sign in sign up
<<
Home , Creation myth, Eugenie Scott, From Darwin to Hitler, George Coyne, Intelligent designer, Kent Hovind

A Guide to the / Controversy

This website provides and online resources to help improve public education and understanding of evolution.

"It is almost as if the brain were specifically designed to misunderstand , and to find it hard to believe".

- , 1996

This site was launched to commemorate the Darwin Year in 2009 (200 years since Darwin was born and 150 years since the publication of On the Origin of ). If you are interested in translating the content into another or providing educational slide presentations to post on this website, please contact us. © 2009, Dustin J. Penn

Introduction: Why Evolution Matters

"Evolution matters because matters. Science matters because it is the preeminent story of our age, an epic saga about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going."

- , 20061

It has been 150 years since published his book, On the Origin of Species2, and yet the public still does not generally accept evolution or understand why it is so scientifically important. Darwin achieved two major accomplishments in his book, both of which were revolutionary. First, Darwin presented a massive amount of evidence from a wide variety of disciplines to show that evolution is a . Species change over . The fact of evolution is no longer debated among , as the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Second, Darwin also suggested a , he called "," to explain how life evolves. His theory not only explains how the diversity of species has arisen, but also the complex, design-like properties of . Scientists generally accept Darwin's theory, as well as the fact of evolution, as it has also stood up to testing for decades. Darwin's theory of evolution has completely revolutionized our understanding of the life, and our place in the . For many scientists and scholars, Darwin's theory is "the single best idea that anyone has ever had."3

Today, evolution provides the conceptual foundation that integrates all of the biological , including , molecular and cell , developmental biology, physiology, behavioral biology, ecology, and . is increasing integrated into the social sciences, as it is central for efforts to understand human origins and behavior. Evolution has many practical implications and it has contributed to important advances in applied sciences. In the biomedical sciences, evolution plays an increasing role in on HIV, Charles Darwin influenza, and other infectious diseases, and in the discovery of that cause disease and treatments. Evolution has been critical for understanding the emergence of resistant to antibiotics and other drugs. Evolution has contributed to advances in agriculture, such as development of crops and livestock and pest management (the evolution of pesticide resistance). Evolution even influences research in biotechnology, and fields outside of the life sciences, including the development of computer technologies and information sciences (evolutionary algorithms).

Thus, the scientific debate over evolution was settled long ago, and the only controversies remaining are political debates over whether evolution, creationism, or both should be taught in public school science classes.

Although scientists accept evolution, a significant proportion of the public does not. This is largely due to poor scientific literacy, religious , and creationists' political efforts. Creationists in the USA have given up on trying to ban teaching evolution in schools, and their attempts to get Genesis taught as an alternative to evolution have also been defeated. In recent years, however, a new, more sophisticated version of creationism, called "" (ID), is being portrayed as a scientific alternative to evolution. ID advocates utilize the language of science, but it is not science. It is just another attempt by creationists to insert their religious beliefs into science classrooms. In fact, ID was concocted as a deliberate attempt to circumvent laws in the USA that ban teaching creationism in public schools (the US Constitution prevents the state from promoting any particular ). ID is a classic example of the public being misled by pseudoscientific claims. The most disturbing aspect of ID is its ultimate goal: to replace all sciences and secular views that are incompatible with Christian beliefs and values. An US Court has ruled against teaching ID creationism as science in public schools, but nevertheless, ID has spread to Europe and has become a global movement.

Why does evolution matter? The bottom line is that evolutionary biology - and all sciences - critically depends upon avoiding interference from religious and political groups deciding what is and what is not taught as science. This is why scientists and educators are so strongly opposed to teaching ID and other forms of creationism, and why many are concerned that the future of science itself is at stake.

To address the widespread misunderstandings of evolution, scientists, educators and governments are responding with numerous efforts to improve the public understanding of evolution.

Science educators are trying new ways of teaching evolution, so that students can distinguish between science versus ID and other . Instead of avoiding the topic of creationism, more science educators are beginning to "."4 The Council of Europe has condemned efforts to introduce creationism into European schools, and urged its member governments to promote oppose creationism.5 Like Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama, many religious groups have voiced their support for evolution, and their opposition to efforts to teach creationism as science6 (signed by 10,876 people as of 31 Aug. 2007).

In summary, evolution is more firmly established in science than the public realizes. Darwin's ideas have completely revolutionized our understanding of where we came from, who we are, and our place in nature. They have also provided many practical applications, and helped to make advances in agricultural, biomedical, and computational sciences. Yet, because evolution undermines some religious beliefs, it is strongly opposed by creationists, and they have managed to help maintain the public's doubts about evolution. The opposition to evolution is often based on common and misconceptions, and especially the that evolution is scientifically still in question, or "just a theory." The only controversy is whether religious groups should be allowed to dictate what is and what is not taught as science. Scientists and educators are trying to improve the public understanding of evolution, and redress the many misconceptions. Most prominent religious leaders and organizations also agree that creationism should not be taught as science.

The most important lesson from this controversy is that science is a precious gift, and the greatest accomplishment of human intellect for solving nature's mysteries. We should not take it for granted or allow it to be dictated by religious groups that object to its findings. Significant improvements in scientific literacy are badly needed to keep science alive, and to help solve the increasing number of difficult and complex problems we face in the 21st century.

The other sections of this website provide more information about these issues and more in greater detail.

Link and References

References

1. Shermer, M. (2006): Why Darwin Matters: the Case Against Intelligent Design. , Books 2006. 2. Darwin, Ch. (1859): The Origin of Species. London, John Murray 1859. 3. Dennett, D. (1995): Darwin's Dangerous Idea. New York, Simon & Schuster 1995, 21. 4. Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. Working Group on Teaching Evolution. National Press 5. Council of Europe (2007): Council of Europe states must 'firmly oppose' the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline. Council of Europe Autumn Session 1-5 Oct. 2007. 6. Zimmerman, M. (2008): An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science to declare their support for evolution. © 2009, Dustin J. Penn

I. Public Acceptance of Evolution

"These results should be troubling for science educators at all levels."

– Miller et al., 2006, p. 7661

Summary

Evolution is accepted as a well-established fact among scientists, but in many countries the public remains skeptical. A recent poll of 10,000 adults across 10 countries around the found that on average only 54% agree that there is enough to support Darwin's theory, and in 4 of these countries the skeptics are a majority (i.e., Russia, USA, South Africa, and Egypt).2 Public acceptance of evolution is surprisingly low in many European countries, though not as low as the USA. Several factors contribute to low public acceptance of evolution, including poor scientific literacy, religious fundamentalism, and political activities of creationists. This section provides information about the public acceptance of evolution, especially in Europe and the USA.

Outline

1. International Survey 2. USA 3. Muslim Countries 4. Reasons for Opposition 5. Improving Public Understanding

1. International Survey

A large international survey of 34 countries recently found that the acceptance of evolution is generally higher in Europe than the USA; however, there is much variation among European countries, and some have low acceptance (Figure 1).1

This survey indicates that acceptance of evolution in Europe is generally higher than the USA, but it is not as high as often assumed. Acceptance of evolution is high in some European countries, particularly in Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, and France, where at least 80% polled accept evolution as true. Yet, there are a number of European countries, including Poland, Austria, Croatia, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Latvia, in where approximately 45-55% of the population does not accept evolution. Figure 1. Public acceptance of evolution varies among For comparison, acceptance of evolution is high in Japan (78%), and countries.1 the USA has the lowest acceptance in the developed world, with only around 40% accepting evolution as true. The only country found to have lower acceptance of evolution than the USA was , with 75% rejecting evolution.

2. USA Evolution is very controversial in the USA, as a large proportion of the public holds creationists beliefs. Approximately 44% of Americans believe that created in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so. Around 36% believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. 14% believe that humans have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, and God had no part in this process. These Figure 2. polls. proportions have remained remarkably stable for the past 25 years (Figure 2).

3. Muslim Countries

In the international survey described above, the only country having lower rates of acceptance of evolution than the USA was Turkey: only around 25% of adults accept evolution in Turkey, which is considerably below the U.S. (at 40%).1 This result is disconcerting since Turkey is one of the most educated and secular of Muslim countries.

A more recent survey of six Muslim countries asked respondents, "Do you agree or disagree with Darwin's theory of evolution?", and the results are alarming: only 8% of Egyptians, 11% of Malaysians, 14% of Pakistanis, 16% of Indonesians, and 22% of Turks agreed that Darwin's theory is probably or most certainly true. The country with the highest rates of acceptance was the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, where only 28% feel that evolution is false, which is lower than the U.S. (where rejection is Figure 3. Acceptance of approximately 40%). Thus, it appears that evolution is rejected by 3 evolution in Muslim countries. a large majority of the public in most Islamic countries.3

4. Reasons for Opposition

To understand why evolution is not more widely accepted, researchers in the previously mentioned international survey examined 10 variables suspected to influence rejection of evolution in a large, international survey (1). They found four factors which can explain people's attitudes toward evolution, which are consistent with what has been found in the USA:

1. Poor scientific literacy. Those who had a better understanding of science, and especially genetics, were more likely to accept evolution than less scientifically literate people in both Europe and the USA. This finding supports the concerns of many scientists and educators who have been calling for improving scientific literacy (see Section VI.), which should include addressing common misconceptions about evolution (see Section V.). 2. Fundamentalist religious is associated with opposition to evolution, and this factor is nearly twice as important in the USA compared to the nine European countries in the study. This result supports the idea that Europeans are more likely to accept evolution than Americans because they are generally less likely to interpret the literally (see Section IV. and Section II.). 3. Politicalization. Evolution has been more politicized in the USA than in Europe or Japan, and politicizing the issues appears to influence people’s attitudes. The Republican party has adopted creationism as part of their platform, whereas there is no major political party in Europe or Japan that uses opposition to evolution as part of its political platform (see Section II.). 4. Human exceptionalism. There are two different types of opposition to evolution, the denial of evolution altogether versus refusing to apply evolution to humans. The authors found that most adults are unwilling to extend evolution to humans (see Section IV. and Section V.). These findings are consistent with the three main factors generally offered to explain the low and variable acceptance rates in the USA:

(1) Acceptance of evolution in the U.S. is correlated with overall education: Evolution is accepted by 74% of those with post-graduate degrees, 48% with college degrees, and 41% of those with a high school degree or less (Gallup Poll, 2007).

Variation in science education among states helps explain geographical differences. The standards for teaching evolution and other sciences in U.S. public schools are poor in many states, and where creationism is most popular (Figure 4). Some states are rated as “very good or excellent”; however, more are considered “unsatisfactory, useless or Figure 4. Science stand- absent”, especially in the Midwest and South (i.e., Oklahoma, Wyoming, 5 ards in the USA. Arkansas, Mississippi, , Georgia, , Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, and Alaska).4

(2) Religious beliefs and church attendance do not necessarily result in rejecting evolution (in fact, many evolutionists and other scientists are religious); however, they are both associated with lower rates of acceptance of evolution, and therefore, they may contribute differences

Figure 5. Gallup poll, among states and also between the USA versus Europe. For example, 2008. 70% of Americans who attend church regularly believe that God created humans within the last 10,000 years, whereas this percentage is lower among those who rarely (50%) or never (24%) attend church (Figure 5). Christian fundamentalists, who accept Genesis as the literal truth (see Section IV.), are widespread in the USA, and particularly in some states (e.g., the so-called ‘Bible Belt’ that extends from Oklahoma to Florida).

(3) Politics in the U.S. plays an important role. Christian fundamentalists Figure 6. Gallup poll, are a powerful political lobby in the USA that actively opposes teaching 2008. evolution. The curricula of public schools in the USA are controlled at local rather than federal levels, and consequently anti-evolution policies have been passed mainly in states where is popular (e.g., the Bible Belt) (see Section II.). Christian fundamentalists are politically powerful and have been supported by former President G.W. Bush and the Republican party. Thus, Gallup polls find that most (60%) Republicans reject evolution, whereas most (60%) Democrats and (62%) Independents do not. (Figure 6)

Thus, the low public acceptance of evolution can be attributed to several factors, including poor scientific literacy, religious fundamentalism, politicalization of evolution, and a resistance to applying evolution to our own species.

5. Improving Public Understanding

The researchers who conducted previously mentioned international survey point out that their findings "should be troubling for science educators at all levels",1 and they advocate making major reforms in science education:

"Basic concepts of evolution should be taught in middle school, high school, and college life sciences courses and the growing number of adults who are uncertain about these ideas suggests that current science instruction is not effective. Because of the rapidly emerging nature of biomedical science, most adults will find it necessary to learn about these new concepts through informal learning opportunities."

Moreover, these scholars stress the need to counter the activities of lobby: “The politicization of science in the name of religion and political partisanship is not new to the , but transformation of traditional geographically and economically based political parties into religiously oriented ideological coalitions marks the beginning of a new era for science policy. The broad public acceptance of the benefits of science and technology in the second half of the 20th century allowed science to develop a nonpartisan identification that largely protected it from overt partisanship. That era appears to have closed.”

