Countering the critics forces on this planet more dangerous to us all than The portrayal of the fanaticisms of fundamentalism … .’1 Steven Rose, a neuroscientist, is a self-professing materialist but a vocal critic of ultra-Darwinism and re- creationists by ductionism. Nevertheless, he is careful to distance himself from their main opponents: their evolutionist ‘In attacking ultra-Darwinism in this way I want to make it absolutely clear that I have no intention of departing from a materialist view of life, nor of detractors giving any ground at all to anti-Darwinian funda- Philip B. Bell mentalists, creationists or New Age mystics of any shape or hue.’2 The writings of several prominent evolutionists have The intended impression is that fundamental, Bibli- been critically examined for comments about cre- cal views equate to bigotry because of their insistence on ationists. Their remarks are invariably dis paraging ‘unwarranted’ interpretation of Genesis (or believing the or misrepresent the creationist position, and can Bible at all). Furthermore, this has the effect of blinding be placed into several categories, according to the this deviant minority to the ‘factual’ support for evolution tactics used. Only rarely are creationists’ opinions from biology and paleontology. Richard Fortey is a senior accurately portrayed. Rather, there is clear bias paleontologist at the Natural History Museum, London, and (against Biblical views), and the authors make no the author of several books. He concurs: attempt to substantiate the claims being made. ‘The great battles which palaeontology fought in Also, some instances of evolutionists’ flawed logic the nineteenth century (and sadly continues to fight are described. in some quarters) have been against an over-literal reading of biblical history.’3 Creationists, it is asserted, not only have a blind faith in the Bible but are equally blind to the ‘truth’ of evolution that is staring them in the face. Until his death in 1997, The statements of evolutionists are a clear demonstration Brian Silver was Professor of Physical Chemistry at the of their unjustified bias against the straightforward young- Technicon Israel Institute of Technology. His last book Earth creationist (hereafter, creationist) view, as taught in states: Genesis. Indeed, evolutionists are often willing to resort to ‘And if these phenomena exist [i.e. the existence all manner of arguments, tactics and schemes, all of which of mutations and the mixing of genes due to sexual are expressly designed to ridicule the views of Bible-believ- reproduction], then there is a mechanism for the ing Christians. The quotations that follow, from the recent creation of new species from old. A reasoned refuta- writings of well-known and influential evolutionists, have tion of evolution has become so difficult that the op- been categorized according to the main line of argument position is now largely confined to funda mentalists, that is being used to discredit the creationist position. They those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible, should serve as a useful resource for those engaged in the and specifically in Genesis 1:27: “And God created Creation/evolution debate. man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” This leaves What evolutionists say about little room for argument. Genesis is a powerful and creationists/creation brilliantly imaginative myth. As an account of the origin of the Earth and the creatures living on it, it ‘Creationists are bigoted fundamentalists’ is wildly improbable … .’4 Some theistic evolutionists are prepared to go even People who adhere to a fundamental belief in Genesis further, claiming that such fundamentalists are guilty of as God’s infallible Word are variously castigated as a fa- putting a stumbling block in the way of those who might natical, bigoted, even dangerous, religious minority. They otherwise come to Christian faith. Russell Stannard is a are disparaged as being those who cling to outmoded ideas professor of physics at the Open University in the United in the face of the supposedly overwhelming weight of Kingdom and the author of several popular children’s evidence for evolution. The writings of Daniel Dennett, a science books. Although a professing Christian however philosopher, ultra-Darwinist and committed atheist, epito- (who denies the Virginal Conception and many miracles of mize this attitude: Christ), he writes: ‘But hasn’t there been a tremendous rebirth of ‘Literalist, fundamentalist Christians have always fundamentalist faith in all these creeds? Yes, unfor- bothered me. On the one hand, they clearly have a tunately there has been, and I think that there are no deep respect and love for the Bible, which I unreserv- 46 TJ 16(2) 2002 The portrayal of creationists by their evolutionist detractors — Bell Countering the critics edly applaud. But theirs is an approach that appears able experiments and hard facts. In the light of this, such to fly in the face of the scientific evidence … the caricatures of creationists are often a case