 |
14-15 April 2000
The University of Kansas
Abstract
Lions, Tigers and APES, Oh My! Creationism vs. Evolution in Kansas
Robert T. Pennock
Michigan State University
The current controversy in Kansas reminds us that anti-evolutionism did not die at the Scopes Trial and that the creationist whirlwind may still appear without warning, to whisk us away to a strange dreamland where the laws of science do not hold. As we will see, creationists portray their vision of creation as an Eden over the rainbow, but when we explore its features more closely, we find it to be a nightmarish place, where evil flying monkeys cavort with witches, and wizards are not so wonderful as they seem. What can we, as scientists, educators and parents, do to see to it that our schoolchildren do not inherit this whirlwind? How can we all keep our feet firmly planted on the ground?
The first thing we must do is try to understand the nature of the threat. We need to recognize that this new attack upon evolution is not a scientific controversy, but a social and political controversy. Creationists try to make it seem otherwise, but evolution is not a "theory in crisis." Indeed, few scientific theories are as well confirmed. The introductory essay of a recent theme issue on evolution in Science put it this way:
Dobzhansky's famous dictum that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" is even more true today than it was half a century ago. The concepts and principles of evolution are so ingrained and fundamental in many fields, not just in the life sciences, that their acceptance seems almost subliminal in many cases. (Hanson, et al 1999)
This is the key message to get across to members of the public, who otherwise may only hear the creationists' constant refrain that evolution is "just a theory" that has no factual basis. Although it is sometimes worthwhile to respond to specific creationist challenges to set the record straight (I will discuss one recent challenge and say how to respond to it shortly), one must accept that most creationists will never be convinced no matter what the evidence. As evidence of the extent of this resistance, we might note that Tom Willis, one of the creationist leaders who helped rewrite the Kansas standards, stated that he is still not convinced even that the earth moves around the sun.
We therefore need to try to understand what makes creationists continue to press their attack in defiance of well-established science. This is not an easy task, because creationists vary considerably in their views. I always try to disabuse people of the caricature they have of creationists as simple-minded Bible-thumpers who all believe, for instance, that the earth is only six thousand years old and that everything is explained by Noah's Flood.
It is true that this "young earth" and "Flood geology" view is dominant today. According to Gallup polls, an astounding 47% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so". The majority of creationist activist groups, such as the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Answers in Genesis, the Creation Research Society, and the Creation Science Association of Mid-America, advocate this position. However, there are other creationist groups, for example, that accept the scientific chronology. This "old earth" creationist view used to be more common earlier in the century (indeed, it was William Jennings Bryan's view in the Scopes Trial), but it retains a significant number of adherents. It is currently promoted by the creationist organization Reason's to Believe. Old-earth creationists argue that believers may accept the geological time scale and still remain true to the Bible, for example, by interpreting the "days" of creation as "ages". Old-earth and young-earth creationists typically regard each other with as much disdain as they both regard evolutionists. One may also find sub-factions that disagree, for example, about whether the Flood was universal - some believe that it can be accepted as just local, or perhaps universal but "tranquil."
The major new player in the creation / evolution controversy is a group calling itself the "intelligent design" movement. Based primarily at the Discovery Institute, a conservative think-tank in Seattle, this group aims to unite the disparate factions by calling for a temporary halt to disputes about the age of the earth and the Flood. The group contains both young-earthers and old-earthers, but they agree to speak only with a single voice against evolution and against scientific naturalism. There are also new non-Christian creationist groups to consider, ranging from Hare Krishnas to neo-Pagans.
The important point to keep in mind is that creationists hold a far more complex set of views than is usually recognized. With such an array of shades of difference as well as ever-changing terminology, creationism is truly a "horse of a different color", so it will not be reasonable or effective, for example, to respond to creationists as if they were all young-earthers. The theological divisions among the groups make significant differences that we need to take into account as we keep our eye on those core views that do share. The defining element among all creationists is the view that natural laws are insufficient to produce biological complexity and must have been supplemented by some form of supernatural (usually divine) intervening power.
An example of this sort of argument comes from Michel Behe - one of the leaders of the IDC movement - and his notion of "irreducible complexity." Behe defines irreducible complexity (IC) as "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively stop functioning." (Behe 1996, p. 39) He claims that he finds this property in biological organisms (his examples are of functional bio-molecular systems) and that it refutes Darwin's evolutionary mechanism. Behe claims that IC systems "cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." (Behe 1996, p. 39) Behe concludes that such systems therefore had to have been intelligently designed and says that the only reason scientists resist this astounding finding is that they don't want to admit the possibility that God might have had something to do with creating the world.
