The points on definitions of "knowledge" and "belief" are well received and I have spent some time contemplating how to hone the point I am attempting to make.
The main point that is getting lost in philosophical debates on the meaning of "knowledge" and "belief" is this:
Creationists wish to put Creationism on par with Evolution; as if it they were equal positions in a debate. These two positions are certainly
not equal.
The definition of "scientific knowledge" is "
knowledge accumulated by systematic study and organized by general principles."
Evolution presents us with knowledge; demonstrable realities of how the world works that can be used to obtain more knowledge and can also be used to predict future outcomes.
We know the principles of flight; thus we can build machines that fly (it is usable knowledge). We know why things float; thus we can build machines that float (it is usable knowledge). We know the laws of gravity, thus we can predict when, how fast and how hard something will fall or where stellar bodies will be located in relation to each other several millennium from today (it is usable knowledge). Most of us know how to ride a bicycle so we can ride that bicycle (it is usable knowledge). We know how weather works so we can, to some degree of certainty, predict what the weather will be like in the coming days (it is usable knowledge).
Creationism is not demonstrable, testable, measurable; it isn't falsifiable; it can not be used to predict future outcomes; it does not subject itself to experimentation in any form; it isn't even founded on sound scientific principles and does not meet one criteria for a given idea to be called a "theory". "Creationism" and the "knowledge" it postulates to present was not acquired through the scientific method.
Evolution and the principles behind it can be used to
- Predict that species will change (evolve, adapt) to new environments or fail to survive;
- Predict the locations and depths of new fossil evidence;
- Determine suitable habitats in zoology or relocation efforts of species
Creation and the nonexistent principles behind it can be used to
Creationism can predict nothing. It can explain nothing. It can't be confirmed by known scientific knowledge. It can not be confirmed at with any degree of certainty and if it can't be confirmed, it certainly should not be considered "knowledge". It is a belief founded entirely on faith; and as it is a belief founded entirely on faith that can add no new knowledge or discoveries to our world, it can only be coined as "knowledge" in the idea that someone, somewhere, holds it to be true.
You can believe in any given thing as much as you want, as hard as you want; but if it can't be confirmed, can't be used for predictable outcomes, then it can't be construed as "knowledge" except in the realm of sophistry, trivia and philosophy.