The Council of Europe has recently voiced similar concerns about creationists' activities:

"If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe... The on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements... some advocates of creationism are out to replace by theocracy” (see Section VI.).5

Links

References

1. Miller, J.D., E.C. Scott & S. Okamoto (2006): Public Acceptance of Evolution. Science 313 (5788), 765-766. 2. British Council 2009 Poll 3. Hameed, S. (2008): Bracing for Islamic Creation. Science 322 (5908), 1637-1638. 4. Doyle, R. (2002): Down with evolution! Creationists are changing state educational standards. 286 (3), 30. 5. Council of Europe: The dangers of creationism in education. Resolution 1580. 2007, Oct. 4. © 2009, Dustin J. Penn

II. Creationists’ Opposition to Evolution

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

- Advocates of Intelligent Design Creationism, 19991

Summary

Ever since Darwin, there has been opposition to evolution, and especially against applying evolutionary principles to humans. Christian fundamentalists in the USA have tried to ban evolution for decades. After failing to ban evolution, some creationists attempted to disguise creationism as a legitimate science they called "" and then again later "intelligent design" (ID). Courts in the USA have ruled against teaching ID and any other forms of creationism as science, yet creationists continue trying new tactics, such as changing the definition of "science" to include religion. The public opposition to evolution in Europe is more complex than the USA, as it comes from education ministers, Catholic leaders, and Muslims, as well as Protestant Christian fundamentalists. This section provides an historical overview of creationists’ opposition to evolution in the USA and Europe. It addresses the political and legal controversies regarding the creationism- versus-evolution debates, and explains why scientists and educators generally oppose teaching creationism in science classes.

Outline

A. Creationists’ Opposition in the USA

1. Attempts to Ban Evolution 2. Disguising Creationism as Science 3. Intelligent Design: Creationism’s Latest Disguise 4. Re-Defining Science and Creationists’ other Tactics

A. Creationists’ Opposition in the USA

Evolution has been particularly controversial in the USA, where Protestant Christian fundamentalists have been trying to ban evolution or have creationism taught in public school science classes for over 80 years. In many states, courts have supported creationists’ efforts, but federal courts have so far blocked these efforts on the ground that it is unconstitutional to use public funds to promote a religion. After each defeat, however, creationists have continued to try to get creationism taught in public schools by trying disguise creationism as science.

1. Attempts to Ban Evolution

A religious movement of Christian Protestant fundamentalism arose during the late 19th century, as a reaction to enlightenment thinking and modernism (i.e., the so-called "Great Awakening"). The publication of The Fundamentals (1910-1915) marked a second revival of fundamentalism among Christian Protestants. After the First World War (1914-1918), conservative Protestants attacked , and argued that evolution and other "modernist" views had turned Germans away from the Bible, and led their country into disaster. In the 1923, Oklahoma passed the first anti-evolution law, which offered free to public schools on the condition that neither their textbooks nor the teachers mention evolution. In 1925, Tennessee passed The Butler Act which made it "unlawful for any teacher in the Universities, Normals, and all other public schools of the state… to teach any theory that denies the story of the Devine [sic] Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has developed from a lower order of ."

The same year, a schoolteacher named John Scopes, was tried for teaching evolution in the famous "" or "Monkey Trial". It was popularized by the play Inherit the Wind, and was made into a major Hollywood film and television film.2-4 The Scopes Trial is often thought to be a victory for evolution because it resulted in much ridicule of creationism, even though Scopes was found guilty for teaching evolution. Yet, science lost in most ways because laws banning teaching evolution remained on the books in the USA until 1967, and schools continued to ignore the topic.

Figure 1 (a). Figure 1 (b).

The Anti-Evolution League of America (Figure 1a) was organized by Conservative Christian Protestants in 1924, and helped to pass anti-evolution legislation. Its efforts were supported by , the Democratic Party’s three-time nominee for President of the USA. Bryan crusaded against evolution and was the prosecuting attorney in the Scopes Trial. In the Scopes Trial, Clarence Darrow, the lawyer for the defense (left) (Figure 1b) called Bryan (right) to testify, and was able to get Bryan to admit that the is probably older than 6,000 years, and that the Bible needed to be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally.

Since the Scopes Trial, evolution has been tried 10 times in U.S. courts, and two times by the Supreme Court. In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting evolution and ruled that teaching creationism in public schools would violate the constitution’s First Amendment separation between Church and State (Epperson v. Arkansas)5. Since then creationists’ have tried various ways of re-packaging creationism to get around the law.

2. Disguising Creationism as Science

After failing to get evolution banned from public schools, creationists have tried to find new tactics to inject their beliefs into public schools. Rather than banning evolution, they aimed to convince people that creationism is a science they called "creation science". Creationists lobbied to get this dressed-up version of creationism into public school science classes during 1970’s and 1980’s.6

The center of creation science is the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) located in Dallas, (Figure 2). Its goals are to provide scientific support for divine intervention and in the creation of the world, confirm the historical accuracy of a literal interpretation of Genesis, and provide various educational programs, including a .7 Its founders and faculty support literal interpretations of Genesis (Young Earth Creationism), and its members and researchers must adhere to the following statement:

"The scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are inerrant in relation to any subject with which they deal, and are accepted in their natural and intended sense… all things in the were created and made by God in the six days of described in Genesis. The creationist account is accepted as factual, historical and perspicuous and is thus fundamental in the understanding of every fact and phenomenon in the created Figure 2. Institute for 8 Creation Research (ICR). universe."

Despite its name, so-called "creation science" is not a science.9 Science involves only natural explanations, and requires rejecting hypotheses unsupported by evidence. In contrast, creation science dismisses any evidence that fails to confirm to a particular religious belief. For these reasons, more than 45 scientific organizations have criticized creation science (see Section VI.).

Nonetheless, the creation science movement became popular in the USA during the 1980’s, and as a result many states attempted to introduce legislation to require teaching creation science. Laws were passed in Arkansas and Louisiana to require teaching creation science along with evolution, though the U.S. Supreme Court eventually overruled them:

In 1981, Arkansas passed a "Balanced Treatment" Act requiring creation science to receive equal time with evolution in public schools. The next year, however, this act was over-ruled in court (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education)10. Judge Overton (U.S. District Court) concluded that creation science is "simply not science", as it failed to meet the essential characteristics of science. Moreover, he concluded that the act is "a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact", and violated the First amendment’s separation of Church and State.

In 1982, Louisiana passed an act requiring public schools to give equal time to creation science and evolution. Lower courts concluded that the actual goal of the act was to promote a religious doctrine, but the State appealed to the Supreme Court.

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana statue is unconstitutional because creation science is not a science and instead its actual goal is to advance a particular religious belief (Edwards v. Aguillard)11. The reason for the Supreme Court’s decision is simple and clear: so-called "creation science" is not a science because it does not involve scientific research or other activities required to be an actual science.

The Supreme Court’s decision against creation science was a major defeat for creationists, but creationists did not give up.

3. Intelligent Design: Creationism’s Latest Disguise

Creationists have continued to find even more deceptive ways of masquerading creationism as a science in their efforts to get creationism into public schools. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against teaching "creation science", creationists adopted a different political and legal tactic: they dropped the term "creation science", and re-named their approach "intelligent design" (ID).12 The central idea of ID is that certain features of living organisms are better explained by an "" than by natural selection (ID advocates rarely say who the designer might be, or they say it could be God or an extraterrestrial alien). Using engineering language has helped make ID more respectable. Another reason ID has been popular is that its advocates promote the idea of teaching both ID and evolution in science classes. This "teach the controversy" argument seems reasonable to many people who are apparently unaware that ID is based on religion rather than science. Consequently, the ID movement (IDM) became very popular in the U.S. (e.g., in 2005, there were at least 17 bills in 13 states trying to introduce ID into classrooms), and it has become a global movement.

In 2004, the school board in Dover attempted to force teachers to use an ID , Of Panda’s and People, for teaching biology. Parents sued the school (and before the trial began, the parents ousted all members of the school board), which resulted in a lengthy trial.13 Judge Jones (a U.S. District judge) ruled against the school board’s requirement to teach ID because he concluded that ID is not science, but a religious view that advances "a particular version of ". ID proponents were forced to admit that in order to conclude the ID is science, the definition of science must be changed to include explanations. Furthermore, Judge Jones castigated the school board for trying to cover up their religious motives, and for dragging the community into "this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste on monetary and personal resources".14

The Dover trial was a complete loss and embarrassment for the school board and ID advocates – and it provided a warning for other school boards tempted to teach intelligent design as science. The trial uncovered evidence that ID was a deliberate attempt to disguise creationism to circumvent the law and insert religious beliefs into public school science classes.15-16 Moreover, the trial also revealed that ID is part of a larger "Trojan Horse strategy" that is aimed to replace scientific with conservative Christian values and Figure 3. "teach the controversy"18-23 beliefs in .17

ID has collapsed as a viable tactic for creationists in the USA, and the rise and fall of the ID movement provides many revealing insights into the politics of the creationism versus evolution struggle in general (for more information, see Section III.).

4. Re-Defining Science and Creationists’ Other Tactics

To understand why evolution continues to be controversial, it is instructive to consider the various tactics that creationists utilize to achieve their strategic aims.

Bypassing the Scientific Process. Creationism science and ID have been tactics meant to bypass the normal scientific process for getting ideas taught as science. Science is often confronted with novel claims, but before these are taught as science, such claims must undergo a rather rigorous process, i.e., empirical research, publishing results in peer-reviewed, scientific journals, and presenting results at scientific conferences (Figure 4a). Since creationists’ claims do hold up to this process, creationists have attempted to bypass the scientific process – and use the government and political influence – to allow them to inject creationism directly into science classes and textbooks (Figure 4b). Creationists’ efforts to determine what is and what is not science, provides a dangerous precedent for other groups to misuse science classes as a way to promote their religious, pseudoscientific, or other supernatural beliefs. Figure 4 (a). The normal scientific process. Figure 4 (b). Creationism taught as science.

Warning Labels on Textbooks. In 1996, creationists on the Alabama State Board of Education required that high school textbooks contain a sticker with a disclaimer about evolution stating, "evolution is a theory, not a fact". In 2004, a federal judge ordered the stickers to be removed. In 2005, the Alabama board voted unanimously to keep a modified version of the disclaimer that stating that evolution is "a controversial theory". A public school in Georgia also placed warning stickers on biology textbooks, and in 2005, a federal judge ruled that the disclaimers were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion (see Section V.).24 Scientists would not mind placing warning labels on books to state that the scientific ideas are "only ", as long as they are placed on all science textbooks (biology, chemistry and physics) and address all scientific theories. There is no scientific reason to make evolution to appear less credible than other scientific theories.

Public Funds for Religious Schools. Unsuccessful in their efforts to ban evolution or force creationism into the science curriculum of public schools, creationists have been able to sidestep the law by obtaining federal funding for private religious schools that teach creationism. Former President G.W. Bush has been an advocate of using public funds to support religious or "-based" schools. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that state funds could support religious schools, which was seen as a victory by creationists.

Re-Defining Science. In 2005, the Kansas state school board approved a new curriculum that supports intelligent design and eliminates the teaching of evolution. Perhaps more importantly, they altered the definition of science so that science is no longer limited to natural explanations. This plan not only enables creationists to teach their religious beliefs as science, but is even more dangerous as it would also open the door for teaching astrology, magic, and all types of other pseudo-sciences in science classes.

Academic Freedom to Teach Religion as a Science? In 2008, creationists attempted to introduce laws that would enable teachers to present creationism and other non-scientific alternatives to evolution under the guise of "". The main point of a recent film designed to promote ID, called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, is that academic freedom is being blocked by Darwinian atheists. Scientists support academic freedom, but the term "academic freedom" only refers to the rights of university professors to conduct research and publish. It does not give professors or secondary school teachers the right to teach their religious beliefs as science. Nevertheless, this "academic freedom" argument has lead to the state of Louisiana passing a bill that will allow teachers to present evolution as a scientifically controversial theory.

Creationists’ continuing interference with science education in public schools in the USA is deeply concerning for scientists and science educators all over the world. As one points out: "Although it is easy as a European to laugh in a smugly superior way at the antics of the Americans, I think it is a mistake to do so. The growing political influence of Christian fundamentalists in the US, who are closely associated with creationists, is a threat to the rest of the world. Their agenda includes the strict censorship of science as taught in American schools, and the idea of a scientifically illiterate America dominated by religious fundamentalists fills me with horror." (Anon. www.plesiosaur.com)

Europeans and others often observe the political and legal battles over evolution in the USA with amazement, but creationists’ attacks on evolution are not isolated to the USA, and the Intelligent Design movement is also generating political and legal debates in Europe.