In Tower of Babel, I showed in detail some of the many basic flaws in Behe's argument [See esp. p. 166-172, 263-272] and I won't rehearse them now. Here I want to explain in as simple a way as possible why "irreducible" complexity doesn't give Behe the conclusion he wants. Behe uses a mousetrap to illustrate his argument - without all five essential parts it is impossible to trap a mouse, so it couldn't have arisen in a step-wise Darwinian fashion, he claims - but before looking at that let us take an even simpler example. I propose that we consider what is probably the most basic example of an IC system - an arch
Consider typical stone arches - they fulfill Behe's definition in that all the stones interact so as to allow them to function as a stable structural support, which would collapse were any removed. But Behe's claim that IC systems cannot arise in a step-by-step gradual process is easily seen to be false by means of this case. The parts of an arch do not need to be and in fact are not put in place all at once. Rather they acquire their positions gradually in conjunction with other scaffolding parts which provide stability during the construction phase, but which are removed subsequently, leaving the arch supporting itself in place. When we look at the arch in its final form it is irreducibly complex, but that property emerged only at the end of a step-wise process. This is just the same kind of way that things work in biological systems, with complex biological functions both at the macroscopic and molecular levels arising atop a scaffold of other parts. (We should be careful to remember that the term "scaffold" is metaphorical in this context; there is no teleological implication that those intermediate parts were put in place for the purpose of building the final structure. It is only in retrospect that we can say that they had that eventual effect.)
Once one understands through the arch case how IC systems can arise in a step-wise manner, it is easy to see what is wrong with other cases, such as Behe own mousetrap example. My students have great fun, as an exercise, coming up with variant structures that are counter-examples to Behe's claims about the mousetrap. And biologist John H. McDonald drew several alternative mousetraps to show how they could work with four, three, two, or even one part, compared to the five parts that Behe says are necessary.
Creationists typically object to the arch counter-example in the same way that they object to any technological illustration, claiming that they are actually cases of design. But that is an example of a kind of conceptual blunder that Behe and others regularly make. It is irrelevant that a particular arched stone bridge was designed and built by human beings. Behe's specific claim was that is impossible for any such irreducibly complex system to arise by gradual modification of precursor systems. Arch construction demonstrates that Behe's key premise is false. Moreover, we may as easily point to arches in nature formed by ants or by water or even by the wind itself - such as the magnificent Rainbow Bridge National Monument or any of those beautiful structures found in Arches National Park - all constructed by gradual natural processes without any need for design by a planning intelligence.
I won't discuss any more specific creationist arguments here. Behe's argument is actually one of the best that creationists currently have to offer, but it fares no better than previous variations on this classic argument for design. For other creationist arguments, the conclusion is invariably the same - features of the biological world that they point to as being "impossible" to have arisen without extra-natural help, whether it be the Bombardier beetle or biological information, turn out upon careful study to have reasonable evolutionary explanations after all. Behe has given us nothing new except that he points to the complexity of biomolecules rather than to the complexity of the eye, as William Paley did.
Behe, however, does appear to differ from classic creationists in one significant respect, in that he says that he does not dispute the basic evolutionary fact that organisms are all related through common ancestors. His apparent (one must say "apparent" because his statement on this point is phrased in a rather ambiguous manner) acceptance of universal common descent is highly unusual. There is near unanimity among creationists that human beings are a unique creation; they find it unbearable to think that we are cousins to the apes. This takes us back to our discussion about what lies behind creationists' unremitting attacks upon evolution.
Why are creationists so fearful of the evolutionary notion that human beings share a common ancestor with other animals? Surely it cannot just be that, as one creationist parent argued, if children are taught that they are descended from animals they will start acting like animals. Kids act like little monkeys well before they hear of evolution. Creationists actually do blame Darwin for the behavior of today's youths, but for them the situation is even grimmer. They portray evolution as the lynchpin in an on-going war between good and evil.
In Tower of Babel, I examined this constellation of views in detail and discussed, for example, how creationists believe that evolution undermines morality and implies that life is meaningless. These same typical fears are evident among creationists in Kansas, as exemplified by Jack and Bonnie Smith and their pastor, who were profiled recently in a Washington Post article. Believing in God's Creation, Bonnie Smith explained, "means that modern life is not a pointless progression from school to work to a pile of ashes. It means somebody loves you, watches over you, picks out a mission for you and for the rest of his creatures. It means, simply, that you have a reason to get out of bed every morning." (Rosin 1999) She quit her job as a teacher in the public schools because she was not willing to teach about evolution, and took a position at an evangelical Christian academy, where she teaches from a Biblical perspective:
Now, if her kids ask what a rainbow is, Smith will tell them about prisms and fractured light. But she will also tell them that a rainbow is God's promise, first sent as a sign to Noah, never to flood the earth again. [ibid.]
Here we see the thinking that was behind the removal from the science standards of not only evolution, but also of basic geological facts. (In Kansas, the initial attack was led by young-earthers, particularly those in the Creation Science Association of Mid-America, which was mentioned above. Other young-earth groups followed quickly with support, as did intelligent design creationists.) Creationists see an explicit connection between what the Bible says about "God's promise" and the specific facts of not just biology and geology, but also of cosmology, linguistics, and other "Biblical sciences." Most believe that if the Bible is false about even a single point in what it says (or what they think it says) about such empirical matters, then the entire structure of Christianity and the hope for salvation collapses.
