Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism

Philip Kitcher's seminal work critical of "Scientific" Creationism remains a clarion call against those who continue abusing science to fit their own zealous religious agenda. Kitcher goes beyond making a point by point defense of evolutionary biology - indeed, all of science - and a total refutation of creationism. He makes a persuasive case why "Scientific Creationism" isn't good science. For example he observes how distinguished 19th Century geologists such as Adam Sedgwick discarded their creationist view of geology, realizing that it was outmoded, invalid science not supported by empirical evidence. Kitcher gives a succinct description of how scientists embark on their research, demonstrating how "Scientific Creationism" falls short of the ideals of excellent science. Kitcher successfully notes why those who argue equal time for "Evolution Science" and "Creation Science" in high school science education are misguided, devious, or both. Last, but not least, Kitcher demonstrates the religious origins of "Scientific Creationism". This is indeed an important primer on how to think rationally, answering at length all criticisms of contermporary science by so-called "scientific" creationists. First published in the 1980's, "Abusing Science" remains an important tome in the history and philosophy of science deserving of a broad readership.

This is an older book, but it still remains the classic refutation of Scientific Creationism. While many new discoveries have been made in the nearly two decades since this work first appeared, Kitcher still provides a valuable inquiry into the tactics of the Scientific Creationists, and exposes the vacuity of their arguments soundly.This is true because much of this book explains the philosophy of science, and the scientific method, rather than relying on detailed expositions of particular scientific findings. Kitcher exposes the great difference that exists between the very natures of science and creationism.Kitcher examines the main arguments of creationists, and describes why they are wrong. But more importantly, he looks carefully at their tactics, and illustrates their essential dishonesty. For instance, Creationist literature is full of comments taken out of context from mainstream scientists, in an attempt to make it look like those scientists believe something very different than what they actually believe. He shows how both Gish and Morris, arguably the two most popular creationists, use this tactic repeatedly. For example, Gish discusses the work of A.W. Crompton, who demonstrated in 1978 and 1979 how the bones of the mammalian ear developed from the jawbones of reptiles. He then declares, "Kermack and his co-workers now reject this idea." Gish neglects to tell us, however, that Kermack's hypothesis was published in 1968 and 1973, a full decade before Crompton's work, which, of course, superceded it.Likewise, Morris quotes G.G. Simpson's "The Major Features of Evolution" as saying that most new species appear suddenly in the fossil record in an attempt to demonstrate his assertion that no transitional fossils exist. Morris does not tell us, however, that in the paragraphs immediately proceeding and following the one Morris quotes, Simpson provides many examples for transitional fossils, including a summary of the fossil record for the mammalian orders.In short, Kitcher shows that creationists are perfectly willing to lie if necessary, which says volumes about the true state of the evidence for creation "science".

The scary thing which one realizes as you read through this book is that even 15+ years after it was published, it is still as necessary; the hydra of creationism does not die easily. As someone with a keen interest in science, I found it to be quite informative and well written. A quote from pages 137 and 138 will serve as a good example of the book's overall message:"If one wants to believe in Creationism, the picture can easily lull critical faculties. Yet, if we think about it, it is bizarre. Surely we should not imagine the Creator contemplating a wingless bat, recognizing that it would be defective, and so equipping it with the wings it needs. Rather, if we take the idea of a single creative event seriously, we must view it as the origination of an entire system of kinds of organisms, whose needs themselves arise in large measure from the character of the system. Why were bats created at all? Why were any defenses against predation needed? Why did the Creator form this system of organisms, with their interrelated needs, needs that are met in such diverse and complicated ways?Invocation of the word "design," or the passing reference to the satisfaction of "need," explains nothing. The needs are not given in advance of the design structures to accomodate them, but are themselves encompassed in the design. Nor do we achieve any understanding of the adaptations and relationships of organisms until we see, at least in outline, what the Grand Plan of Creation might have been. This point has been clear at least since the seventeenth century. At the beginning of the Discourse on Metaphysics, Leibniz gave a beautiful exposition of it. He recognized that unless there are independent criteria of design, then praise of the Creator's design is worthless: "In saying, therefore, that things are not good according to any standard of goodness, but simply by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory, for why praise him for what he has done, if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing the contrary?" (Discourse on Metaphysics; G. F. W. Leibniz; 1686) For Leibniz, to invoke "design" without saying what counts as good design is not only vacuous but blasphemous. Later in the same work, Leibniz developed the theme with a striking analogy. Any world can be conceived as regular ("designed") just as any array of points can be joined by a curve with some algebraic formula.[...] So we encounter the strategy exemplified by Morris: Talk generally about design, pattern, purpose, and beauty in nature. There are many examples of adaptations that can be used - the wings of bats or "the amazing circulatory system," for example. But what happens if we press some more difficult cases? Well, if there seems to be no design or purpose to a feature (and its presence cannot be understood as a modification of ancestral characters), one can always point out

Abusing Science is a wonderful book that places so-called Creation "Science" in a true scientific light. The actual intent of the book is not really to prove evolution but rather to expose the out of context quotes, fallacies, and misinformation that creation "scientists" use in an attempt to discredit evolution. Philip Kitcher takes each of the creationist attacks and analyzes their scientific validity. As you follow his arguments you discover there is little or no science in the creationists' claims. What science you are able to discern has been taken out of context, warped or simply misunderstood by creationists. Kitcher takes the reader first on a short historical tour of both evolution and creationism. He begins his book this way in order to arm the reader with enough background information for even the uninitiated to understand both sides of the debate. He also discusses the philosophy of science so that we may understand how scientists formulate their theories. Only then does he make his foray into creationist arguments against evolution. At this point the reading becomes engrossing as you follow Kitcher's discussions when he destroys one by one the creationists' arguments. In the end he exposes creation science as really being non-science. He also discusses the ramifications of following the beliefs of creation "science" in our scientific world.

As a good philosopher of science should, Kitcher delievers an excellent refutation of the pseudo-scientists who work for the Institution for Creation Reasearch (ICR). The ICR (as one can probably tell) is commited to finding evidence for design that undercuts evolution. This is a rather silly enterprise, and Kitcher elucidates how blatant their ad hoc reasoning can get. In fairness to the Creationists, however, it should be noted that the the individuals he goes after in this book are lightweights. Scientists and academecians who believe in God (and there are many more of them than one might think) by and large could care less what anyone from the ICR says. At any rate, science should not be utilized to try and prove God's existence, nor should it be used to disprove His existence. Rather, the job of science is to find out the way things are - whatever that may be. It is from THAT point that the arguments for and against should be taken up - not de capo one way or the other. The people at ICR who use it to try and prove His existence and the Richard Dawkins types who abuse it to prove He doesn't exist are the two extremes. Both put the cart before the horse. Kitcher does a good job of debunking the ICR and their fundamentalist following.