This article was written by one of my professors, I would like everyone to read it and I am sorry for the length of it, but it is well written. This article addresses a few points that we have been debating over. - Phaedrus
The Cobb County Creationism battle: Should alternate theories be taught along with Evolution?
________________________________________________________________________
Dr. David R. Schwimmer
During this past month, Georgia and much of the Nation have learned about a battle over science education that raged in the school board of Cobb County. If this were a rural Georgia county, it might not attract much attention; but, being a gentrified suburb of the Atlanta Metro area, the events in Cobb Co. have great impact. Letters already appearing in the Ledger-Enquirer show that the outcome of this contest has begun to spill over into Columbus, and we can predict that the controversy will eventually land squarely on our school board.
The specific contest in Cobb Co. was whether alternatives to Evolutionary Theory could be allowed (not required) in the county’s public schools. The wording of the final resolution, passed by the board on September 26th, can be summarized by this quote from the resolution:
“…the Cobb County School District believes that discussion of disputed views
of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education,
including the study of the origin of species. This subject remains an area of
intense interest, research, and discussion among scholars….”
It goes on to state that this policy neither restricts the teaching of Evolution nor promotes the teaching of Creationism.
The resolution may seem fair and reasonable because it appears to promote the spirit of balance and open inquiry that Americans applaud. However, this same policy has scientists and educators all over the state and nation concerned, frustrated, and militant. Many hundreds of PhD biologists, geologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, and others scientists have signed petitions or written personal letters to the Cobb County School Board deploring the resolution. Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences (with 170 Nobel Laureate members), the American Astronomical Society, The Geological Society of America, and other major scientific societies have published formal denunciations of the policy. Why are these scientists and others so angry? Are we so afraid of competing ideas?
In this article, I would like to frame this controversy as “Frequently Asked Questions” on Evolution and the alternatives. Of course, I do this from the viewpoint of a conventional scientist working in a field that deals squarely the history of life on earth—and clearly I have my philosophical biases. I can’t pretend to do an adequate job of presenting the “Intelligent Design” or “Creationist” arguments, but I will try to frame the questions in such a manner that the reader can at least understand where conventional scientists are coming from. The following FAQ’s are arranged in the order in which they are most frequently asked of me.
“Question 1: Evolution just a theory; shouldn’t other theories also be examined in science classes?
This basic question is critical to the subject, so please allow a bit of lecturing. The term “theory” is used in entirely different ways by technical scientists and by the public. (Don’t take my word for it, check any dictionary). We all know the everyday definition, which is “an idea” as in “it’s just a theory.” That would never apply to the scientific definition, which is some variation of “the best explanation of a phenomenon, based on observations, experimentation and reasoning”. Many philosophical books have been written about the nature of scientific theories, and none of them deals with “just an idea.”
The Theory of Evolution is a legitimate scientific theory, as are Atomic and Electromagnetic Theories in physics, the Germ Theory in medicine, Plate Tectonics Theory in geology, and many other pillars of modern science. If a person ever claims “evolution is just a theory,” you may be sure that person is either unaware of the concept, or is playing fast and loose with the truth. “Just” and “theory” cannot be used in the same definition in science rhetoric.
Now, are there other scientific theories dealing with the history of life, besides Evolution? (If they exist, I believe they should be taught in science classes.) Specifically, are “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism” legitimate scientific theories? So far, the answer is no, as the next set of questions will address. These two notions are “theories” in the popular sense, that is “just ideas,” but definitely not in the scientific sense.
Question 2: The alternatives to Evolution proposed to the Cobb Co. Board are “Intelligent Design Theory” and “Creation Theory:” what are they?
Intelligent Design (I.D.) is based on the central concept that most life forms are too complex to have evolved by random or non-directed processes. One key aspect of this argument is “irreducible complexity,” which claims that the makeup of many organic structures is so critical, that were any component missing, the entire thing would not work. One may ask, how can such structures as bird’s wings, vertebrate eyes, bacterial flagella, etc., evolve gradually? Many of the publications supporting I.D. are detailed, esoteric, and use mathematical models to prove the complexity of life and the unlikelihood of randomness in its occurrence. Some I.D. proponents accept the majority of evolutionary reasoning, except for the part that assumes the process results from undirected natural phenomena. Other I.D.-ers believe that an ”Intelligent Designer” has micro-managed nearly every detail of nature.
“Biblical Creationism” has been around for centuries, whereas “Creation Science” dates to ca. 1950; both are shades of the idea that all life on earth was specifically created by God, within a literal week at the beginning of the earth. Most mainstream Creationists also believe that the earth is no more than around 6400 years old and is located at the center of the universe. Further, the leading “Creation Science” Institutes aggressively support the concept that the entire fossil record derives from Noah’s Flood, and that all surviving life derives from individual pairs of animals transported on Noah’s Ark (except, perhaps, the fish).
