By Wil Taylor
For the Chippewa Valley Post
I avoid trying to convince people to not believe in something. First of all, I am now old enough to know that you can’t tell anyone anything when it involves beliefs.
Belief has an emotional component that makes people resistant to change. So it is pointless to try. Furthermore, for me to try to change what someone believes – especially if it involves ideas that provide comfort or structure – is arrogant.
There are belief systems out there that have convincing others as part of their purpose. This explains the spread of evangelistic religions, as adherents are compelled to share the “good word.” These people adamantly believe that they are doing you a favor. I do not doubt their sincerity.
If, however, someone is trying to change society so that public schools will help spread their beliefs, I have a real problem. This is the central goal of the modern “creationist” movement. Below is a field guide for recognizing members and goals of this movement.
Creationism is not new. That God created everything as it looks now was scientific orthodoxy up until the 18th century, in much the same way that the earth being the center of the universe (and the sun going around it) was orthodoxy until the 16th century.
The idea that all living things share common ancestry was settled to the satisfaction of the scientific community by the end of the 19th century. But as a matter of educational policy, there were many states in the U.S. where the teaching of evolution was illegal. The best example of this was the state of Tennessee, and the Scopes “Monkey” trial, famously depicted in the play and movie Inherit the Wind.
The modern creationist movement traces its roots to the 1960s and has used a variety of tactics and terms to disguise its essentially religious core. Here are a few:
Creation Science: It can’t be religion if it’s science, right? So, it can be included in the science curriculum, right? This approach claims that legitimate “creation scientists” are working today to explain earth history as depicted in the Bible. This is exactly what great thinkers were doing in the 18th and early 19th century, and those great thinkers realized that the Bible was not an accurate account of the specifics of earth history. The stories just did not match up with the growing body of observations about rocks and the fossils they contain.
Balanced Treatment: Evolution and creationism are at odds, so why not teach them both? The answer to this one is simple: One is science (based on observations in the natural world) the other is not (based on the revealed truth of scriptures). One requires physical evidence, the other rests on faith.
Intelligent Design (I.D.): This is a reincarnation of a very old argument from the late 18th century called the “Watchmaker analogy.” That argument goes, if you find a watch on the beach, there must have been a previously existing watch maker. I. D. says that because the parts of a complex biological structure do not work as individual parts (a commonly used example is the human eye), they must have been designed. The designer is never named (God) because that would add a religious component, thus disqualifying it from the science curriculum.
Teach the Controversy: There is a host of things that scientists could not explain at some point, but then figured out. One example is supposed human footprints alongside dinosaur tracks in several locations. These have been repeatedly discredited as misinterpretations (or downright forgeries), but many creation sites continue to list them as “evidence” consistent with biblical literalism. This and other examples are available to drag out of the dust bin of history and parade as examples of “controversy.” But there is no legitimate scientific controversy about evolution.
Academic Freedom: This attempt to appeal to the ideals of fairness is among the tactics used in some of the most recent attempts to pass state level legislation aimed at introducing creationism to schools. Oddly, and revealingly, these appeals always single out evolution. Lately they have also begun to include references to climate change as a subject to “evaluate critically.” A Los Angeles Times article about a recent study tracing the origin of bills that encourage teachers to present a “critical analysis” of evolution can be found here.
“I don’t believe in macroevolution, but I believe in microevolution”: If someone says this, you may safely conclude that they do not believe in evolution. Microevolution (changes in populations from generation to generation) is macroevolution (changes over longer time frames in species). Modern creationists are forced to concede that organisms do change over time. One excellent example is the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. But most modern creationists also believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, which leaves insufficient time for macroevolutionary changes.
Each of these approaches has been thwarted by judicial procedures exposing the fact that they violate the required separation of church and state because they favor one specific religious perspective over all others – a literal interpretation of the Bible. But rest assured that these tactics will continue, and defenders of science education will have to remain vigilant.
And, we will.
Wil Taylor is professor and chair of the Biology Department at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.
Editor’s Note: this is the second of what will be an irregular but continuing series of columns written by Wil Taylor for the CVPost. We invite others who are interested in writing similar columns for the Post to contact us at cvpostwi@gmail.com. Comments on or responses to this column may be sent to that email address with “ATTN.: Wil Taylor” in the subject line.