The Intelligent Design Versus Evolution Debate: An Overview
Neil Munro, "Evolution on Trial—Debating Design," National Journal, vol. 38, January 7, 2006. pp. 36-43. Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group
Inc. Reprinted with permission from National Journal. All rights reserved. Neil Munro writes on issues of science and technology for the National Journal,
a weekly magazine on politics and government.
The intelligent-design (ID) and evolution controversy is a debate between those who oppose scientific
materialism, a belief system that ID advocates claim ignores moral concerns and religious values, and scientists
defending years of scientific accomplishments. ID proponents claim that the theory of evolution does not
explain complex processes and that public schools should teach that an intelligent designer could fill these gaps.
Scientists argue that no scientific evidence supports the existence of an intelligent designer. Teaching ID,
scientists fear, will confuse students because it erroneously paints science as anti-God and hostile to American
values.
There's been a lot of media coverage recently [as of 2006] about "intelligent design" versus the
arguments for or against Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. This coverage has often treated the dispute as a
boxing match between religion and science, between faith and data, as if either were somehow capable of
knocking out the other in six rounds. But the dispute is also part of an enduring political fight, in which the
strongest partisans of rival philosophies argue that their beliefs are better for the country and for democracy.
The clash plays out in newspapers, in magazines, and on television—but in recent years, most sharply at the
meetings of local school boards, where elected members set policies for grades K-12 science education. At those
meetings, advocacy groups and allied parents present cacophonous arguments—some scientific, some political,
some constitutional—to sway the curriculum decisions in their favor.
The ID Movement
Today's debates are fueled by the intelligent-design movement, whose core advocates and their allies
argue that the variety and complexity of life on Earth is too sophisticated to have evolved randomly, and must
have been guided by some form of unseen intelligent hand.
Intelligent-design advocates have a clear political goal, albeit one that is inextricably linked to their religious
perspectives. That goal is to lessen the political clout of "scientific materialism," which is the idea that
everything that needs explaining—including life, free will, and morality—can be explained solely by the
predictable and pitiless interactions of matter as it seeks to organize and selfishly proliferate itself. In the starkest
version of this view, long-standing notions of the human spirit and of divine intervention are merely outmoded
attempts to impose order on a cold universe and to govern humanity's restless appetites. The intelligent-design
camp asserts that pushing back materialism will open up more room for moral claims and religious arguments in
the political arena.
To accomplish this goal, intelligent-design advocates are trying to undermine the main pillar of
materialism: Darwin's theory of evolution, which was first published in 1859. Evolution is central to materialism
because it offers a comprehensive explanation of how humanity emerged from lower creatures rather than from
supernatural creation. This theory has provided the intellectual foundation for the assertion that the origins of
life are material, not divine.
To undermine the authority of evolution, intelligent-design advocates publish what they say are
scientific critiques of evolution, highlight what they call deleterious political consequences of the theory's
ascendance, and press school boards to include criticisms of evolution in school curriculum.
Intelligent-design backers ... insist that their main target is not science per se, but rather the scientific arguments
for evolution and the attendant notion of materialism.
Intelligent design's attack on materialism is a challenge to scientists because materialism is as central to
science as clearly marked ballots are to election results. So scientists are fighting back, and contending that
intelligent-design advocates are new-age "creationists" who are pitching a politically tailored pseudoscience that
is, and should be, constitutionally barred from taxpayer-funded schools.
Science's Impact on Politics
It's hard to buck science. Scientific advances, almost anyone would agree, have had a vast and positive
impact on society. Progress in science has helped treat disease, create products that make life easier and more
enjoyable, and generate great wealth. In 1850 in America, 217 of every 1,000 infants died in their first year of
life; in 2000, fewer than six babies in 1,000 died before their first birthday. Without that improvement in
1
survival rate, parents would be burying roughly 800,000 of the 4 million infants born in the United States every
year.
America's economic growth is also tied in no small part to advances in science and technology. In 1929,
the U.S. gross domestic product was equivalent to $865 billion, measured in 2000 dollars. By 2005, GDP had
multiplied fourteenfold, to $12 trillion, much to the delight of Americans, both religious and irreligious.
Today, most people view scientists and their findings as authoritative. Indeed, many argue that religion's
authority has been diminished, or at least put on the defensive, ever since the Scopes trial in 1925. John Scopes,
a high school biology teacher in Tennessee, was prosecuted that year for teaching evolution. He was found
guilty, but the state Supreme Court dismissed his case on a technicality, thus preventing an appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Although the Scopes trial was a legal victory for the creationists of the day, it was a cultural defeat. The
anti-Darwin campaign fizzled out, and religious conservatives retreated from national politics while urban
technocrats, scientists, and university-trained experts increasingly gained economic, political, and cultural clout.
Religious activists finally returned to politics in 1980, and they have since revived the conservative influence on
politics and culture.
Evolution's Ill Effects
Creationists, as distinct from intelligent-design advocates, cite Bible passages about Adam and Eve,
their descendants, and Noah's ark to explain the origins of humanity, to set the Earth's age between 6,000 and
10,000 years, and even to explain the death of the dinosaurs. In contrast, intelligent-design adherents accept the
basic process of evolution, but say that the process had intelligent help along the way. And they try to use
scientific arguments to make their case, in a tacit recognition of science's usefulness and enormous political
clout.
Their principal argument is that nature's complexity, such as the anatomy of the human eye or the
multistep chemical process that coagulates blood, cannot be fundamentally explained by material causes,
random mutations, and the "survival of the fittest" doctrine, as evolution theory says. Intelligent-design
advocates assert, for example, that the biology of blood clotting could not have evolved piece by piece, because
it doesn't work unless all of the necessary mechanisms and proteins are present. These theorists say that
something else is needed to explain the origin of mankind, biological complexity, and other "loose ends" of
evolution, and that something else is "intelligent design."
Their claim is far-reaching, yet quite narrow. Intelligent-design proponents generally do not deny the geological
evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and they agree that creatures and plants evolve. On paper, most
intelligent-design advocates don't argue that the intelligent designer is God, and they even leave open the
possibility that the Earth could have been designed by aliens.
Moreover, advocates say that K-12 students should not be taught that an "intelligent designer" exists,
but only that evolution's "loose ends" might be explained by the existence of an as-yet-undiscovered intelligent
designer. That's the position of John West, the associate director of the wellspring for intelligent-design
supporters, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, based in Seattle. The center receives money
from a variety of foundations, many of them allied with Christian conservatives.
Ideology or Science?
The intelligent-design camp says its pitch is scientific, although scientists widely disagree. Intelligentdesign backers also insist that their main target is not science per se, but rather the scientific arguments for
evolution and the attendant notion of materialism, which they see as more of a political movement, and a
dangerous one at that. "Our biggest beef is that we don't think students are learning enough about" evolution,
West said. "It is being taught like an ideology, not a scientific theory."
Intelligent-design supporters are presenting their case to a nation in which creationism is already a mainstream
belief.
West argues that Darwin's emphasis on the material origins of humanity is perilous and dehumanizing.
It was embraced, he says, by political advocates promoting fascism and communism in the early 20th century
and was also important in the influence of Social Darwinism in the United States during the 1920s and 1930s....
John West and his followers fear that such notions will shape public attitudes and spill over into politics. "This
[materialist] mind-set—that you can reduce everything to either a chemical reaction or to genes—is very
dehumanizing," West said. "It does really conflict with the idea of human free will and free choice."
Intelligent Design's Political Progress
2
In their political campaign against the materialist view of humanity, West and his allies have a few
advantages.
For one, voters do not have to choose between evolution or religious faith. They can freely support
government-funded biomedical research and also choose to think of themselves as the holders of inalienable,
self-evident political rights endowed by a creator. By downplaying possible inconsistencies, people can
simultaneously get their therapies, distance society from a materialist nature, and champion a set of legal rights
and moral rules to govern themselves and their fellow citizens. Lark Myers, a middle-aged shop owner in Dover,
Pa., told the Washington Post [in 2005], for example, that "I definitely would prefer to believe that God created
me, than that I'm 50th cousin to a silverback ape."
Second, intelligent-design supporters are presenting their case to a nation in which creationism is
already a mainstream belief. In a November 2004 poll of 885 Americans, of whom 795 were registered voters,
55 percent said they believe God created man and woman in their present form, and 27 percent said God guided
the evolutionary process. Only 13 percent—barely one in eight—agreed with the statement, "Humans evolved,
God did not guide the process," according to the poll, which was conducted for CBS News and the New York
Times.
Practically all leading scientists oppose the intelligent-design argument, root and branch.
The same poll, however, suggests that most Americans are willing to play both sides of the fence: Only 37
percent of respondents—18 percent less than the number who identified themselves as creationists—said they
wanted schools to teach creationism in place of evolution, while 65 percent said that schools should teach both
creationism and evolution....
Mixed Success
Overall, the intelligent-design crowd has had uneven success. They haven't dented scientists' support of
evolution, and they haven't yet, as they have promised, carried out peer-reviewed scientific experiments to prove
their case. And so far [as of January 2006], no court that has considered a case involving intelligent design has
approved teaching the idea in K-12 classes.
Scientists assert that apart from the deleterious effects of intelligent design on classroom teaching, and
on the scientific community itself, the theory is, well, bunk.
Nonetheless, intelligent-design advocates have made great progress in winning over like-minded social
conservatives, in presenting their case to the public, in getting their ideas recognized by a few school boards,
and in garnering support from leading political and religious figures. [In July 2005], the New York Times ran an
op-ed article by Catholic Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, who reasserted the claim that faith is
compatible with evolution and with intelligent design. "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be
true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense—an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and
natural selection—is not," he wrote. "Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the
overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."
In August [2005], President [George W.] Bush declared that local school boards should decided how to
deal with the intelligent-design claim and that "part of education is to expose people to different schools of
thought." Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., echoed the president's call for diversity in education when be said in
August that teachers "should lay out areas in which the evidence supports evolution and the areas in the
evidence that do not," although he also said, "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught [as
recognized truth] in the science classroom."
