|
 It would be premature to say that evolution, or Darwinism as it is
often called, is approaching extinction but, it just may be making its
way toward the endangered species list. Given that Darwinism has had
pretty much of an exclusive reign within the public school system for
most of the last century and certainly since the 1925 Scopes trial which
was somewhat of a watershed event in the creation - evolution
controversy, the slippage is significant.
What's behind evolution's potential slide from dominance in our public
schoolrooms? Here's a perspective on this unfolding saga.
Most of the leaders of our educational and scientific institutions today
are heavily invested in the philosophies of naturalism and materialism
and are, accordingly, deeply committed to the evolutionary paradigm. The
materialistic naturalistic roots of our education system go back at
least as far as John Dewey. This does not imply that all, or even most,
of our current leaders in science and education are atheists. It merely
makes the point that the roots of philosophical naturalism, materialism
and evolutionism which pervade and influence our public education system
are grounded in the doctrines of religious humanism which is explicitly
atheistic.
It is not particularly surprising that, in contrast to the general
public, many of the current leaders in the scientific and educational
communities are inclined toward atheism or agnosticism as well as
philosophical naturalism and materialism. This is explained, in part, by
the fact that they are products of an education system that has been
designed to produce people who believe in naturalism and evolutionism.
For the most part, the educational establishment presents a naturalistic
evolution-only model of origins and expects the uncritical acceptance of
this doctrine by students.
The naturalism/evolutionism-only philosophy of our education system is
often defended by pointing out that evolution is always presented as a
"theory" of biological origins, not as scientific "fact." On analysis,
this is a rather hollow feign at objectivity when no alternative theory
is taught or even allowed in our public school science classes. It is
not just "a" theory of biological origins; it is "the" only theory of
origins allowed. Non-evolutionary models of origins are rejected on
philosophical grounds so evolution stands unchallenged in the classroom.
Articles and textbooks usually present evolution as if it were
established scientific fact so attempts at semantic obfuscation will not
hide the fact that evolutionism is generally treated as fact in the
public school science classroom even if it is called a "theory."
The concepts of philosophical or metaphysical naturalism have so
inspired our current ruling generation of educators and scientists that
the very concept of science itself has been redefined to incorporate it
as part of the definition of science. By incorporating naturalistic or
materialistic philosophy into the definition of what we can now call,
neo-science, it follows that evolution is the only scientific model of
origins because, it is the only naturalistic model of origins.
The only alternative model of origins would be creation or intelligent
design but such models of origins are ruled out of order because they
don't fit the definition of neo-science---they require the super-natural
involvement of a creator or a designer at some point so theoretically
can't be considered "scientific" because they are not entirely
"naturalistic." Philosophical naturalism precludes super-naturalism so
neo-science wins the creation vs evolution debate, by definition without
ever having to actually debate. Evolution masquerades as science because
it is defined to be so, creation is religion or, at best, non-science
because it is defined to be so - and that settles the debate. There is
no need for the presentation, discussion and comparing of scientific
evidences if the conclusion has been determined in advance of the
debate.
Today, people are asking why is it necessary to inject the
non-scientific philosophical bias of naturalism or materialism into the
definition of science? What was wrong with the old idea of science where
scientists could study everything and come to an informed conclusion
based on "all" of the evidence? Shouldn't science be the search for
truth, wherever it may be found? Why should a philosophical restriction
be established to limit the findings and conclusions scientists might
come to in any scientific investigation?
Most people are not unaware of the fact that many of the scientists upon
whose science today's neo-scientists build their science, were
religionists and creationists. The names Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Faraday,
Pasteur and many others come to mind. It fact, it can be demonstrated
that a Christian world-view, which included the concept of a rational
creator who created a rational universe, did far more to advance science
than it did to hurt science. Thousands of working scientists today are
creationists or advocates of intelligent design. These are men and women
who hold the same scientific degrees from the same universities as the
ruling class of scientific and educational academia. If thousands of
scientists look at the evidence and come to the creation/design
conclusion rather than the evolution conclusion why can't this evidence
be shared in the public school science classroom? What does science have
to fear from a balanced treatment of the subject of origins?
The neo-definition of science is used as a club to fend off such
questions. The evolution-only protectionists have kept a tight reign on
the science curriculum in our schools and universities to ensure that
science is only taught within the naturalistic evolutionary paradigm. In
essence, when it comes to the question of origins, the answer has been
decided, in advance, to be evolution. This leaves the mechanism or how
evolution works as the only issue open to question or debate in the
classroom. After all, if it's been decided in advance that naturalistic
evolution can and must explain biological origins, the only subject
allowable for debate in our science classrooms is how evolution works,
not whether evolution is actually true or if there is an alternative
model of origins.
