Creationism is the belief that God created human beings and each different type of
plant and animal separately in supernatural acts or miracles. This is in opposition to the
consensus of the overwhelming majority of scientists, who understand the compelling
evidence for genetic continuity, that all living creatures descended with modification
from earlier life forms through natural processes over several billion years. Creationism
is also opposed by leading biblical scholars and theologians, who view the Genesis
traditions as metaphors or early non-scientific explanations.
|
|
North Carolina and Creationism
Kansas and Creationism
Georgia and Creationism
Advice for Creationists
Questions for Creationists
Intelligent Design Theory
LINKS
Back to Chapter 21 Study Guide
BIO103 homepage
|
Recent
history of the Creationist Movement in North Carolina.Early in 1997 the
North Carolina State House of Representatives had passed a law to require public school
science teachers to teach children that evolution is only a theory, not a proven fact. The
bill was a toned-down version of an earlier bill requiring the teaching of creationism as
a valid scientific alternative to evolution, which was not "true science,"
according to one legislator’s rhetoric on the floor of the House. A bill explicitly
requiring the teaching of creationism would probably have been declared unconstitutional,
since the U.S. Supreme Court had years ago declared similar laws in Louisiana in violation
of freedom of religion required by the First Amendment. This bill, however, was a little
different and possibly could have been enforced during years of court battle. The North
Carolina Academy of Science sent a strong resolution to the House in opposition to the
bill, but still the N.C. House passed it by a 71-46 vote. The bill then required approval
of the North Carolina Senate, which, unlike the House, had a Democratic majority.
Scientists and scholars all over the state wrote to their state senators, many signing
petitions like this one suggested by the North Carolina Academy of Science:
As scientists and educators concerned with preparing
scientifically literate citizens, we strongly oppose passage of House Bill 511,
"Evolution not Taught as Fact." The bill requires that evolution be "taught
as a scientific theory, not as a proven fact." How can scientists argue against such
a statement when the Theory of Evolution is a theory? The reason is that the term
"theory" has a very different meaning in science than in everyday life. In
science, a theory is not an opinion or a belief; to the contrary, the term connotes a high
level of probability that an hypothesis is correct. Thus only concepts that have withstood
rigorous testing over long periods of time are elevated to the status of a theory.
The Theory of Evolution is supported by thousands upon thousands of pieces of
data (facts) gleaned over the past 150 years from scientific fields as diverse as
molecular biology and biochemistry, comparative embryology and anatomy, and geology. As
with any comprehensive scientific theory (such as the Atomic Theory of Matter or the
Theory of Relativity), aspects remain that require further inquiry. Nevertheless, the
evidence supporting the basic concept of evolutionary change is so strong that it forms
the very cornerstone of modern biology, not as a belief or as a simple fact, but as a
critical scientific theory.
In the eyes of those who do not understand or are unwilling to acknowledge that
a scientific theory is far more than an opinion or belief, teachers who accurately teach
their students the Theory of Evolution risk being perceived as in violation of the
proposed law even if they never use the word "fact." In a climate in which
legislators who drafted the original bill state that "whereas, the theory of
evolution is a belief and not true science..." the bill can only limit the free
exchange of ideas and information, establishing an atmosphere that is the antithesis of
that required to teach science. Because an atmosphere of free inquiry is essential
to educating the students of North Carolina, we strongly oppose this attempt
to legislate the teaching of science.
|
Senators were inundated by letters, faxes, and e-mail
from scientists and other educated people from all over the state, including quite a few
Queens College faculty and staff members who signed their names to a letter like the box
above. By the middle of 1997 the N.C. Senate sent the bill to a committee, which
"sat" on the bill, never sending it back to the Senate for a vote. So the bill,
as yet, has not become law. What will happen next year?
~~~ back to the top ~~~
Back to Chapter
15 Study Guide~~~
The Kansas Case
In 1999 the Kansas State Board of Education announced that evolution
questions would be removed from all state-wide tests, the exams used to evaluate students
and their teachers at the end of each year. The Kansas board did not forbid teachers
to teach about evolution; they just tried to provide strong incentives for teachers to
skip evolution or to spend more effort on teaching other topics which would be on the
tests. Next, the media swarmed all over the Kansas news:
Kansas became the butt of jokes among educated people elsewhere.
In about a year, when Kansas held elections for the Board of Education, the citizens of
Kansas voted out the old Board members and voted in new candidates who pledged to be sure
that Kansas high school students were prepared with 21st century biology.
~~~ back to the top ~~~
Back to Chapter
15 Study Guide~~~
Georgia:
Here's a typical news story. How would a real scientist
respond to the creationists quoted in this story? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/23/education/23EVOL.html
INTELLIGENT
DESIGN, sometimes called the
"theory" of intelligent design or "design
theory," is another religious viewpoint. It's not a
scientific theory, because there's no way to design an
experiment to disprove the "designer's"
existence. The "intelligent design" viewpoint is
basically that life could not possibly evolve without some
intelligent intervention, at least at some critical
points. At worst, the "intelligent design
theory" is only creationism disguised; it's a deceptive
legal argument to allow religious content in public education,
even though almost anybody can see that the "Intelligent
Designer" is meant to be God. Milder forms of
"intelligent design" sometimes come from honest people
who are trying to make their personal beliefs consistent with
science; but these ideas are still not scientific, because they
involve supernatural explanations which cannot be tested.