Links

References

1. (1999): The Wedge, Seattle, Discovery Institute 1999, 1-10. 2. (2008): Scopes Trial, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 227075143. 3. Larson, E.J. (1997): Summer for the : The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. New York, BasicBooks 1997. 4. Conkin, P.K. (1998): When All the Gods Trembled: Darwinism, Scopes, and American Intellectuals. Lanham, MD, Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1998. 5. Wikipedia (2009): Epperson v. Arkansas, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 312869172. 6. Wikipedia (2009): Creation science, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 289078746. 7. Wikipedia (2009): Institute for Creation Research, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 289405745. 8. Shermer, M. (1997): Why People Believe Weird Things: , Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York, W.H. Freeman 1997. 9. Lewin, R. (1982): Where is the Science in Creation Science? Science 215 (4529), 142-144. 10. Wikipedia (2009): McLean v. Arkansas, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 284192105. 11. Wikipedia (2009): Edwards v. Aguillard, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 269428034. 12. Wikipedia (2009): Intelligent design, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 289404887. 13. Mervis, J. (2006): The Dover ID decision - Judge Jones defines science–and why intelligent design isn't. Science 311 (5757), 34. 14. Goodstein, L. (2005): Judge Rejects Teaching Intelligent Design, in . 2005, Dec. 21. 15. Young, M. & T. Edis eds.(2004): Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Rudgers, N.J., Rutgers University Press 2004. 16. Shermer, M. (2006): Why Darwin Matters: the Case Against Intelligent Design. New York, Times Books 2006. 17. Forrest, B. & P.R. Gross (2004): Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford, 2004. 18. Scott, E.C. (2000): Not (Just) in Kansas Anymore. Science 288 (5467), 813-815. 19. Milner, R. et al. (2002): Intelligent Design?, in Natural History magazine. 20. Scott, E.C. & N. Eldredge (2005): Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Berkeley and , CA, University of 2005. 21. Scott, E.C. (2006): Not in our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools. Boston, MA, Beacon Press 2006. 22. Wikipedia (2009): Discovery Institute, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 288980669 23. Behe, M. J. (1996): Darwin's Black Box, 1st ed., New York, 1996. 24. Wikipedia (2009): Selman v. Cobb County School District, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 280567568. © 2009, Dustin J. Penn

II. Creationists’ Opposition to Evolution

B. Creationism in Europe

"When societal resistance to the science behind evolution comes up for discussion, it's often an occasion for European readers to ask (with varying degrees of politeness) whether the US has lost its marbles. Any sense of superiority they derive from viewing the rejection of science as an American phenomenon, however, should have evaporated in recent years as creationist efforts have popped up throughout Europe, including within several governments. The situation has now reached the point where European governments have felt compelled to address the issue."

– John Timmer, 20071

Outline

B. Creationism in Europe

1. Anti-Evolution Politics in Government 2. Controversy in the 3. Muslim Opposition to Evolution

Several reports suggest that creationists’ anti-evolution activities have been on the rise in Europe, including a recent Nature article stating, "The teaching of evolution theory is under threat in some European countries".2 The article cites schools in Germany that were found to be teaching creationism, and in Britain, the creationist group "" mailed information packets to every secondary school in the UK, which advocated that ID should be taught as an alternative to evolution. The evolution-creationism conflict has spread to Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Serbia, Romania, and Russia.3-4 Like the USA, the main opposition to evolution is religious fundamentalism.

1. Anti-Evolution Politics in Government

Recent anti-evolution activities in Europe have come from education ministers. In 2004, the education minister of Italy, Letizia Moratti, removed evolution from the curricula of middle schools. After widespread public protests (only 11% of Italians support the exclusion of evolution from schools), the minister partially reintroduced evolution into schools.

In the same year, the minister of education in Serbia, Ljiljana Čolić, suspended the teaching of evolution and only allowed schools to reintroduce evolution if they also taught creationism. After widespread protests from scientists, teachers, and opposition parties, she reversed the decision and resigned.

In 2006, the deputy minister of education in Poland, Mirosław Orzechowski, denounced evolution as "one of many lies", taught in Polish schools. His superior, the Minister of Education, Roman Giertych, stated that the theory of evolution would continue to be taught in Polish schools, "as long as most scientists in our country say that it is the right theory". His father, Maciej Giertych, who is a member of the European parliament, however, insists that evolution is a "lie", and claims that and humans co-existed. He organized a workshop for parliamentarians that suggested children in Europe are being indoctrinated with evolutionary theory in classrooms. In 2007, Romania removed evolution from the curriculum of public schools,5 and also that year, a Russian court addressed a legal challenge to teach evolution. A young student sued the Russian Ministry of Education and Science claiming that the school's biology texts offend her religious beliefs because it does not allow for creationism.

2. Controversy in the Catholic Church

Pope John Paul II accepted evolution as "effectively a proven fact" (at least for non-humans).6 In 1996, he stated:

"In his (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points… Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a . In fact, it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence of results of these independent studies - which was neither planned nor sought - constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."7

After Pope John Paul II’s death, however, evolution became a controversial issue in the Church.8 In 2005, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn (Austria) declared that Darwinian evolution is incompatible with a belief in God.9 He claimed that "Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is , not science…". Also, he stated that "Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity' are not scientific at all, but as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence."

Figure 5. Cardinal The Vatican's chief astronomer, Jesuit priest George Coyne, rebuffed Cardinal Christoph Schönborn Schönborn's controversial comments and stating: "Intelligent design isn't (Austria). science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."10 Several other Church leaders warn about the dangers of repeating past mistakes of supporting religious fundamentalism over science.8 The most famous example is the Church's persecution of Galileo in the 1600s for promoting Copernicus' discovery that the earth revolves around the (as this finding contradicts Psalm and Chronicles, which assert that the world cannot be moved). Galileo was forced to recant his views, his offending works were banned, and he spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Church's Inquisition. Galileo was only acquitted by the Church in 1993, 360 years later. Scientists asked Pope Benedict XVI to clarify the Church's position and urged him not to build more dividing lines between religion and science. In reply to this new debate, Pope Benedict XVI declared that the universe was built as an "intelligent project", which has been interpreted as support for creationism from the Vatican. Yet, more recently (2008), however, the Vatican declared that evolution is compatible with the Bible.

3. Muslim Opposition to Evolution

Islam is increasingly common in Europe, and many Muslims oppose evolution. In fact, the lowest rates of acceptance of evolution are in Muslim countries12 (see Section I). Teaching evolution is banned in some Islamic countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia and Sudan). In Turkey, most people (75%) reject evolution as false,13 and anti-evolution attitudes are strong in Turkish provinces where Islamic fundamentalism is strongest.

Like many Christians, Muslim fundamentalists share a dislike for secularism and science and prefer religious authorities to decide what is taught as science.

A recent article entitled "Muslims against Darwin" states that "We Muslims see [Darwin] as a plague… We might have disagreements [with Christians], but we agree on the most fundamental truth of all - that there really is a God out there, and He is the One to Whom we owe our very life and existence."11

Radical fundamentalists are pushing for Muslim science to oppose so-called "Christian or Jewish science", and ironically some view evolution and Darwinism as a Christian plot.

Anti-science and anti-evolution are often strong sentiments in immigrant Muslim communities in Western Europe.

In 2007, a Turkish Muslim organization in Turkey produced a 600-page book "The Atlas of Creation", and distributed it to public schools in Belgium, France, Spain, and Switzerland (Figure 6).

Some Turkish scientists have resisted creationists' campaigns to discredit evolution, and although they won a court battle in 1999, these scientists fear they are losing ground to creationists in the struggle for public opinion. Ali Gören, a medical professor and parliament member, recently called Darwinism a "scientific fraud", and launched a legislative drive to drop the teaching of Figure 6. The Atlas evolution from public schools. He urged other legislators to protect students of Creation. from evolution theory's "adverse effects" because, he claims, it encourages " and separatism".14-15

Thus, anti-evolution sentiment in Europe is more complex and has more diverse sources of opposition than in the USA, as it comes from fundamentalist Catholics and Muslims, as well as Protestants. Many scientists and educators are concerned that teaching creationism in public schools could lead to more fundamentalist extremism and efforts to replace democracy with theocracy. The next section examines the intelligent design movement in more detail.

Links

References

1. Timmer, J. (2007): Attempts to introduce Intelligent Design in Europe spark backlash. 2. Graebsch, A. & Q. Schiermeier (2006): Anti-evolutionists raise their profile in Europe. Nature 444, 406-407. 3. Enserink, M. (2005): Is Holland Becoming the Kansas of Europe? Science 308 (5727), 1394. 4. Holden C. (ed.) (2008): Darwin in Italy. Science 304 (5671), 677. 5. , M., C. Ilie & A. Nitoi (2007): Romania removes theory of evolution from school curriculum, in The Diplomat Bucharest 2007). 6. Pope John Paul II (1996): Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man. L'Osservatore Romano, "Weekly Edition in English" 1996, Oct. 30. 7. Pope John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Oct. 22, 1996. 8. Wikipedia (2009): Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 285864125. 9. Schönborn, C. (2005): Finding Design in Nature, in The New York Times. New York City 2005, Jul. 7. 10. Coyne, G. (2005): God's chance creation, in The Tablet 2005, Aug. 6. 11. Akyol, M. (2005): Under God or Under Darwin? Intelligent Design could be a bridge between civilizations. NRO 2005, Dec. 2. 12. Hameed, S. (2008): Bracing for Islamic Creationism. Science 322 (5908), 1637-1638. 13. Miller, J.D., E.C. Scott & S. Okamoto (2006): Public Acceptance of Evolution. Science 313 (5788), 765. 14. Koenig, R. (2001): Creationism Takes Root Where Europe, Asia Meet. Science 292 (5520), 1286. 15. Edis, T. (1994): Islamic Creationism In Turkey. Creation/Evolution 34 (1), 1-12. © 2009, Dustin J. Penn

III. Intelligent Design: The Latest Creationist Pseudo-Science

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism… ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."

- U.S. District Judge Jones, 20061

Summary

Evolution is not only problematic for religious fundamentalists, it is also unpopular among many who dislike its implications that God is distant and even unnecessary. The rise of a new form of creationism, called "intelligent design" (ID), has been popular because it retains a belief in a divine creation of humans, while abandoning fundamentalists' notions that the universe was created in six days and the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.2 ID's central claim is that life is too complex to explain by chance, and can only be explained by an "intelligent designer." This is merely a restatement of the for the , popular during the 18th and 19th centuries and the basis for Natural (see Section V.). In other words, ID advocates are creationists who have substituted the word "God" with "intelligent designer". Nevertheless, ID triggered a popular resurgence of creationism in the USA, and it has become a global movement. Creationists around the world have adopted the ID language in their efforts to introduce creationism into science classes. ID is a central part of more ambitious efforts to replace secular materialism with religious values.3 ID has recently collapsed as a viable strategy for creationists in the USA, however, because it has been tried in court and shown to be a non-scientific claim with religious objectives. This section provides an overview of the debates and controversies surrounding ID, which provide many revealing insights into creationists' opposition to evolution.3-6

Outline

1. The "Teach the Controversy" Strategy 2. The Dover Trial 3. ID: A Textbook Case of Repackaging Creationism as Science 4. 5. 6. The Wedge Strategy: ID is a Trojan Horse Attack on Secularism

1. The "Teach the Controversy" Strategy

One of the reasons that ID became so popular is that rather than trying to ban evolution, its advocates argue that ID and evolution should both be taught in schools (and let the students decide for themselves). In fact, the main slogan for promoting ID is "Teach the Controversy". The Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think-tank in Seattle, , and the hub of the ID movement, first promoted this slogan. The proposal to teach both evolution and ID seems reasonable to many, Figure 1. Teaching intelli- including the former U.S. President, G.W. Bush. The "Teach the gent design. Controversy" campaign exploited the fact that most people do not realize that ID is religion rather than science, and do not understand why religion or other supernatural claims should not be taught as science (Figure 1). The following sections explain why ID is a religion and not science.

2. The Dover Trial

In 2004, the school board in Dover, , required teachers to use an ID textbook in biology classes, called (see below). However, the teachers protested, and the students' parents filed a federal lawsuit against the school board (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)7. After a lengthy trial in 2006, U.S. District Judge Jones ruled that the Dover school board's mandate was unconstitutional and "ID is not science" for the following reasons (which are explained below in more detail):

ID violates the ground rules of science by relying upon supernatural rather than natural explanations. The central claim of ID, the argument for "irreducible complexity", is "a negative argument against evolution, not proof of intelligent design", and it is no different from the flawed arguments of so-called "creation science", which were shown to be religious in the 1980's. ID does not employ scientific research, and the expert testimony used to support ID has been refuted in many scientific, peer-reviewed studies.

During the Dover trial, the school board's own witnesses testified that ID is inherently religious, and admitted that accepting ID as science requires changing the definition of science to include supernatural explanations. Furthermore, it was shown that the religious objectives of ID advocates are explicit in their popular books.

Judge Jones concluded that ID is just re-labeled creationism with religious rather than scientific objectives, and he also pointed out that it is a deceptive tactic to introduce religion into public school science classrooms - and resulted in a waste of taxpayer's money.5

As a consequence of the Dover trial, ID has collapsed as a viable strategy in the USA. The trial also revealed some very interesting points about ID, and the following sections highlight some of the reasons that Judge Jones (as well as scientists and educators) conclude that ID is religious creationism and not science.

3. ID: A Textbook Case of Repackaging Creationism as Science

The ID movement has been an attempt to masquerade religious creationism as science from its very conception. The ID movement began in the 1980's at a Christian called the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) in Richardson, Texas. The president and founder of FTE, an ordained minister named Jon Buell, and his colleagues realized that using engineering terms rather than religious ones should help make creationism more sound scientific and respectable and help get it taught in public schools. FTE published a book called The Mystery of Life's Origins (1984; by C. Thaxton, W. Bradley, and R. Olsen) that argued that the origin of life cannot be explained by natural causes and requires a designer or intelligent agency. FTE then published another book, entitled Of Pandas and People (1989; by P. Davis and D. Kenyon, edited by C. Thaxton),8 as a textbook to be marketed to schools. Of Pandas and People was the first book to use the phrase "intelligent design" in its modern form, and by systematically changing the word "creationism" to "intelligent design" in the title and the text, FTE was able to market the book to public schools (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Of Pandas The book Of Pandas and People originally began as an unpublished and People manuscript entitled "Creation Biology" (1983), which was changed to "Biology of Creation" (1986) and then "Of Pandas and People" (1987), which was published in 1989. The most recent edition is called "The Design of Life." "Creation" was dropped from the title, and suddenly in 1987, there were other interesting changes made in the text.