Question 3: Why aren’t “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism” valid scientific theories?
The answer is threefold: first, because there is no legitimate published data to support either idea; second, because the reasoning behind both concepts lies outside the realm of science; and third, because most of their arguments are based only on negative reasoning.
On the first point, certainly many lengthy books and articles have been written in support of both concepts, including many published critiques of evolutionary. But none of these, to date, constitutes the type of evidence that can be used to elevate a popular notion to a scientific theory. To explain this I must clarify what is meant by “legitimate” published data.
In the sciences (including medicine and engineering), professional workers publish their significant findings in peer-reviewed (also called “refereed”) journals. The reasoning behind this is that technical science, being very complex and specific, requires colleagues at the same level of expertise and knowledge as the author to scrutinize a proposed publication for errors of logic or method before it is accepted for journal publication. The science community understands this is a form of censorship; but, it is censorship intended to suppress poor methods and poor quality, not to suppress unpopular results.
This peer-review process has served us well for the past 150 years. Consider, for example, how you would feel about your doctor trying out a new procedure or medication that he learned from the National Star, or Cosmopolitan, rather than, say, the peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine. Now, it may be surprise many people following the Creation/Evolution controversies to learn that, to date, no peer-reviewed publications have ever documented any aspect of either Creationism of Intelligent Design “theories:” none, period.
One of the strongest evidences that there is little or no substance to these alternate ideas on life history is the fact that some professional scientists who decry evolution (see Question 6) and somehow fail to publish on those same ideas in the refereed journals, still publish on non-evolutionary aspects of science in the peer-reviewed literature. One has to ask why they are not confident enough to submit “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism” information to professional scrutiny? Why do they publish anti-evolutionary ideas only in the popular press?
The real reason that Creationism and I.D. articles are not peer-reviewed is because of the second flaw in their philosophical nature: they are based on assumptions about the supernatural, whereas modern science must be based on the natural. The concept of modern “Supernatural Science” is an oxymoron. (Which is not to say that the supernatural is impossible but, rather, that it is outside the realm of scientific analysis.) For example, how can we presume to understand the mechanics of the Earth, or the motions of the stars, or the chemistry of matter, if the laws of nature may be suspended by supernatural forces? (This was the problem with Alchemy, Medieval medicine, and pre-Copernican astronomy). Recognizing these limitations, the modern proponents of “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism” have carefully omitted the word “Divine” from either name in order to attempt an appearance of naturalism. Ironically, many public supporters of Creationism and I.D. bring up having God in the science curriculum, while the professional supporters of these notions shy away from the same topic because they know it is anathema to science.
The third fatal flaw is that “Creation Science” and “I.D. Theory” are based mostly on negative attacks on Evolution. For example, Creationists doubt the information about the earth’s age known by geologists, doubt the chain of relationships among organisms documented by biologists, and seriously doubt the close physical and ancestral relationships of apes and humans observed by anthropologists. Intelligent Design theorists doubt that natural events alone could cause the complexities of life. Nevertheless, even if these negative arguments were grounded in firm data, all that would be proven is that Evolution is invalid. Neither alternative would be proven true by this line of reasoning. This follows because there are innumerable additional “origins” arguments and legends, including those of indigenous natives on every continent as well as more recent ideas such as intergalactic “Panspermia.” None of these is any more or less reasonable scientifically than is “Intelligent Design” or “Creationism” in the absence of actual, positive data.
Question 4: But isn’t Evolution a “Theory In Crisis” since many PhD scientists question Darwinism?”
The short answer is “not at all.” This argument is roughly equivalent to proposing that rocket science is no good because we have an occasional accident and no one has yet landed on Mars. Going back to the nature of scientific theories, they are, by their design, supposed to be modified as new information arises. In the case of Darwin’s original ideas, one must keep in mind that they are over 140 years old! Imagine if students were taught ca.1859 physics, or medical practice of days before antisepsis, antibiotics or anesthesia. Yet, critics attack Darwin as if he both began and ended our knowledge of evolutionary theory.
Every technical critique of evolutionary theory in the professional journals has been about details of the theory, rather than about the concept as a whole. For example, we recognize today that evolution may proceed much faster than Darwin envisioned, or it may not occur in some groups for extended periods of geological time (such creatures often called “living fossils,” including alligators and sharks). It is also recognized today that natural selection may not be the only driving force behind evolution, in contrast with Darwin’s ideas. For example, natural catastrophes may have a major effect on the course of life history (such as the asteroid impact that ended the reign of dinosaurs). But, my colleagues in paleontology, organismal biology, and related sciences, have never critiqued the basic framework of evolutionary theory. The “crisis” is perceived only by opponents.
Question 5. If Evolution is a scientific theory, what kind of evidence is there and how can you know what happened in the past?
