Preface
The "evolution vs creation" issue is interesting to many of us. However, science, by definition, leaves out supernatural explanations, so it is not appropriate to consider such explanations in a science class. That does not mean that such explanations do not exist. It is very frustrating to see many people reject evolution (and geology) because they feel that accepting evolution means rejecting God. I like the analogy with math: you can't invoke miracles to solve a math problem, but, this does not mean that all mathematicians are atheists. I have chosen this material for you to read because it illustrates the variety of beliefs that exist on this subject. It was not written as a persuasive essay, but rather as a source of information for teachers. The author, Dr. Eugenie Scott, is the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. Scott holds a Ph.D. in biological anthropology from the University of Missouri and has taught at the University of Kentucky, the University of Colorado, and in the California State University system. She has consulted with the National Academy of Sciences and is a co-author of their book: Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. Lab Assignment: After you have read this material, please write a brief (~ 1 page) essay relating your personal attitude on this subject. Where do your beliefs fit in on the continuum? What are your most important questions?
|
The Creation/Evolution
Continuum by Eugenie C. Scott Many -- if not most -- Americans think of the creation and evolution controversy as a dichotomy with "creationists" on one side, and "evolutionists" on the other. This assumption all too often leads to the unfortunate conclusion that because creationists are believers in God, that evolutionists must be atheists. The true situation is much more complicated. I encourage people to reject the creation/evolution dichotomy and recognize the creation/evolution continuum.
This figure presents a continuum with creationism at
one end and evolution at the other. The strictest creationists are the
Flat Earthers. Flat Earthers -- Members of the Flat
Earth Society believe that the shape of the earth is flat because a
literal reading of the Bible demands it (Schadewald, 1991). Charles K.
Johnson is the head of the International Flat Earth Society,
headquartered in Lancaster, CA, and he is very serious about the planet´s
shape being as the ancients perceived it: circular and flat, not
spherical. The earth is shaped like a coin, not a ball. References in
the Bible to the "four corners of the earth" refer to the
cardinal directions; more relevant are references to the "circle of
the earth", implying a 2-dimensional, flat plane. The International
Flat Earth Society has only about 200 members (Schadewald, 1980) and is
insignificant in the antievolution movement. However, it represents the
most extreme biblical literalist theology: the earth is flat because the
Bible says it is flat. Scientific views are of secondary importance. Geocentrists -- Geocentrists accept that
the earth is spherical, but deny that the sun is the center of the solar
system. Like flat earthers, they reject virtually all of modern physics
and chemistry as well as biology. Geocentrism is a somewhat larger,
though still insignificant constituent of modern antievolutionism. At
the Bible-Science Association creationism conference in 1985, the
plenary session debate was held between two geocentrists and two
heliocentrists (Bible-Science Association, 1985). Similarly, as recently
as 1985, the secretary of the Creation Research Society was a published
geocentrist (Kaufmann, 1985). Both flat-earth and geocentrist views reflect the
perception of the earth held by the ancient Hebrews, that the earth is a
flat disk floating on water, and the heavens are held up by a dome (or
firmament) with the sun, moon, and stars attached to it (Cartmill,
1998). The waters above the firmament, flowing in through the windows of
heaven, were the source of the forty days and nights of rain of Noah´s
Flood.