Figure 3 shows how the words "creationism" and "creationist" (red) in the book were replaced with "intelligent design" (blue). A word processor was used to search and replace "creation" and "creationism" with "intelligent design"; "intelligent creator" was changed to "intelligent agency", and "creationists" was changed to "design proponents". In one case, the word "design proponent" was inserted into the middle of the original word "creationists," which Figure 3. Deception exposed became "design proponentists." It has been pointed out that this mistake provides evidence for the "missing link" connecting creationism to intelligent design. Amazingly, these changes in the text were made in 1987 - precisely after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "creation science" is a religious doctrine that cannot be taught in public school science classes (Edwards v. Aguillard). Thus, ID was invented as an intentional strategy to re-label creationism so that creationists' textbooks could be marketed to public schools.9

4. Irreducible Complexity

"Thus the creationist's favourite question 'What is the use of half an eye?' Actually, this is a lightweight question, a doddle to answer. Half an eye is just 1 per cent better than 49 per cent of an eye…"

- Richard Dawkins

The central idea behind ID is the claim that many features of life show "irreducible complexity" that cannot be explained by natural selection. In one of the main books promoting ID, Darwin's Black Box (1996), argues that some molecular structures of organisms will not function without a minimal number of interacting components, and natural selection is incapable of explaining such complexity, and we must therefore seek an "intelligent" (divine) explanation.10 He points to several complex mechanisms, such as the flagella of bacteria, blood clotting mechanisms, and the , as examples. After examining the evidence, and hearing testimony from expert witnesses from both sides, Judge Jones concluded that the argument for irreducible complexity is just a criticism of evolution rather than providing supporting evidence for intelligent design. Moreover, the argument for irreducible complexity can be ruled out by a massive amount of evidence, which ID advocates simply ignore (Figure 4).

Figure 4 (a). Figure 4 (b).

5. The Design Inference

ID is also based on the argument that life is too highly improbable to explain by chance, and therefore it provides evidence for intelligent design. William Dembski and other ID advocates call this argument the the Design Inference (see his 1998 book by this title). The "Design Inference" and "Irreducible Complexity" arguments, however, are both just reformulations of the age-old argument for the existence of God, called the "Argument of Design" (see Section V.A. Myth 6). ID advocates fail to understand that Darwin's theory of natural selection solved the Argument of Design as it provides an explanation for how the design-like properties of life can arise without an intelligent designer. This is precisely what makes Darwin's theory such a revolutionary and important concept in science. Furthermore, just because someone cannot imagine how complex could have arisen naturally, this does not necessarily mean that such traits could have only been created by a supernatural designer. Creationists Figure 5. The new creationism. have long claimed that the existence of complex organs, such as the vertebrate eye, cannot be explained by evolution because they cannot imagine that a half of an eye is of any use - and yet people actually function better with a partial eye versus no eye. If someone lacks the ability to imagine how a works, such as quantum theory, this does not mean that the theory is incorrect. Thus, it has been suggested that the "Argument of Irreducible Complexity" is better labeled the "Argument from Personal Incredulity".12 Other than using dressed-up versions of the Argument from Design, ID is indistinguishable from other forms of creationism.

6. The Wedge Strategy: ID is a Trojan Horse Attack on Secularism

The ultimate aim of ID advocates is not only to introduce creationism into public science classes: their larger goal is to replace secular, scientific materialism in society with conservative Christian beliefs and values. The hub of the ID movement, the Discovery Institute (a conservative Christian think-tank in Seattle, Washington), which promoted the "Teach the Controversy" campaign to create the impression that evolution is a controversial theory among scientists.13, 14 The institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, states its goals to "reverse the stifling dominance of the Figure 6 (a). The materialistic , and to replace it with a science consonant with Wedge Document.15 Christian and theistic convictions." It also includes its aim to "affirm the reality of God" and "renew" American by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian values (Figure 6).

In another popular book promoting ID, called "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds",16 P.E. Johnson states "If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this… We call our strategy the 'wedge'" (pp. 91-92). In the Wedge Document, Johnson explains "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools…"15

Thus, ID arose as a deliberate strategy to get around the law and insert creationism and other conservative religious beliefs into public school Figure 6 (b). "Trojan Horse science classes.7, 18 What is more disturbing is that ID was invented as a strategy".3 "Trojan Horse," and its ultimate aims are to replace scientific materialism with conservative Christian values and beliefs in society.3 The ID movement provides important insights into the general creationism versus evolution struggle.

Links References

1. U.S. District Judge Jones, 2006 2. Miller, J.D., E.C. Scott and S. Okamoto (2006): Public Acceptance of Evolution. Science 313 (5788), 765-766. 3. Forrest, B. & P.R. Gross (2004): Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford, Oxford University Press 2004. 4. Miller, K. R. (2008): : Evolution and the Battle for American's . New York, Viking 2008. 5. Scott, E. C. (2006): Not in our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools. Boston, MA, Beacon Press 2006. 6. Young, M. & T. Edis (eds.) (2004): Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Rudgers, N.J., Rutgers University Press 2004. 7. Jones III, J. E. (2005): Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Decision of the Court. 8. Davis, P. & D.H. Kenyon (1989): Of Pandas and People. Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) 1989. 9. Scott, E.C. (2007): on Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism. USA 2007, 1 hour. 10. Behe, M.J. (1996): Darwin's Black Box, 1st ed., New York, Free Press 1996. 11. Pallen, M.J. & J. Matzke (2006): From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella. Nature Reviews Microbiology 4 (10), 784-790. 12. Dawkins, R.A (2006): Devil's Chaplain: Selected Essays by Richard Dawkins. London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 2006. 13. Wikipedia (2009): Discovery Institute, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 288980669. 14. Wikipedia (2009): Teach the Controversy, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 286802260. 15. Discovery Institute (1999): The Wedge, Seattle, Discovery Institute 1999, 1-10. 16. Johnson, P. (1997): Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press 1997, 91-92. 17. Shermer, M. (2006): Why Darwin Matters: the Case Against Intelligent Design. New York, Times Books 2006. 18. Wikipedia (2009): Intelligent design, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 289404887. 19. Milner, R. et al. (2002): Intelligent Design? in Natural History magazine (2002). © 2009, Dustin J. Penn

IV. Creationism: the Evolution of Genesis and Other Creation Myths

"Creation myths have a place in education – but it's in the history lessons of secular schools, and nowhere else."

- Anthony C. Grayling, 20081

Summary

This section provides an overview of creationism, the belief that Genesis or other creation myths provide factual accounts for the origins and development of humans or other species (the word myth is used here to refer a or explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form. The word myth need not imply a falsehood, contrary to its more popular usage). Creation myths include religious accounts of gods, , and other supernatural phenomena. There are two separate accounts of creation in Genesis, and these stories originated historically from older myths of origin that have evolved over time. Today, there is a wide variety of creation myths, and many forms of creationism, and the various versions can be categorized according to the degree to which they accept scientific accounts of human origins (e.g., some creationists reject , paleontology, and biology, others only reject biology, whereas others only reject applying evolutionary biology to humans). This section also explains why Genesis and other creation myths should be taught in schools - but only as comparative religion or mythology and not as science. Science classrooms should not be used as a vehicle for promoting a particular , and whenever Genesis is taught, students should also be exposed to the diversity of creation myths that have evolved in different .

Outline

1. Creation Myths 2. Genesis: the Origins of Creationism 3. The Varieties of Creationism 4. Equal Time for The "Myth"? 5. The Dangers of Teaching Creation Myths As Science

1. Creation Myths

"In attempting to understand who we are, every human culture has invented a corpus of myth… We are cut off from our past, separated from our origins, not through some amnesia or lobotomy, but because of the brevity of our lives and the immense, unfathomed vistas of time that separate us from our coming to be… We humans are like a newborn baby left on a doorstep, with no note explaining who it is, where it came from… We long to see the orphan’s file."

– and Ann Druyan (1992)2

Creation myths are stories about how the universe, earth, humans, or other living things come into being, and they generally involve gods or other supernatural . Myths are traditional and religious stories that chronicle the activities of supernatural beings, ancestors or heroes. The gods may create the universe from nothing or work with materials that have always existed. Similarly, they may create humans or a group’s ancestors from nothing, shape them from clay, or give birth to them. The gods have human characteristics or they are spirits capable of taking human form. Creation myths may describe the origins of the gods themselves, adventures of their lives, and their activities in creating the universe. They also involve stories about heroes, conflict, revenge, treachery and other human intrigues. These stories are mostly oral, though many have been written down. For example, Hesiod’s Theogony (ca. 700 BC) describes the origins of the gods of ancient Greece. Ovid’s Metamorphoses is a narrative poem from 8 AD Rome that describes the creation and history of the world. The (written between 1500-1000 BC) is an ancient collection of Sanskrit hymns, and one of the oldest texts in any Indo-European language. It is part of Hindu mythology and describes the creation of the universe by the , and the propagation and destruction of life in the universe with two other , and Shiva.

There are many different creation myths around the world, and many share common themes, such as the following:3

Primordial Parents Creation Stories. "The universe was created by the first parents" (Cook Islanders, Egyptians, Greeks, Luiseño Indians, Tahitians, Zuni Indians)

Spoken Edict Creation Stories. "The universe was created by commands given by a god or gods." (Egyptians, Greek, Sumerians, Hebrews, Maidu Indians, Mayans)

Cosmic Egg Creation Stories. "The universe was created by the hatching of an egg" (Chinese, Finnish, Greek, Hindu, Japanese, Persians, Samoans).

Sea Creation Stories. "The universe was created from out of the sea." (Burmese, Choctaw Indians, Egyptians, Icelanders, Maui Hawaiians)

Slain Monster Creation Stories. "The universe was created from the parts of a slain monster" (Gilbert Islanders, Greeks, Indochinese, Kabyles of Africa, Koreans, Sumero- Babylonians)

Endless Cycle Creation Stories. "The universe was never created and will never cease to exist; it is eternal though as it passes an endless series of cycles" (Jainism in India)

Creation myths can be fascinating, entertaining stories, yet creationists take these tales literally and accept them as historical and scientific . Creationists do not accept all myths of origin as factual, but instead accept only a particular myth, and usually the one held by their family, society or religious group.

Myths of origin are among the most common stories told about gods, and therefore, they also have particular religious importance. Creationists hold their creation myth to be true, but moreover, they usually consider it to be sacred, i.e., holy, worthy of special , and sacrilege to question its validity.

It is not completely clear why people adopt and promote creation myths. It is often suggested that these stories are attempts to understand the world, told to satisfy children’s curiosity and provide moral lessons. Creation myths seem to be much more, however. Such myths are central aspects of the world’s religious institutions, and are used to represent a religious group’s worldview, societal norms, and moral values. As one anthropologist noted: "Origin myths provide answers to questions about how things began; equally important, they also serve to establish order among values and to justify, by reference to these values, the major customs and institutions of society." Thus, creation myths are used to explain, and to justify the status quo and provide legitimacy for certain norms and institutions within a society. This later aspect of creation myths helps understand the conflicts between creationists, who embrace the Judeo-Christian creation myth, versus scientists who attack it as false, and also why evolution is often misunderstood as a political attempt to justify the status quo.4

The term creationism is generally used in a narrow sense to refer to acceptance of the creation myth contained in the , the first of book of the Jewish and the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. Creationists hold Genesis to be an Figure 1. Where Do We Come From? accurate account of the origins of the universe, and many aim to also have this creation myth taught in public schools as the basis for chemistry, physics, geology, biology and other sciences. Such religious intrusions into science have lead to major disputes between science versus religion. To understand why such proposals are preposterous, it is necessary to consider what creationists’ believe and are seeking to have taught in science classrooms.

2. Genesis: the Origins and Evolution of Creationism

Genesis contains a creation myth, which like all myths, has changed over time. The origins of the stories in Genesis are unclear, as there are no Hebrew versions older than the 2nd century BC (except for the fragments among the Dead Sea scrolls). Most scholars agree that different authors made different contributions at different times between 950 and 500 BC. Some of the changes in Genesis have been historically documented, as it has undergone several translations. It was translated into Greek from Hebrew in the 3rd century BC, and later into Latin, which was then translated into English ( in 1611), and other , which has resulted in many alterations (e.g., "Genesis" means "birth" or "origin," and it was a Greek name given to the book that had previously been called "B’reshith," which is Hebrew for "in the beginning" following the opening sentence). These different versions of Genesis are part of the reason that there is no consensus among creationists about what this book actually states.5

In the beginning, Genesis explains how (meaning "God" or "Gods" in Hebrew) created the , earth, humans and all living things, though it actually contains two separate accounts of the creation. In the first account, Genesis 1:1, Elohim made the heavens and earth in six days, vegetation on the second, and humans on the last day. Elohim created both (which means "mankind" in Hebrew and adam is not used as proper name until chapter 5), and woman simultaneously, and Elohim says "Let us make man in our own image…."

In the second account, Genesis 2:4, Yahweh Elohim (Yahweh is often translated as "Lord," although it is actually the proper name of the Hebrew God) forms Man from the dust of earth, places him in a garden a place called "Eden," and then later forms Woman, from a rib he takes from Adam, to provide him with a companion (Figure 2). In this version, "no shrub of the field had yet appeared on earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up" Figure 2. Bosch's when God made Adam out of the dust. Due to such inconsistencies and painting: The Garden changes in style, the accounts in Genesis are thought to have come from two of Earthly Delights. separate creation myths written by different authors at different times. According to Genesis, had three sons, Cain, Abel (who is murdered by Cain), and , and it lists their decedents from Cain and then Seth, through eight generations, as they lead to the Israelites, the presumed audience of the narrative. Genesis states that Cain married, but does not explain who his or Seth’s wives were, or why Adam and his descendants were so remarkably long-lived (e.g., Methuselah supposedly lived to be 969 years).