A simple summary of “Evolutionary Theory” is that new species and higher groups arise from older forms over time, and that most or all life forms have common ancestry. It is the fact of evolution that life has changed throughout earth’s history: we have a superabundant fossil record to prove that. Of course, we cannot go literally back to the prehistoric past to see events transpiring, but we have abundant, material evidence of past events. My discipline of paleontology is based precisely on that material evidence, and molecular biologists, botanical and biological systematists, and other scientists deal every working day with evidence of the interrelationships of living organisms.
I am often asked to “describe the evidence for evolution.” This is akin to describing the evidence for microorganisms causing infections. One hardly knows where to begin because the amount of data available is staggering. There are perhaps a hundred and fifty peer-reviewed journals, in English, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, etc., (many entitled “The Journal of Evolutionary …..”), publishing data on the evolutionary relationships of specific groups of organisms. Assume ten articles appear per issue, six or more issues per year, 150 journals averaging perhaps 20 to 50 years of publication each, and you get a sense of the volume of documentation we have for the facts of evolution.
One “test” of Evolutionary Theory bears on my personal research, so I will describe it in some detail. It is widely accepted by evolutionary science that dominant forms of life characterize various times of earth history (for example, the Mesozoic Era was the “Age of Reptiles” and we now live in the “Age of Mammals.”) When I first moved to Columbus, the sedimentary rocks of the region were dated by prior study to the Mesozoic Era, but no dinosaurs or other “ruling reptiles” (pterodactyls, etc.) had been found here. Based on the assumption that local rock of Mesozoic Age might contain dinosaur and related fossils, I predicted they might be found here, and they were. Had I found modern mammal fossils in those Mesozoic rocks, I would have created a significant problem with Evolutionary Theory. By passing the test, the theory achieves another confirmation and more factual data. Neither I nor countless other paleontologists find significant occurrences of life forms out of chronology (i.e. dogs do not appear before algae and sponges in the fossil record, nor do people appear before monkeys). Independently, molecular biologists have discovered that the genomes of higher organisms can be grouped into relationships that parallel their assumed evolutionary histories. Likewise, animals often bear signs of their ancestries as vestigial organs (e.g. the hind legs of primitive whales), which support independent assumptions of their evolutionary ancestries. Note that these are positive evidences for evolution, not negatives about Creationism.
Question 6. Why have many scientists recently signed statements opposing “Darwinism”?
This may seem an anomaly indeed, unless we closely examine who we are talking about. First, I doubt anyone really knows how many “anti-evolutionary” scientists there really are. For example, I have before me the latest issue of Acts and Facts from the “Institute for Creation Research.” I have received these mailings for over 20 years, and they no doubt include me in their lists of “scientists in support of Creationism” (for the record, I did not request the mailings).
However I have met a handful of anti-evolution PhD Scientists, and I am sure there are hundreds I do not know. Who are they? An examination of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism coming from the “Discovery Institute” (the leading organization sponsoring I.D. before the Cobb County Board), is revealing. (And, note, the statement refers to “Darwinism,” not Evolutionary Theory!) This document was alleged signed by over 100 scientists, listed by degrees, titles and specializations. It looks impressive, until one considers that the majority have degrees in physics, chemistry, math, and medicine. In fact, the originators of modern “Creation Science” were Henry Morris, a civil engineer, and Dr. Duane Gish, an organic chemist. “Intelligent Design Theory” was largely formulated by Dr. Phillip Johnson, a law professor, Dr. William Dembske, a mathematics professor, and Dr. Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry. None, except, perhaps, Dr. Behe, deals professionally with actual aspects of life. As a paleontologist, I may have strong opinions about the relationships among the teeth of extinct reptiles, but I do not presume to advise dentists about doing root canals.
Returning to the “Discovery Institute” statement, I observe that there are no paleontologists or physical anthropologists I can identify among the names, and a great many of the biologists are Emeritus professors (i.e. retired), or have unusual affiliations (for example, many are at “Biola University” and the biologists include some at “Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences,” “Dordt College,” Cedarville University” “University of Steubenville,” etc.). What are conspicuously rare in this document are working biologists and other life scientists from mainstream universities. I am sure some of the scientists signing this statement are knowledgeable individuals who, for some reason, just cannot accept the Theory of Evolution. That was my impression of several unusual geological scientists I have met and chatted with, including some of the better-known PhD anti-evolutionists. I won’t presume to explain their motives; but, I can state that every such person I have met was openly deeply religious.
Skeptics have and will exist in all fields of science. For example, some working geologists held out against the Theory of Plate Tectonics for a decade after it became mainstream thinking. And, as of the late 1990’s, there were still trained virologists who doubted the causal link between HIV and AIDS. Sometimes the skeptics perform a service by forcing mainstream scientists to carefully examine our models and consider the philosophical roots we profess. Sometimes skeptics only slow down understanding or progress. But where non-supported skepticism impedes the education of children, I believe we must be very careful and wise in our actions.
