Creationists like to pretend to know something about science, but usually just end up demonstrating their ignorance. One good example is the attempt to 'prove' that evolution is incompatible with science, an attempt which involves distorted and outlandish definitions of science not actually used by anyone who works in the science. The definitions sound good to the ignorant, though.

Mark H. Creech, writing in opposition to religious leaders who don't have a problem with evolution, says:

Evolution operates too slowly to be measured. To actually observe the transmutation of one organism to a higher form would presumably take millions of years. No team of scientists could ever make measurements on such an experiment, and, therefore, the matter is beyond the realm of empirical science. Although there is some evidence of small variations in organisms today, there is no way to conclusively prove the changes within the present kinds can eventually metamorphose or actually change into different and higher kinds.

Let’s change this slightly and see what we get...

Plate tectonics operates too slowly to be measured. To actually observe the drift of continents from one place on the globe to another would presumably take millions of years. No team of scientists could ever make measurements on such an experiment, and, therefore, the matter is beyond the realm of empirical science. Although there is some evidence of small shifts in the land today, there is no way to conclusively prove the movement of an entire continent from one position to radically different and distant positions elsewhere on the globe.

Is this too far-fetched to take seriously? Not at all — the creationists like Mark Creech who oppose evolution are every bit as strident in their opposition to modern geology, and a cornerstone of modern geology is plate tectonics. The simple fact is that plate tectonics is as incompatible with their religious beliefs as evolution is. The arguments against both, as demonstrated by the above, are largely the same.

As to the “definition” of science above, it’s simply untrue that slow-moving processes which cannot be easily observed are outside the boundaries of empirical science. Mark Creech’s claim here is asinine — there’s no generous or kind way of putting it. If Mark Creech were a detective, he’d never solve any crime he didn’t personally witness. Unless someone is there to see what’s going on, he’d conclude that it’s impossible to use empirical science to evaluate the evidence and come up with any rational, supported conclusions about who did what.

Fortunately, science doesn’t work the way Mark Creech claims it does. Scientists don’t need to be there to witness every single event they discuss. Instead, they can use the evidence at hand to extrapolate forwards and backwards in order to learn about what’s going on. They can also make predictions about what they will find, thus testing their explanations against reality — something which I suspect Mark Creech has never even thought about doing.

 

Read More:

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