Philosophy of science 2 communism that brought the teaching of evolution to those schools where it had been ignored.The launch of Sputnik in 1957,the first artificial satellite,raised the spectre of the USSR stealing a march on the USA in science and technology,and thereby led to a revival in science education,although Tennessee's Butler Act forbidding the teaching of evolution remained on the statute books until 1967.) Since the end of the Cold War,Christian fundamentalists,allied with elements of the political right wing (a coalition known as the Religious Right),have sought to regain their position in American education.But the educational and political climate has changed so much that there could be no return to an outright ban on evolutionist teaching. The next best thing for the Religious Right would be the introduction,on equal terms,of the creationist alternative into the syllabus.Even so,as creationism is a religious doctrine, teaching it in state schools would clearly violate the First Amendment of the Constitution regarding separation of church and state.So,in order to get creationism introduced into schools,and,better,into the same classes in which evolution is taught,supporters of creationism have sought to pass it off as a purely scientific doctrine devoid of religious content.In their words "the creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model. and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."2 Indeed,the state of Arkansas passed a law that required equal treatment of evolution and creationism.Scientists and churchmen immediately challenged the constitutionality of the new law in the courts.They argued that,despite the rhetoric and the appearance of scientific respectability,creation science simply is not science but religion dressed up as science.What is at issue is not science versus religion (many religious people reject creationism),or the question of whether creationism is true or even reasonable.The debate focuses on the claims of creation science to be scientific.So the court had to ask: what is science?When is a claim scientific?How do we distinguish science from non- science or pseudo-science?These are all philosophical questions,and the court had the benefit of the testimony of philosophers as well as scientists in its deliberations.The opinion of the judge.William R.Overton,is interesting in this respect,because he summed up the criteria he used in deciding whether creationism is scientific.3 He said that a scientific theory has the following features: (a)It is guided by natural law. (b)It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law. (c)It is testable against the empirical world. (d)Its conclusions are tentative,i.e.are not necessarily the final word. (e)It is falsifiable What did Overton mean by these criteria?The creationist claims about the origins of the world,in order to be science rather than mere assertion,must be claims (a)about what the laws of nature are,or (b)about facts which themselves have explanations in terms of natural law.(I will tend to use the term "law of nature"for what Overton calls "natural law").What are laws of nature?This is a question for the next chapter,but roughly speaking they are the very general relations among things that explain their behaviour- the sort of things that we call the laws of physics,chemistry,and so on.Newton's laws of motion,Ohm's law of resistance,Hooke's law of elasticity,and So on are things we think or have thought are laws,(c)The claims must be made in such a way as to be testable,i.e. be sufficiently detailed as to have observable consequences or testable predictions thatcommunism that brought the teaching of evolution to those schools where it had been ignored. The launch of Sputnik in 1957, the first artificial satellite, raised the spectre of the USSR stealing a march on the USA in science and technology, and thereby led to a revival in science education, although Tennessee’s Butler Act forbidding the teaching of evolution remained on the statute books until 1967.) Since the end of the Cold War, Christian fundamentalists, allied with elements of the political right wing (a coalition known as the Religious Right), have sought to regain their position in American education. But the educational and political climate has changed so much that there could be no return to an outright ban on evolutionist teaching. The next best thing for the Religious Right would be the introduction, on equal terms, of the creationist alternative into the syllabus. Even so, as creationism is a religious doctrine, teaching it in state schools would clearly violate the First Amendment of the Constitution regarding separation of church and state. So, in order to get creationism introduced into schools, and, better, into the same classes in which evolution is taught, supporters of creationism have sought to pass it off as a purely scientific doctrine devoid of religious content. In their words “the creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model.”2 Indeed, the state of Arkansas passed a law that required equal treatment of evolution and creationism. Scientists and churchmen immediately challenged the constitutionality of the new law in the courts. They argued that, despite the rhetoric and the appearance of scientific respectability, creation science simply is not science but religion dressed up as science. What is at issue is not science versus religion (many religious people reject creationism), or the question of whether creationism is true or even reasonable. The debate focuses on the claims of creation science to be scientific. So the court had to ask: what is science? When is a claim scientific? How do we distinguish science from non￾science or pseudo-science? These are all philosophical questions, and the court had the benefit of the testimony of philosophers as well as scientists in its deliberations. The opinion of the judge, William R.Overton, is interesting in this respect, because he summed up the criteria he used in deciding whether creationism is scientific.3 He said that a scientific theory has the following features: (a) It is guided by natural law. (b) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law. (c) It is testable against the empirical world. (d) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word. (e) It is falsifiable. What did Overton mean by these criteria? The creationist claims about the origins of the world, in order to be science rather than mere assertion, must be claims (a) about what the laws of nature are, or (b) about facts which themselves have explanations in terms of natural law. (I will tend to use the term “law of nature” for what Overton calls “natural law”). What are laws of nature? This is a question for the next chapter, but roughly speaking they are the very general relations among things that explain their behaviour— the sort of things that we call the laws of physics, chemistry, and so on. Newton’s laws of motion, Ohm’s law of resistance, Hooke’s law of elasticity, and So on are things we think or have thought are laws, (c) The claims must be made in such a way as to be testable, i.e. be sufficiently detailed as to have observable consequences or testable predictions that Philosophy of science 2