Laudan’s Criticism of Judge Overton’s Opinion in McLean v. Arkansas—
1. According to Judge Overton’s opinion, science can be demarcated from non-science
on the basis of the following 5 “essential characteristics of science”:
(1) It is guided by natural law.
(2) It is explanatory by reference to natural law.
(3) It is empirically testable.
(4) Its conclusions are tentative.
(5) It is falsifiable.
2. Creationism meets conditions (3), (4), and (5) and, even if it did not meet them, it
could easily be augmented so that it did. (pp. 352-353, 354)
3. The sense of conditions (1) and (2) that would disqualify creationism as science (viz.,
“natural law” as known scientific laws) are inappropriate as criteria for science. (pp.
353-354)
4. Therefore, Judge Overton’s opinion does not successfully demarcate Darwinian
evolutionism as science from creationism as pseudoscience.
Ruse’s Defense of Judge Overton’s Opinion Against Ruse’s Criticism—





Even if (1)–(5) are questionable demarcation criteria for controversial cases (e.g.,
psychoanalytic theory),they work well for certain clear-cut examples of science (e.g.,
Mendelian genetics) and non-science (e.g., the Catholic doctrine of
transubstantiation). (pp. 357-358)
Contemporary science “does not break with [natural] law.” Moreover, Judge
Overton’s opinion did not assert “that we know all of the laws.” Therefore, criteria (1)
and (2) are appropriate demarcation criteria. (p. 358)
Creation-scientists admit that “[c]reative processes stand outside law as humans [can]
know it. . . .” (p. 359)
The “tenacity” with which scientists maintain their views in the face of apparently
falsifying evidence is different in degree and/or kind from the “dogmatism” that
typifies creation-scientists. (pp. 358-360)
Creation-science is “not falsifiable or revisable in a way indicative of genuine
science.” (pp. 360-361)