What is Creationary Science?
Robert A. Herrmann, Ph. D. 17 JULY 1999. Last revision 5 FEB 2016.
Theoretical scientific research has produced various theories or models for how our present universe may have come into being. 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.
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, by definition, either cannot be observed by human or machine sensors or they cannot be reproduced within a laboratory setting. Verified predictions based upon the assumptions that such entities and processes exist is termed as indirect evidence. Indirect evidence is the mainstay for all of the present standard theories that describe the early development for most of todays cosmologies, for macroevolution, many aspects of the standard quantum theories and the like. Direct evidence is more difficult to describe and has numerous variations that depend upon personal choice. In the references is a link to a more in-depth discussion as to what constitutes evidence. Section (F), in that article, defines direct evidence.
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 not verifiable assumption that the "physical (natural) laws" we claim govern the behavior of a physical-system today have never varied. Any variations in the physical laws that predict behavior as observed today do not imply that such variations are not pre-designed. Any such alterations remain an aspect of God's unchanging behavior.
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 paradigm.
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 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 may also 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). This is another way to describe the notion of indirect evidence and that an hypothesis is only indirectly verified. It is self-evident that if two distinctly different sets of hypotheses, each containing unobservable entities or processes, predict the same verified evidence, then a choice as to the correct set of hypotheses cannot be based upon any canons of the scientific method.
In this article, the term "predict" means applications of the rules for classical deduction. In certain theoretical cases, it is claimed that predicted behavior does not follow the rules for classical logic. But, there is a great difference between gleaned behavior patterns and what constitutes the underlying logical processes that lead to conclusions, processes that, using classical logic, predict non-classical behavior. Although in the late 1800s, it was claimed by some that mathematics and, hence, its use does not follow certain of the standard rules for classical-logic discourse, these statements have proved to be faulty since the basic arguments often claim that a completed infinite cannot be "physically" sensed. This is a false claim. (See reference below.)
Of great significance are the distinct notions of the analogue and concrete models. Analogue models are created by human beings. They predict behavior that we otherwise may not be able to comprehend. In quantum theory, there is the notion of the quantum fields. These predict behavior. Most scientists who work in this area considered these as primitives. That is, they are not considered as composed of more fundamental entities. Further, by definition, they cannot be directly observed by any physical entity. These fields began as a pure analogue model for behavior. They are endowed with properties. Via mathematical means and applications of assumed processes, they predict the existence of "invisible" particles. These entities also cannot be directly observed. Then through continued mathematical efforts, this yields predictions as to the behavior of gross matter that can be observed by machine or human sensors.
However, there are other analogue models, propertons, that can be used as a primitive rather than quantum fields. Selecting the primitive used to construct an analogue model as physically real is but a philosophic choice. If such fields are accepted as fact, the model still does not acquire the status of a concrete model. Concrete models require the entities used to be observable.
Although few know the following fact, which is established in the article What is Spacetime? the General Theory of Relativity (GR) uses a geometric language to describe behavior within gravitational fields and this is analogue in character. Kepler guessed at his three laws of planetary motion. But. the second law is entirely unobservable within "Nature." Newton used these laws to derive his law of gravity for circular orbits. After years of contemplation, Newton generalized his law to all planetary orbits and, indeed, a "force" between bodies with "mass." In so doing, he showed that Kepler's third law is generally in error.
Newton's law describes observable physical behavior in terms of "force." There is the gravitational force that we can sense and, for various observable projectiles, the law predicts relative paths of motion under the influence of this gravitational force. These relative paths can be directly plotted. Is there another event that yields the gravitational force? In particle physics, a distinct entity is hypothesized, the graviton, that "carries" this force. On the other hand, the modern theory of propertons states that an immediate properton is the carrier. The behavior of such propertons is predicted from GR, where the Newton law is but an approximation.
What is usually not known is that the GR geometric language that describes the behavior of bodies within a gravitational field, when expressed in terms of the arc-length parameter, is directly translatable into the language of "forces." Rather than stating that such behavior is due to the "curvature" of spacetime (or just space), it is just as acceptable that such behavior is due to the "forces," "things" that "feel" real. Of course, this does remove the analogue language that science-fiction authors often claim refers to "real" physical stuff - the undefined "space."
Comparing these recent creationary theories with those that have been so extensively refined and improved upon, it is very remarkable that these creationary 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 such creationary 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 secular theories. Of course, if a rough theory's prediction yields a direct observational contradiction, then a great deal more than a refinement is needed. It probably should not be further considered until the contradictory prediction no long occurs.