The Scientists' Response
Practically all leading scientists oppose the intelligent-design argument, root and branch. And it is hard
to overstate how strongly they hold to their own argument that acceptance of intelligent design could undermine
generations of accomplishment achieved by the scientific method of rigorous testing and retesting of
hypotheses. This doesn't mean that scientists reject God or religion. "The intelligent-design movement has the
potential to drive a wedge between people in the United States—and especially young people in schools—and
the whole idea of science ... by portraying science as anti-God, hostile to American values, and close-minded on
evolution," said Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and a practicing Catholic who actively
campaigns against intelligent design. If that happens, "science as a career, and science as a way of thinking, and
America's unique hospitality to science ... will all be put in jeopardy." But expecting people who have spent
their lifetimes finding out how the world works to accept an untested hypothesis brought forward by a
conservative think tank and its allies, and to support its dissemination in the nation's schools, is implausible.
3
Politicians are already trying to drive a wedge between scientists and public policy, Miller said.... "I think it is
happening on a significant scale right now," Miller said.
The worries about intelligent design go far beyond its possible impact on classrooms. Scientists and
many other university-educated professionals see intelligent design as an atavistic attack on modernity itself,
and on their place in society. Ian Lance Taylor, a software expert, author, and atheist, says, "Political victories
by creationists are scary.... When they succeed in legislating the teaching of science through the ballot box, we
take a big step toward the establishment of an anti-rational state religion."
Most important, scientists assert that apart from the deleterious effects of intelligent design on
classroom teaching, and on the scientific community itself, the theory is, well, bunk.
Numerous highly qualified scientists, often aided by professional associations and publications, offer
coherent, evidence-backed explanations of how evolution's "loose ends" can be tied up. For example, scientists
argue, organs that appear irreducibly complex—such as the human eye, with its interdependent lens and optical
nerve—evolved from simpler light-sensing organs, and gradually discarded superfluous cells and features, just
as an arch in a cathedral now stands without the scaffolding that made its construction possible. Similarly, blood
coagulation, they say, can be shown to have evolved in steps, as nature mixed and matched proteins and
processes already used for other biological purposes.
And scientists note that nothing has seriously challenged the evolution theory—no discovery, for
example, of a fossilized cave dweller in the fossilized guts of a T-rex dinosaur; no discovery of a deity's
signature in animal viscera.
Moreover, scientists say, intelligent design doesn't even reach the level of a conventional scientific
theory, because it fails to describe experiments that would materially prove or disprove its claims. For example,
intelligent-design advocates have yet to devise an experiment to show that an intelligent designer does or does
not exist. "Whether there is an intelligent designer is not an empirically testable question," Alan Leshner, CEO
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told National Journal.
The Classroom Fight
One of the tactics the scientific community is using to fight off intelligent design is to define science in
the law, and especially in state education law, which governs teaching and curricula in the public schools.
Scientists want to bar the door to admitting intelligent design as any part of science education. Intelligent-design
proponents are "trying to redefine what science is" by allowing supernatural explanations for natural things,
Leshner said. "We can't allow that."
Kansas has been one of the primary battlefields in these definitional struggles. In the Sunflower State
[of Kansas], where intelligent-design advocates won, then lost, and then won seats on the State Board of
Education, science advocates persuaded the board in 2001 to declare, "Science is restricted to explaining only
the natural world, using only natural causes ... because science currently has no tools to test explanations using
nonnatural (such as supernatural) causes."
The National Academies, the federally chartered private membership bodies that advise the government
on scientific issues, and the National Science Teachers Association [NSTA] are in a battle right now with state
officials over the writing of the Kansas Science Education Standards [KSES], which guide the teaching of
science in the state's schools. In an October 27 [2005] statement, and in letters to Kansas officials, the academies
and the NSTA refused to give copyright permission for officials to use portions of the National Science
Education Standards (published by the National Research Council, which is part of the National Academies) or
Pathways to Science Standards (published by the NSTA) in the Kansas standards.
Although the latest Kansas standards (which are still [as of 2006] in draft form) are more to the liking of
the Academies and the NSTA than the 1999 standards were, the two organizations say the new standards still tilt
too much toward intelligent design. [In February 2007, the school board adopted science standards that reflect
mainstream scientific views of evolution.]
Leading scientists ... argue that science should be separated from politics and religion.
"While there is much in the Kansas Science Education Standards that is outstanding and could serve as a model
for other states, our primary concern is that the draft KSES inappropriately singles out evolution as a
controversial theory despite the strength of the scientific evidence supporting evolution as an explanation for the
diversity of life on Earth and its acceptance by an overwhelming majority of scientists," the two organizations
wrote in their statement. "The use of the word controversial to suggest that there are flaws in evolution is
confusing to students and the public and is entirely misleading. While there may be disagreements among
4
scientists about the exact processes, the theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and new evidence
from many scientific disciplines only further supports this robust scientific theory."
Steven Schafersman is president of Texas Citizens for Science, a group that helped to defeat an effort in
2003 to downplay evolution in Texas schoolbooks. Summarizing the efforts of scientists in state capitals around
the country, he said, "We want the scientific methods and scientific instruction to be controlled by science."
The Economic Argument
Science groups, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National
Academies, know that the purity of the scientific enterprise is not a big vote-getter. So they're also citing a
variety of practical and economic benefits that could be jeopardized by the embrace of intelligent design.
America's high-tech economy, for example, relies on a steady influx of scientifically literate graduates. "The
biotech industries need biologically literate customers, workforces, and policy environments, and that's not what
they're going to get," if intelligent design gets into the schools, said Glenn Branch, the deputy director of the
National Center for Science Education, based in Oakland, Calif. Schafersman, citing Texas as an example, says
that the "business community gets behind us [because] they want good science [and] good technology taught in
schools [and] reality-based thinking, not faith-based thinking."
It was this economic argument that helped win the day recently [as of January 2006] in the intelligentdesign controversy in Dover, Pa. Voters there threw out seven of the eight school board members who had voted
to require the teaching of intelligent design in high school. They replaced them with an entirely new slate of
candidates who argued that a good science education was necessary to prepare Dover students for success in
college and in the workplace.
The Philosophical Argument
Most scientists say that they are not anti-religious and that the vast majority of their colleagues are in the
moderate center when it comes to questions of a deity.
The fossil record offers overwhelming evidence for evolution, but no evidence that a God doesn't exist,
scientists say. This "middle ground is the one that is embraced by the majority of the scientific community," said
Brown University's Miller. Evolution "tells us that we are part of the same process that produced every living
thing on Earth; [but] what one makes of that information from a philosophical or theological view depends on a
person's philosophical outlook on life."
Leading scientists also argue that science should be separated from politics and religion. "We're the fact
people," Leshner said. For example, in debates on the legalization of marijuana and the drug's possible medical
benefits for cancer and AIDS patients, "I have no problem telling scientists to stick to facts," Leshner said,
because what ought to be done about marijuana "is not a science question." Policy in this instance, he continued,
"is made on facts and values."
Intelligent-design advocates see a partial victory in this "stick-to-the-facts" argument cited by scientists.
They believe that such a stance is building a wall, albeit a low and weak one perhaps, between the materialist
facts of science and its role in politics and policy.
But the pro-evolution side is as much of a Big Tent as the creationism/intelligent-design side is. And
the scientists have their diehard activists, too....
In such a big tent, there are bound to be internal disputes and arguments. Some scientists, for example,
are informally prodding their more assertive colleagues—such as the outspoken Richard Dawkins, a widely
published, U.K.-based proponent of natural evolution—to tone down statements that might cause voters to
worry that science is intruding too much into politics and culture, or dictating how controversies should be
decided. "It doesn't help that they hear about Richard Dawkins going about saying that people who believe in
religion are mistaken or evil," said Michael Ruse, a philosophy professor at Florida State University
(Tallahassee) who has written extensively on the history and philosophy of Darwinism....
The political and legal arguments over evolution and intelligent design may be around for a long time, both
sides agree, because they are about fundamental questions.
This professional pressure is modest, however, because scientists remain loath to curb other scientists.
"Science is like the Catholic Church; it is a very disciplined organization," Ruse said. But, "to a great extent,
people would be uncomfortable trying to rein [Dawkins] in."
Still, the informal pressure is having some impact on scientists, Branch said. "I think they're improving, [and]
Dawkins has been taking pains" not to offend, he said. "A modicum of caution in not overstating views in
dealing with the public is useful."
5
The Courts
The Supreme Court has enormous power to shape this political fight, and advocates for evolution worry
that the Court will step back from its 1968 and 1987 anti-creationism decisions. "All [President George W.]
Bush needs to get is one or two votes on his side, and before long, we'll find the justices saying that if people
want 'balanced treatment' on intelligent design [in K-12 classrooms], they can have it," Ruse said.
To head this off, "we have to say, 'You can't do [intelligent design in schools], ... on the grounds that this is a
particular form of American Protestant religion,'" Ruse said. The Court should bar schools from teaching that a
God exists, he said, just as it should bar scientific claims that God does not exist....
There's no telling how the Supreme Court's decisions may evolve. For example, the Court ruled 5-4 in
June [2005] that the display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse was unconstitutional because any such
display must have a secular purpose that is "genuine, not a sham, and not merely secondary to a religious
objective." This case, McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, seems to
raise the bar that the Court set in the 1987 creationism decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, which said that
curricula must have "a clear secular purpose."
The Court's emphasis on a primary secular purpose ensures that intelligent-design advocates may lose
ground whenever they cite religious motivations for their campaign.
But if the high court adopts a hands-off position on intelligent design and lets locals decide what to teach, then
the debate at school boards and in state legislatures could expand and intensify.
Scientists and their political allies would lose their judicial trump card and be pitched into a vast number of local
political fights, in a nation where creationism is a mainstream notion. Those circumstances "would be much
more difficult" than fighting a few courtroom arguments, Schafersman said. "We would have to appeal to
common sense."
The political and legal arguments over evolution and intelligent design may be around for a long time,
both sides agree, because they are about fundamental questions. The activists on both sides of this dispute,
according to Ruse, embody "rival religious responses to a crisis of faith—rival stories of origins, rival judgments
about the meaning of human life, rival sets of moral dictates, and above all, ... rival eschatologies," or theories
about humanity's ultimate destiny.
This argument will go on and on because the meaning of life cannot be decided for everyone by a group
of scientists, by a black-robed judge, or even by a panel of nine justices. As the Supreme Court itself wrote in its
famous 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision on abortion, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define
one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
Source Citation:
Neil Munro. "The Intelligent Design Versus Evolution Debate: An Overview." At Issue: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit:
Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Hopewell Valley Central High School. 24 Sep. 2009
<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010482202&source=gale&sr
cprod=OVRC&userGroupName=penn47345&version=1.0
Evolution Alone Explains Life on Earth
Massimo Pigliucci is associate professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. He holds a master's degree in biological
sciences and doctorates in genetics and botany. Pigliucci was the recipient of the 1997 Dobzhansky Award from the Society for the Study of Evolution.
