No. 161 “. the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (II Corinthians 4:4). May 2002 EVOLUTION VERSUS THE PEOPLE by Henry M. Morris* President Bush’s important Elementary strongly endorsed by such key Democrats and Secondary Education Bill, H.R. 1, as Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, and was signed into law (P. L. 107–110) on passed the Senate by a vote of 91–8. The January 8, 2002. It contained the follow- bill itself passed by 87–10. It had previ- ing statement, representing the “sense” ously passed the House. The Senate/ of the Congress.1 House Conference Committee then was The Conferees recognize that a qual- subjected to much negative pressure by ity science education should prepare the evolutionary establishment and finally students to distinguish the data and moved the amendment in the Conference testable theories of science from re- Report to a place in the “Joint Explana- ligious or philosophical claims that tory Statement.” However, it left its lan- are made in the name of science. guage essentially unchanged. Where topics are taught that may Eugenie Scott, representing the evo- guarantee controversy (such as bio- lutionary establishment, put an evolution- logical evolution) the curriculum ary “spin” on this statement, interpreting should help students to understand it to say that “teachers do not have to al- the full range of scientific views that ter how they teach evolution as a result exist, why such topics may gener- of the Education Bill.”2 ate controversy, and how scientific Most others, however, including Sena- discoveries can profoundly affect tor Santorum himself, understand it dif- society. ferently. He writes: The above language was intended to My amendment was included in the encourage classroom discussion of all the final version of the bill, H.R.1. Spe- scientific arguments, pro and con, about cifically, the amendment expresses evolution. It was originally offered in the the sense of the conferees that a qual- form of an Amendment to the Senate ity science education should prepare Education Bill, introduced by Rick students to distinguish the data and Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) following his testable theories of science from re- visit to 150 schools of his state, listening ligious or philosophical claims that to recommendations of the teachers, par- are made in the name of science.3 ents, administrators, and students of these Among Santorum’s earlier “talking schools. points,” when introducing and promoting Senator Santorum’s amendment was his amendment, was the following: *Dr. Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of ICR. a My amendment simply states that it Furthermore, most people who still is the sense of the Senate that hon- believe in evolution do so because their est intellectual debate and the teach- teachers and the media repeatedly have ing of consistent scientific principles assured them that all scientists are evo- should include the evidence for and lutionists, but they have little or no knowl- against materialism, intelligent de- edge themselves of the actual evidence. sign in biological and “scientific” This “problem” is all blamed on “Chris- education. tian fundamentalists” who are respon- Thus, the bill clearly encourages sible for “creating a situation that has led teachers to include the scientific evidence to a dumbing down of evolution educa- against evolution in classes where evo- tion in U.S. science classes,”7 so they say. lution is being assumed. As Senator One proposed remedy for this situa- Santorum indicated: “National opinion tion is to have universities celebrate Feb- surveys show . that Americans over- ruary 12 as Darwin Day. There now ex- whelmingly desire to have students learn ists “an international Darwin Day the scientific arguments against, as well organization presided over by Richard as for, Darwin’s theory.”4 Dawkins which coordinates efforts on Massimo Pigliucci, a biologist who dozens of university campuses to put has actually taken part in several creation/ some sanity back into our science edu- evolution debates says in the journal Evo- cation.”8 By “sanity,” Professors Pigliucci lution: and Dawkins presumably imply more As unbelievable as it may seem, poll naturalism and secular humanism. Both after poll not only confirms that only men are atheists, and so are Eugenie Scott about 10% of Americans believe that and most other leading evolutionists. evolution occurs, but also that about Another suggestion is to downplay the a third of high school biology teach- origin of life as an evolutionary event and ers rejects the theory of evolution.5 focus on just the origin of species. The origin of life itself has proved too intrac- Evolutionists like Pigliucci find it “un- table to deal with naturalistically. believable” that so many Americans— even