The next group of creationists on the continuum are
less strictly literal in their interpretation of the Bible, but they
still hold to Special Creationism. Young-Earth Creationism -- The term
"Young-Earth Creationism" (YEC) is usually reserved for the
followers of Henry Morris, founder and recently-retired president of the
Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and arguably the most influential
creationist of the late 20th century. Few classical YECs interpret the
flat-earth and geocentric passages of the Bible literally, but they
reject modern physics, chemistry, and geology concerning the age of the
earth, and they deny biological descent with modification. In their
view, the earth is from 6 to 10 thousand years old. Henry Morris defined antievolutionism in its modern
form. In 1961, he and John C Whitcomb published The Genesis Flood, a
seminal work that claimed to provide the scientific rationale for Young
Earth Creationism (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961). As the title suggests,
the authors accept Genesis literally, including not only the special,
separate creation of humans and all other species, but also the
historicity of Noah´s Flood. The Genesis Flood was the first
significant 20th century effort to present a scientific rationale for
special creationism. "Creation Science" was fleshed out by
subsequent books and pamphlets by Morris and those inspired by him. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) remains the
flagship creationist institution to which look all other YEC
organizations. Most literature promoting "creation science"
originates with the ICR, and promotes YEC. The National Center for
Science Education provides information refuting the scientific claims of
creation science. Criticisms of creation science from a pedagogical
standpoint can be obtained from the National Association of Biology
Teachers and the National Science Teachers Association. The US Supreme
Court has declared the teaching of creation science to be an illegal
advancement of sectarian religion (Edwards v. Aguillard). More
information on YEC can be found in Scott, 1997, Scott, 1994, and Scott
and Cole, 1985. Old Earth Creationism (OEC) -- That the
earth is ancient was well-established in science by the mid- 1800´s,
and was not considered a radical idea in either the Church of England or
the Catholic Church (Eiseley, 1958). From the mid-1700´s on, the
theology of Special Creationism has been harmonized with scientific data
and theory showing that the earth was ancient. Theologically, the most critical element of Special
Creationism is God´s personal involvement in Creation; precise details
of how God created are considered secondary. The present may indeed be
different from the past, but OECs see God as an active causal agent of
the observed changes. Gap Creationism -- One of the
better-known accommodations of religion to science was Gap or
Restitution Creationism, which claimed that there was a large temporal
gap between Genesis chapter I:1 and chapter I:2 (Young, 1982).
Articulated from about the late 18th century on, Gap Creationism assumes
a pre-Adamic creation that was destroyed before Genesis I:2, when God
recreated the world in six days, and created Adam and Eve. A time gap
between two separate creations allows for an accommodation of the proof
of the ancient age of the earth with Special Creationism. Day-Age Creationism -- Another attempt
to accommodate science to a literal, or mostly literal reading of the
Bible, is the Day-Age model, which was more popular than Gap Creationism
in the 19th century and the earlier part of this one (Young, 1982). This
model accommodates science and religion by rendering each of the six
days of creation as long periods of time -- even thousands or millions
of years instead of merely 24 hours long. Many literalists have found
comfort in what they think is a rough parallel between organic evolution
and Genesis, in which plants appear before animals, and human beings
appear last. Progressive Creationism (PC) -- Although
some modern activist antievolutionists may still hold to Day- Age and
Gap views, the view held by the majority of today´s Old Earth
Creationists is some form of Progressive Creationism. The PC view blends
Special Creationism with a fair amount of modern science. Progressive
Creationists such as Dr. Hugh Ross, of Reasons to Believe ministries,
have no problems with scientific data concerning the age of the earth,
or the long period of time it has taken for the earth to come to its
current form. Astronomer Ross, a University of Toronto Ph.D., cites the
Big Bang as evidence of the creative power of God. Although modern
physical science is accepted, only parts of modern biological science
are incorporated into PC. PCs generally believe that God created
"kinds" of animals sequentially; the fossil record is thus an
accurate representation of history because different animals and plants
appeared at different times rather than having been created all at once.