Any credible theory of life on Earth must withstand scientific scrutiny based on asking a specific
question, answering it with a hypothesis based on observation and experimentation, and then testing that
hypothesis to try to disprove it. There is only one theory of evolution, answering the question "How do species
originate and change?" The theory has survived more than one hundred years of such scrutiny. In contrast,
although creationists try to present a unified front, there is a wide range of creationist positions—from flat-earth
literalists to more liberal creationist positions that graft evolution onto theistic origins, or try to equate biblical
"days" and geological ages and then claim their theory is scientific. No creationist theory holds up to the
scientific method, but creationists are interested in winning an ideological war, not in scientific evidence.
Creationists start with a preferred conclusion (God created life) and then make observations about the natural
world that fit that theory, ignoring or discounting contradictory evidence. Human progress depends on a
scientific, not theological, understanding of life on Earth, and only evolution provides that.
There is one theory of evolution, just as there is one theory of general relativity in physics. True, there
are different schools of evolutionary thought that emphasize distinct mechanisms to explain organic evolution,
and creationists have tried to capitalize on these differences to show that the whole field is in disarray. Yet
6
differences among scientists are the bread and butter of scientific progress. It is through the empirically driven
resolution of theoretical disagreements [the resolution of disagreements through testing and observation] that
science at its best progresses and yields a better understanding of the natural world.... But the realities of
scientific practice and discourse are far from what creationist propaganda claims. Furthermore, the idea of a
monolithic and unchangeable science is a dangerous myth—one that scientists and science educators should
work toward eradicating.
On the other hand, even a superficial look at creationism itself clearly shows that creationists have gone
to a great deal of trouble to construct what looks deceptively like a unified front to naïve outsiders. As we shall
see, the difference between proponents of intelligent design theory such as [American mathematician] William
Dembski and young-Earth creationists like [American biochemist] Duane Gish spans a theological and scientific
abyss. One of the few things that these people have in common is their hatred for what they perceive as a
materialistic, scientific worldview that leaves no space for God and spirituality. Intelligent design defender
Phillip Johnson has proposed the idea that creationists can win by driving a wedge into what he thinks is a small
but crucial crack in the edifice of science.... I would like to suggest to scientists and educators that the crack in
the creationist camp is much wider and easier to exploit, if only we stop being on the defensive and initiate a
counterattack.... I will first briefly discuss the astounding variety of creationist positions, focusing in particular
on the two most popular ones as embodied by the Institute for Creation Research and by the Discovery Institute
and its Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. As a counterpoint, I will then explain what evolutionary
theory is really about....
The Many Forms of Creationism
Perhaps the best classification of positions on the question of origins, as the broader conception of
evolution is often referred to, has been proposed by [American biologist] Eugenie Scott of the National Center
for Science Education and is summarized in the figure below. As Scott points out, there [are many] ideas to
choose from, and they differ in degree as to what they accept from science on the one hand and from the Bible
on the other.
At one extreme we find people believing that Earth is actually flat. While these are certainly a minority
even among creationists, their thoroughly literalist position is arguably the most biblical of them all: In addition
to rejecting evolution, they believe not only that Earth is 6,000 years old, but that it is flat and is the center of the
universe, precisely as the Bible says.
A slightly different position is the geocentric one, which accepts the idea of a spherical Earth but
squarely rejects astronomy after Copernicus and Galilei. This is also a minority view, but it is instructive—
together with the flat-Earth position—because it is indicative of an interesting aspect of mainstream creationist
thinking. On many occasions I have had conversations or have exchanged letters with young-Earth creationists
(the next group in Scott's classification) who vehemently deny being gullible, antiscience individuals. They
claim that the scientific evidence is definitely against evolution and in favor of a young Earth. I usually politely
point out that the only reason they think so is that they believe ... the Bible [to be error free] in scientific as well
as spiritual matters. I then occasionally ask why they don't believe that Earth stands still while the sun moves
around it and that our planet is flat, since both notions are also present in the Bible. In fact, one could argue that
these two positions are much more clearly defined in the Christian scriptures than the age of Earth, which has to
be calculated on the basis of assumptions concerning the life span of the lines of descent mentioned in the book.
The astonishing creationist response is to deny that the Bible makes claims either about a flat Earth or in defense
of geocentrism. But this goes clearly against not only the existence of creationists who see and defend both
claims, but also against the historical evidence: For most of Western history, Christians have espoused both
views precisely on biblical grounds! It is not for nothing that both Copernicus and Galilei got into trouble with
the Church of Rome.
Young-Earth creationists, however, seem to be able to live with this internal contradiction; they actually
represent the majority of creationists in the United States (according to a 1999 Gallup poll, 45 percent of
Americans believe that God created human beings "pretty much in (their) present form at one time or another
within the last 10,000 years"). For them the story in Genesis is to be taken literally: The world was created 6,000
years ago, and most humans and animals died in a worldwide flood that occurred about 4,000 years ago....
Several interesting fallacies underlie this position, and young-Earth creationists are the epitome of what happens
when science education fails completely. It simply makes no sense—given the evidence that we have today
from a variety of fields, such as geology, paleontology, ecology, physics, and astronomy—to deny that Earth is
7
billions of years old and that while mass extinctions certainly occurred, they were not due to floods and no such
event happened on a worldwide basis so recently in Earth's history.
Old-Earth Creationism
The next category in Scott's classification of theories of origins marks a fundamental theological, if not
yet scientific, divide from the positions discussed so far: We are now entering the realm of old-Earth
creationism, which therefore at least acknowledges modern geology.... It is also in agreement with the scientific
research in this field conducted throughout the twentieth century. Within old-Earth creationism, the idea often
referred to as gap theory is by far the most peculiar. Supporters maintain that there is a large temporal [time] gap
between the first and second chapters of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible, suggesting the existence of a pre-Adamic
Earth that was destroyed and replaced by a second creation, when God started over and (re?)made Adam and
Eve. This interpretation obviously solves the well-known problem posed by the discrepancy between the two
accounts of creation in Genesis, but literalists are clearly less than happy with such a solution because it is
obtained at the theologically costly price of introducing a scenario (two successive creations) of which there is
no hint in the Bible itself. This is the much-dreaded "slippery slope" of interpretation of the sacred Scripture
that, even though it is adopted in one fashion or another by most practicing Christians, is seen as very dangerous
by fundamentalists, who believe that the word of God should be a clear and universal message, not subject to the
whims and fashions of human explanations.
An even more liberal interpretation of the Bible is adopted by people espousing the next category of
old-Earth creationism in Scott's taxonomy: the day-age system. According to this idea, each "day" referred to in
the traditional six-day account of creation is comparable to a geological age, so it literally took tens of millions
of years to create stars, planets, and life on Earth—in convenient agreement with the evidence from astronomy
and geology. This solution still suffers some obvious shortcomings from a scientific standpoint, most
egregiously the incompatibility between the chronology of events in Genesis (e.g., whales before land animals)
and the data from the fossil record. But it also makes religious fundamentalists very unhappy because it
proceeds further down the slippery slope of arbitrary interpretation of the Bible: What is there to stop the
believer from even accepting a substantial amount of evolution?
Not much, as is clear from a cursory examination of the next position: so-called progressive
creationism. A typical proponent of this version of old-Earthism is Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe
ministries, which, as the name implies is based on the idea that someone can accept Christianity on the basis of
reason not just on faith. Progressive creationism is a peculiar and idiosyncratic blend of creationism and
science that accepts, for example, the Big Bang and many other scientific conclusions, even within the
biological sciences, but limits the power of evolution. For example, evolution is said to occur, but only within
the basic "kinds" of organisms originally created by God. Although many young-Earth creationists, such as
Duane Gish, also allow what they refer to as microevolution within kinds, progressive creationists—because
they accept long spans of geological time—at least don't find themselves in the awkward position of having to
concede more evolution than even the most ardent evolutionist would feel comfortable with (the number of
"kinds" was limited by the size of Noah's Ark for a young-Earth creationist, so tens of millions of species had to
evolve from a few thousand in as little as 4,000 years: an astronomic evolutionary rate by any standard!).
Working our way through Scott's useful classification, we finally arrive at intelligent design (ID) theory.... This
is the idea—originally formulated in some detail by the ancient Greeks—that the universe is the result of some
kind of supernatural plan evidently constrained by forces that even the gods cannot entirely control. Plato, in the
Timaeus, presents us with the idea of a god (later called the demiurge, literally "the craftsman") which makes the
universe "as best as it can be" made within the constraints imposed by contingency....
The last step in this long series of creationist positions is usually referred to as theistic evolution. This is
the position more or less implicitly accepted by the majority of Christians, especially in western European
countries: Simply put, God works through the natural laws and processes that He created, and there is no reason
to think that natural selection is an exception. This is also essentially the official position of the Catholic Church
after two writings of Pope John Paul II. Previous popes, such as Pius XII had taken a stern position against
evolutionary theory: "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution ... explains the origin of all
things.... Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that when the souls of man have been deprived of
every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical
materialism." John Paul II (the pope who, without being a paragon of liberalism, still managed to pardon Galilei,
albeit after a few centuries of delay), on the contrary, wrote a much more sober letter in 1997 to the Pontifical
8
Academy of Sciences stating that "new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more
than a hypothesis."...
Materialistic Evolution
The last entry in Scott's classification is the only one that does not involve any creationist component at
all, even of the mild type accepted by the Catholic Church and most mainstream Protestant denominations: the
much-dreaded (by all creationists) materialistic evolution. This is a philosophical (as opposed to scientific)
position maintaining that there is no reason whatsoever to invoke supramaterial causes for any natural law or
process, including evolution. Not even the most ardent Christian would submit that God works directly through
the law of gravity by supervising the motion of every single object; analogously, biologists tend to think that
natural selection is just that—a natural process with no need of supervision.