According to the Smith's pastor, the Rev. Terry Glidden, "Creationism is everything. If we take that away then we're left with a chance-filled life, a meaningless existence." Making a common creationist reference, Glidden claims that the Bible is speaking of evolutionists in Romans Chapter 1, where it states "Professing to be wise, they became fools. . . . For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator." And like many other creationists, he goes on to draw the link to what he takes to be the proof that evolution leads to immorality - men abandoning their (God-given) natural function and "burn[ing] in desire for one another." He cites his case-in-point: "Just last week, I saw two homosexual men at the supermarket. The supermarket! In broad daylight! That's what you get when you worship the creation and not the creator." [ibid.]
These views are quite representative. Even IDC leader Philip Johnson speaks of how evolution supposedly undermines purpose in life, and uses the example of homosexuality, among others, to illustrate the sorry moral state of contemporary society, which he takes to be the effect of evolutionist, naturalist thinking. People like the Smiths have absorbed the message that creationist leaders have been sending for decades, that evolution is the not just wrong, but fundamentally evil.
According to the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the largest and most influential creationist organization, "evolutionism" is an anti-Christian philosophy that was devised by the devil himself at the Tower of Babel. In the Middle Ages, ICR's leaders claim, evolution "went underground in the witchcraft movement." Yes, creationists take images of the wicked witch and the evil monkeys very seriously indeed. Darwin was only the latest deceiver to advocate the "lie" of evolution. Others put the point in more contemporary political language, claiming that evolution is nothing but an atheistic, modernist dogma, promoted by communists and east-coast liberals. No wonder, then, that creationists are celebrating that the Kansas State Board of Education has come down hard on evolution, obliterating it from the curriculum standards. Ding-Dong, the wicked witch is dead!
But this decision is no cause for celebration. Even in Oz, killing the Witch of the East created more problems than it supposedly solved, and here in the real world things are more complicated still. We deny reality if we try to deny the truth of evolution, and as a result of the Board's action the children of Kansas will be unprepared for higher education. But what of the fears that drove this extreme action? Is evolution really a wicked anti-Christian doctrine?
Although some people do incorporate evolution into an atheistic view of the world, this is not a necessary conclusion, as several Popes and most mainline Protestant theologians who have considered the question have argued. Even B. B. Warfield and other 19th century evangelical theologians defended evolution and found it compatible with their Christian faith. As for morality, philosophers have shown that evolution does not undermine its basis, and some have argued further that a true understanding of evolution can help support it.
Perhaps unaware of this, many parents who believe creationist teachings remain fearful. To try to assuage such worries, the original draft of the Kansas science standards included a section on teaching with tolerance. It stated that teachers should treat questions students raise that fall outside of science with respect: "The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy." This is an eminently sensitive and sensible policy.
Incredibly, creationists on the board cut this reasonable recommendation and, in their revision, replaced it with the following sentence: "No evidence or analysis of evidence that contradicts a current science theory will be censured."
With all the attention to the scientific material that creationists cut out, this significant addition has not been reported in the media; I discovered it only while doing a line-by-line comparison of the creationist revision to the original draft. This critical directive clearly opens the door for "creation-scientists" to attack scientific findings as put of the science curriculum.
This superficially "open-minded" proposal to teach what creationist call "alternatives to evolution" is a recipe for disaster that asks teachers to dispense with discriminative rational judgment and sound standards of scientific evidence. Creationists are not the only group who claim some "analysis of evidence" that they say supports their "alternative theory." Modern day "witches," members of the Wiccan faith, will rightly take offence at how creationists portray their views, and will no doubt want to provide students with their own analysis of the evidence and ideas about supernatural intelligent design. The Raelian Movement, whose members reject both evolution and creationism, says that the evidence indicates life on earth was created by extraterrestrials. And as we have already noted, even Christian creationists, with quite different understandings of biblical inerrancy, disagree vehemently among themselves about how much of the scientific evidence they will accept.
Questions about the relationship of science and different religious viewpoints are important, but such debates don't belong in science class. Science provides our best understanding of the facts of the natural world, and the core evolutionary thesis of the common descent of all animal species is as well-established a fact as any in science. However, scientific method cannot tell us the moral or theological significance of such facts. To determine the meaning of evolution we must look elsewhere.
The wisest policy is, thus, just what the original draft of the Kansas standards advised: for the best science to be taught in the science classroom, and for teachers to respectfully direct students' questions about non-scientific viewpoints - be they creationist, Wiccan or other - to their parents. For discussions with our children about the religious meaning of scientific findings, it was the good witch of the North who had the right answer: There's no place like home.
References
- Behe, M. J. (1996). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, The Free Press.
- Hanson, Brooks; Chin, Gilbert; Sugden, Andrew; Culotta, Elizabeth. (1999) "The Diversity of Evolution" Science Vol. 284, No. 5423, p. 2105.
- Pennock, R. T. (1999). Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
- Rosin, H. (1999). "Creationism, Coming to Life in Suburbia." Washington Post (October 5): A01.
|
|
