For a model to be scientific, it must adhere to scientific principles.
- It must have explanatory power: it must show how the hypothesized mechanisms logically yield the observations claimed to support the hypothesis.
- The above requirement also automatically leads to an additional requirement: the model must yield predictions about future observations. For instance, if what we know about gravity is correct, then one would expect future observations to reflect predictable behaviour. Any observation inconsistent with such predictions would lead to rejection or revision of the model.
- It must be consistent with known scientific laws: for instance, any model that violates the law of conservation of energy would automatically be suspect.
- It must be falsifiable: there must be the hypothetical possibility of observations that would, if they were made, cause the model to be rejected or at least revised.
- The observations that support the hypothesis must be repeatable and independently verifiable. For instance, a morphological assay of fossil forms based on the same dataset performed by independent scientists must be capable of yielding the same phylogenetic tree.
- It must be parsimonious: the model should depend on as few unsupportable assumptions as necessary to match the above requirements.
Creationism violates at least some and possibly all of the above requirements, and can therefore not be regarded a scientific model.
To be technical it is supported by no evidence, is internally inconsistent and is not falsifiable.
Scientific theory can usually be proven by a repeatable experiment. Popular theory is just what the masses and media think.
It leads to the process of the scientific theory. :)
A scientific theory is an explanation of some natural phenomenon. A scientific law is a succinct statement of some aspect of a scientific theory.
The new knowledge is used to reevaluate the theory
Evolution is a scientific theory explaining the diversity of modern life. The various forms of creationism are religious beliefs, usually inspired by ancient myths captured in religious scriptures.
To be technical it is supported by no evidence, is internally inconsistent and is not falsifiable.
No, public schools should not teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes because creationism is not based on scientific evidence and is considered a religious belief. Science classes should focus on teaching scientifically supported theories and concepts. Students can explore creationism in a religious studies class or outside of the science curriculum.
Because he champions the validity of the scientific bases for the theory of evolution. He also effectively educates regarding the inadequacy of Creationism as a scientific theory.
Creationism can and should be taught in a sociology classroom setting, but not in a science classroom like some people want it to be. The reason for this is that creationism is not a scientific theory or even principle, it's part of cultural mythology.
Aside from some genuine scientific concern about the mechanism of heritability and the role of genes at about 1900, the greatest opposition to the theory has been religious ideology and social science/humanities misunderstandings about the theory. Google creationism. Google secular creationism. Google the modern synthesis.
Creationism can be called a scientific theory only by means of the most egregious sophistry.Sophistry is a charlatan's best defense against the truth.
Absolutely not. The Theory of Evolution is the accepted scientific theory of how living things evolved on this planet. If you're looking for a "bankrupt" theory a serious contender would be the unscientific theory of Creationism. It has absolutely no scientific currency to support it. However, as Ayn Rand said so eloquently: Those who deny reason cannot be conquered by it.
No.Creationism is seen by the scientific community as pseudoscience at best, religious interference at worst. In official definitions, it is a hypothesis only, and not a scientific one at that. Regardless of what its supporters claim or would like to believe, they are a very tiny minority. 99.9% of scientists accept the current mainstream views such as the Big Bang theory and the thmodern evolutionary synthesis, and have in the process invalidated creationism as a viable alternative.
Scientific theory can usually be proven by a repeatable experiment. Popular theory is just what the masses and media think.
Creationism.
Creationism.