Two things are important to realize in connection with materialistic evolution. First, and perhaps most
importantly for our discussion and for the creation-evolution controversy, even materialistic evolution does not
automatically imply atheism. There are several more possibilities that permit acceptance of both materialistic
evolution and belief in a god. This is true both in theory and in practice. In theory, for example, one can be a
deist—that is, somebody who believes that God created the universe and its laws but then refrained from any
further direct intervention in His creation. In practice, Theodosius Dobzhansky, the evolutionist responsible for
one of the sentences most hated by creationists ("nothing in biology makes sense if not in the light of
evolution") was himself a devout Christian. Second, it has always been commonly accepted that most scientists
are materialists and do not believe in a personal god. This turns out to be quantitatively accurate.... Surveys
show that such is the belief (or more properly lack thereof) of a majority of "average" scientists and of almost
every "top" scientist (as measured by their membership in the National Academy of Sciences)....
Given the [huge variety] of opinion regarding important conceptual issues within the creationist camp, ... it is
amazing that creationists can present such a unified front.... Or is this unified front just a matter of appearances,
thinly disguising the vat of trouble that is brewing among creationists? ...
An Ideological War
Scientists and educators are involved in this debate because they care about science education, not about
winning an ideological war. In this, I can safely say, they are different from creationists. Even though most
creationists are sincerely convinced of their positions, they are interested only in winning the ideological war. If
evolutionary theory had no theological implications (say, like atomic theory), there would be no debate. This
point is strangely missed by scientists, who continue to behave as if creationists were either lunatics (which by
and large they are not) or as if they needed to be rebutted on solid scientific grounds, after which they would go
away.
The reason it is important to explain science to the general public is that it is important for our society
that people have a scientific understanding of the world. Without it, as a recent report of the National Science
Foundation remarked, people are likely to make bad decisions in the voting booth, as members of a jury, or in
their private lives when considering an insurance policy or a moneymaking scheme. But to refuse to accept that
this particular debate is about ideology rather than science is foolish and largely accounts for the lack of
progress we have made since the Scopes trial.1 It is therefore urgent that scientists and educators be in a position
to counterattack and to point out the internal inconsistencies in the creationist camp. As uncomfortable as this
may be, this is bound to make much more of an immediate impact than any esoteric explanation of the second
principle of thermodynamics....
What Evolution Really Is
Having attempted to explain the basic tenets of the major forms of creationism, it is only fair—and
most urgent, judging from my experiences at debates against creationists—to briefly explain what evolutionary
theory really is, and even a few things that it is thought to be but isn't.... The evolution-creation debate is marred
by many misunderstandings and a lot of ideological posturing, often on both sides. One major thing that
creationists seem reluctant to acknowledge, however, is the distinction between what evolutionary theory
actually is and what they think it is. And the difference is both huge and crucial. No matter what one's
ideological position, it seems to me necessary to understand what biologists claim evolution to be and not to
build straw men just to be able to demonize the opposition....
If one asks an evolutionary biologist—by definition the only person qualified to answer the question—
she will tell you that evolution is simply a change of gene frequencies over time. This may sound rather simple
and philosophically uninteresting, but it is in line with what science is all about: seeking answers to specific
9
questions, not to questions of ultimate meaning. The theory of genetic changes in natural populations is very
well understood by a branch of biology called population genetics, and modern molecular biology provides
direct evidence that gene frequencies do indeed change under our very nose. Examples are abundant and are
found in all classes of living organisms (humans included, of course)....
Yet most people think of evolution in terms of descent with modification, to use Darwin's term, of large
organisms, and in particular animals.... Let's look at evolution seen at the level of macroscopic creatures and
long timescales. This is the realm of comparative anatomy and paleontology, and the evidence for evolution of
plants and animals comes from studies of their genetics, physiology, morphology, and development. Additional
evidence comes from the much maligned fossil record....
There are many great examples of morphological evolution in plants and animals, but perhaps one of the most
spectacular is the evolution of modern whales, which has recently been largely elucidated by a series of
paleontological findings and molecular studies....
The story of whales started about 55 million years ago, although the exact group of ancestors is
currently unknown. They were terrestrial animals belonging to the Artiodactyla (the modern group that includes
hippopotami, sheep, camels, and pigs). That group was itself closely related to the now extinct Mesonychia,
which until recently were considered a better candidate for the direct ancestors of whales, but are now regarded
as their cousins. The earliest animals belonging to the Cetacea (of which modern whales and dolphins are also
members) were closely related to Pakicetus and Ambulocetus.... The early relatives of these two were terrestrial
artiodactyls, occupying an ecological niche similar to the one filled today by bears (i.e., they were probably
scavengers and fish eaters), although whales and bears themselves are not closely related to each other. Between
53 and 45 million years ago (MYA) a variety of intermediate forms appeared to connect the artiodactyl
ancestors to modern whales. Some of these forms have been found in the fossil record, though there probably
were many more that did not survive the fossilization process. Fifty MYA the already mentioned Pakicetus
appeared, sporting a lifestyle that included both land and water hunting (judging from its skeleton and skull). A
little after that, Ambulocetus showed advanced features adapted to a marine life, with a skeleton very similar to
that of modern otters, sea lions, and other pinnipeds that are still today in an intermediate stage of their aquatic
evolution. Between 40 and 35 MYA other forms arose, in particular Basilosaurus. This animal was truly almost
like a whale except for the still apparent limbs, which, however, were reduced enough to make it impossible for
it to walk on land.
What Evolution Is Not
So much for what evolution is. Now there are a couple of important things that evolution is not,
misleading claims by creationists notwithstanding. For example, evolution is not a theory of the origin of life,
for the simple reason that evolution deals with changes in living organisms induced by a combination of random
(mutation) and nonrandom (natural selection) forces. By definition, before life originated there were no
mutations, and therefore there was no variation; hence, natural selection could not possibly have acted. This
means that the origin of life is a (rather tough) problem for physics and chemistry to deal with, but not a proper
area of inquiry for evolutionary biology. It would be like asking a geologist to explain the origin of planets: The
geologist's work starts after planets come into existence, and it is the cosmologist who deals with the question of
planetary origins....
Evolution is also most definitely not a theory of the origin of the universe. As interesting as this
question is, it is rather the realm of physics and cosmology. Mutation and natural selection, the mechanisms of
evolution, do not have anything to do with stars and galaxies. It is true that some people, even astronomers, refer
to the "evolution" of the universe, but this is meant in the general sense of change through time, not the technical
sense of the Darwinian theory. That the universe does "evolve" in this larger sense is clear from the fact that
powerful telescopes like the Hubble can actually peer into the distant past (thanks to the fact that light travels at
a finite speed) and show us firsthand what primordial galaxies looked like....
Is the fact that evolutionary theory can explain neither the origin of life nor the formation of the universe
a "failure" of Darwinian evolution? Of course not. To apply evolutionary biology to those problems is like
mixing apples and oranges, or like trying to understand a basketball play by applying the rules of baseball.
Creationists often do this, but their doing so betrays either a fundamental misunderstanding of science or a good
dose of intellectual dishonesty—neither of which should be condoned.
Creationists and scientists think along vastly different lines.... Creationist decisions are based on beliefs
and preferences, not on any attempt to objectively assess the problem. As I said earlier, creationists—contrary to
10
all principles of sound science and critical thinking—start out with a preferred conclusion and then try to find
evidence to back it up.... This is exactly the modus operandi of pseudoscience and what, in the words of
philosopher of science Karl Popper, distinguishes it from actual science.
Source Citation:
Pigliucci, Massimo. "Evolution Alone Explains Life on Earth." At Issue: Creationism Versus Evolution. Ed. Eric Braun. San Diego: Greenhaven Press,
2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Hopewell Valley Central High School. 24 Sep. 2009
<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010182213&source=gale&sr
cprod=OVRC&userGroupName=penn47345&version=1.0
Creationism Should Not Be Taught in Public Schools
Thomas A. Deméré and Steve Walsh, "Facts, Faith, and Fairness," www.ncseweb. org, December 7, 2000. Copyright © 2000 by the National Center for
Science Education. Reproduced by permission.
Thomas A. Deméré is curator of paleontology at the San Diego Natural History Museum and an adjunct professor of evolutionary biology at San Diego
State University. Steve Walsh is a field monitor and curatorial assistant at the San Diego Natural History Museum.
The primary difference between science and religion is that science must depend on rational evidence
and observation of natural events, while religion depends on the belief in forces beyond human understanding
and often relies on texts that must be considered infallible. Creationism is argued as if it were a religious
doctrine, not a scientific theory—it is based on "infallible" texts and cannot be disproved on its own terms based
on any new evidence. Educators are under no obligation to treat religious doctrines as science; to do so would
require them to teach astrology as part of astronomy courses and teach witch doctor rituals in medical school.
By treating religious doctrines such as creationism as if they were scientific theories, educators would weaken
the already lagging science literacy of American students and hamper their ability to understand how science
works.
Scientific literacy is in short supply among American students. This problem makes controversial
proposals to teach creationism in science classes, along with astronomy, geology, and the theory of evolution,
all the more disturbing. The most important questions in this debate are: "What are the differences between
science and religion?" "Is creationism science?" and, "Does fairness require that creationism should be taught
alongside the theory of evolution?"
Defining Science and Religion
Science and religion are different. Scientific explanations are based on human observations of natural
processes; these explanations may be changed or abandoned as additional facts are discovered. Science does not
claim that God does not exist. However, whether or not scientists believe in God, by the very definition of
science, they cannot offer God's intervention as the explanation for whatever they seek to explain.
Scientists who investigate the past must proceed in the same way that detectives work when solving crimes
without witnesses. In such cases, detectives must assume that no supernatural forces were involved. Suppose
you are accused of a murder and you have overwhelming evidence to prove that you were 3,000 miles away
from the scene of the crime when the murder was committed.
But the prosecutor ignores this rational evidence, and claims that you made yourself invisible, flew at
the speed of light to commit the murder 3,000 miles away, and returned an instant later. How could you defend
yourself? Could you prove that you did not have these powers? No—it is impossible to prove or disprove
something outside the realm of rational investigation.
Any judge who heard a prosecutor accuse a defendant of using supernatural powers to commit a crime
would immediately rule that the accusation is inadmissible in court. In just the same way, the explanation of
material facts by supernatural forces is not admissible in science.
Religious explanations of the universe, in contrast to science, are based upon belief in certain forces that
are beyond the realm of human understanding. Many religions also depend on a faith that certain documents are
infallible.
Is Creationism Science?
