What is Creationary Science?
Robert A. Herrmann, Ph. D. Theoretical scientific research has produced various theories or models for how our present universe may have come into being; where these theories give hypothesized rules, processes, or entities that in a step-by-step evolutionary manner may have produced the observed objects contained within our present universe. This is done so that the theory's predictions are logically consistent with results obtained from today's observational cosmology, geology and biology. Further, such theories also give consistent explanations for the actual evidence that is gathered from various sites throughout our solar system. However, within theories that claim to represent how our universe came into being or how it is presently developing, many of the hypothesized entities or processes either cannot be observed by human or machine sensors, or they cannot be reproduced within a laboratory setting. The same holds, at present, for all of the present standard theories of macroevolution, many aspects of the standard quantum theories and the like.
For standard biological macroevolution, some of the hypothesized processes are, at present, only observed for certain biological entities. These processes are then extended to cover the unobserved, and it is claimed that these unobserved processes hold even without laboratory verification. Indeed, in many cases, actual verification is probably not possible due to the influences of the experimenter's laboratory itself or our lack of knowledge as to the correct or even consistent parameters that existed in the far past. Further, all such hypotheses are based upon the unverifiable assumption that the "natural laws" we claim govern the behavior of a natural-system today have never varied.
The most investigated and discussed of all cosmological models, the standard (Big Bang) model, and many other competing versions have been publicly funded for the research community, and they have been refined and improved upon through the efforts of thousands of highly trained individuals. The same can be said for all attempts to match geological and fossil findings with the standard evolutionary old earth-solar system theory.
On the other hand, recent and equally consistent cosmological, geological, and biological theories - creationary theories (or models) - have been developed, usually without any special funding, and they have been investigated often by only a relatively few highly trained individuals. (The term "creationary" (or creation), as explained below, is relative to philosophic choice.) Creationary science theory builders follow the exact same technical procedures, the exact same logical rules, as followed by those who construct standard theories. Creationary theories also may hypothesize scientifically unobservable entities or processes.
Any evidence that "fits" the predictions of either a standard theory or creationary theory does not establish as fact unobservable entities or processes according to the tenets of the scientific method. "A hypothesis becomes verified, but of course not proved beyond any doubt, through the successful predictions it makes." (Cohen and Nagel, Logic and the Scientific Method, Harcourt, Brace , N. Y. 1934). For this reason, such verification is called "indirect." It is self-evident that if two distinctly different sets of hypotheses, each containing unobservable entities or processes, predict the same indirectly verified evidence, then a choice as to the correct set of hypotheses cannot be based upon any canons of the scientific method.
In comparing these recent, shall we call them, rough creationary theories with those that have been so extensively refined and improved upon, it is very remarkable that these rough theories do explain to such a high degree the same observational evidence as that explained by the refined and improved standard theories. It should be self-evident that rough theories should not be rejected solely because, at present, they have not been refined to such a point that they predict all events as well as the refined and improved theories. Of course, if a rough theory's predictions yield a direct observational contradiction, then a great deal more than refinement would be needed and it probably should not be further considered until the contradictory prediction no long occurs.
As discussed in the article on the scientific methods used, I use the same methods as those used by the scientific community relative to theoretical science and indirect (observational) verification. As stated previously, properly constituted creationary theories use the exact same rules and procedures as those used to construct properly constituted "standard" scientific theories. When I am concerned with creationary science, the procedures I practice do not alter in any manner the accepted methods for theory construction. Using these accepted methods, there tends to be two approaches to creationary science. One approach is to add to the hypotheses a "Divine intervention statement." The addition of this hypothesis during various aspects of theory building does not alter the methods utilized. The method I use is not of this type. All of the creationary science models I have discovered do not use as a fundamental hypothesis any such Divine intervention concept. Since much natural world science is based upon the concept called initial conditions, then the existence of such initial conditions yields for the models I construct the prediction that there exist ultranatural initial conditions that yield the specific behavior being described. Relative to creationary science, I use the concept called re-interpretation. After a model is constructed, not before, the terminology is altered by replacing various ultranatural initial conditions or some other "ultra" prefixed terms with theological terms. All other aspects of the scientific method used remain unaltered.
Since most major physical events predicted by most of the theories produced by such theoretical methods cannot be verified by an exact laboratory experiment using the hypothesized natural or ultranatural entities or processes, then all such theories and the events they tend to explain should probably be categorized as a form of scientific speculation although many, who through great effort produce such theories, would probably categorize their work as but theoretical science. However, such theories cannot be characterized as scientific fact. Notwithstanding such a categorization, the questions these theories attempt to answer are, however, highly interesting relative to an individual's personal philosophy. For this reason, knowledge as to the existence of the refined and improved theories - the standard theories - and the existence of the rough creationary theories that are all approximately equivalent in explanatory power to the standard theories is of considerable significance. It is self-evident that, in order to consider a choice between competing theories, individuals would need to have unbiased knowledge as to a theory's specific predictions as well as the hypothesized unobservable entities and processes. However, if an individual wishes to make an informed and appropriate choice from a collection of theories that are equivalent in explanatory power, then the choice would need to be based upon philosophic or other non-scientific considerations.
As a minimal requirement, I consider a properly constructed scientific theory or model a (Biblical) "creationary" science theory or model if it, at the least, does not contradict a strict interpretation of the Bible's Genesis 1 creationary statements. The strength of any such theory or model depends upon whether it also predicts not only each Biblical creationary event, including the Genesis Flood, but whether it also predicts physical events as observed today. Although such an interpretation is not necessary, there is a theological interpretation of the GGU-model that yields every strictly interpreted physical event as described in Genesis through the Flood, as well as, all physical events that have been observed and recorded since the Flood. Of course, besides this minimal requirement, Biblical creationary theories can validate many other theological principles.
17 JULY 1999
Return to home page