The Way of Science

The Anti-Evolution Movement

Finally, we will consider some of the evidence for Evolution, and some of the anti-Evolution "evidence" that is loudly proclaimed by portions of the American public. In this country, the anti-Evolution movement has had a great influence on public education, and so it is of more than just academic interest. For example, in 1999 the Kansas State Board of Education voted to eliminate from the K-12 requirements all material that supports Evolution, including the cosmological "Big Bang" model. Oklahoma's textbook selectors required that adopted texts must not refer to Evolution as fact. The Arizona legislature is, as of this writing, considering a requirement for "equal time," a tactic already declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. A recent survey of public school standards for biology, geology and cosmology showed that 19 states either did not require Evolution to be taught, or treated the subject from the Creationist viewpoint.

You need, as essential background, a brief description of the variety of viewpoints taken by these anti-Evolutionists, most of whom would call themselves Creationists. This background is necessary, since there is considerable disagreement between these factions as to what "really" happened in the past. Their common ground is a belief that the most important concept in modern biology, Evolution, is wrong in some fundamental way. This strong disagreement among Creationists is concealed from the general public, and rarely discussed except "in house." For our purposes, it is convenient to consider the anti-Evolutionist movement as consisting of three basic positions. For a detailed view, consult R. Pennock, Tower of Babel.

1. Young Earth Creationists

Young Earth Creationists (YECs) are basically Biblical literalists. The Christian Bible is assumed by them to be literally true, and thus it is a reliable source of scientific and historical facts. The Earth, and everything on it, was created in six days. Since the Bible must be correct, then modern biology (and geology, and cosmology) must be wrong. As one prominent YEC says, there MUST be scientific evidence to support the Bible, since that book MUST be correct. YECs are a smaller group now than earlier in the century, but they still exert considerable influence. They oppose not only the teaching of biological Evolution in public schools, but many other topics are equally repugnant to them. For example, they oppose modern linguistic research that demonstrates evolution of languages. Since the Bible says God made all languages at one stroke (the tower of Babel story), modern linguistic scholarship is totally wrong. One of the best-known YEC figures (H. Morris; you will see and hear him in the film, God, Darwin and the Dinosaurs) maintains that any religion in the world that fails to accept the Creation as described in Genesis must be "flirting" with Evolution.

2. Old Earth Creationists

Like the previous group, Old Earth Creationists (OECs) believe that the Christian Bible is an accurate record of creation, except that the "day" of the Bible is actually a much longer period than 24 hours. Since one can find justification for this view in the Bible itself ("a day to God is like a thousand years"), it is still a literalist approach. Like all kinds of Creationists, they produce "scientific" evidence in favor of the Bible tales.

Most OECs and YECs are to be found among Evangelical Protestants. The Roman Church no longer opposes the fact of Evolution, although it insists that somehow it is part of God's larger plan.

3. Intelligent Design Creationists

Some Intelligent Design (ID) Creationists seem to accept that genetic change in populations has occurred (at least adaptation), but insist that natural selection is inadequate as an explanation. There must be an "Intelligent Designer" (i.e., God) behind the changes. One prominent ID is a biochemist, Michael Behe. He insists that although natural selection can explain the production of some biochemical mechanisms, only a "designer" can be used to explain the "irreducible complexity" of some biochemical processes in animals. For you biology majors, one such process is the very complex Krebs Cycle. Behe's argument is essentially the same old position that says there are no small steps, no gradual selectionist pathways that could possibly lead to such complexity. His claims have been examined by other biologists, and found to be inadequate. Even the Krebs Cycle is now having its evolutionary path unravelled.

The most prominent ID Creationist today is probably Philip Johnson, a law professor who has published an anti-Evolution book called Darwin on Trial. He has convinced many American intellectuals (non-biologists) that there is strong evidence for ID, and against the modern synthetic theory. (He also supports Peter Duesberg's position that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.) It is depressing that so many educated Americans will believe a lawyer, who is proud of his lack of scientific background, rather than the entire biological community. Doesn't it remind you of physicists Targ and Puthoff publishing on parapsychology? Listening to Johnson is rather like going to a plumber for advice on heart surgery.

In summary, all American Creationists draw their inspiration from the Christian Bible, and insist that parts, or all, of Evolution is without good evidence. In addition, most Creationists now insist that science provides solid evidence supporting the Bible, and that many biologists are beginning to reject Evolution. Needless to say, none of these positions bears any resemblance to the truth.

Creationists say since Evolution is a "dead duck," and Creationism is the only alternative, Evolution should not be taught in the public schools. If Evolution is to be taught, against their wishes, then "Creation Science" should be given equal time, since it is, according to them, an "equally valid scientific theory."