A common argument used by creationists is that evolution has never been directly "observed" and, therefore, doesn't count as real "science." What would be the consequences if this standard were actually adhered to in a logically consistent manner?

Canadian Cynic (via Pharyngula) describes what it might be like for a creationist trying to report a burglary to police who followed the creationists' preferred methodology:

"Hi," mumbles John, "I'd like to report a burglary. My TV, my stereo, all kinds of stuff ... gone. Everything. Can you get someone out here right away?"

"Whoa, slow down," says the good sergeant, "back up a bit. How do you know you've been burglarized? Let's not jump to any conclusions here."

"Well," says John, collecting himself and feeling just a bit irked by the officer's tone of skepticism, "I just got home, the back door was open, the window pane was smashed, and lots of my stuff is missing! So can you send someone out? Maybe they can find some clues as to who did this."

"Well," says the sergeant off-handedly, "did anyone actually see this happen? I mean, do you have any actual eyewitnesses?"

"What?!", yells John. "What do you mean, did anyone actually see this? Of course not! I just got home, my door was smashed in and most of my stuff is gone! No, there were no witnesses! What the hell kind of question is that?!" bellows John in a decidedly un-Christian tone of voice.

"Now, calm down," says the sergeant, "it's like this. Used to be, when we got a call like this, we'd be right out, do stuff like take pictures, dust for fingerprints and all that; scientifically, you know. But -- and here's the funny thing -- turns out that's not science at all. Turns out that, unless you have an eyewitness -- you know, someone who actually saw all this happen -- it's not really science. So, sorry to say, we can't help you out there. I mean, we could come out and poke around but, it not being science and all, it wouldn't really do a whole lot of good."

"Are you serious?!?!" screams John into the phone. "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! There's piles of evidence all over the place! Hell, I'm standing in my bedroom and I can see a fingerprint on my dresser from here! Are you telling me there's nothing you can do with that?!"

"Well," says the sergeant, "sure, that's evidence. But seeing as no one actually saw how it got there, it's only what you'd call "indirect" evidence. So it doesn't really help."

"You're crazy!" John is now seriously losing it, and he can't believe he's having this conversation. "Where in God's name did you get these idiotic ideas?!"

Yeah, where do you think he got such ideas? From creationists, naturally. Creationists don't know much about science, but that doesn't stop them from claiming that "real" science requires direct observation of any events that one wants to make claims about. Indirect evidence doesn't count, only direct observation. Indirect evidence allows for speculation and perhaps religious faith, but it doesn’t allow for real scientific conclusions.

Creationists probably wouldn't follow such a principle to its logical conclusions where criminology and medicine are concerned, so either they haven't really thought about what they are saying or they are hypocritical. Problem is, both options are equally likely.

Read More:

• Evolution vs. Creationism
• Science vs. Religion
• Recent
• What is Evolution?
• What is Creationism?
• What is Science?