In Genesis, we get to see the presentation of belief on account of the universe’s creation. Some creationists consider the Creation theory of Genesis based on Science, Evolution theory, and Big bang theory, and they believe they are false. These creationists name their belief as Creation Science.
There was a campaign by the Creation Science advocates to teach the biblical version of Creation theory as Science in United States public schools along with Charles Darwin’s Evolution Theory. There came a law requiring Simulation Creationism introducing in public schools by the state of Arkansas. A federal judge said that this rule was unconstitutional in 1981, and he believed that Simulation Creationism is religious. The overturning of similar law took place in Louisiana in 1982.
In defense, creationists always assert that things like Evolution are just a theory but not a fact. Some scientists and intellectuals such as Carl Sagan say that Evolution is a fact, not just a theory. Stephen Jay Gould claims that Evolution is both a theory and a reality. The occurrence of Evolution is a fact. But the mechanism with which Evolution has occurred is theoretical. Stephen Jay Gould says that Charles Darwin was continually emphasizing the difference between two of his well-known accomplishments: establishing the theory of Evolution and proposing the theory of natural selection to explain the idea of Evolution. These theories of Charles Darwin led to some intellectual debates. Creationists consider evolutionists’ arguments as a sign of weakness by mistaking between unscientific and uncertainty in science.
One significant indication that an idea or a theory is non-scientific is that the concept is irrefutable and absolute. It’s not possible to empirically test a particular hypothesis. The demand for total certainty and infallibility comes under not science but pseudoscience. A perfect example is Simulation Creationism, a non-scientific theory, and one can’t falsify the concept. Stephen Jay Gould says that he can envision experiments and observations that would prove any Evolution theory wrong. But Gould cannot think of any possible information that can make creationists abandon their beliefs about Simulation Creationism. Science is not the dogma, but unbeatable systems are. The data that makes so-called Scientific Creationism pseudoscience is that these concepts attempt to pass themselves as science even though they have no proof and share nothing familiar with scientific theories. Simulation Creationism is going to remain as a theory forever. It won’t engender any debates among researchers and scientists about the fundamental mechanisms of this universe. It won’t give birth to any empirical predictions that can test the creation theory. One can consider it as an irrefutable theory. Any evidence that is capable of falsifying the creation theory will be facing rejection.
However, the history of science shows that scientific theories keep changing every time we obtain new information. The long history of science and the history of one absolute truth building upon other fundamental truths are not the same. Instead, it is the history of testing, rejecting, refining, arguing, replacing, more testing, theorizing, etc. It is the history of different anomalies occurring, few theories working well, for the time being, proposals of new approaches, obtaining further information and facts which can prove some of the famous ideas wrong. And in time, replacing the old theories wholly and partially.
Of course, it is okay for scientists to act unscientific and be dishonest and dogmatic. But the fact that one finds an occasional charlatan or oddball in scientific history or a genius and intelligent person with integrity among pseudoscientists does not mean that there is no difference between pseudoscience and science. Because of these debates’ empirical and public natures, one can identify the oddballs, correct the errors, and the real and honest pursuit of truth can prevail in the end. It won’t be the same case with pseudosciences because there is less chance of detecting errors and fewer correcting methods.
Some scientific theories are so vague and broad that they have information and predictions just about everything. It’s not easy to reject them, not even in principle. Everything, including contraries and apparent contradictions, seems to be consistent with them. Whereas some other theories allow proper predictions, and in principle, one can refute them. Scientists and researchers test them through experiments and observation. A religious cosmology is of the former type of theory that people speak in Genesis and accept as a literal account of the origin of everything, including the universe, by fundamentalist Christians and Jews. The best examples are the Steady State theory and the Big Bang theory for the latter type of approach. We call the religious cosmology metaphysical or non-scientific. People consider the Big Bang theory and Steady State theories as scientific theories. It’s okay for metaphysical theories to be self-consistent, and there is no scientific theory that is ever alright.
Anybody can prove a religious cosmology by a religious group scientifically. For example, if a theory tries to say that the universe’s creation is around 4004 B.C. But facts indicate that this planet is several billion years old, then the idea is a scientific one if anybody can refute the concept with some valid evidence. But if the ad hoc hypothesis says that the creation of this world took place around 4004 B.C. by God with some fossils that make the earth look much older than it is, maybe to examine our faith in him, we can say the religious theory is metaphysical. If the idea is alright, nobody can refute it.
Even if the age and some dating techniques of fossil evidence prove false, one can still say that the theory is metaphysical considering the relevance to the truth of religious ideas and the approach’s consistency. If any spiritual cosmologist says that the planet earth is not a billion years old based on scientific tests that can prove the world is very young rather than old. The burden is that religious cosmologists demonstrate and confirm the dating process of fossils, and standard scientific methods are full of errors. Otherwise, no reasonable human being can consider and accept the theory, which requires us to believe that the whole scientific community is erroneous.
The unscientific qualities of religious and pseudo-scientific cosmology experts are applicable not just in their attempt to make facts fit to theories that cosmologists believe in. It is a human quality that affects researchers and scientists too. Instead, the non-scientific and religious cosmologists place their belief in the revelation of absolute truth, and people say that there is no need for the inquiry to search for the truth. To a mind that doesn’t believe in science, truth and facts are not open to question, rejection, and refinement. To such an individual, science is given only to select people to guard and keep it forever.
Many people believe in religious cosmology such that they do not consider their beliefs to be scientific, as given in Genesis. These believers do not accept the Bible as a scientific text. To them, the teachings from the Bible are pertinent to their spiritual lives. It conveys spiritual thoughts about God and the relationships between God, nature, humans, and the rest of the universe. When the issue relates to scientific discovery, these people say that one should not take the Bible. People should read the Bible for its spiritual message, not for Physics, Chemistry, or Biology lessons.