Individuals or organizations seeking a more balanced approach to the
teaching of science have proposed that an alternative dual model, of
origins should be presented in the classroom. Typically, those proposals
are based on presenting only scientific evidences such as are used to
support the evolution model of origins. Scientific creation or the
presentation of scientific evidences supporting the creation or design
model of origins is being proposed. Biblical creationism or creation
models based on religious writings are not proposed for the public
school environment.
The dual model approach would present the scientific case for both the
design or creation theory and the evolution theory and students could
make up their own minds based on the evidences. The religious
implications or connections to either model would be left to social
science classes, private schools and religious institutions. Only the
science, that is the physics, rocks, fossils and biology, would be
presented in science classrooms. Students would be allowed to hear and
consider all of the evidence, not just the evidence that supports
naturalistic evolution. This would seem a better situation than having
the education system decide in advance what students should think based
on the "system's" philosophical predisposition.
Proposals for teaching a balanced dual-model of origins have met with
vigorous opposition. The scientific and educational establishment is
well funded and has a quiver full of scientists, lawyers and
anti-creationist organizations that are brought into play each time an
attempt has been made to bridge the evolution-only wall and teach an
alternative model of origins in the public school system. The dominant
electronic and print media have almost always echoed the evolutionary
and naturalistic preferences of the dominant scientific and educational
communities. Media coverage of such skirmishes are generally slanted to
make the advocates of teaching creation or intelligent design appear as
ignorant religious zealots intent on imposing their religious views on
unsuspecting school children. The focus is generally kept on the issue
of religion versus science and everything and anything but the physics,
rocks, fossils and biology issues.
The evolution vs creation saga has been unfolding for many years.
Evolution is not a new idea. Concepts of evolution have been around in
one form or another as far back as history can "see." However,
creationism had its heyday, for the most part, prior to the publication
of Charles Darwin's book, Origin of Species in 1859. Darwin's
book didn't really present any thinking that wasn't already rattling
around in his day but the Origin of Species pulled together a
number of evolutionary concepts and presented evolution in a manner and
at a time when the world was ready to hear it. Evolution or Darwinism
caught the imagination of many social and philosophical leaders and grew
in importance and influence around the world.
Darwinism, along with the industrial revolution, was particularly
instrumental in promoting philosophical modernism where faith in God
began to be replaced by faith in science, evolution and human
capabilities. During the first half of the 20th century, many people and
nations employed evolutionary concepts, particularly the idea of natural
selection or survival of the fittest, as part of their personal, social
or governmental policy. This became known as "social Darwinism" and the
results were rather horrendous in that, survival of the fittest was used
to justify exploitive and ruthless capitalism, and practices of racial
"purification." The national policies of Hitler's Germany were perhaps
the ultimate extreme of Social Darwinism. Today, for the most part,
evolutionists have "evolved" beyond the institutionalized racism of
Social Darwinism but naturalism, atheism and evolutionism remain as
strong planks in the social and political platforms of many individuals,
organizations and Nations.
So, where have the creationists been while evolutionism has reigned?
Many Christian denominations have embraced evolution and abandoned the
Biblical record of creation entirely. Other denominations have tried to
baptize evolution in religion and have ended up with progressive
creation or theistic evolution or more novel concepts such as the "Gap
Theory." Such concepts essentially accept the evolution model as fact
and then reinterpret the Biblical record of origins in order to make it
appear to be compatible with evolutionary theory. The widespread
abandonment and/or distortion of the Biblical record of creation is a
significant accomplishment on the part of those who promote naturalism
and evolutionism. Of course, they have had the full support of the
education system and popular media but there's more to it.
Statistical surveys indicate that the average person on the street tends
to be more inclined to believe in creation than evolution. The average
person may incorporate elements of evolution into their personal belief
about origins but he or she still seems intuitively inclined toward
creation. This is amazing given the fact that the educational and media
input has been pretty much evolution-only and concepts of creation are
typically characterized as the product of religious indoctrination or
ignorance. The average man on the street is likely to be nominally
Christian but nothing like the dreaded "Right-wing Christian
Fundamentalist" that the media loves to claim is behind the creation vs
evolution controversy. It appears that while the majority of Christian
denominations have ignored the issue or embraced evolution in whole or
in part, the average man on the street thinks there just might be
something to creation. That's pretty impressive, in spite of the
Christian Church.
Meanwhile, back in the laboratory, more and more scientists have been
digging deeper and deeper into the physics, rocks, fossils and biology
of the issue and they are coming up creationists or at least advocates
of intelligent design...convinced not by a wounded and cowering Church
but by their own science. As science has progressed the theory of
evolution is looking more and more naked and more and more the
expression of materialistic or naturalistic philosophy than a conclusion
based on any convincing scientific evidence. At the same time, the
evidence for creation and intelligent design is amassing.
