Why is creationism not usually regarded as a scientific theory today?

Answer 1

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.