Philosophy of science 4 Questions about the origins of the Earth exhibit this contrast of approach most clearly. Standard science has an explanation of the birth of the solar system that shows how gravitational forces within clouds of gas would condense the gases to stars and planets. The laws of nature we have discovered allow us to trace back the history of the universe to its earliest moments.Observation of the red-shift of galaxies allows us to formulate Hubble's law relating the speed of the recession of those galaxies to their distance.This in turn gives us some idea of the rate of expansion of the universe and hence its age.The creationists have nothing to say along such lines.The Earth and Sun and life were created simultaneously,several thousand years ago,as an act of God.How do we know this? Judge Overton quotes a leading creationist authority: ...it is...quite impossible to determine anything about the Creation through a study of present processes,because present processes are not creative in character.If man wishes to know anything about Creation (the time of Creation,the duration of Creation,the order of Creation,the methods of Creation,or anything else)his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation.God was there when it happened.We were not there...Therefore we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us,and this information is in His written Word.This is our textbook on the science of Creation! Such an approach to the facts of creation is scarcely "tentative".Not only is it the final word,it is the Word.If creation were not subject to natural laws,then no amount of scientific investigation could have any bearing on it.This aspect of creationism is independent of natural explanation.It has no need of being tentative.Faith may be strong or it may be weak,but it is not a hypothesis.As creationism is not a hypothesis that invokes natural law,it is not open to amendment or refutation in the face of experience. The above quotation makes it clear that,as creation is quite a different sort of happening from anything occurring today,no observation of the latter could bear on claims about the former.The point of remarks such as these is not to refute any belief in divine creation,but to examine the claim that such beliefs can be scientific.There may be non- scientific knowledge of and justification for beliefs in creation;but that is another question.It may be worth remarking that there are few,if any,people who have adopted creationism without being religious and because of the supposedly scientific arguments for it. Creationists are fond not only of displaying the scientific credentials of their arguments but also of pointing out that evolutionists depend upon faith as much as anyone.This refers to the fact that there are unsolved problems concerning evolution.In the face of such difficulties,the scientists'belief in evolution must be a matter of faith. While most of these unsolved anomalies are in fact spurious or have already been solved (e.g.Kelvin's objection).it must be admitted that there are others for which a satisfactory solution remains to be found.For instance,the processes whereby life emerged from the primaeval soup are poorly understood.While we know how amino acids,the building blocks of organic molecules,can be created in a primitive atmosphere,there is a problem with understanding the origin of proteins.The interaction of proteins is not merely chemical but also depends on their large-scale architecture.It is not clear how proteinsQuestions about the origins of the Earth exhibit this contrast of approach most clearly. Standard science has an explanation of the birth of the solar system that shows how gravitational forces within clouds of gas would condense the gases to stars and planets. The laws of nature we have discovered allow us to trace back the history of the universe to its earliest moments. Observation of the red-shift of galaxies allows us to formulate Hubble’s law relating the speed of the recession of those galaxies to their distance. This in turn gives us some idea of the rate of expansion of the universe and hence its age. The creationists have nothing to say along such lines. The Earth and Sun and life were created simultaneously, several thousand years ago, as an act of God. How do we know this? Judge Overton quotes a leading creationist authority: …it is…quite impossible to determine anything about the Creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wishes to know anything about Creation (the time of Creation, the duration of Creation, the order of Creation, the methods of Creation, or anything else) his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was there when it happened. We were not there… Therefore we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word. This is our textbook on the science of Creation!4 Such an approach to the facts of creation is scarcely “tentative”. Not only is it the final word, it is the Word. If creation were not subject to natural laws, then no amount of scientific investigation could have any bearing on it. This aspect of creationism is independent of natural explanation. It has no need of being tentative. Faith may be strong or it may be weak, but it is not a hypothesis. As creationism is not a hypothesis that invokes natural law, it is not open to amendment or refutation in the face of experience. The above quotation makes it clear that, as creation is quite a different sort of happening from anything occurring today, no observation of the latter could bear on claims about the former. The point of remarks such as these is not to refute any belief in divine creation, but to examine the claim that such beliefs can be scientific. There may be non￾scientific knowledge of and justification for beliefs in creation; but that is another question. It may be worth remarking that there are few, if any, people who have adopted creationism without being religious and because of the supposedly scientific arguments for it. Creationists are fond not only of displaying the scientific credentials of their arguments but also of pointing out that evolutionists depend upon faith as much as anyone. This refers to the fact that there are unsolved problems concerning evolution. In the face of such difficulties, the scientists’ belief in evolution must be a matter of faith. While most of these unsolved anomalies are in fact spurious or have already been solved (e.g. Kelvin’s objection), it must be admitted that there are others for which a satisfactory solution remains to be found. For instance, the processes whereby life emerged from the primaeval soup are poorly understood. While we know how amino acids, the building blocks of organic molecules, can be created in a primitive atmosphere, there is a problem with understanding the origin of proteins. The interaction of proteins is not merely chemical but also depends on their large-scale architecture. It is not clear how proteins Philosophy of science 4