"Creationists" are fundamentalist Christians who believe that the account of creation in the Book of
Genesis is literally true. According to creationists, the Earth is only about 6,000 years old, Adam and Eve were
the actual ancestors of all living people, and Noah's flood occurred exactly as described in the Bible.
Creationists ignore the basic premises of science. For example, the public school edition of Henry Morris'
textbook, Scientific Creationism, published by Creation-Life Publishers, states: "It is precisely because Biblical
11
revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the
same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict
the Bible." This principle directly contradicts the requirement that scientific explanations must be modified
when new facts are discovered.
Similarly, the textbook Earth Science for Christian Schools, published by Bob Jones University Press,
states: "For the Christian, earth science is a study of God's creation. As such, it is subject to God's infallible
Word, the Bible. The final authority of the Christian is not man's observation but God's revelation." Yet
scientific explanations depend on human observation of natural processes, not on supernatural revelation.
These statements are objectionable from the scientific and religious points of view. Who knows who has the
correct interpretation of the Bible? Many Christians accept the theory of evolution, but these statements imply
that the only true Christians are those who interpret the Bible in exactly the same way as their authors do. They
also imply that the fundamental scientific procedure—human observation—is wrong and useless when it
contradicts the creationist interpretation of the Bible. These and many other creationist statements unmask
creationism for what it is: not a science, but a narrow-minded religious belief, immune to evidence or potential
correction.
Only a Theory
Creationists often insist that since evolution is a "theory," it is only a guess, no better than any other. But
in science, a theory is a statement of general principles that explain many facts by means of natural processes.
The proposition that the planets revolve around the sun (Copernican theory) explains a great many astronomical
facts and also is considered true beyond a reasonable doubt. In the same way, geological examination of rocks
demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth is extremely old. The theory of evolution explains a
tremendous number of biological and paleontological facts, and it, too, is true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nevertheless, all these theories could be altered or replaced if new observations yielded new scientific evidence
that contradicted predictions of these theories. Creationism, on the other hand, is not even a theory because its
proponents have decided in advance that no amount of evidence will change their beliefs.
Does fairness demand that creationism should be taught alongside evolution? Creationists argue that, "You
can't prove that evolution is true (you weren't there, it's just a theory) and you can't prove that creationism is
false, so it's only fair to teach both." By this argument, astrology, which is based on supernatural forces, should
be taught alongside astronomy. And witch doctors, who use supernatural forces to explain disease, should be
taught in our medical schools. This is a mistaken notion of fairness.
The fact is, our students are taught science so they can learn to accurately observe facts and to
understand how scientific theories are developed. Bringing in religious creeds and supernatural explanations can
only impair their ability to understand how science works. Our children deserve to gain scientific literacy so
they can solve the scientific and technological challenges of the 21st century.
It's only fair.
Source Citation:
Deméré, Thomas A, and Steve Walsh. "Creationism Should Not Be Taught in Public Schools." At Issue: Religion and Education. Ed. Tom Head. San
Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Hopewell Valley Central High School. 24 Sep. 2009
<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010391210&source=gale&sr
cprod=OVRC&userGroupName=penn47345&version=1.0>.
Creationism Should Not Be Included in Science Curricula
Reprinted from "What's a Teacher to Do?" an interview with Eugenie Scott, Rethinking Schools, Winter 1997–98, vol. 12, no. 3, by permission of
Rethinking Schools.
In the following viewpoint, Eugenie Scott contends that creationism—a religious view of biological origins—
should not be included in science curricula. Creation science research is rife with errors and inaccuracies, she
points out; and, unlike serious scientists, creationists reject new information that could modify their theories.
Evolutionary theory, however, is supported by ample evidence and helps to illustrate the scientific method. It is
a primary theory of biology that all students should learn, she concludes. Scott holds a doctorate in physical
anthropology and is executive director of the National Center for Science Education. She is interviewed by Leon
Lynn, an education writer living in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
As you read, consider the following questions:
1. In Scott's view, what is wrong with the argument that students should learn both evolution and
creationism?
2. How are students who are not exposed to evolution placed at a disadvantage, according to the author?
12
3.
In Scott's opinion, what should teachers do when they face pressure to stop teaching evolution?
Leon Lynn: How likely is it that a science teacher in this country will encounter creationism, or feel pressure for
teaching evolution?
Eugenie Scott: At some time or another in their career, very likely. It varies based on where they work, of
course. Usually, teachers in big cities will fare better than teachers in small towns and suburbs. But it's a
common thing, and it seems to be getting more common.
There are two sides to this. One is the effort by creationists to teach some kind of religiously based idea
as part of the science curriculum. That's usually pretty blatant. But there's another side, which can be a lot harder
to see. Teachers get the message, sometimes overtly, sometimes more subtly, that evolution has become a
controversial subject in their community and they'll just quietly stop teaching it, and evolution will sink out of
the curriculum.
Flaws of the "Equal-Time" Argument
How do you respond when someone suggests that the fair thing to do is teach children about both evolution and
creationism, and let them decide what to believe?
At its heart, the "equal-time" argument is substantially flawed. People who advocate it are basically saying we
should teach that evolutionary theory—the idea that the universe changed through time, that the present is
different from past— is equal in weight to the idea that the whole universe came into being at one time and
hasn't changed since then. You can't do that in a science class. You can only deal with scientific evidence. There
is copious evidence to support that evolution has occurred, and no evidence that everything was created at once
and hasn't changed. Why would we pretend that an idea that was created outside of science is science? That's not
fair.
It's perfectly reasonable to expose children to religious views of origin, but it's not OK to advocate those
views as empirical truth. And the place for those ideas is not in the science curriculum.
Do you think students are harmed by exposure to creationism in their science class?
Yes. To begin with, these so-called alternatives to evolution are disadvantageous because they are simply
factually wrong. Creation science literature is riddled with inaccuracies, misstatements. Students who learn it
learn a lot of flat-out erroneous stuff. They also aren't learning the scientific method. The people pushing
creation science aren't interested in modifying or revisiting their theories based on any new evidence, which is
the basic premise of science. So when you teach creation science, you're giving legitimacy to very bad
scholarship.
It's also a problem for students because if they don't learn evolution, they will be at a disadvantage when
they take standardized tests. That includes college admissions tests. Evolution is not controversial at the college
level. Scientists who work and teach at that level constantly tell me how amazed they are at the ignorance of
students about evolution.
Pressure Against Teaching Evolution
When teachers feel pressure to stop teaching evolution, what should they do?
To begin with, it's important to deal with people's feelings. If a religious parent is raising a complaint, for
example, it's very important to make that parent realize you're not trying to change or challenge the child's
religious faith. You need to say, "We are presenting the best scientific information, we want your children to
learn it, but it's up to you and them whether they accept it or not." That often assuages parents' concern, because
they're really afraid that when evolution is being taught, anti-religious ideas are being rammed down their
children's throats.
Also, teachers need to support each other. If there are teachers in your school who are nervous about
teaching evolution, others need to support them. Those teachers need to know they're not alone in case any flak
comes along. And probably the most important thing for teachers to do is to get administrative support. That is,
if they can.
What do you mean?
I've heard some great stories of administrators marching into the classroom and saying, "You will teach
evolution, you signed a contract to teach the curriculum and that's part of it." I'd sure like to clone them, though,
because we sure don't have many like that. I've been rather disappointed on the whole with the response of
principals. The proper response in a situation like that is to explain to the parent the importance of evolution in
the school curriculum. Instead, too many principals tend to appease the parent by talking to the teacher, and
13
directing the teacher to "just skip it (evolution) this year." I've had teachers tell me stories like that at every
conference I've ever attended.
Administrators are simply not doing their jobs on this. If a parent came in and said, "I don't want my
child learning that the South lost the civil war," the principal would say, "Thanks for your input, but we have to
teach the curriculum, including the part that says the North won." Or if you had a parent who was a Holocaust
revisionist, you wouldn't see many principals telling teachers to stop teaching that the Holocaust took place. But
they're willing to compromise the integrity of science and tell the teachers to downplay or skip evolution.
Evolution Is Not Anti-God
Why is evolution treated differently?
The difference is partly due to people not wanting to be critical of religion. Administrators don't want to be
labeled as being "anti-God." Remember, there are a lot of people who think that when you accept evolution, you
have to reject religion. That's not true, but there are an awful lot of administrators who would rather just avoid
the whole issue than start a debate like that with parents.
Another part of it is that there's a lot of ignorance among administrators about the central importance of
evolution to science teaching. They don't realize that evolution is a central, unifying theory of biology, and that
depriving students of learning it is a serious problem.
Source Citation:
Scott, Eugenie, and Leon Lynn. "Creationism Should Not Be Included in Science Curricula." Opposing Viewpoints: Education. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San
Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Hopewell Valley Central High School. 24 Sep. 2009
<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010129231&source=gale&sr
cprod=OVRC&userGroupName=penn47345&version=1.0>.
Creationism Explains Life on Earth
Benjamin D. Wiker is a senior fellow in the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a center for challenging Darwinism and developing
Intelligent Design, located in Seattle, Washington. He is the author of Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists. He is a lecturer in theology and
science at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio.
In spite of critics' claims that it is repackaged creationism—that it is religious and not scientific—the
Intelligent Design (ID) movement is in fact a welcome and inevitable scientific revolution. The natural world
provides abundant reasons to doubt evolutionary theory as well as abundant evidence that life on Earth was
created by an intelligent designer. ID affirms microevolution (evolution that results in change in populations at
the species level or smaller), which can be confirmed by science, but denies macroevolution (evolution that
results in large-scale changes such as species formation), which cannot. The sudden appearance of nearly all
modern living phyla during the Cambrian era (as shown in the fossil record) shows that modern life did not
evolve slowly. Furthermore, the conditions necessary for the first living cells to arise would require a miracle. A
designer explains these things, while evolution does not.
It may well be the most important Intellectual movement to occur in the last 200 years, if not the last
half-millennium. Its roots are in the sciences, but when it reaches full flower, it may branch into nearly every
discipline, from theology, philosophy, and the social sciences to history and literature, and redefine almost every
aspect of culture, from morality and law to the arts.
It's the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, and it's reshaping the face of science.
The revolution began in the latter half of the 20th century as a result of discoveries in the various sciences that
seemed to point to an intelligent being as the cause of nature's amazing intricacies. The aim of ID is included in
its origin: the ever-deeper investigation of nature to uncover every aspect of its stunningly contrived complexity.