There is the Bacon approach that starts with observed data obtained by general observation or via experimentation. Then one "guesses" at an hypothesis. Using modes of human deduction, this hypothesis is shown to verify the data. Replication yields the same type of data-set and again this verifies the hypothesis. The hypothesis might be termed fact. It is used to rationally predict data-sets that should be verified by observations. But, in the Kepler case and others, one of the accepted predictions does not correspond to observable fact. Many secular scientists would like to discredit the methods used for the GGU-model's predictions for the existence of an higher-intelligence even although the basic modeled hypotheses predict observable behavior. This cannot be done since the methods are exactly the same as those they employ. Further, acceptance of a physical hypothesis, if not continually tested, depends upon acceptance of the notion of the uniformity of physical law over time or space.
The general uniformity of physical law cannot be tested. Further, it is rather untrue that science is based upon this concept. Indeed, the philosopher of science John Stuart Mill rejects this general notion. In general, physical regulations are being or should be continually tested. (By-the-way, theologically, there is nothing in the Bible that states that God's regulations for physical behavior are fixed relative to space or time and that they are the same as regulations proposed by scientists. The Hebrew used in Jeremiah 33:25 for "ordinances" or "regulations" need not convey that, from our viewpoint, what passes for physically law is fixed in character. Most translations of this verse do not add the term "fixed." Further, the verse itself is not contained in the Greek LXX.)
Based upon observable evidence, the GGU-model predicts entities and processes that yield physical universes. When applied to theological, it supplies the absolute first step. It shows that the theological interpretation follows the rules of scientific logic (i.e. classical logic).
The GGU-model processes are fixed, but they can generate infinitely many different universes that satisfy infinitely many different physical laws. Theologically, this includes the special events termed miracle events. Every allowable universe and behavior scheme is pre-designed. This means that they exist rationally "prior" to physical realization. This "existence" can constitute a mental-type state of existence or such an additional characteristic can be omitted. One of the difficulties when a theological interpretation for the GGU-model is considered is that God is atemporal and human beings exist in a temporal or sequentially developing environment. Human comprehension of an atemporal view is difficult if the notion of a sequence is not retained in a pure not "time" consuming sense.
There is a predicted process that can be used to verify Mill's contention. It shows that there can be numerously many differences in observed "physical laws" during the past that "we" cannot detect through observation from our present time and position within the development of our universe. Such a variational process can certainly be considered as a fixed feature of God's creation. However, these and all other possible alterations in physical law are products of God's fixed regulations.
In this short article, I do not discuss whether the pure hypothesis-deduction or the Bacon approach is the best.
Evolutionist or secular scientists usually do not comprehend my creationist mind-set, if they are even slightly interested in the truth. The written work of individuals who are known as "Creationists" is completely ignored or highly ridiculed by many secular scientists who actually refuse to consider the research, models or presented evidence. They have no actual knowledge as to the content of creationary science. Or, the knowledge they do have is relative only to the work of individuals that is, indeed, highly inaccurate and neither well-founded nor presented using the standard scientific method. There is, however, at least, one exception to this.
(Since the following is a slightly modified version of the original secularists quotation, I will not give its author. This modification has not altered the statements relative to understanding creationary science as I practice it.) "I think its a mistake to understand creationists as "anti-science." The reality is that the creationist movement comes out of a tradition of Biblical interpretation that understands itself as deeply rationalistic, deeply scientific, that rests on the premise that God's revelation is all one, that God is perfect and unchanging, and therefore his revelation must be perfect and unchanging too. Our two modes of encountering his revelation, in scripture and the created world, cannot contradict each other. One theologian associated with this tradition named Charles Hodge famously said that scripture is a "storehouse of facts." A theologian's job is to "arrange and harmonize" those facts just as a scientist gathers data in nature and makes sense of that data. And so to really understand the creationist movement, you have that creationists are good scientists, they use the faculties of human reasoning as God intended, and in a much more effective, truer way than secular, non-believing scientists do. To understand reality accurately, you must take as your funding assumption the truth of God's revelation." Of course, it was not until after 1979 that I altered my previous Philosophy of Science stance to incorporate this type of creationary science philosophy.
For a more in-depth article on the explicit methods I employ, see this article
 A more in-depth discussion of what constitues direct or indirect "physical" evidence. See section (F).
 Imagining the Infinite.
Click back button, or if you retrieved this file directly from the Internet, then return to top of home page. If you retrieved this file while on my website, then return to top of home page.