Genesis (chapters 6-9) also contains a re-creation myth, as it explains how God is disappointed with his creation and attempts to start over again. God became angered at the wickedness and violence in the world, and decided to send a great flood to destroy humans. God found one man worth saving, , and instructed him to make an ark for his family, and the world’s animals (Figure 3). After the earth was completely flooded, all life outside the ark was destroyed. Noah’s family survived and seventy generations of his descendants are listed, which are said to have given rise to all the nations on Earth.

Various attempts have been made by religious fundamentalists to date the creation by adding up the descendants of Adam and Noah listed in Genesis. Figure 3. Noah's ark. Jews in the first estimated that creation occurred on October 7, 3761 BC (and this date is still used for the calculating the year in the Jewish calendar). Christians have made a number of estimates, and the most famous is 4004 BC, which was calculated by James Ussher, Anglican archbishop of Armagh, Ireland. Thus, many religious people believe the Earth was created only 6,000 years ago, which is remarkable given that this is approximately the time that metallurgy was invented and the Bronze Age emerged in the Middle East.

The stories in Genesis were probably adapted from earlier myths, rather than being created from nothing, and indeed they share striking similarities with other ancient Mesopotamian myths (the Israelites apparently adopted more than the Aramaic language from their Babylonian captors). For example, Enûma Eliš (Epic of Creation) is a Babylonian creation myth, dating back to at least the 12th century BC, which shares a number of similarities with Genesis. In both myths, the creation occurs through an act of divine speech ("And God said, let there be…"), the sequence of creation is identical (light, heavens, earth, then humans), and a divine rest follows the creation of humans. The Babylonian story, though, is mainly concerned with how the Babylonian god Marduk rose to supremacy above other gods. The story of Adam and Even in the garden of Eden shares similarities with Sumerian and Akkadian myths. Enki and Ninhursag for example, is in a garden with forbidden fruits and a women is created, named "lady of the rib," to heal the hero’s rib.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is an ancient Sumerian story (ca. 2000 BC, which makes it the oldest known creation myth) that contains a remarkably similar to the story of Noah’s Ark. In this story, the gods decide to flood the entire earth to destroy all life, but then Ea, the god who created mankind, warns the hero, Utnapishtim, about the gods’ plan. Ea instructs Utnapishtim to build a great boat and "take up into [it] the seed of all living creatures." The story of Noah in Genesis is suspected to have been adapted from this ancient myth, but on the other hand, Gilgamesh and these other Mesopotamian myths may have been copied from an earlier Hebrew myth, or perhaps they were all adapted from even earlier myths. The " record" of clay tablets and other writings containing Mesopotamian myths is not sufficiently complete to reconstruct their historical relations.6

Genesis is just one of many creation myths found in different , but it is an extremely influential myth as some version of this story is accepted by many Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Moreover, Genesis played an important role in the historical development of science (science and religion have not always been as separate as they are today). Scientific Revolutions, whether in astronomy, geology, or biology, have been controversial and revolutionary often because they challenged Genesis or other Christian . As science has continued to overturn Genesis, religious people have responded by developing new versions of creationism.7

3. The Varieties of Creationism

There are many types of creationism even within Judeo-Christian traditions. Some creationists interpret Genesis literally, but others view all or parts as metaphorical. The Catholic Church, for example, rejects a literal interpretation of the Bible, and officially views Genesis as largely allegorical (even if its followers may be literalists). More liberal-minded creationists reject literalism, and if they accept evolution, most still believe humans were created by God. There are many versions of creationism,8,9 which have emerged as people have attempted to reconcile religious faith in Genesis with advances in science. The various versions of creationism can categorized according to which scientific disciplines or theories they accept, and which they reject due to contradictions with their particular creation myth.10-13

1. Universal creationists accept Genesis or other myths of origin as factual. They hold that the entire universe and all forms of life were created by a supernatural being, and they reject any scientific evidence to the contrary (i.e., they reject astronomy, geology, paleontology, and biology). Such creationists are generally religious fundamentalists, and these include so-called Young Earth creationists who believe the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, based on adding up the descendants of Adam and Noah listed in Genesis.

2. Biological creationists accept scientific estimates for the age of the universe and the Earth, but do not accept natural explanations for living organisms. Such creationists include so-called Old Earth creationists, who accept astronomy and geology, but reject evolutionary biology and maintain that a supernatural being created all living organisms. These also include advocates of "Intelligent Design" (ID) creationisms, which was recently invented as a way to teach creationism in the public school system without mentioning the word "God". Its advocates claim that life was created by an intelligent designer, though not necessarily God, as the creator could be an extra-terrestrial alien or any imaginable intelligent agent. The evolution of Intelligent Design from creationism is documented in changes made to a single textbook (see Section III.). This group also includes Progressive creationists who accept scientific explanations for the evolution of life, but they reject natural selection, and hold that the evolutionary process was guided by God.

3. Human creationists accept evolution for all species with the exception of humans. They accept the natural sciences for explaining the entire , except for the human anatomy, brain, or behavior (and especially and ). Sometime during hominid evolution, evolution stopped and the human brain and behavior were specially created. Such beliefs are usually based on religious or other supernatural explanations, such as with Alfred Russell Wallace and Pope John Paul II. Yet, other human creationists may even reject supernatural explanations, and they just assume that human behavior is outside of evolutionary and other biological explanations. This group usually includes Marxists and other secular creationists who generally do not accept religious or other supernatural explanations, but opposes applying evolutionary biology to human behavior on political grounds. Thus, for both religious and political reasons, the human mind has been the "last citadel" for applying the principles of evolutionary biology (see Section V.).

4. Equal Time for The Flying Spaghetti Monster "Myth"

The diversity of forms of creationism poses a dilemma for creationists promoting the idea that creationism should be taught in science classes: which version of creationism should be taught, Old Earth, Young Earth, or just Intelligent Design creationism? And what about pagan, Hindu and other non-Christian creation myths? Why should these creation myths not receive equal time? And if school boards change the definition of science to include creationism, then what criteria should be used to decide whether a creation myth should be taught as science – if not science?

These dilemmas were poignantly illustrated by a recent parody of intelligent design creationism. After the board of education in Kansas decided that ID should be given equal time with evolution in science classes, Bobby Henderson protested this decision by inventing a new religion he called "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" (CoFSM). The church has a creation myth involving an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster that created the universe after drinking heavily (which, according to doctrine, explains the flaws in the Creation). The evidence for evolution, according to church doctrine was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster to test the faith of its followers, called "Pastafarians" (Figure 4). Henderson called for giving them equal time to teaching three theories in science classrooms around the world: "one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence." The CoFSM parody is credited for helping to halt other efforts to introduce ID into science classes, and it has become a symbol to represent the opposition to teaching ID. The CoFSM parody may unfortunately offend some creationists, yet it perfectly illustrates two profoundly important reasons why creationism should not be taught as science. First, creationists’ claim that life is the product of intelligent design or other supernatural processes has no more scientific support than Flying Spaghetti Monsters. These myths are not

Figure 4. Niklas Jansson's scientifically testable (or what predictions they make have of Michelangelo's The Creation of already been disproved), and therefore, they should not be Adam. taught as science.

Second, teaching Genesis creationism as science sets a dangerous precedent for religion dictating what is and what isn’t science. Teaching Judeo-Christian versions of creationism opens the door to more political and legal disputes because other religious groups will insist that their creation myth is also taught as science. For this reason, many religious leaders, as well as scientists, oppose teaching creationism as science to avoid political conflicts among religious groups. Similarly, the founders of the US Constitution were wise enough to insist on a separation of the Church and State precisely to prevent disputes among religious groups attempting to control government.

5. The Dangers of Teaching Creation Myths As Science

Thus, contrary to what is often assumed, there are many different creation myths. Greater awareness of the varieties of creationism helps to understand how science and creationism differ, and why creationism should not be not as a science. There is no reason why Genesis or other creation myths should not be taught in public schools; however, these stories belong in mythology or other non-science classes and they should not be disguised as science. As the founder of CoFSM, Henderson explained: "I don't have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science."

Not all religious groups are hostile to evolution, and in fact, some are remarkably open to science in general. As The Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, has admirably declared:

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for Figure 5. "A candle in the the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about dark".14 aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."

Unfortunately, creationists often assume precisely the opposite perspective, and expect science to confirm their religious beliefs. This is why evolution is mainly attacked where religious fundamentalism is strong. The attacks on evolution by creationists are a wake-up call for everyone – religious or secular – concerned about the future of science (Figure 5).

Links

References

1. Grayling, A.C. (2008): Making the connection, Guardian.co.uk, September 18, 2008. 2. Sagan, C. & A. Druyan (1992): Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors: A Search For Who We Are. New York, Random House 1992. 3. Shermer, M. (2002): Why people believe weird things: pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time, Rev. and expanded. ed. New York, A.W.H. Freeman/Owl Book 2002. 4. Wallace, A.F.C. (1966): Religion; an anthropological view. New York, Random House 1966. 5. Asimov, I. (1981): Asimov's Guide to the Bible: the Old and New Testaments, New York, Avenel Books Distributed by Crown Publishers 1981. 6. Sandars, N.K. (trans.): The Epic of Gilgamesh. London, Penguin 1972. 7. Brooke, J.H. (1991): Science and religion: some historical perspectives. New York, Cambridge University Press 1991. 8. Wikipedia (2009): Creationism, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 296855371. 9. Wikipedia (2009): Young Earth Creationism, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 289178298. 10. The Creation/Evolution Continuum 11. Wikipedia (2009): Eugenie Scott, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 292608569. 12. Wikipedia (2009): National Center for Science Education, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 295957422. 13. NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999 14. Sagan, C. (1995): The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark, 1st ed. New York, Random House 1995. © 2009, Dustin J. Penn

V. Myths and Misconceptions

A. General Misconceptions about Evolution

"Thus the creationist's question - 'What is the use of half an eye?' - is actually a lightweight question, a doddle to answer. Half an eye is just 1 per cent better than 49 per cent of an eye, which is already better than 48 percent, and the difference is significant."

- Richard Dawkins, 19951

Summary

There are many myths and misconceptions about evolution and this section provides an overview of the most common ones, especially those promoted by the intelligent design movement and other creationists. Misconceptions about evolution have been addressed by many scientists and educators, both religious as well as non-religious ones.2-10 The many misconceptions about evolution help explain its low acceptance by the public, especially when combined with the numerous misconceptions about the implications of evolution for humans. (See Section V.B)

Myths:

1. Myth: Evolution is a theory, not a fact 2. Myth: Evolution is scientifically controversial 3. Myth: Evolution cannot be observed or scientifically tested 4. Myth: The Earth is only 6000 years old, so there has not been enough time for evolution to occur 5. Myth: Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics 6. Myth: The complex, functional features of organs cannot be explained by evolution 7. Myth: Evolution is merely a random process and therefore cannot explain life 8. Myth: Darwin’s theory fails because it does not explain the origin of life and other mysteries of life

1. Myth: Evolution is a theory, not a fact

Creationists often claim that evolution is "just a theory," but such claims are misleading.7 Evolution is both a fact and a theory (the theory is Darwin’s theory of natural selection). However, evolution is not a theory in the colloquial sense of the word, which implies a mere hypothesis, conjecture, or speculation. Darwin’s theory is a theory in the scientific sense, which means that it is a comprehensive explanation strongly supported by evidence, and useful for making predictions. Other scientific theories include the Germ Theory, Atomic Theory and Quantum Theory, and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Scientific theories are not less than scientific laws, contrary to what is often assumed. Scientific laws describe facts whereas theories explain them. Darwin’s Theory, for example, explains the fact of evolution. It is crucial to understand that evolution — like all facts in science — remains open to question. This tentativeness of facts is a fundamental distinction between science and religion. This is precisely the reason that "intelligent design" and "creation science" are not sciences: no amount of will alter creationists’ faith in creationism. Thus, evolution is not "just a theory", in the usual sense of the word, and it is accepted as a fact by the vast majority of scientists. The "just a theory" claim is a misrepresentation that exploits the fact that scientists use the word theory differently than the general public.11-12

For example, a school board in Atlanta, Georgia (USA) placed disclaimer stickers on Biology textbooks to warn students that 13 Figure 1. Disclaimer stick- "evolution is a theory, not a fact" (Figure 1). The disclaimer was er.13 meant to appease more than 2,000 parents who complained about the absence of biblical creation in science textbooks. In 2005, a federal judge ruled that the disclaimers were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The board challenged the decision and then settled out of court: the board agreed to drop the disclaimers and to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees in the case. Nevertheless, the creationist lobby continues to promote the "just a theory" myth.

2. Myth: Evolution is scientifically controversial

Creationists often misrepresent evolution as "a theory in crisis".14 Evolution has long been accepted as an established fact among the vast majority of scientists. Scientists spend no more time debating the fact of evolution than the existence of atoms. Scientific controversies about evolution exist, and they can be heated, but these debates are over how – not whether – evolution occurs. For example, some scientists debate the relative importance of natural selection versus and other processes for explaining the evolution of life. The scientists involved in these debates, such as S.J. Gould (1941-2002), have voiced their objections to being misrepresented by creationists (Figure 2)11,16-18,21. Creationists continue to promote the myth that evolution is scientifically controversial as a Figure 2. Stephen J. deliberate strategy to raise doubts about evolution, just as corporate lobbyists Gould11,16-18,21 use this tactic to create confusion and doubts about the health risks of tobacco and due to fossil fuels.15 Evolution is controversial, but the debates are political rather than scientific, and creationists generate the controversies themselves.

