8. Url Click Here
9. Lemma body

   1. By prof. Zaza Osmanov

      The contemporary orthodox circles are promoting some radical form of the theory of creationism. This has a serious adverse effect on the prestige of Orthodox Church. Creationism is a religious concept considering universe created by the omnipotent power. Thanks to its ability of the adaptation with Christian cosmogony and anthropology, creationism defined in such a general way shows easily compatible with the science and scientific views about the beginning of the life in universe. This aspect was already highlighted by the Christian theologians and researchers.

      Nevertheless, there are the orthodox circles adding to such a general definition of creationism some more concrete claims. They appear contradictory with the scientific views, and are, moreover, desynchronized with the Christian theological teaching oneself. The radical creationists adopt a very literal and linear interpretation of the Bible considering that the universe was created in 6 days composed by 24 hours. They promote the pseudo-science instead of accepting scientific methodology. The later can be defined as following:

      With the need to explain the natural phenomenon, the science is proposing the hypothesis first, and the prediction secondly, for unknown natural phenomenon. This prediction must be proved through experiments carried out in laboratories. Thus, for developing the hypothesis into a scientific theory, it is required to make prediction, and afterward, to prove this prediction in numerous independent laboratories. Instead of explaining the natural phenomenon on the basis of hypothesis, the radical creationists are promoting their views as unconditional truth.  

      Karl Popper has promoted a very original method to make distinction between the pseudo and scientific theories: according to the scholar, the conception can be considered as “scientific” only if it is refutable. This means that there always should be the openness for the doubt and the possibility to put the theory into question.  For example, the theories of the quantum mechanics are scientific because they are tested, namely, they are supported by numerous electronic tools and computers. Nevertheless, in principle, it is always still possible to put into question those understood rules of quantum mechanics. On the contrary, the radical creationists claim that “without refuting the dogma, it will be impossible to expand or to contract the time allotted to the creation” (Константин Буфеев, Ересь эволюционизма).  Consequentially, such a radical form of creationism is irrefutable since it is based on the dogma and it couldn’t be considered as scientific.

      Robert King Merton suggested the criteria to distinguish the science from pseudo-science. According to him the research must be original, objective (without preliminary preferences for some results rather than others), universal, based on the scientific facts independent from the personal faith. Moreover, the scientific outcomes must be universally accessible. Obviously, the radical creationism fails to satisfy that criteria.   

      We could add to all this the opinion of Paul A. Taggart who insists on the need in the progress: according to him, the science is always developing and progressing. On the contrary, we see that the pseudo-science, namely, a history of creationism, remains under the stagnation without any progress. We must conclude therefore that the scientific creationism is a pseudo-science.