Untestable creationist is a matter of belief

SCMP Education Mailbag - (Mar 14, 2009)

Proponents of creationism like to claim it as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. But it is no such thing. In fact there is no conflict at all between these two ideas because they occupy different magisteria (to borrow the terminology of Stephen Jay Gould). Darwinian evolution and all of science are a matter of evidence and deduction: verifiable postulates often labeled as 'theories'.

Creationism (and it's cretinous sibling 'intelligent design') like all faith-based stories is a matter of belief. It is entirely untestable and unverifiable. This is the whole point of religious faith - it is based on one's ability to believe despite a lack of evidence. Science, on the other hand, requires evidence.

If one is to choose to believe in the literal truth of the Bible in its entirety, then why not just believe that all the observations in support of evolution are a ruse of the Almighty?

In any case, such belief has no impact on science and is of no relevance to the teaching of science. Creationism is certainly not an 'alternative explanation' for evolution within biology.

It is therefore disappointing to find that the Education Bureau responding to imaginary demons and orchestrating a conflict between science and religion ('Scientists urge excluding God from biology'). Their mandate that alternative explanations to evolution could be discussed, should not in the context of a science classroom be taken as an invitation to creationism.

Creationism is not science. Of course such ideas should be discussed but as part of a class on ethics or religion. Moreover, I hope that the principals of two local schools were misquoted in saying that they either do not approve of evolution or that creationism offered a counterbalancing theory. Neither of these views is commensurate with a proper understanding of science.

MICHAEL SMALL, Mid-Levels