Review of Pennock's book on intelligent design: http://reviews.bmn.com/journals/atoz/latest?uid=ENDE.etd01508_01609327_v0026i03_00001430#sec_1
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS):
position statement on "intelligent design" creationism
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
Questions
Creationism Cannot Answer Adequately
Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, a professor at the University of California
at Irvine, explained it this way in a New York Times interview:
Every year, I start out my course with the theory of evolution.
So on Day 1, there's always a line of students complaining, ....
If the students are Christian fundamentalists, I tell them that there are many Protestant
theologians who agree with evolution.
I say that evolution, in my view, is not only NOT anti-Christian, but the idea of special
design, which many fundamentalists adhere to, might be -- because it teaches the view of
God that is blasphemous.
The Special-Design-God is a God who messes up. Think about all the backaches, infected
wisdom teeth and painful childbirth that exist because we humans evolved incompletely!
"Do you think God is absent-minded?" I ask them.
The following questions were adapted from ideas by Robert T. Pennock in his 1999 book, The
Tower of Babel--the Evidence against the New Creationism. (MIT Press).
- If God created the sun on the 4th day, how can you define "day" for the 3rd or
2nd day, with no sunrise?
- Why would an omnipotent Being need to rest on the 7th day?
- Genesis 1:11 and 1:24 say "Let the land produce...." Doesn't this mean that
God intended to have nature create plants and animals?
- Did Adam have a navel? Why or why not?
- Why did Adam (and his male descendents) have nipples?
- How many species did Adam name and how long did it take him?
- How could Adam do everything in Genesis 2:15-22 within an hour or so?
- Should schools for nurses and doctors be required to teach that God made childbirth
painful to punish Eve?
- Should USDA publications explain low soil fertility as God's curse on the land when He
expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden?
- Isaiah 14:29b: "From the root of that snake will spring up a viper, its fruit will
be a darting, venomous serpent." Is this not scriptural proof of evolution?
- Were dinosaurs on the ark?
- Where do oak trees come from? Is your answer based on what you have directly observed
with your own eyes?
- Birds' scales (on their legs and feet) sometimes mutate and produce feathery legs &
toes. Scientists think this shows that bird feathers have evolved from the scales of
reptiles, the scales on birds' feet are vestiges of the ancestors they shared with
reptiles. What's your explanation?
And a question from jannr@queens.edu.
Science 288:2119 describes a fish, Astyanax
mexicanus, with a cave-dwelling subspecies, which is blind. The other members
of this species live in light and are not blind. Even when moved to the light as
embryos, the cave-dwellers are blind; the embryos' eyes develop almost normally, then
degenerate and disappear. Why would God be so inefficient and wasteful?
Is it ethical to send evolution info to
children of creationist relatives? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/07/magazine/07ETHICIST.html
More questions for creationists: see
~~~ back to the top ~~~
Back to Chapter
21 Study
Guide~~~
|
ADVICE TO
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
(ESPECIALLY THOSE FROM
FAMILIES OR CHURCHES WITH CREATIONIST TRADITIONS)1. The
main point of a university education is to arm you to think for yourself. You should not
abandon your values simply because your professor says that creationism conflicts with the
beliefs of most religions and, of course, with science. Similarly, you should not cling to
a belief simply because your preacher says you’ll roast in hell if you have doubts or
question his authority.
2. Do not use creationist or "design theory" leaflets
or web sites as support for your ideas in college
compositions. You should know that "Creation Research Institute" publications
have been discredited by leading scientists. If you cite "creation science"
publications in a college-level paper, you risk tarnishing your own reputation as a
scholar capable of distinguishing appropriate sources of information. The internet and the
print media offer many questionable sources of opinion claiming to be legitimate science
when they are not. An example is the "Discovery
Institute," promotes "design theory"; its www.discovery.org
web site is easily confused with the Discovery Channel's www.discovery.com,
which features mostly legitimate science. One link to questionable sources in the
Weird and Bad Science Directory.
Beware: most professors even in non-science courses are good judges of authoritative
sources. Similarly, most professors will be UNfavorably impressed if you
invoke a conspiracy theory, like one student who wrote, "It is kept a secret that
Darwin later recanted his views." See Darwin’s Literary
Biography, which shows that Darwin continued evolution research until he died. There
are no "science police" who could possibly conspire to keep anything secret. The
nature of science is openness, including, as good students know, the rule that published
research must report experimental procedures so that other scientists can re-test or
repeat the results. These days anybody can publish almost anything on his own web page,
and scientific societies have hundreds of different publications which consider reports
and commentary from anybody. The only secrets in science are the identities of writers and
reviewers when scientific papers are being considered for publication and when scientific
proposals are being considered for funding. These secrets are, of course to ensure
fairness; and even these secrets can be divulged if improprieties are suspected.
3. If you really want to be a creationist, you need to
have the guts to accept your belief as a matter of religious faith. The so-called
scientific evidence to support your view has been refuted by the scientific community. To
claim scientific support will only make you look uninformed. A creationist with moral
courage and scientific integrity will say, "My belief in creationism is a testament
to my strong religious faith." It is a matter of faith and religious passion in the
face of logical evidence to the contrary. |
|
