# Quote — Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science

> Creationism does not merit scientific discussion. As we found in the last chapter, Creation “science” is not a promising rival to evolutionary theory. It is not integrated with the rest of science, but is a hodgepodge of doctrines, lacking independent support. It offers no startling predictions, no advances in knowledge. We cannot commend it for any ability to shed light on questions that orthodox theories are unable to answer. Nor can we praise it for offering a definite alternative that might help scientists in their quest for an improved biological or geological theory. “Scientific” Creationism has no evidence that speaks in its favor, partly because Creationists are so meticulous in leaving their doctrines blurred.

- Author: [Philip Kitcher](https://www.leafyquotes.com/philip-kitcher.md)
- Book: [Abusing Science](https://www.leafyquotes.com/philip-kitcher/abusing-science.md)
- Page: 171
- Source: [Wikiquote](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Philip_Kitcher#Abusing_Science:_The_Case_Against_Creationism_(1982)) ([CC BY-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/))
- Quote page: https://www.leafyquotes.com/philip-kitcher/abusing-science/creationism-does-not

## More from this book

> Barnes and Morris both choose processes that we know to operate at different rates at different times, and then use the observed rates to estimate the time at which the process began. Dating the past is a complicated and technical business, and one cannot ignore the technical details simply to generate the ages one wants. Without a thorough understanding of which rates are constant overtime and which rates fluctuate wildly, Creationist dates are bound to be stabs in the dark. However, Creationists know what they want the age of the earth to be. So just as in the case of the second law of thermodynamics, important parts of science are abused. By carefully picking a process on the basis of its ability to give the desired result, without attending to the question whether it is reasonable to think that it happened at a constant rate, Creationists attempt to convince the uninitiated that their blind dates have scientific references. Nobody should be taken in.

p. 163 — [Quote page](https://www.leafyquotes.com/philip-kitcher/abusing-science/barnes-and-morris.md)

> Ironically, philosophers of science owe the Creationists a debt. For the “scientific” Creationists have constructed a glorious fake, which we can use to illustrate the differences between science and pseudoscience. By examining their scientific pretensions, I have tried to convey a sense of the nature and methods of science.

p. 5 — [Quote page](https://www.leafyquotes.com/philip-kitcher/abusing-science/ironically-philosophers-of-science.md)

> This response gets high marks for low cunning.

p. 99 — [Quote page](https://www.leafyquotes.com/philip-kitcher/abusing-science/this-response-gets.md)