3. Myth: Evolution cannot be observed or scientifically tested

Since creationists have failed to convince courts that "creation science" and "intelligent design" are legitimate sciences, they now assert that evolution is not a science either. In particular, they argue that no one was around to observe whether or how life originated, and therefore evolution is untestable. This claim is misleading for the following reasons. First, it misrepresents the importance of indirect evidence in science. Scientific facts come from both indirect and direct observations, and there is a great deal of indirect evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record. How can the fossil record potentially disprove evolution? J.B.S. Haldane, one of the founders of evolutionary biology, once pointed out that evolution would be disproved if someone discovered a fossil rabbit in the Figure 3. Experimen- Precambrian Era (i.e., millions of years before had even evolved). tally testing evolu- tion.23 Second, no one was around to observe the evolution of life, however, there is a tremendous amount of direct evidence showing that life continues to evolve. Scientists have recorded genetic changes over time in many species, such as the evolution of pesticide resistance in crop pests. A large and growing number of experimental studies, mostly with microbes and fruitflies, confirm evolution and Darwin’s theory (Figure 3). Some studies have even documented in the laboratory.22 Thus, evolution is testable, and it is supported by a massive amount of evidence, direct as well as indirect.

4. Myth: The Earth is only 6000 years old, so there has not been enough time for evolution to occur Creationists who promote this notion ("Young Earth Creationists") base their estimate of the age of the Earth on Genesis, and reject techniques that show the Earth is around 4.6 billion years old.24-25 The 4.6 billion years estimate comes from a large number of measurements using different dating methods, and there is no scientific controversy about this figure. There used to be a scientific controversy about the age of the Earth. In fact, one of the most important in the 1800’s was the age of the Earth. William Thomson (a.k.a. Lord Kelvin) estimated that the Earth was only 24 to 400 million years old, which if correct would have indeed posed a problem for Darwin. Thomson’s calculations turned out to be wrong, however (as it was Figure 4. Scientific dating techniques not yet known that heat from the sun is generated by radioactive fusion). Once radioactive dating methods were discovered, they showed that there has been more than enough time for evolution to occur. Thus, creationists' belief that the earth is only 6000 years old is not a trivial mistake, and as Richard Dawkins points out, it is like believing that the distance from New York to San Francisco is only 28 feet! Not all Creationists are Young Earth Creationists, and many other creationists accept the scientific estimates for the age of the Earth. These "Old Earth Creationists" realize that they have lost this battle and instead are focusing on other criticisms of evolution.

5. Myth: Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics

To make "intelligent design" and "creation science" appear to be science, creationists have increasingly been using scientific jargon. For example, creationists sometime argue that evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since the universe tends to decrease order () rather than increase order and complexity, creationists claim that evolution is inconsistent with the physics. However, the Second Law only applies to closed

Figure 5. No miracles systems, in which energy cannot enter a system, whereas the earth is an in Science! open system with energy provided by the sun and captured by plants in .26 Evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics any more than does photosynthesis. The "evolution-violates-the-Second-Law" notion misrepresents physics as well as biology.

6. Myth: The complex, functional features of organs cannot be explained by evolution

Creationists argue that the amazing complexity of living organisms cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution (or any other natural process), and can only be explained by a supernatural Creator. The idea that the complexity and design-like features of life provide evidence for design by a supernatural agent is called the "Argument from Design" or "teleological argument", and it goes back to and even ancient Greek philosophers.27 The most well-known version is ’s " " from his book, . Paley argued that if one found a watch in the woods, full of complex and intricate working parts, one would have to conclude that it was designed by a watchmaker. It could not have arisen by chance. Similarly, complex traits of organisms, such as eyes, are taken as evidence for purposeful design by a supernatural Creator. The Argument from Design once posed an important challenge for scientists, but Charles Darwin solved the problem. He recognized that although organisms are too complex to have arisen by chance, but his great insight was to discover Figure 6. Biological complexity a process–natural selection–that can explain the design-like features of life–without the need for any supernatural agent. For this reason, some suggest that Darwin’s theory is the single best idea that anyone has ever had.19,28

7. Myth: Evolution is merely a random process

Natural selection is often misunderstood as merely a chance process, and creationists often perpetuate this misunderstanding. Life could not have evolved by chance, and to explain why life is so improbable, the astronomer pointed out that if a tornado blows throw a junkyard containing all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray, that it would never create a fully assembled 747. Creationists mistakenly portray evolution by natural selection as a "tornado in a junkyard".29 Hoyle’s tornado-junkyard analogy is instructive to help understand why life is indeed highly improbable and demands a special explanation. Darwin recognized the problem and he provided the solution, but creationists fail to understand that his theory of natural selection is not a random process. On the contrary, natural selection is, by definition, non-random survival and reproduction; it is the antithesis of chance. The reason why natural selection is sometimes misunderstood as a chance process is that it requires , which is random with respect to . Subsequently, most are harmful and quickly eliminated by selection, but some mutations are beneficial. By favoring the beneficial mutations, natural selection generates adaptive evolution changes through a gradual and cumulative process.

Nevertheless, creationists continue to misrepresent evolution and natural selection as merely random processes. They also misrepresent Hoyle because he actually made his famous "747 from a tornado" scenario to explain why (origin of life through spontaneous generation), rather than evolution, is so improbable.

To help conceptualize how natural selection works in a cumulative fashion, Richard Dawkins wrote a highly instructive computer program, which has been dubbed "the ".28,30 It is obvious that an randomly pushing keys on a typewriter will never produce the complete works of Shakespeare, even if given millions of years. He will not even be able to produce the short sentence "Methinks it is like a weasel", as the Figure 7. Dawkins' "Weasel Program". probability of producing this small sequence of characters by randomly typing is extremely low (the number of possible combinations in this sequence is 2728, or about 1040, which is not likely to be achieved within the age of the universe, even by the fastest computers producing random sequences). Yet, the probability that the ape will produce at least one correct letter in this sequence is quite high. Using a computer program to generate random sequences, replicate them to produce ‘progeny,’ and allowing random errors at each generation (mutations), one will still never produce the sentence. However, if the program allows selection to occur at each generation, so that only sequences containing the ‘correct’ mutations are allowed replicate, then it only takes a few seconds (or 43 generations) to produce the correct sentence (Figure 7)! Similarly, natural selection produces adaptive evolution through the accumulation of small mutations in DNA and protein sequences.

8. Myth: Darwin’s theory fails because it does not explain the origin of life and other mysteries of life

Creationists’ criticisms of evolution are claims about its supposed shortcomings, and have not proposed any scientific alternatives to Darwin’s theory, and these shortcomings are completely misrepresented. For example, the origin of life continues to be a mystery to scientists, and creationists often use scientists’ inability to explain life’s origins to invalidate evolution all together. Creationists are apparently unaware that a great deal has been discovered about the origin of life, and these findings are amazing. They show that the gap between non-living molecules versus simple forms of life (such as viruses) is not as insurmountable as generally assumed, and that the Figure 8. Exper- conditions on primitive earth were conducive to the formation of the organic iments on the molecules that provide the building blocks of life. Furthermore, have origins of life. found RNA molecules capable of self-replication and undergo natural selection in the laboratory. Creationists claim that evolution is false because it fails to explain a variety of other aspects of life (e.g., human , freewill, , language, morality, and altruism). Yet, evolution has shed much light, if not already explained many of these problems. Even if evolution does not explain the origin of life or other such mysteries, this does not rule out the possibility of another scientific theory will (in other words, a failure of evolution does not prove creationism). Evolution does not explain everything, and probably never will, but nevertheless, it has been incredibly powerful for explaining the mysteries of life, which is why it continues to provide the theoretical foundation for all the biological sciences.

Other General Misconceptions Promoted by Creationists:

There are no transitional to link major groups of animals (or humans to other species).31 Natural selection is a tautology (based on ): the fittest are the ones that survive, and those that survive are considered the fittest. Evolution is often misunderstood as suggesting that simple organisms will inevitably become more complex or become humans. For example, creationists often ask, 'If evolution is true, why then are there still monkeys?' (see ) Natural selection might explain small evolutionary changes (), but not the origin of new species (). Mutations are only harmful and cannot improve organs (see 7. Myth above). Evolution is a religion.32

Links

References

1. Dawkins, R. (1995): : A Darwinian View of Life. New York, Basic Books 1995, p.77. 2. Godfrey, L.R. ed. (1984): Scientists Confront Creationism. New York City, W.W. Norton & Company 1984. 3. Kitcher, P. (1983): Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Boston, MA, MIT Press 1983. 4. Scott E.C. & N. Eldredge (2005): Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Berkley and Los Angeles, CA, University of California 2005. 5. Shermer, M. (2006): Why Darwin Maters: the Case Against Intelligent Design. New York, Times Books 2006. 6. Futuyma, D.J. (1995): Science on Trial: the Case for Evolution. Sunderland, MA, Sinauer Associates, Inc. 1995. 7. Miller, K.R. (2008): Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for American's Soul. New York, Viking, New York 2008. 8. Ayala, F.J. (2008): Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion. Washington, D.C, John Henry Press 2008. 9. Giberson, K. (2008): Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. New York, HarperCollins 2008. 10. Pigliucci, M. (2002): Denying Evolution: Creation, , and the Nature of Science. Sunderland, MA, Sinauer 2002. 11. Gould, S.J. (1981): Evolution as Fact and Theory, Discover 2 (5), 34-37. 12. Ruse, M. (1983): Creation-Science is not scienceCreation-Science is not science, in Creation, Science, and the Law: The Arkansas Case, edited by M.C. La Follette. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press 1983, 150-160. 13. Wikipedia (2009): Selman v. Cobb County School District, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 280567568. 14. Denton, M. (1985): Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, Adler & Adler 1985. 15. Goozner, M. (2008): The uncertainty principle, 2660, 48-49. 16. Wikipedia (2009): , in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 289404682. 17. Wright, W. (1999): Born That Way: Genes, Behavior, Personality. New York, Routledge 1999. 18. Alcock, J. (1998): Unpunctuated equilibrium in the Natural History essays of Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution and Human Behavior 19, 321-336. 19. Dennett, D.C. (1995): Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New York, Simon and Schuster 1995. 20. Dawkins, R. (2006): A Devil's Chaplain: Selected Essays by Richard Dawkins. London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 2006. 21. Catalano, J. (2001): The Gould Files: Writings related to the ongoing debate involving Stephen Jay Gould and others. 22. Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg (1992): Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory, Evolution 46 (4), 1214 (1992). 23. Wikipedia (2009): , in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 223611671. 24. Wikipedia (2009): Age of the Earth, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 285324071. 25. Wikipedia (2009): Young Earth creationism, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 289178298. 26. Wikipedia (2009): Second law of thermodynamics, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 288877369. 27. Wikipedia (2009): Teleological argument, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 284346392. 28. Dawkins, R. (1986): : Why the Evidence of Evolution reveals a Universe without Design. New York, W.W. Norton 1986. 29. Perloff, J. (1999): Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism. Arlington, MA, Refuge Books 1999. 30. Wikipedia (2009): Weasel program, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 287764581. 31. Wikipedia (2009): Transitional fossils, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 287856382. 32. Dawkins, R. (1997): Is Science a Religion? The Humanist 57, 1997, Jan./Feb. © 2009, Dustin J. Penn

V. Myths and Misconceptions

B. Myths about Evolution and Human Affairs

"In the distant future I see open fields for far more important . Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history."

- Charles Darwin, 1859 [Chapter XIV]1

Summary

The opposition to evolution mainly stems from concerns about its moral, religious and political implications. Darwin anticipated that the main resistance to evolution would be applying evolution to humans, which is why he avoided the topic in his book, Origin of Species. Evolution indeed has profound implications for our species, but these are widely misunderstood. Creationists often misconstrue evolution as morally dangerous. The opposition to applying evolution to human behavior in academia has been more from the political left than religious right. Many scholars assume that evolution is politically dangerous, and fear that Darwin’s theory is an excuse for social inequality and oppression. Despite enormous resistance, evolution is increasingly being integrated into the social sciences and , and applied to better understand and address human health and ecological sustainability. The integration of evolutionary biology into the social sciences is not as controversial as it used to be, and the debates are shifting more to how rather than whether evolution applies to humans. This section addresses common misconceptions about applying evolution to humans, and the implications of Darwin’s theory for human affairs, especially those that generate unnecessary opposition to evolution.

Myths:

1. Humans are just another 2. Evolution justifies inequality 3. Evolution justifies eugenics 4. Evolution contributed to Holocaust 5. Evolution destroys morality 6. Evolution inevitably leads to atheism 7. Human behavior is explained by culture, not evolution 8. Applying evolution to human behavior is genetic determinism 9. Evolution undermines efforts to change 10. Evolution destroys purpose and meaning

1. Myth: Humans are just another animal

Many are unwilling to accept that evolution applies to humans because they mistakenly assume that it denies human uniqueness and dignity. Evolution emphasizes our animal origins and our similarities with other species, challenging the widely assumed human/nature dichotomy2 (Figure 1). Evolution provides a valuable perspective as the similarities we share with other species are too often ignored (and the differences are too often exaggerated). Most of the traits once assumed to be unique to humans have been found in other animal species, including culture, tool-use, morality, , personality, complex communication, and social intelligence. However, evolution does not imply that humans are not special among animals. Our species'

Figure 1 (a). Figure 1 (b).3 unusual social complexity, oral and symbolic communication, and social learning are extraordinary by any measure. Rather than reducing human dignity, an evolutionary perspective can equally help to appreciate our differences, and elevate our appreciation, admiration, respect, and empathy for other species. The impressive intelligence and other cognitive abilities of other animals have inspired ethologists to raise concerns about animal consciousness and suffering. Some even support extending certain "human rights" to chimpanzees and other great . (If this idea seems extreme, imagine the ethical quandary we would face if Homo erectus, Neanderthals or other more closely related Hominid species were still around today. Regardless of ones' position on animal rights, evolution helps to understand both our similarities and differences from other species, and it does not reduce human dignity.