Such complexity is the sure sign of intentional design, and the discovery and contemplation of it is also the
natural delight of our intellect.
The ID movement directly contradicts the modern secularist [nonreligious] intellectual trend that has so
thoroughly dominated Western culture for the last two centuries (even though this trend began 500 years ago, in
the early Renaissance). Although this secularization has reached nearly every aspect of our culture, its source of
authority has always been in a kind of philosophic and scientific alliance.
Evidence of a Designer
In philosophy, the secularized intellect denies the existence of any truth beyond what is humanly
contrived.... The secularization of science manifests itself in the belief that nature has no need for an intelligent
designer but is self-caused and self-contained. Secularized science has as its aim the reduction of apparent
design, whether cosmological or biological, to the unintelligent interplay of chance and brute necessity (either
14
the necessity of law or of the physical constituents). Since nature itself has no intrinsic order, then (by default)
the human intellect is the only source of intellectual order. Secularized science thus supports secularized
philosophy, and secularized philosophy functions as the articulate mouthpiece of the alliance.
The ID movement seeks to restore sanity to science, philosophy, and hence culture by investigating the
possibility that nature, rather than being the result of unintelligent, purposeless forces, can only be understood as
the effect of an Intelligent Designer. But again, to say that the ID revolution contradicts the claims of secularized
science does not mean that the contradiction arises from some contrariety or conspiracy on the part of ID
proponents. It arises from the evidence of nature itself, and the ID movement is merely pointing to the evidence
nature has provided (even while, as an active mode of scientific inquiry, it seeks to uncover more). In science, it
points to the growing evidence of intelligent fine tuning, both cosmological and biological, and to the various
failures of secularized science to make good its claims that the order of nature can be completely reduced to
unintelligent causes. As more and more evidence is gathered, secularized philosophy will be forced to confront
the scientific evidence that truth is not, after all, a mere human artifact, because a designing intellect has
provided the amazingly intricate beings and laws to which the scientific intellect must conform if it is truly to
have scientia—a knowledge of nature. Soon enough, secularized culture will be compelled to realign.
Criticism of ID
That is not, however, the story you will hear from the critics of ID, who seek to declaw it by denying
that it is, at heart, a scientific revolution. According to its most acerbic adversaries, ID is merely a religious ruse
wearing a scientific facade. For philosopher Barbara Forrest, "The intelligent design movement as a whole ...
really has nothing to do with science," but is rather "religious to its core ... merely the newest 'evolution' of good
old-fashioned American creationism." Zoologists Matthew Brauer and Daniel Brumbaugh charge that the ID
movement "is not motivated by new scientific discoveries" but "entirely by the religion and politics of a small
group of academics who seek to defeat secular 'modernist naturalism' by updating previously discredited
creationist approaches." The most outspoken critic of ID theory, philosopher Robert Pennock (who has
published two anti-ID books), likewise asserts in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics that ID is
merely a "theological movement" with a "game plan ... little different than that of the 'creation scientists'" and
suspects that at the heart of the ID urge is a regrettable and benighted "tendency to anthropomorphize the
world," to see design in nature only because we are designers ourselves.
As should be clear from the incessant cry of alarm—"Creationist! Creationist!"—the source of the
critics' ire is that ID has dared to enter the realm of biology and raise questions concerning the near sacrosanct
canons of Darwinism. (And if one starts questioning the Darwinian account of man's origin and nature, what
aspect of our secularized culture could escape uprooting?) 'Tis all fine and good, they say, to investigate
cosmological fine-tuning but anathema to consider biological fine-tuning. Indeed, such critics seem to think that
doubting evolutionary theory's claims to have eliminated design from biology could only occur if one has either
lost one's mind or placed it on an out-of-the-way shelf marked "Do Not Disturb" (the embarassing result of
irrational adherence to an entirely mytho-theological account of creation). They seem—to get to the bottom of
it—to agree with the words of zoologist and evolutionary spokesman laureate Richard Dawkins: "It is absolutely
safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or
insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
Against this, I argue not only that it is quite reasonable to have doubts about evolutionary theory, but
that the rise and development of ID theory, as an antidote to Darwinism, is both intellectually welcome and
historically inevitable. It is intellectually welcome because Darwinism is too small to fit the facts it claims to
explain, and ID is large enough to include a modified form of Darwinism....
What ID Accepts from Darwin
What then are the most significant defects in Darwinism? Not that it has provided an account of descent
with modification—that's one of its merits—but that its proposed mechanisms allowing it to eliminate
intelligence as a cause are woefully insufficient. To understand this, let's return to the cosmological level.
ID theory affirms the universe to be 15 billion years old (more or less) and endorses the generally accepted
account of the wonderful unfolding of stellar and planetary evolution. But it makes clear that it is the original
and inherent fine-tuning that allows the unfolding to occur. ID proponents look at the wonderful and
wonderfully strange history of life the same way. They do not deny many of the marvelous things that
Darwinism has uncovered, and so an ID account of biology would include much of what Darwinists have
15
discovered. What they question, however, is the Darwinian insertion that such things are explicable solely as the
result of purposeless, unguided mechanisms....
If the elimination of design in biology was wrongheaded, then the mechanism by which Darwin tried to
exclude it must somehow be faulty or incomplete. To that mechanism we must now turn.
The initial evidence for design-free evolution provided by Darwin is powerful, especially if one understands the
particular context of belief reigning at the time of Darwin. The common belief about species at the time was that
God created all the stunning varieties of plants and animals as they now appeared (and did so, a mere 6,000
years prior). Darwin effectively demolished this particular belief in the Origin by beginning with
incontrovertible evidence of the malleability [the ability to be changed] of species right under the English nose.
After all, he noted, we must admit that breeders of animals, through the artifice of selecting for desired traits and
breeding to exaggerate them, are able to produce, in comparatively few generations, radically different looking
stock. Obviously, these very different breeds were created by man and did not come, ready-made, from the hand
of God.
From the example of the plasticity of breeds under domestication, Darwin then asked: "Can the
principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply under nature?" How could it
not? the reader asks himself. "Can it, then, be thought improbable," Darwin mused, that "variations useful in
some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should occur in the course of many successive
generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can
possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance
of surviving and of procreating their kind?" Yes, of course, the reader concludes, natural selection, the source of
the endless varieties we find within natural species—innumerable varieties of sparrows, oodles of turtles,
countless variations of snakes!
A brilliant step forward in the history of science, for which we owe Darwin a great debt. Had he stopped
there, Darwin would have successfully defeated the particular belief that God had immediately created every
variety of plant and animal. Of course, that small victory could not, by itself, establish the larger claim that
biology was designer-free. In order to eliminate a designer completely Darwin had to make the great inferential
leap from partial, legitimate insight to an all-encompassing theory, from change within limits, to unlimited
change: "Slow though the process of selection may be," Darwin intoned, "if feeble man can do much by
artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change ... which may have been effected in the long
course of time through nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the fittest." Small changes add up to
distinct varieties; with time, the varietal branches become more distinct until they rank as species; with yet more
time, the changes become so pronounced that we class them as being in distinct genera, and so on, until voilà,
we have the famous evolutionary tree.
What ID Rejects
The test of this great leap is, of course, whether or not what it predicts, according to its assumptions,
pans out if we study nature ... for a sufficient length of time. Has everything unfolded smoothly according to the
assumptions, or has Darwinism found its critical assumptions ramming into stubborn ... facts?
Where has Darwinism succeeded grandly? Exactly where it succeeded at first, in describing relatively
small-scale evolution, often called microevolution. So where has it failed? In those precise places where it
would need to have succeeded in order to make good on the great daring inference. We will look at two: (1) the
need for a gradual appearance of the highest biological taxa [taxanomic group] and (2) the extension of designfree biology backwards to a gradual nondirected rise of the first cells from prebiological materials. Both of these
are necessary to exclude ID from biology.
The sharpest rocks to dash the expectations of Darwinism were quarried in Canada at the beginning of
the 20th century, and the fossils taken from this wonderful site, called the Burgess Shale, lay entirely
misinterpreted for almost three-quarters of a century. They provide us with a most illuminating window into the
Cambrian explosion, where, in evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould's words, "in a geological moment near the
beginning of the Cambrian [about 570 million years ago], nearly all modern phyla made their first appearance,
along with an even greater array of anatomical experiments that did not survive very long thereafter." This
appearance is not the result of a gradual rise (through innumerable intermediate species) of increasingly more
complex life leading up to the Cambrian period. Rather, in Gould's words, it occurs "with a bang" in a
"geological flash" as a "gigantic burp of creativity."
16
Why is the Cambrian such a stick in the craw of Darwinism? Darwin's principle natura non facit saltum
(nature does not make a leap) is the principle by which evolutionary theory can eliminate intelligence as a cause.
How so? Intelligence, as a cause, can create elaborate order quickly and efficiently: ratio facit salta (reason does
make leaps), we might well say. If the unintelligent meanderings of natural selection are to displace an
Intelligent Designer, then, as Darwin realized, all big differences must be the result of the addition of countless
very little differences. The sudden appearance of nearly all modern biological phyla completely contradicts the
expectations of Darwin's theory. The taxonomic hierarchy in biology, from greatest difference to least, is
kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. As Darwin well understood, the greater the
difference, the greater the number of transitional species required, and the greater amount of time natural
selection will need, working through slight variations, to produce the far greater differences characteristic of
phyla. For Darwin, phyla simply cannot appear abruptly but must be the result of a long, arduous, winding path
of slight variations among a discrete population leading, by natural selection, to new varieties, which in turn,
lead to new species, which in turn ... and so on, until one reaches the level of divergence indicative of phyla. If
Darwin were right, the fossil evidence would support him.
The sudden appearance of all known phyla in the Cambrian, therefore, represents a first-order
theoretical crisis for Darwinism. For an ID approach, it indicates the presence of causal intelligence. While
nature itself non facit saltum, such leaps are the hallmark of a designing intellect, especially since the phyla level
acts as a kind of plan allowing for future evolutionary development (in a somewhat analogous way that finetuning of physical constants allows for stellar evolution).
Does that prove that ID theory has won in biology by default? No. It only proves that (1) it is reasonable
to doubt that natural selection, powerful as it may be in certain domains, can displace intelligence as a cause in
the origin of animal design, and more particularly, (2) it is reasonable to investigate the fossil evidence from the
perspective of design....
