Freedom Writer - September 1994 [ref001] Creationism: the growing threat By Eugenie C. Sco

Freedom Writer - September 1994

[ref001]

Creationism: the growing threat

By Eugenie C. Scott
 
The teacher from Florida had a sense of urgency in his voice.  A group 
of state legislators had proposed a resolution that would encourage 
school districts to include creation science in their curricula. The 
measure looked like it would be appended to a bill promoting prayer 
in school -- a shoo-in, in the teacher's opinion. What could he do?

Earlier that month a parent had called from Colorado, upset because 
the teachers in her son's high school had decided not to teach evolution 
"because it went against religion." Did I know what she could do to 
see that her kid got a decent education? 

From Vermont came a call from another teacher, worried because her 
school board had passed a resolution directing teachers that, "Whenever 
origin of life is presented at Blue Mountain Union School that creation 
be presented as a viable theory on an equal status with the various 
theories of evolution." 

What's going on? Creationism in public schools in 1994? Wasn't all 
this settled with the Scopes trial in 1925? Certainly, it must have 
been settled with the Supreme Court _Edwards_v._Aguillard_ decision 
in 1987, striking down a Louisiana law requiring the teaching of creationism 
whenever evolution was taught. Wasn't it? 

No, it was not. And, yes, evolution is a controversial issue in 1994, 
right up there with sex education, AIDS education, and supposedly 
satanic elementary school reading texts. Evolution is taught less 
frequently in 1994 than in 1984 because of parental pressure on teachers, 
occasionally because of official or unofficial policy, and most frequently 
because teachers anticipate problems from the community. 

The National Center for Science Education is a clearing-house for 
information about the creation/evolution controversy. I get calls 
like those mentioned above every week. It is my job to try to help 
people keep evolution in the curriculum and keep creation science 
out. I do this by providing information on the scientific, legal, 
and religious issues involved, and by galvanizing opposition to those 
who attack the integrity of science. 

Scientific creationism was born when the Supreme Court declared in 
1968's _Epperson_v._Arkansas_ that it was unconstitutional to ban 
the teaching of evolution. The notion developed that by calling biblical 
literalism science, it might validly have a place in the public schools. 
Creation science was declared religious advocacy in _Edwards_v._Aguillard_, 
but this has not noticeably slowed down the movement.  
 
In response to such legal decisions, creationism has evolved by avoiding 
the word creationism. A current euphemism is intelligent design theory, 
promoted in the creationist textbook _Of_Pandas_and_People_. It comes 
as no surprise to someone familiar with the arguments of the now-discredited 
scientific creationists that intelligent design and abrupt appearance 
proofs are identical with those of scientific creationism. 

The most sophisticated anti-evolutionists have shifted to arguing 
for a teacher's academic freedom to teach arguments against evolution, 
which upon analysis prove to be (surprise!) identical to the positions 
held by the now legally discredited scientific creationists. In Vista, 
California, a Religious Right-dominated school board attempted to 
pass a resolution calling not for creation science, but for teachers 
to teach "weaknesses that substantially challenge theories in evolution." 


It is a tactically excellent argument. The Establishment Clause of 
the First Amendment protects us against proselytizing in the public 
schools; it does not protect us against bad science. 

To the scientific community, evidence against evolution and in fact, 
the entire anti-evolution movement, is incomprehensible.  Evolution 
is fundamental to biology and geology, and of primary importance to 
many other sciences. The famous geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky said 
it best: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." 
 Biology without evolution, he observed, is "a pile of sundry facts 
-- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture 
as a whole."    

In the world of science, arguments occur over how evolution occurred, 
or how fast, or what creature is descended from what.  Whether evolution 
occurs is just not an issue at the university level. Noteworthy is 
the fact that in every prominent university or college in the country, 
including Brigham Young, Notre Dame, Southern Methodist, and Baylor, 
evolution is part of the curriculum. 

Nevertheless, anti-evolutionism remains widespread in popular culture. 
In 1992, CBS aired a two-hour program purporting to prove scientifically 
that there was an actual, literal Great Flood and that human and dinosaur 
footprints are found together in a Texas river. 

In promotional literature sent in late 1993 to PBS stations nationwide, 
a creationist videotape, "Voices for Creation," produced by a Marquette, 
Michigan public television station, was offered to PBS stations because 
"a growing number of scientists are forsaking evolutionary theory 
for creation science." The promo also noted that the documentary was 
produced "in response to increasing criticism of public television 
for its perceived pro-evolution stance." To practicing scientists, 
this is akin to criticizing PBS astronomy shows for their pro-spherical 
earth stance.   

Work with pro-evolution clergy. The best-kept secret in the creation 
controversy is that Catholic and mainline Protestant theology has 
no problem incorporating evolution or other scientific ideas. The 
creation controversy is not one between science and religion, but 
between biblical literalist theology and everyone else. The plaintiffs 
(opponents of creationism in the schools) in the famous _McLean_v._
Arkansas_ federal court decision were bishops and other high officials 
of the Methodist, A.M.E., Episcopal, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian 
and Southern Baptist churches.

It is clear that Christian theology can accommodate evolution.  In 
a statement opposing scientific creationists who were attempting to 
influence the Lexington, Kentucky, school board, the Lexington Alliance 
of Religious Leaders, composed of mainline clergy, wrote: "As religious 
leaders we share a deep faith in the God who created heaven and earth 
and all that is in them, and take with utmost seriousness the Biblical 
witness to this God who is our Creator. However, we find no incompatibility 
between the God of creation and a theory of evolution which uses universally 
verifiable data to explain the probable process by which life developed 
into its present form."   

Expose the equal time argument. The concept of equal time may be a 
praiseworthy cultural value, but it is irrelevant in the world of 
science. Science is not a democratic process and scientists do not 
decide which theory is correct by taking a vote.  The key to the acceptance 
of a scientific theory is if it explains facts and observations better 
than others. Evolution explains observations in paleontology, biochemistry, 
comparative anatomy, embryology, biogeography and many other fields. 
 Creationism explains nothing.  

To the average American, it seems reasonable that if one teaches evolution, 
one should also teach creationism because it's only fair. The answer 
is that it is only fair to give our students the best possible education, 
and to teach them state-of-the-art scholarship. It is not fair to 
teach that the world goes around the sun, and then give equal time 
to the geocentrists. It is not reasonable to teach students that six 
million Jews were killed by the Nazis, and also, in fairness, to teach 
that the Holocaust is actually just a propaganda ploy of Zionists 
-- even though there is a constituency for this point of view.  We 
shouldn't be teaching crackpot history to our students just because 
someone thinks it is fair, and we shouldn't be teaching crackpot science 
-- i.e. creationism -- either. 

We must teach Americans how science works, and why it is the best 
method human beings have developed to understand how the natural world 
works -- though it has nothing to say about ultimate cause.  
 
Eugenie Scott is with the National Center for Science Education in 
Berkeley, California. Reprinted with permission from the How to Win 
Handbook published by the Radical Right Task Force.

[ref002][ref003] Return to table of contents 

Copyright 1995 IFAS
The Freedom Writer / ifas@crocker.com

[ref001] ../banner.gif
[ref002] index.html
[ref003] ../../uparrow.gif

        This file is copywritten by the Institute for First
        Amendment Studies.

        Subscribe to The Freedom Writer and Walk Away news
        letters by writing to or telephoneing the Institute
        for First Amendment Studies:

        Post Office Box 589
        Great Barrington, Massachusetts.  01230
        Telephone: (413) 528-3800
        E-Mail: ifas@crocker.com
        Web page: http://www.crocker.com/~ifas