2. Myth: Evolution justifies inequality

One of the most common objections to evolution is that Darwin’s theory has been misused to excuse and other aspects of social inequality and oppression. It is true that Darwin’s theory has been misused by some to rationalize social inequality in the past, but this was a mistake. SO-called "Social Darwinists" mistakenly assumed that if "" is nature’s way, it ought to be our way (Figure 2a).

However, this is not the perspective of modern evolutionary thinkers (nor Charles Darwin). Ought does not automatically follow from is, and attempts to justify ought directly from is are known as the "appeal to nature" or the "naturalistic fallacy". Something is not good or ethically justified just because it is natural. For example, infectious diseases are natural, but this fact does not make them good or ethically defensible. Additionally, social Darwinists (unlike Darwin) failed to recognize that Figure 2 (a). sympathy, altruism and other moral sentiments are just as natural as competition Social Darwin- and aggression. Thus, accepting Darwin's theory does not require accepting social 6 ism. Darwinism. Part of the reason Darwin’s theory is often mistaken as supporting social inequality is the misleading label "". It was (1820-1903) rather than Charles Darwin who promoted social Darwinism, and therefore, some suggest that "social Spencerism" is a more appropriate label for his (Figure 2b).

The unfortunate abuse of evolution by social Darwinists is often used by critiques to argue that evolution does not – or should not – be applied to human behavior, but Figure 2 (b). this claim is mistaken for several reasons. First, misusing Darwin’s theory (or any Herbert Spencer. scientific theory) is unfortunate, but it does not make the theory false. Second, appeals to nature have been misused to excuse the status quo long before Darwin, and are still common, even among opponents of evolution (e.g., is often condemned by creationists because they claim it is unnatural). Thus, the problem is the naturalistic fallacy and not evolution. Third, a better understanding of human behavior (what is) can help to understand and resolve political and ethical debates (what ought to be). For example, evolutionary analyses help to understand why humans cause climate change and other ecological problems, and how these problems can be addressed more effectively. Unfortunately, it is a popular misconception that deriving ethical statements from facts (ought from is) is necessarily fallacious, when if fact it is an inextricable part of any ethical argument. Darwin’s theory helps understand human behavior, but it does not justify inequality or oppression. Darwin’s theory helps explain the evolution of compassion and altruism, as well as selfish greed, inequality, and oppression, and therefore, it can just as well be used to understand how to make more effective social policies aimed to reduce social inequality and address other concerns of the liberal left.4, 5

Charles Darwin adopted Spencer’s phrase "survival of the fittest", but he was not a social Darwinist. Darwin addressed concerns that the "weak in body or mind" are no longer eliminated in modern societies; however, he concluded that calls to ignore their plight are hopelessly unrealistic, as they go against our species’ social and moral for sympathy – "the noblest part of our nature"7. Thus, "social Spencerism" is arguably a more appropriate label for Spencer’s philosophy than "social Darwinism".

3. Myth: Evolution justifies eugenics

Whereas social Darwinists advocated ignoring the needs of the poor and sick, others have promoted active intervention by government and other institutions to guide . Eugenics, in the broad sense, refers to efforts to improve human genetic qualities (infanticide, prenatal screening, genetic counseling, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering), and in the narrow sense, it refers to using forced sterilization, euthanasia, or even murder.8 Eugenics was originally developed by Sir (1822-1911) (who was Darwin’s cousin) (Figure 3a).

Many prominent scientists and politicians initially supported eugenics, especially in the U.S., where a number of states had eugenics programs. Contrary to what is often assumed, however, eugenics was mainly popular among progressive political liberals rather than conservatives. Eugenics eventually lost support and it was abandoned for several reasons.6 First, for many traits there is no objective way to decide which are "desirable" and which are "defects" – or who decides such questions – and by the 1930’s, some scientists raised concerns about possible Figure 3 (a). Sir exploitation to justify class and racial prejudices. Second, eugenics lost its Francis Galton.9 popularity in the U.S. after many abuses of forced sterilization. Third, after Nazi Germany implemented eugenics to "improve intelligence and racial purity", most scientists wanted to distance themselves from the field as much as possible (Figure 3b). It would be difficult to overemphasize the effect that the atrocities in Nazi Germany had in turning social scientists against biology, genetics, and evolution. Recent advances in medical genetics, however, are making eugenics controversial once again. Darwin’s theory is important for efforts to understand human evolution and the consequences of our interventions, but its findings do not excuse or justify Figure 3 (b). Nazi propaganda forced sterilization. On the contrary, evolutionary analyses of human behavior help poster. understand why people should be on guard against social dominants attempting to control their reproduction.

4. Myth: Evolution contributed to Holocaust

Some creationists blame Darwin for and , but such claims are completely unfounded (Figure 4).10 Hitler was surely exposed to popular versions of Darwin’s theory, which may have reinforced his notions of racial purity (in those days, evolution was popularly misconstrued as a struggle among human races). However, Hitler did not use evolution to justify his goals. Darwin’s theory is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the Holocaust. Evolution was more widely accepted in other countries than Nazi Germany, where people had very different interpretations than racism and . Moreover, there have been many atrocities against Jews in Europe before Darwin, and mass murders of other religious, ethnic and racial minorities throughout history. In fact, the mass murders in the Stalin’s USSR, China, and Cambodia were committed by left-wing Marxists, who were generally unaware or opposed to Darwin’s theory and eugenics. The causes of the Holocaust and other acts of genocide are not well understood, though nationalism played a major role (Nazis were motivated by ethnic nationalism and anti-Semitism). Even if Darwin’s theory had inspired the Nazis, this would not make the idea false (see the moralistic fallacy above), nor imply that censorship is good idea. Censoring all the ideas that influenced the Nazis would require censoring other scientific theories, environmental ethics, and religion. Hitler never cited Darwin to justify Nazi ideology, though he did cite his religious beliefs. For example, in Mein Kampf, Hitler stated, "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord".11

The Darwin-Hitler myth is promoted by , a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute – a hub of the Intelligent Design Movement. In his book, : , Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, he argues that Darwinism was at the core of Nazism, though he recognizes that "it would be

Figure 4. Creationism propaganda.12 foolish to blame Darwinism for the Holocaust." Historians and other scholars point out that Weikart fails to provide any evidence that Darwin’s theory influenced Hitler or played an important role in the rise of Nazism.13

5. Myth: Evolution destroys morality

"The clear implication [of evolution] is that people are just animals, so there is no right or wrong. It teaches that all evolutionary has been made by some at the expense of others. Highest success comes to those who will step on, grind down and, if necessary, destroy others."14

Creationists blame Darwin’s theory for a variety of social ills. It is often claimed that "If we teach children they are animals, they will act like animals." Tom DeLay, a former member of the US House of Representatives and House Majority Leader (2003-2005), suggested that the tragic massacre at Columbine High School was due to schools teaching evolution: "Our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup."

Evolution challenges pre-Darwinian ideas about the origins of humans and morality; however, it does not deny the existence of morality or prescribe how people ought to behave (see 2. Myth above). On the contrary, evolutionary research has supported Darwin’s idea that human morals are more than just arbitrary 'social constructions', and instead argue that humans have genetically determined moral instincts that evolve by natural selection.15, 16 Evolutionary analyses aim to better understand human morals, and determine why people often behave altruistically.

Evolution challenges assumptions that morality requires supernatural explanations (the goal of science is to find natural or material explanations), but contrary to what is often assumed, evolutionary research does not conclude that "might makes right" or "nice guys finish last". Evolution has been misrepresented to support oppression and social inequality, however, all scientific fields (and also ) have the potential to be misrepresented for political ends. Evolution is not unique or even unusual in this sense. Therefore, Figure 5. : it is important address the implications of evolution and other sciences for "The Dangers of humans, and to be vigilant about misrepresentations of science for political 17 Evolution". purposes. This is the reason that scientists oppose creationists’ efforts to remove evolution from public schools, and political efforts to keep evolution out of the social sciences and humanities.5, 9

6. Myth: Evolution inevitably leads to atheism

Evolution does not necessarily lead to atheism, contrary to what creationists often assume. Some scientists, such as Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan, are critical of religion and emphasize the contradictions between scientific versus religious claims.18, 19 Other scientists, such as Stephen J. Gould, maintain that science and true religion are not in conflict, but rather occupy separate realms of human understanding.20 Some scientists believe in God, and some believe that God was responsible for evolution (Figure 6).

In the USA, approximately 60% of scientists express doubts or disbelief in God, which has been constant from 1914 to 1996, whereas among the most prestigious scientists in the USA (members of the National Academy of Sciences), disbelief has risen from 70% to 93% during this same time.21 This means that 40% of scientists have religious beliefs in God, and this percentage has remained stable: approximately 40% of scientists believe in Figure 6. Theistic evolu- both evolution and an active deity,21 and about 40% believe in tion and a God that answers .22 So, although most scientists are atheists or agnostics, atheism is not universal among scientists, or among the general public that supports evolution. One of the reasons that creationists fear that evolution fosters atheism is due to the common assumption that atheism leads to ; however, this is also a myth: atheists (and evolutionists) are no more likely to commit or otherwise act immorally than religious individuals.23

7. Myth: Human behavior is explained by culture, not evolution

One of the reasons for the opposition to applying evolution to explain human behavior is due to confusing proximate versus evolutionary analyses.9, 24 Most research on behavior, like the rest of the biological sciences, is aimed at unraveling the proximate mechanisms that control behavior, and such as brain and neurosciences, cognitive psychology, etc. To understand how such mechanisms evolved, other scientific fields investigate ultimate or evolutionary analyses (i.e., , , behavioral ecology, ). These disciplines are often controversial partly because evolutionary explanations are often mistaken as proximate mechanisms. For example, to understand human menopause, most researchers study the hormonal and other physiological factors that trigger menopause, but attempts to explain its evolution should not be mistaken as alternatives to these proximate explanations (Figure 7a).

Such confusion is especially easy for human behavior, as evolutionary explanations are often misunderstood as psychological motivations. For example, there are several ideas to explain how altruistic behaviors toward relatives (nepotism) and non-relatives evolve by enhancing an individual’s own evolutionary success, but these ideas are often misunderstood as arguments about psychological motivates (Figure 7b). Similarly, it is often claimed that rape has nothing to do with sex Figure 7 (a). because it is motivated by aggression, which mistakenly pits an evolutionary explanation (sex) for a proximate one (aggression). Aggression may very well be the proximate motive or cause of the behavior, but this would not rule out the possibility that it evolved as a reproductive behavior or a by-product of other functional reproductive behaviors. Such misunderstandings are complicated by the fact that evolutionary analyses are also mistaken as attempts to provide excuses or justifications for selfish greed, rape, and other immoral behaviors Figure 7 (b). (see 2. Myth above).

Such misunderstandings are often due to the fact that evolutionary researchers often use as a short-hand way of communicating their models that treat genes as purposeful agents acting in their selfish interests. When combined with the numerous misunderstandings about the role of genetics in behavior (see below), some get the mistaken idea that genes are the source of Sigmund Freud’s unconscious (and ulterior) motives in the brain.5 8. Myth: Applying evolution to human behavior is genetic determinism

Much of the opposition to applying evolution to human behavior has been due to misconceptions that it requires erroneous notions about the way that genes influence behavior.9 The "nature- versus-nurture" debate has been scientifically resolved for decades, and all agree that behavior is a phenotype, and like all phenotypes, the development or of behavior is controlled by both genetic and environmental influences. One cannot separate how much of an individual’s phenotype is due to genes versus the environment (just as one cannot partition a cake into the portion due to the recipe versus its ingredients). Similarly, it is a mistake to debate how much of an individual’s behavior is instinctive versus learned (since learning itself is an ). On the other hand, differences among individuals can be attributed to genetic (or environmental) causes. When geneticists report that a trait is "heritable", this means that some proportion of the variation in the trait is due to genetics. Such interests evolutionary researchers because such variation is necessary for a trait to evolve by natural selection. However, some have mistaken evolutionary analyses as supporting the obsolete naturists’ view of development (i.e., the myth of ‘genetic determinism’).

To add to the confusion, critics of evolutionary research often advocate the obsolete nurturist’ position ('environmental determinism'), and deny that genetics influences human behavior.25 Genetics (and Darwin) were kept out of the social sciences for decades and replaced with environmental determinism’ and other versions of the "Blank Slate" model of human nature (Figure 8).5 This

Figure 8. Sigmund Freud, James Watson, and situation has changed, as several evolutionary disciplines B.F. Skinner are bridging the gap between the biological and social sciences, which are helping to understand how genes and the environment interact to influence human behavior, and how social learning and other aspects of culture can potentially influence evolution.9

9. Myth: Evolution undermines efforts to change

Social scientists are interested finding ways to change behavior and society, and many have erroneously assumed that evolutionary sciences are obstacles to such efforts, and perhaps this is the main reason that applying evolution to humans has been so controversial. It is often assumed that if undesirable aspects of human behavior – such as aggression, selfishness, greed, philandering, nepotism, rape, and racism – are "natural" or "biological" that they would be justified (see the naturalistic fallacy; Misconception 2 above). The problem, however, is that many have concluded that behaviors that ought not to be natural, cannot be products of natural selection. Such reasoning is called the "reverse naturalistic fallacy" or "moralistic fallacy". If the darker aspects of human nature are "biological", it is often assumed it is pointless to try to change them (Figure 9).