Starting in the early 1960's a creation science movement began to grow
under the science and leadership of men like Dr. Henry Morris, himself a
scientist who evolved from a theistic evolutionist into a biblical
creationist. As new books and seminars spread the evidence for creation,
a strong biblical creationism movement began. The biblical creationism
movement approaches the Bible as the authoritative and accurate Word of
God and takes the creation record as a literal and accurate, if not
scientific, description of creation. The movement is building to this
day through such organizations as the Institute for Creation Research,
Answers in Genesis and many others. These organizations employ qualified
scientists, conduct research and promote biblical creationism both
within and outside of the church.
For the most part, during the time that biblical creationism was making
a comeback, academia has remained unimpressed. While the man on the
street and in the pew was beginning to realize that his intuitive belief
in creation is quite justified, the leaders of our educational and
scientific institutions looked down their nose at them and attributed
their belief in creation to religious indoctrination and ignorance.
Biblical creationists were (are) ignored and/or marginalized, mostly on
the basis of their insistence on the authority of the biblical record of
creation. This allows them to be portrayed as religious
"fundamentalists" or fanatics who are unable or unwilling to accept or
understand science (insert naturalism) because of their religious
convictions. Creationists, it is said, are only trying to back-door
religion into the classroom. To believe in creation was to be
intellectually inert. The enlightened class understood and knew
evolution was truth and creation was nothing more than religion. And so,
academia has remained aloof to creation as an alternative to evolution
and has steadfastly held the classroom door shut to any non-evolutionary
model of origins.
However, the story does not end here, it's just beginning.
Today academia is being invaded from within by a movement called the
Intelligent Design (ID) movement. The advocates of intelligent design
are typically scientists and thinkers who dwell in the higher burnings
of academia. The intelligent design theorists, as they sometimes call
themselves, are decidedly not biblical creationists. However, they are
looking at the same science that has convinced so many scientists to
become biblical creationists and are saying that the evidence for
intelligent design is scientifically demonstrable. The term intelligent
design is probably preferred because it is a "softer" term and more
intellectually acceptable than the term..."creation." Many ID advocates
generally keep at least an arm's length from biblical creationists,
which may be to their advantage in their operating environment.
Advocates of ID include Christians that may not necessarily migrate
toward biblical creationism. ID advocates tend to avoid attempting to
identify the "designer" (they just don't go there) and prefer just to
point to evidence of design and the inadequacies of natural processes to
explain the complexities found in living systems.
In their personal beliefs it appears that some prefer something like
progressive creation while others might prefer the pantheistic
evolutionary concepts of Eastern religions or the New Age versions of
pantheism such as found in the Gaia Hypothesis...a living, self-evolving
biosphere. However, the main point here is that the ID group, as part of
academia's inside crowd, cannot be ignored or made fun of as Biblical
creationists have been. They don't use biblical arguments to support
their science and they are forcing a dialog on alternatives to the
evolution-only mind set. U. C. Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson, a
leading spokesman for the intelligent design movement, refers to
intelligent design as a wedge of truth that is being driven into
the cracks in naturalistic and materialistic ideologies. We are indeed
beginning to see the cracks widen, or if you prefer, the camels nose
under the tent, any many are glad to see it.
Between Biblical Creationists and the Intelligent Design movement, the
story of evolution is beginning to look more and more like the story of
the Emperor's Clothing. Remove the requirement that science and
evolution be viewed through materialistic or naturalistic philosophy and
evolution begins to look quite naked. None of this, however, means that
the creation vs evolution debate will be going away. The tide of science
and thought may currently be edging toward design or creation but the
debate will go on, primarily, for two reasons.
Science is incapable of proving either evolution or creation. Neither
position is based on observable, repeatable, falsifiable science.
Scientific evidences can be used to support or contradict either
position but science cannot ultimately prove either position. More
importantly, the debate will continue because neither side can give in
without giving up their worldview. It has always been, at least as much
about worldview as it has been about science. Otherwise, pre-Scopes
creationists would not have banned the teaching of evolution and
post-Scopes evolutionists would not have banned the scientific evidences
for creation. As the saga continues we just may see evolutionism
required to give up its prop of philosophical naturalism. Evolutionism
will then, along with creationism or intelligent design, have to stand
or fail on its own scientific merits. Wouldn't that be a nice thing for
science?
Revised 1/11/02
*Chuck Nelson,
Christian creationist and former FBI agent and retired law
enforcement officer, contributes regularly to Creation Digest.
|
Archives