Evolution and the Origin of Life
There are insuperable [insurmountable] problems in trying to explain, via some mode of design-free
evolutionary theory, how the first cells could have arisen. Nobel laureate biochemist Francis Crick, codiscoverer
of the helical structure of DNA, has even remarked, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to
us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so
many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." The enigma drove Crick
to offer a nonevolutionary solution to the origin of life, the theory of panspermia, the belief that intelligent aliens
seeded life on earth.
Others, such as Dawkins, lapse into an irrational faith in the powers of chance to avoid an ID inference.
While Dawkins agrees with Crick that the origin of life is a miracle, by that he means a miracle of chance. But
Dawkins believes that anything can be explained by chance, even a miracle. Speaking of a marble statue,
Dawkins (with a straight face) argues that "if, by sheer coincidence, all the molecules [in the hand of the statue]
just happened to move in the same direction at the same moment, the hand would move. If they then all reversed
direction at the same moment the hand would move back. In this way it is possible for a marble statue to wave at
us. It could happen."
Of course, one would have to be insanely wedded to materialism and have more faith in the powers of
chance than any theist has in the powers of God to believe an actual waving statue was not a miracle. With this
faith in the random jostling of molecules, Dawkins sees no trouble in believing (even without evidence) that a
materialist miracle occurred, albeit he knows not how, allowing for the rise of the first living cells. Such faith,
however, is not evidence itself but a telling lapse into a materialist credo quia absurdum est.
The Future of ID
I have spent quite a few words trying to show that the ID movement is both larger than its wellpublicized and strongly criticized attempts to question Darwinism and also that it is justified in publicly and
strongly criticizing Darwinism. I believe that this analysis allows us to see the merit of the work done so far by
ID proponents Michael Behe and William Dembski. Behe's wonderful arguments about the irreducible
complexity of biological structures (Darwin's Black Box) show clearly that biological fine-tuning is a real
problem for Darwinism precisely because of the discovery of the unfathomable complexity of even the smallest
biological structures. Dembski (most recently, No Free Lunch) has declared war, so to speak, on the kind of
irrational reliance on chance all too characteristic of Darwinism and seen all too clearly in Dawkins. Such
17
reliance, we recall, is rooted in the desire to eliminate the design inference in biology, and Dembski's arguments
are essential to removing such irrational obstacles.
Where is the ID revolution headed? Time will tell. But it's a young movement, after all. As with all
scientific and philosophical revolutions—so also with ID—one is not able to predict what this mode of scientific
inquiry will discover.
Source Citation:
Wiker, Benjamin D. "Creationism Explains Life on Earth." At Issue: Creationism Versus Evolution. Ed. Eric Braun. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005.
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Hopewell Valley Central High School. 24 Sep. 2009
<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010182214&source=gale&sr
cprod=OVRC&userGroupName=penn47345&version=1.0
Physical Laws Support Creationism
Excerpted from In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, by Ker C. Thomson. Reprinted with permission from New Leaf Press, Inc.
Ker C. Thomson is a former Director of the US Air Force Terrestrial Sciences Laboratory. He holds a B.A. in Physics and Geology from the University of
British Columbia and DSc in Geophysics from the Colorado School of Mines. Thomson served as Professor of Geophysics at Baylor University and
Professor of Science at Bryan College. He has published numerous technical papers in the area of geophysics and seismology.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all things in the Universe are undergoing a continual
process of decay. That process causes a decrease in the complexity of all things. Yet evolution requires the
opposite to occur—namely, that all things evolve from a simple state to a state of greater complexity. For many
years, evolutionists have tried to reconcile the paradox that exists between evolution and the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. In contrast to evolution, the position of creationists is consistent with the all-important
Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Many, if not most, educated people throughout the world believe that life originated from non-life
(abiogenesis) by natural processes. Following the laws of physics and chemistry, the concept is that through
'natural selection' operating over vast periods of time, fortuitous favourable events happened that brought about
successively more complex biological chemicals, which again, either fortuitously or through some undefined
inherent property of matter, concatenated, leading upward to protocells, cells, living creatures and then man
himself. 'Natural selection' processes are such that biologic or pre-biologic products occurring in any given
environmental niche that favour that niche are the ones that propagate and reproduce, and that random changes
in either or both the environment and the progeny that are more appropriate for the new conditions will be the
ones favoured to expand into the future. In a single paragraph, this is the general theory of Neo-Darwinian
evolution.
The above stands in stark contrast to creationism, which holds that currently observable natural
processes are quite inadequate to explain the origin of life or its current, enormous observable complexity and
variability. Rather, it postulates that a great creative mind must lie behind the origin of our observable universe
and its living creatures—a mind and power vastly greater than anything of which man is capable. The questions
of how long the creative process was and when it occurred vary from one creationist to another, but the concept
of an original conscious creative act by a Creator who is distinct from His creation is common to all creationist
viewpoints considered here.
Both creationists and evolutionists, by and large, concur that the evolutionary scenario outlined in the
first paragraph above is highly improbable. It gains whatever credibility it enjoys only through the apparent
availability of enormous amounts of time during which the most improbable events might conceivably occur.
It should be apparent that evolution is capable of an immediate scientific test: Is there available a scientifically
observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and
higher levels of complexity? Evolution absolutely requires this.
Evolution and the Second Law
Evolution fails the test. The test procedure is contained within the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
This law has turned out to be one of the surest and most fundamental principles in all of science. It is in fact
used routinely in science to test postulated or existing concepts and machines (for instance perpetual motion
machines, or a proposed chemical reaction) for viability. Any process, procedure or machine which would
violate this principle is discarded as impossible. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that there is a longrange decay process which ultimately and surely grips everything in the universe that we know about. That
process produces a break-down of complexity, not its increase. This is the exact opposite of what evolution
requires.
18
The argument against evolution presented above is so devastating in its scientific impact that, on
scientific grounds, evolution would normally be immediately rejected by the scientific community.
Unfortunately, for the preservation of truth, evolution is not adhered to on scientific grounds at all. Rather, it is
clung to, though flying in the face of reason, with an incredible, fanatical, and irrational religious fervour. It
loudly claims scientific support when, in fact, it has none worthy of the name.
If the evolution or creationism discussion were decided by sensible appeals to reason, evolution would long ago
have joined the great philosophical foolishnesses of the past, with issues such as how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin, or the flat-earth concept.
To bury evolutionary faith, then, it seems necessary to look beyond the general Second Law argument
presented above to the specific details, and to consider and dispose of the quibbles raised by the evolutionary
community.
One objection that can be posited to the preceding argument is that the Second Law deals with longterm results, or equilibrium states, in more chemical language. An evolutionary response then is that evolution
must be somehow tucked in between the successive equilibrium states.
Reconsider the implications of the evolutionary theory's requirements for large time spans. Is it not
obvious that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is what is most pertinent here? The huge amounts of time
available that evolution claims for itself will provide plenty of time for successive equilibrium states to be
achieved and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to apply. The fast-moving intermediate states are irrelevant
in the long range of time. The long-range end results of each chemical reaction will be what dominates the long
ages of evolution. The clear and inescapable statement by the Second Law will be that the end results must be in
a downward direction, not the upward direction evolution requires.
A second quibble to consider is that of 'micro vs macro': could it be if we consider evolution from an
atomic or molecular level (micro), rather than from the level of matter at the state where we can feel, see and
touch it (macro), that evolution might be found tucked away among the infinitesimally small (i.e. among the
molecules, atoms or subatomic particles)? This really won't do, however.
As a minor first consideration here, note that we do not feel or see atoms and molecules with our unaided senses
or rarely even perceive them at all at the individual atomic-level by any process.
Importance of the Second Law
In other words, our knowledge and perceptions at the micro level are obtained through a maze of
complex machines which are themselves constructed from a large assortment of assumptions and abstruse
theories. (No denial of atomic theory is being made here. Rather, it is simply being put in relative perspective.)
On the other hand, the laws of thermodynamics rest on direct observations of matter in the aggregate and require
only relatively sure and simple observations for their truth to be evident. In terms of reliability it should be
apparent that, in general, results deduced from the Second Law should weigh in a little higher on the truth scale
than results deduced only from atomic or molecular considerations. (Note, however, that the Second Law is not
confined solely to aggregate matter, but applies at the micro level also.)
Regardless of the considerations in the preceding paragraph, when the actual chemical reactions of life are
considered, especially those that might be involved at its inception, we find that the reactions are balky and
require high concentrations of the reactants in order to proceed at all. Obviously then, this consideration results
in levying a requirement for aggregate amounts of matter. This places us precisely back in situations
uncontestably dominated by the Second Law. Again the Second Law points to lower levels of complexity, not
higher.
Another quibble about application of the Second Law is contained in the claim that the Second Law of
Thermodynamics applies only in closed systems. This is nonsense of a high order. Surely all of us are familiar
with the everyday expression of this law in open systems. (The humorous popular version of the Second Law is
'Murphy's Law: Whatever can go wrong will go wrong'.) Metals corrode, machines break down, our bodies
deteriorate and we die. Constant maintenance and planning against contingencies are required if life is to be
sustained for even a transitory period, such as the lifetime of the individual. Ultimately, the Second Law takes
over, and our bodies return to dust and our automobiles to the junk yard. By the application of our minds, we
can resist the demands of the Second Law temporarily. General evolution collapses around this concept,
however, because at the initiation of the evolutionary process in antiquity, there was no mind available to
construct purposive 'machines' to temporarily obviate the Second Law's demands. The idea that the Second Law
can be confined to dosed systems is a piece of confusion on the part of the proponent of such a concept.
19
As an aside, note also an important implication for evolution implied in the last paragraph. The Second Law tells
us clearly that life could never get started by the activities of matter and energy unaided by outside intelligence.
If life could never get started, surely we have an incredible waste of intellectual talent going on around us as
many minds try to follow the pathways of evolution upwards from something that never started in the first
place!
Now let us come back to the question of closed systems. Consider an experiment to see if the Second
Law is true. It will be necessary to create a closed system to do so, a system protected from any outside
confusing inputs. In this way it will be possible to see what is happening in the system, independent of outside
events. When this is done, it is indeed found that inside the system, the trend is downward to disorganisation, as
the Second Law requires. What happens then in an open system is that at any point we see the sum of all the
different downward trends acting there.
