Creationism Eugenie C. Scott National Center for Science Education, Inc. Berkeley, California. Creationism is a growing threat to America's public schools. All over the country, Religious Right groups are working to water down the teaching of evolution and promote unscientific ideas of origins. Unless creationists are combatted effectively at the grassroots, the nation's schoolchildren will not receive the good science education they deserve. 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 schoola 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 have any suggestions for what she could do to see that her kid got a decent education? From Vermont came the 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 1924? 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 sending information on the scientific, legal and religious issues involved in this controversy, and by galvanizing grassroots 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 a 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, Calif., 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 the foundation of 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 a naturally-occurring 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. Even public television is not immune: 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. What can be done to oppose creationism? Try the following: Work with pro-evolution clergy: The best kept secret in the creation/evolution controversy is that Catholic and mainline Protestant theology has no problem incorporating evolution or other scientific ideas. The creation/evolution 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, issued a statement saying: "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, after all, is not a democratic process; scientists do not decide which theory is correct by taking a vote. Even unpopular explanations, if they answer questions, prevail. 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. "Scientific" creationism explains nothing. But to the average American, it seems "reasonable" that if one teaches evolution, one should also teach creationism. It's only "fair." The answer, of course, 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 Zionistseven 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 - 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 worksthough it has nothing to say about ultimate cause. Finally, we should all support the teachers who want to be professionally responsible and teach state-of-the-art science, evolution. And let NCSE know when creation "science" or anti-evolutionism comes to your school district. National Center for Science Education 1328 6th St. Berkeley, CA 94710-1404 510-526-1674 FAX: 510-526-1675 =================================================== How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your Community Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All other rights reserved. For more information contact: Pat Lewis National Jewish Democratic Council 711 Second Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 544-7636 =================================================== This document is from the Politics section of the WELL gopher server: gopher://gopher.well.com/11/Politics/ Questions and comments to: gopher@well.com .