of the ‘pot calling creationist movement remains powerful, especially the kettle black’, as demonstrated by the following admis- in the USA. Sadly, its activities lead to a significant sion by Fortey in his most recent book: number of scientists becoming contemptuous of all ‘In most rock sections … we assume that every religion.’5 trilobite novelty that appears was an evolutionary innovation even when the rocks themselves often ‘Creationists are not real scientists’ provide no details of its origin … . This rather mundane truth has been misappropriated by creation Not only are Creation-believers allegedly bigoted in “scientists” as evidence that “fossils don’t provide regard to their Biblical views, those who are practising support for evolution”—which is not the same thing scientists are invariably stated to be non-scientific, pseudo- at all’ [emphasis added].10 scientific or ‘scientific’. Clearly, to describe people as Fortey wants readers to believe that the confessed ‘creation scientists’—i.e. to add the quotation marks—is absence of fossil evidence for trilobites’ evolutionary origin to subtly undermine their academic credentials, with the (i.e. lack of undisputed transitional forms) does not prevent deliberate intention of denying their authority in scientific trilobite phylogeny from being traced from their fossils. matters. As with any ploy that attempts to relegate the status of creationists from that of true scientists to ‘quacks’, the writer hopes that the creationists’ scientific pronouncements will then not be seriously considered. Dennett is characteristically blunt, whilst seemingly un- aware that his own undisguised bigotry smacks of hypocrisy: ‘[Darwin’s theory] has been pilloried in caricature by opponents, some of whom would have it compete in our children’s schools with “creation science”, a pathetic hodge-podge of pious pseudo-science.’6 Other authors follow a similar tack in their put-downs of creationists, as the follow- ing quotations show, from books by Stannard, Fortey and Silver respectively: ‘I have always found it puzzling that physicists seem more inclined to be religious than biologists. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that biologists are continu- ally being forced to defend their ideas on evolution against non-scien tifically-minded crea tionists.’7 ‘The narrative of life requires a scale of thousands to millions of years, acting over a drama of more than 3,000 million years. Geologists are insouciant in the face of these figures. Creation “scientists” simply do not believe them.’8 ‘Unfortunately, pseudoscientific babble from a variety of sources has suggested that science is on the side of the creationists, since the second law [of thermodynam- The second law of thermodynamics has been misused by people on both sides of ics] sup posedly precludes the spontaneous the creation/evolution debate. Whether in an isolated, closed or open system, raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Finely formation of organized systems. Ergo, life 9 tuned chemical systems are needed for plants to grow. The plants harness the required a supernatural hand.’ energy from the sun (through ‘machinery’ in the chlorophyll) and use it to produce To describe creationists as non-scientific biologically meaningful products. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. is to redefine science. Real science deals with Similarly, undirected energy flow though an alleged primordial soup will break such things as hypotheses, predictions, repeat- down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed. TJ 16(2) 2002 47 Countering the critics The portrayal of creationists by their evolutionist detractors — Bell So, the discontinuity of trilobite morphologies—whilst ‘The kindly God who fashioned each and every confirming Creation to the unprejudiced mind—is asserted one of us (all creatures great and small) and sprinkled to be evidence for evolution, the truth of which was as- the sky with shining stars for our delight—that sumed a priori. Such absolute belief in evolution prevents God is, like Santa Claus, a myth of childhood, not its falsification because, as here, contradictions are simply anything a sane, undeluded adult could literally re-interpreted as evidence! believe in.’14 ‘To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who ‘Creationists are deliberate misinformers’ doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ig- A particularly serious misrepresentation of creation- norant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where ists is that they are liars, intent on indoctrinating the next three out of four people have learned to read and generation with false teaching. Predictably, Dennett pulls write.’15 no punches: Theistic evolutionist, Professor R.J. (Sam) Berry is ‘Save the Baptists! Yes, of course, but not by geneticist at University College, London and past President all means. Not if it means tolerating the deliberate of Christians in Science. In an interview with Russell Stan- misinforming of children about the natural world.