biology teachers—reject evolution! For example, the contents of volume What has gone wrong, they ask. 54 (2000) of Evolution comprise 192 One arrogant explanation for this situ- primary research articles, but not one 9 ation is that most people cannot under- that concerns the origins of life. stand the nuances of evolution. In fact, practically all the articles in Despite the acceptance of Darwin’s the journal Evolution deal merely with ex- ideas by most thoughtful individu- amples of variation (such as different als, nearly half of the general popu- varieties of dogs and cats), though they lation in the United States rejects call it evolution. Creationists have no them.6 problem with microevolution, except for its misleading name. Of course evolution- Note the implication that people who are ists believe by faith that these small hori- “thoughtful” believe in evolution. How- zontal variations, if they continue long ever, there are now thousands of fully enough, will evolve into significant ver- credentialed scientists, as well as thou- tical changes, or macroevolution. sands of well-educated and thoughtful people in other fields who have become The creationist tactic of falsely sepa- creationists in the past half-century. rating micro from macroevolution b has led to science teaching standards minded evolutionary teachers will now that include language about adapta- recognize and act on this fact. tion and natural selection while But don’t count on it. As the Bible has omitting language on common de- said: “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid scent.10 to them that are lost: In whom the god of The fact is, of course, that adaptation this world [that is Satan, who is very and natural selection are observable pro- powerful, and very deceptive] hath cesses in the real world, whereas com- blinded the minds of them which believe mon descent of two or more distinct kinds not, lest the light of the glorious gospel from some different ancestral kind is not. of Christ, who is the image of God, should Real evolution from one kind to another shine unto them” (II Corinthians 4:3,4). kind is based on faith, not observation. Endnotes Evolutionists often repeat their own 1. Congressional Record-House (Decem- statement of faith that evolution is a sci- ber 18, 2001) H 9951. ence. Michael Shermer, for example, in- 2. NCSE Resource, “Santorum Amendment sists that “the theory of evolution is a sci- Stripped from Education Bill,” p. 2. The entific theory, not a religious doctrine. It author, Dr. Eugenie Scott, is Director of 11 the National Center for Science stands or falls on evidence alone.” Education, the more or less official If that were really so, it would have action center for anti-creationism. fallen long ago, because the scientific 3. Rick Santorum, form letter, February 5, evidence (that is, observable, repeatable 2002. evidence) is altogether absent. 4. Rick Santorum, statement issued on There are literally scores of books December 18, 2001. available today, written by knowledge- 5. Massimo Pigliucci, “Defending able scientists, showing that there is no Evolution, as Strange as it Seems” valid scientific evidence for evolution. Evolution (vol. 56, No. 1, 2002), But evolutionists ignore them. p. 206. 6. Arthur M. Jackson, “Celebrating For those unwilling to read a large Darwin Day,” The Humanist (vol. 62, book, we have a small booklet, The Sci- January/February 2002), p. 46. entific Case Against Evolution, which 7. Ibid. documents from scientific evolutionary 8. Pigliucci, op. cit., p. 207. Arthur sources alone the fact that evolution did Jackson assures us that celebrating not occur in the past, does not occur in Darwin Day “has grown significantly to the present, and could not occur at all. become an international event” Apparently they won’t read this either. At (Jackson, op. cit.) p. 46. least, no one has tried to refute it. 9. Michael F. Antolin and Joan M. Herbers, The evidence that evolutionism is re- “Evolution’s Struggle for Existence in America’s Public Schools,” Evolution ligion and not science is easily under- (vol. 55, December 2001), p. 2381. stood by anyone. No wonder the polls 10. Ibid., p. 283. Note the quixotic title of show large numbers in favor of includ- this article. Are creationists really ing creation teaching in our public making evolutionism struggle for its schools. In effect, our Congress and the existence? They have never tried to ban President have now officially recognized evolution, but only allow creation in as this fact, via the Santorum amendment an alternative. in the new education bill. 11. Michael Shermer, Why People Believe We hope that both the many creation- Weird Things (New York: W. H. ist biology teachers and also many open- Freeman, 1997), p. 135. c CAN THE SMALL CHANGES WE SEE ADD UP TO THE BIG CHANGES EVOLUTION NEEDS? by John D.