To believe that the Second Law applies only in closed systems is to confuse the experimental necessity
for a closed system to test for the existence of the Second Law, with the actual actions of the Second Law
evident in the open systems in which we live.
Laws of probability
There is another quibble levied against the anti-evolutionary arguments developed here. It has to do with
the word 'randomness'. Refer to the very first paragraph defining evolution. Some evolutionists will quarrel with
words like 'randomness' or 'fortuitous', but others will agree with this definition.
There are, then, two schools of evolutionary thought. Consider first the group who believe that evolution
is due to the random concatenation of available materials and the laws of physics and chemistry.
This concept can be readily treated by the mathematical laws of probability. Several writers have done this.
Probably the best known is Fred Hoyle. The procedure is to estimate probabilities at each individual step of a
postulated evolutionary path and concatenate these to arrive at the probability of finding an evolutionary product
at any point along that path. Before proceeding very far along the path, probabilities drop to values so low that
the proper word to describe such happenings is impossible. Hoyle put it roughly like this: The probability that
life arose by random processes is equivalent to believing that a tornado striking a junk yard would reassemble
the trash and leave a completed, assembled and functioning Boeing 707 there.
Then there is the evolutionary group who think that randomness is only a minor or non-existent aspect
of evolution. Their perspective is that evolution is the inevitable outcome of the laws of physics and chemistry.
This idea is even easier to test than the randomness concept. We simply note that one of the surest
generalisations in all of physics and chemistry is the Second Law of Thermodynamics which, as we have
already shown, completely devastates any idea that matter unaided by mind or outside involvement will proceed
to higher levels of organisation.
Now we come to the evolutionists' quibble that the Second Law was different in the past from now. This
is simply an adult wish fulfilment on the part of the evolutionist espousing such notions. Unless he assumes
what he is trying to prove, he is left at this point with no reliable evidence whatever to support his thesis.
Science relies on measurements. Measurements we make now oppose evolution totally. To point for support to
conditions in the distant past, where they can't be measured, puts the evolutionists in the same intellectual camp
as those who believe in the tooth fairy.
Circular reasoning
Despite the arguments against evolution presented above and particularly in the last paragraph, the
evolutionist clinging to his faith may say 'Well, we are here, aren't we?' One may point out to him that he has
just finished engaging in circular reasoning. That is, he has obviously attempted to support evolution by
assuming that evolution is true and is what has led to his human existence and presence here.
When the circularity of his reasoning is pointed out to him, the evolutionist may then grope for evidence in the
fossil record. But again he is trotting out another batch of circular reasoning. This is so because evolution is used
to interpret the fossil record, so it cannot be used to justify evolution. To do so puts the proponent in the
intellectual booby hatch. Whatever the explanation for the fossil record may be, it cannot be one that in effect
denies the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
In fact, the most obvious feature of the fossil record is not upward synthesis but rather death and decay.
We find strong evidence for the steady loss of species within the fossil record. This is more in consonance with
the Second Law of Thermodynamics than with the upward growth posited by evolution.
20
Not all creationists hold to six-day creationism. This writer is of the opinion that the scriptural evidence
somewhat favours the six-day position. The scientific evidence for a long age rests primarily on the selection of
evidence favourable to the long-age position rather than to the evaluation of all available evidence.
Source Citation:
Thomson, Ker C. "Physical Laws Support Creationism." At Issue: Creationism vs. Evolution. Ed. Bruno J. Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002.
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Hopewell Valley Central High School. 24 Sep. 2009
<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010182205&source=gale&sr
cprod=OVRC&userGroupName=penn47345&version=1.0
Creationism Should Be Taught Alongside Evolution
Patrick Glynn, "Monkey on Our Backs," National Review, vol. 51, September 13, 1999, p. 42. Copyright © 1999 by National Review, Inc., 215 Lexington
Ave., New York, NY 10016. Reproduced by permission.
Patrick Glynn is associate director of the George Washington University for Communitarian Policy Studies and the author of God: The Evidence.
When science teachers refuse to teach creationism alongside evolution, they are doing students a
disservice. By keeping creationism out of schools, educators have stifled critical thinking. Moreover, although
much of creationism has been debunked by science, the idea that evolution is directed by an intelligent being is
worth considering.
Critics have decried the Kansas Board of Education's [1999] vote against evolution1 as a throwback to
the 19th century. In truth, though, both sides of the evolution-creationism debate are locked in a 19th-century
quarrel, seemingly oblivious to 20th-century scientific developments that have rendered much of their argument
obsolete. While the "ol' time religion" and Biblical literalism of Kansas board members have invited great scorn,
many of their opponents in the evolution camp share a naively positivistic view of science, nearly as
fundamentalist, in its own way, as the beliefs of creationists.
Not that anyone is likely to construe the Kansas board's decision to strike evolution from the state's
required curriculum as a public-relations victory for evangelicalism. By allying themselves with so-called
"scientific creationists" or "young-earth theorists," the board members did much to discredit more legitimate
critiques of Darwin. While one can respect the piety of a person whose literal understanding of the Book of
Genesis leads him to claim that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, that individual should hardly be
surprised if the world at large fails to regard his views as scientific. No less an authority than St. Augustine
cautioned Christians against quoting the Bible as a science text and warned that by doing so they would tend to
render their religion laughable in the eyes of more knowledgeable people. The Kansas board members fell into
this trap.
Assumptions Not Conclusions
But if the Kansans allowed religion to encroach all too clumsily on science, they were reacting in part to
an evolutionary science that has too often encroached on religion. In 1997, Phillip Johnson, the University of
California law professor and outspoken critic of Darwin, drew attention to the then-official definition of
"evolution" promulgated by the National Association of Biology Teachers:
The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and
natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance,
historical contingencies and changing environments.
Modern geology has established persuasively that the earth is a good deal older than 10,000 years (the
current estimate is 4.5 billion). Most scientists accept that the fossil record shows evidence of macroevolution—
i.e., the emergence of new species—and common descent. But the evidence is a long way from supporting the
claim that the process was "unsupervised, impersonal" or even based solely on "chance." That is not a
conclusion based on data. It is rather the assumption of most biologists going in.
The board of the biology teachers' association reluctantly agreed to drop the words "unsupervised" and
"impersonal" from their definition after receiving a letter of protest from the eminent religion scholar Huston
Smith and Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga, who pointed out that while the fossil record may provide
evidence for evolution, it fails to establish whether evolution "is or isn't directed by God." But the underlying
logic of the teachers' definition—the implication that all life and species can be explained solely by chance
mechanisms—remains the official position of the profession, indeed its central tenet.
Lack of Debate
All of which helps to explain why a middle ground in this controversy, while seemingly available in
theory, has proved so elusive in practice. The Washington Post editorialized evenhandedly enough about the
21
Kansas decision, noting that evolution is a "reality," "no matter how inconvenient," and adding: "This is not to
say that there is no significant debate over its mode and character. There is, in fact, a rich and wonderful one."
This rich and wonderful debate, however, does not take place, by and large, among biology teachers in K-12
classrooms.
The draft science requirements rejected by the Kansas board had two striking features. First, the draft
contained a remarkably heavy dose of evolution, more than most of us middle-aged folks remember from our
own school days. Second, it presented evolutionary biology in a manner suggesting an utter absence of
controversy within or about the field. The document included a footnote to the effect that students were required
to "understand" rather than profess "belief" in evolutionary theory. But the curriculum made no provision for the
presentation of dissenting views. The notion that there exists legitimate disagreement, scientific or even
philosophical, about evolution was nowhere suggested.
Indeed, experience has shown that it can be risky for a high-school instructor to explore what the Post
calls this "rich and wonderful" debate. Recently the Christian Science Monitor carried a story about a Minnesota
biology teacher, Rodney LeVake, who raised questions about the validity of natural selection and introduced his
class to "intelligent design theory"—the position advocated by some scientists that the order intrinsic in the
universe provides empirical evidence of design or creation. For his troubles LeVake was barred by the local
school board from teaching biology the next year.
Interestingly, the rejected Kansas curriculum also featured a component on cosmic evolution, including
the big-bang theory. But nowhere did it mention an issue that has generated a vast literature in cosmology—the
anthropic principle, or the mystery of the "cosmic coincidences" in the universe, which a number of scientists
argue strongly suggest the existence of design. (Unfortunately, the majority of the Kansas board discarded the
cosmic-evolution component of the curriculum as well.)
A Disservice to Students
Part of the difficulty here is legal and constitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled against the teaching
of creationism in public schools, and any discussion of intelligent design in a public-school classroom might
border dangerously on teaching religion. But as a result of these legal restrictions, supposed or real, and the
conventional mindset of the biology profession, students are missing out on a major revolution in the sciences,
which may, ironically enough, hold a solution to the evolution-creationism deadlock.
The most interesting challenges to the 19th-century Darwinian understanding of evolution have come
not from biology, but from new 20th-century disciplines—in particular, astrophysics and information theory. In
reconstructing the evolution of the cosmos, astrophysicists have discovered a universe that seems mysteriously
and intricately preprogrammed for life. Regardless of how life originated, this preprogramming seems almost
incompatible with mere chance.
In addition, information theory, in combination with molecular biology, has revolutionized our idea of
life. In particular, it has led to the insight that life is not simply matter, but matter plus information. DNA is in
effect a "message" coded in matter. Matter can carry information; it cannot, so far as we know, create
information. The question therefore arises, Where does the information come from?
In Darwin's day it was commonly believed that the laws of biology would eventually be reduced to the
laws of chemistry, and the laws of chemistry in turn to the laws of physics. But now it has been established that
the simplest version of DNA contains more information than is contained in all the laws of chemistry and
physics. So such reductionism—a goal at the heart of the Darwinian project—is no longer conceivable.
These are the issues that would light a fire in students and open minds. But thanks to a legacy of bitter legal and
constitutional conflict, and to the doctrinal rigidities of the biology profession, students may be exposed to
"current events" in every field but the life sciences, as our schools remain locked in a war between two 19thcentury fundamentalisms, one religious, the other scientific.
Source Citation:
Glynn, Patrick. "Creationism Should Be Taught Alongside Evolution." At Issue: Religion and Education. Ed. Tom Head. San Diego: Greenhaven Press,
2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Hopewell Valley Central High School. 24 Sep. 2009
<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010391209&source=gale&sr
cprod=OVRC&userGroupName=penn47345&version=1.0
22