Again, one does not have to reject scientific Darwinism to reject social Darwinism and the naturalistic fallacy. Just because a behavior is natural, this does not mean that it cannot be modified – or that political aspirations for change are a waste of time. The brighter sides of human nature, such as learning, empathy, trust, kindness, and altruism, ethics, and morality, also evolved by natural selection. Humans are cable of making behavioral and social changes – not despite human nature – but Figure 9 (a). Franz Boas, (b) because natural selection favored the evolution of learning and other Margaret Mead (center).5, 26 mechanisms that allow behavioral and social changes. The moralistic fallacy provides another example of how the opposition to applying evolution to human behavior has been more political than scientific. 10. Myth: Evolution destroys purpose and meaning

Many people accept evolution for other species, but like Pope John Paul II they draw a line at humans (such ‘human creationists’ usually object to applying evolution to the human brain and behavior) because they assume it removes purpose and meaning from our lives. The notion that Darwin’s theory destroys meaning and purpose is a mistake.27

The fallacy is assuming that we have no purpose or meaning in our lives unless the process that created us – and the human brain – was also purposeful (i.e., a supernatural God with a plan). In other words, this assumption confuses two levels of analysis, as it mixes up ultimate causation (how our brains came about) with proximate causation (how our brains work) (see Misconception 6 above). A scientific and Darwinian world view is perfectly compatible with efforts to seek a Figure 10. E.O. higher purposes in life, including humanitarian efforts to reduce poverty and 29-32 Wilson. disease, concerns for animal suffering, and efforts to protect the Earth’s . Darwin’s theory does not destroy meaning, purpose or the beauty of life. On the contrary, many share Darwin’s view that "There is grandeur in this view of life" (The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 429), even more beautiful and inspirational than traditional myths.28

Links

References

1. Darwin, Ch. (1859): The Origin of Species. London, John Murray 1859. 2. Gould, S.J. (1977): A Matter of Degree, in Ever Since Darwin. New York, W.W. Norton & Company 1977. 3. Gould, S.J. (1977): Bushes and Ladders in Human Evolution, in Ever Since Darwin. New York, W.W. Norton & Company 1977. 4. Singer, P. (2000): A Darwinian Left. H. Cronin, O. Curry, Eds., Darwinism Today. Yale, Yale University Press 2000. 5. Pinker, S. (2002): The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York, Penguin Putnam 2002. 6. Degler, C.N. (1991): In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought. New York, Oxford University Press 1991. 7. Darwin, C. (1871): The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London, John Murray 1871. 8. Wikipedia (2009): Eugenics, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 289001747. 9. Ridley, M. (2003): Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human. New York, HarperCollins 2003. 10. Ruse, M. (2008): “Darwin and Hitler: a not-very-intelligent link”. Tallahassee Democrat. Tallahassee Florida 2008, Feb. 6). 11. Hitler, A. (1999): Mein Kampf. R. Mannheim ed. New York, Mariner Books 1999. 12. Wikipedia (2009): Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 289315574. 13. Wikipedia (2009): Richard Weikart, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 282673014. 14. Scientific Facts & Evolution at evolution-facts.org 15. de Waal, F.B.M. (1996): Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Press 1996. 16. Ridley, M. (1996): The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation. New York, Penguin 1996. 17. Hovind, K. (2009): Kent Hovind FAQs The TalkOrigins Archive. 18. Sagan, C. (1996): The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York, Ballantine Books 1996. 19. Dawkins, R. (2006): . Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 20. Gould, S.J. (1999): Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, 1st Ed. New York, Ballantine 1999. 21. Larson, E.J. & L. Witham (1997): Scientists are still keeping the faith. Nature 386, 435-436. 22. Witham, L. (1997): Many scientists see God's hand in evolution, in Washington Times, 1997, Apr. 11, pp. pA8. 23. Paul, G.S. (2005): Cross-national correlations of quantifiable societal health with popular religiosity and secularism in prosperous : a first look. Journal of Religion and Society 7. 24. Alcock, J. & P. Sherman (1994): The utility of the proximate-ultimate dichotomy in ethology. Ethology 96, 58-62. 25. Harris, J.R. (1998): The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do. New York, Simon & Schuster 1998. 26. Freeman, D. (1998): The Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead: A Historical Analysis of Her Samoan Research. Boulder, CO, Westview 1998. 27. Dennett, D.C. (1995): Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New York, Simon and Schuster 1995. 28. Dawkins, R. (1998): : Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company 1998. 29. Wilson, E.O. (1975): Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press 1975. 30. Wilson, E.O. (1978): Introduction: what is sociobiology, in Sociobiology and Human Nature. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass 1978. 31. Wilson, E.O. (2001): The Future of Life. New York, Alfred Knopf 2001. 32. Wilson, E.O. (2006): The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth. New York, W. W. Norton 2006. © 2009, Dustin J. Penn

VI. Endorsements of Evolution

"If scientists do not oppose antievolutionism, it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak… [and] further reduction of scientific literacy is not something we should passively let happen."

– Eugenie Scott, 20001

Summary

This section provides an overview of the numerous endorsements of evolution (and opposition to creationists' political activities) from scientists, educators, court decisions, governments, and even religious organizations. It also provides links to other sites where interested readers can read these endorsements of evolution, and obtain additional information about the increasing efforts to defend evolution (and science) against the creationist lobby.

Outline

A. Statements from Scientific, Educational and Scholarly Organizations

B. Courts and Government Support for Evolution

1. Court Decisions in the USA 2. Council of Europe Opposes Creationism

C. Support for Evolution by Religious Groups

1. Religious Leaders and Organizations 2. Religious scientists

A. Statements from Scientific, Educational and Scholarly Organizations

Scientific and other scholarly organizations around the world have made statements in support for evolution and opposition to teaching creationism as science.

In the USA, the National Academy of Sciences in the USA states "unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level".2 Also in the USA, a coalition of 17 organizations, that includes the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association, is calling on the to become more involved in promoting science education, and especially evolution.

Around the world, more than 68 scientific and scholarly organizations have made statements in support for evolution and opposition to teaching creationism as science.3

B. Courts and Governmental Support for Evolution

1. Court Decisions in the USA In the USA, most courts - including the U.S. Supreme Court - have ruled that states cannot ban the teaching of evolution and cannot teach creationism as science in public schools (see Section IV.). Here are two prominent examples:

1968: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against laws prohibiting evolution and ruled that teaching creationism in public schools would violate the separation between Church and State (Epperson v. Arkansas).4

1987: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "creation science" is not a science and instead an effort to advance a particular religious belief (Edwards v. Aguillard)5.

2. Council of Europe Opposes Creationism

In October 2007, the Council of Europe urged its (47) member governments to "firmly oppose" the teaching creationism as a scientific discipline.

The Committee on Culture, Science and Education initially wrote a draft resolution entitled "The Dangers of Creationism in Education." It pointed out that "creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design,' is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes." It warned that proposals suggesting that evolution and creationism should both be taught together would be "disastrous" for science, "even if they may seem appealing and tolerant. The intelligent design theory annihilates any research process. It identifies difficulties and immediately jumps to the conclusion that the only way to resolve them is to resort to an intelligent cause without looking for other explanations."6

The initial draft was rejected due to opposition from creationists; however, the Parliamentary Assembly subsequently voted in favor of promoting evolution as a "fundamental scientific theory" and to "firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution." It concludes:

"If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe…. The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements… some advocates of creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy."7

C. Support for Evolution by Religious Groups

Science does not - and should not - depend on endorsement from religious groups. Nevertheless, it may be interesting for religious readers to learn that evolution is such a firmly established scientific fact that many religious groups and leaders accept evolution - and are increasingly speaking out against the creationists' efforts to teach creationism in science classes.

1. Religious Leaders and Organizations

"We are convinced the masses of evidence render the application of the concept of evolution to man and the other beyond serious dispute".

- Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 19828

Creationists are often surprised to learn that many religious leaders and organizations support evolution and actively opposing religious intrusions into science classes by creationists. Here are some notable examples:

In 1996 Pope John Paul II acknowledged that the scientific evidence provides a "significant argument in favor of the theory [of evolution]."

In the UK, Rowan Williams, the and head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, declared that the idea of teaching creationism in schools is a mistake.

Most Hindus and Buddhists have no objections to evolution, and in 2005, the Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, admirably declared that "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."

Christian clergy from many different traditions have written An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science to declare their support for evolution (signed by 10,876 people as of 31 Aug. 2007):

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among other' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. …we urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."

2. Religious scientists

It is commonly known that most scientists are not religious, and many of the greatest popularizers of science, such as Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, emphasize the discrepancies and contradictions between science and religious faith. Yet, some scientists hold religious beliefs of some kind. In fact, in the USA, 40% of scientists have religious beliefs in God, and this percentage has remained stable from 1914 to 1996. Thus, being a scientist and evolutionist do not necessarily require atheism.

Interestingly, some of the most outspoken scientists who promote public support for evolution include religious scientists. These ambassadors of science write books to explain why they feel that evolution is compatible with their religious beliefs. For example, Professor Francisco Ayala is a and professor at the University of California, Irvine, who has written several books defending evolution, including Darwin and Intelligent Design, and Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion. Similarly, Professor Kenneth R. Miller is a biologist at Brown University, Rhode Island, who has written Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.

The main point here is that, contrary to what the creationist lobby often claims, evolution is not a conspiracy concocted by atheists hostile to religion (and, moreover, accepting evolution does not lead to immortality). Many scientists are religious or at least began their scientific work with religious beliefs, including Charles Darwin himself (who, before his famous voyage, originally planned to become a minister of the church).

Links

References

1. Scott, E.C. (2000): Not (Just) in Kansas Anymore. Science 288 (5467), 813-815. 2. The National (1999): Science and Creationism. A View from the National Academy of Sciences. Second Edition: National Academy Press. 3. Statements from Scientific Organizations 4. Wikipedia (2009): Epperson v. Arkansas, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 312869172. 5. Wikipedia (2009): Edwards v. Aguillard, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 269428034. 6. Statement by the Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe (PACE): Committee on Culture, Science and Education, 26 June 2007 © 2009, Dustin J. Penn

VII. Improving Education and Public Understanding of Evolution

"Broadening the support for Darwin’s view depends not so much on accumulating more scientific evidence as it does on getting more people to understand the nature of science itself."

- Garrett Hardin, 19841

Summary

Despite the many endorsements of scientists, educators, court decisions, and other efforts to support evolution, public understanding of evolution is still woefully lacking. Even university graduates generally do not understand evolution, and many believe that early humans lived with dinosaurs. Many cannot answer the questions "what is evolution?," "what is DNA?", and do not realize that bacteria can evolve resistance to antibiotics and insects evolve resistance to pesticides. Moreover, there have been no signs of improvement in public understanding and acceptance of evolution in the past 25 years (see Section I).

Therefore, many scientists and educators urge making substantial changes in how evolution is taught, especially in introductory courses.2-4 Below is a summary of the main changes being proposed:

1. Place greater emphasis on evolution. Evolution is often placed at the end of biology textbooks or omitted from other college texts. Evolution needs to be better integrated into medicine, social sciences and humanities.

2. Directly address creationism, rather than ignore it and hoping that it will go away. Educators should take up the challenge and "teach the controversy" just as creationists have been suggesting.

3. Reduce the amount of factual material and focus on key conceptual points, common misconceptions, and critical-thinking skills.

4. Place greater emphases on controversial issues and practical matters to engage students' interest and show the relevance of evolution for their own lives and the importance for humanity (e.g., medicine, environment, and human behavior).

5. Emphasize the scientific process with a historically rich curriculum, and address the differences between science versus intelligent design and other pseudo-sciences.

6. Replace (or augment) traditional lectures and instead engage students in participatory, student-centered discussions (this approach doubles the amount that physics students learn compared to standard lectures and laboratories).

Educators have generally focused their concerns and criticisms to religious creationism, and yet, secular and political resistance to evolution is widespread in the humanities, social sciences (sociology, economics, psychology, and anthropology), and medicine. This situation is changing, as more educators recognize the need to integrate evolution (and the rest of the biological sciences) into medicine and social sciences to better address the challenges facing us in the 21st century. Therefore, in addition to teaching the usual facts and theory about evolution, educators also need to address misconceptions about the implications of evolution for humans. This is critical because the resistance to evolution is often due to political, as well as religious, misconceptions about the implications of evolution for humans (see Section V.). Links

References

1. Hardin, G. (1984): Scientific creationism-marketing deception as truth, in Science and Creationism, edited by A. Montagu. New York, Oxford University Press 1984, 159-166. 2. Hillis, D.M. (2007): Making evolution relevant and exciting to biology students. Evolution 61 (6), 1261-1264. 3. Alters, BJ. & C.E. Nelson (2002): Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution 56 (10), 1891-1901. 4. Wilson, D.S. (2005): Evolution for Everyone: How to Increase Acceptance of, Interest in, and Knowledge about Evolution. PLoS Biol. 3 (12), e364.