This is one of the better criticisms of creation science I have found. This excerpt from Peter J. Bowler’s Evolution: The history of an idea (1989, pp 358-360).
Can the basic idea of creation be turned into a workable scientific theory on the origin of species? It must certainly be admitted that miraculous creation is compatible with what we know. There is no way of disproving the claim that new species were created at certain points in the earth’s past. Anyone who believes in the existence of a God who could and would interfere with the normal operations of His universe thus is free to assert that He created all (or perhaps only some) of the forms that appear in the fossil record and in the world today. However, there is no way of proving that miracles occurred, or even that they can occur, because supernatural events of this kind do not appear to have taken place during the period of recorded history. Creationists argue that evolution theory is so unconvincing that it is more sensible to reject the whole idea of natural explanation for the origin of life; but this is a purely negative argument. If we concede that present knowledge is imperfect but insist that research is capable of improving our level of understanding, there is no guarantee that the future will not see the outstanding problems of evolutionism resolved. Neither side can offer proof, so the question must be decided on the basis of which approach offers the best hope of increasing our knowledge of how life is distributed around the globe and through the fossil record. At this level, it proves very difficult for the concept of a miraculous creation to function as an effective scientific theory.
Consider first the question of the mechanism by which new species are formed. Perhaps the modern synthesis of genetics and natural selection is deficient in some respects, but biologists are already devising new mechanisms to supplement Darwinism, and their research is guided by the effort to determine which hypotheses work out best in practice. It seems obvious that creationism can offer no parallel research projects at this level, because miracles are by definition supernatural events in which the laws of nature are transcended in a manner inexplicable to the human observer. If we accept this mode of origin of new species, we commit ourselves to the belief that we shall never understand what actually happens in the process. Creationism is a counsel of despair as far as this aspect of biology is concerned. It encourages the scientist to abandon all research into the question because he has no hope of answering it in rational terms. Such a negative policy can hardly be described as part of an active scientific program. In fact, no area of science would be able to progress if every difficulty were treated as an excuse to give up research because the problem might be impossible to solve. Creationism is not a scientific approach to the origin of species; it is a call to give up scientific research into that particular question.
To begin to illustrate this point, it is perfectly conceivable that only some species were miraculously created, while others were produced by natural evolution. Unless we invoke revelation -- which a scientific creationist is not supposed to do -- we have no reason to suppose that every distinct form was individually created. Even hard-line creationists admit that the Galapagos finches were formed by natural divergence but argue that they are all still the same “kind” of bird. Yet biologists classify these finches not only into separate species but even separate genera, which surely gives natural evolution a fairly wide scope. A few more sophisticated creationists argue that only the major steps in the history of life required miracles, that smaller developments were filled in by natural means. But if we adopt this view, how do we determine at what points a miracle must be postulated? Is a miracle required to introduce a new order, a new class, or perhaps only a new phylum? The only way to find out where this limit lies is to keep trying to extend the natural explanation as far as possible, because it is impossible to work actively with the concept of a miracle. It thus can be argued that even someone who believes in the possibility of miraculous creation should conduct his research on the basis of evolution theory. If he adopts any other policy, he runs the risk of giving up too soon and postulating a miracle where a little more research might have revealed a natural explanation.
It also would seem that creation can offer no guide to the study of the fossil record or the geographic distribution of species around the world. These fields would be reduced to a purely descriptive level, because if we appeal to miracles, we can never explain why a particular species appeared at the time or place it is found. Why are there discontinuities at some points in the fossil record and regular intervals elsewhere? The creationist can only point to the inscrutable will of God. He can never predict what new fossils might be found to link known forms, because he is predisposed to assume that any gap in the record indicates a genuine discontinuity in the advance of life. If an intermediate eventually turns up, the creationist merely adds another miracle to the list. Nor can he offer any explanation of why species exist in the locations they presently occupy … The whole program of research that has tried to explain geographic distribution in terms of isolation, migration, and evolution would have to be abandoned if we admitted the possibility that species could appear anywhere at the whim of the Creator.
It thus can be argued that even the most flexible form of creationism does not offer a suitable basis for a scientific theory of the origin of species. It cannot be proved wrong, but it can offer no guide to research and limits rather than extends our understanding. Then what of the fundamentalist version of creationism so popular today, in which the acts of creation are supposed to have taken place exactly as described in Genesis? Can any legitimate scientific procedure lend support to the claim that the earth and all its inhabitants were formed in a short period of time only a few thousand years ago? This would require not only a rejection of evolution theory but also complete rewriting of the sciences of archaeology, paleontology, geology, cosmology, and even physics itself. It is difficult to believe that the creationists themselves have any idea of the magnitude of the task they have set themselves. They have to provide workable theories to cover this whole vast range of knowledge, theories that can function at least as well as those they wish to replace. Instead, they seem limited to a few pinpricks of criticism aimed at the orthodox theories, along with vague suggestions for alternatives that fall apart as soon as they are subjected to close analysis.
It is impossible here to cover all the areas that creationism must try to cope with. Let us take a simple example: the sequence of geological formations and the fossils they contain. The creationists are forced to deny that this sequence is the product of a vast period of earth history. Instead, they assert that all sedimentary rocks were laid down during the great flood and that the fossils are the remains of creatures drowned in the catastrophe. Distribution of fossils in the rocks is caused by the fact that primitive forms such as trilobites were killed very early, while more advanced creatures were able to climb up the mountains and only later were drowned. No working geologist has taken this idea seriously since the early eighteenth century. Even geologists with sincere religious beliefs were forced to concede that the evidence pointed to a sequence of periods in which the rocks were laid down, accompanied by vast movement of the earth’s crust. There are many cases in which earlier rocks have been twisted and eroded before newer rocks were laid down on top of them. Very ancient rocks are frequently found at higher elevations than younger rocks. There are intrusions by molten rocks into the sedimentary formations, sometimes on an enormous scale. All these facts are consistent with the modern view of the earth’s history and are impossible to reconcile with the idea of a single episode of deposition from a universal ocean… When oil and mining companies will hire geologists trained in the flood theory because they can locate minerals more skillfully than their orthodox counterparts, then creationists will be able to say that they have a better interpretation of the earth’s past.
Finally, what are we to make of the story of Noah’s Ark, which the creationists are forced to take seriously as the only means by which terrestrial life could survive a deluge? Apart from the difficulty of keeping all the animals in a confined space for a considerable time, what happened after the ark grounded? How did the carnivores live, except by killing off the sole survivors of the prey species? Why did marsupials such as kangaroos make only for Australia, while no placental mammals were able to reach that continent? How did all the animals travel vast distances from the ark’s resting place? Imagine, for instance, the koala, which is hardly adapted for long-distance walking and has a very specialized diet, trekking all the way from Mount Ararat to Australia! The fact that many creationists insist on incorporating such a highly implausible episode into their position is clear evidence that their approach is based on the Bible rather than on an objective consideration of the facts.