PCs reject the inference that earlier forms are genetically related to
later ones; kinds are separate creations: descent with modification does
not occur. The definition of kinds is inconsistent, but usually refers
to a higher taxonomic level than species. Most PCs accept that God
created creatures containing at least as much genetic variation as a
Family (such as Felidae, Canidae, etc) and then considerable
"evolution within a kind" occurred. A created cat kind thus
would have possessed sufficient genetic variability to differentiate
into lions, tigers, leopards, pumas, bobcats, and house cats, through
the normal microevolutionary processes of mutation and recombination,
natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation. The "basic body
plans" of major phyla which appear in the Cambrian
"explosion" are seen by most OECs as evidence of Special
Creation. In PC, God is seen as acting through natural law (i.e.,
microevolutionary processes) but also as an active creator. Intelligent Design Creationists (IDC)
– (see Access Research Network at http://www.arn.org/arn2.htm
). Intelligent Design
Creationism is a lineal descendent of William Paley´s Argument from
Design (Paley, 1803), which asserted that God´s existence could be
proved by examining his works. Paley used an analogy: if one found a
watch, it was obvious that such a thing could not have come together by
chance; the existence of a watch implies a watchmaker who has designed
the watch with a purpose in mind. Similarly, the finding of order,
purpose, and design in the world is proof of an omniscient designer. The vertebrate eye was Paley´s classic example of
design in nature, well known to educated people of the 19th century. In
IDC, one is less likely to find references to the vertebrate eye and
more likely to find DNA structure or cellular complexity held up as
"too complex to have evolved by chance." The high school
biology supplemental textbook, Of Pandas and People (Davis and Kenyon,
1989), weaves information theory into an exposition of the
"linguistics" of the DNA code in an attempt to prove that DNA
is too complex to explain by means of natural causes. In the PC tradition, IDC allows for a fair amount of
microevolution, but supporters deny that mutation and natural selection
are adequate to explain the evolution of one kind from another, such as
chordates from echinoderms, or humans from apes. Major body plans and
the origin of life are phenomena supposedly "too complex" to
be explained naturally, thus IDC demands a direct role for the
"intelligent designer" -- God. There have been calls for IDC
to be taught with evolution, much as equal time for creation science and
evolution was promoted before the Supreme Court disallowed the
advocating of creationism in 1989. IDCs vary considerably in their attitude towards
evolution. Most IDC activists are not scientists, but philosophers or
historians. The few biologists among them actually accept a fair amount
of evolution. In 1996, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe
published the most scholarly and scientific IDC book to date, Darwin´s
Black Box (Behe, 1996), which offers little comfort to typical
antievolutionists. Behe accepts that natural selection produces most of
the complex structural adaptations of plants and animals, and even
accepts that modern living things descended with modification from
common ancestors. In a debate with Brown University biologist Kenneth
Miller during the summer of 1995, Behe agreed with Miller´s point that
common pseudogenes between apes and chimps is strong support for their
having shared a common ancestor (Miller, 1996). Still, Behe asserts that some biological phenomena can´t
be explained through natural processes. He claims that at the level of
cell biochemistry there are "irreducibly complex" processes
and structures, such as the blood clotting cascade and the rotor motor
of a microorganism´s flagellum. Such structures cannot be broken down
into individually-functioning component parts, says Behe, and therefore
cannot be explained through the incremental activity of natural
selection. Therefore they could not have evolved, and because they could
not have evolved, they must have been specially created. Behe argues, as
did Paley, that complexity is proof that there must be an intelligent
designer, but his examples of complexity are biochemical rather than
anatomical. Because Behe is a research scientist with a track
record of legitimate publications (although not in evolutionary
biology), his book has been reviewed by scientists. (Coyne, 1996;
Miller, 1996, reviews may be found at a web site: http:www.world-of-dawkins.com/box/behe.htm
) The response of the scientific community has been decidedly tepid.
Reviewers were quick to point out flaws in Behe´s reasoning, and
factual and conceptual understanding, especially concerning the
cumulative nature of natural selection. The Creation/Evolution Continuum, like most continua,
has few sharp boundaries. There is a sharp division between YEC and OEC,
but less clear cut separation between the various OEC persuasions. Even
though OECs accept most of modern physics, chemistry, and geology, they
are not very dissimilar to YECs in their rejection of descent with
modification. Evolutionary Creationism (EC) -- Despite
its name, evolutionary creationism is actually a type of evolution.
Here, God the Creator uses evolution to bring about the universe
according to his plan. From a scientific point of view, evolutionary
creationism is hardly distinguishable from Theistic evolution, which
follows it on the continuum. The differences between EC and Theistic
evolution lie not in science, but in theology, with EC being held by
more conservative (evangelical) Christians (D. Lamoreaux, p.c). Theistic Evolution (TE) -- Theistic
Evolution is the theological view that God creates through evolution.
Astronomical, geological and biological evolution are acceptable to TEs
They vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene -- some
come pretty close to Deists. Other TEs see God as intervening at
critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin
of humans), and they in turn come closer to PCs. In one form or another,
TE is the view of creation taught at mainline Protestant seminaries, and
it is the official position of the Catholic church. In 1996, Pope John
Paul II reiterated the Catholic TE position, in which God created,
evolution happened, humans may indeed be descended from more primitive
forms, but the hand of God was needed for the creation of the human
soul. (John Paul II, 1996). Materialist Evolutionism (ME) --
Theistic Evolution is followed on the continuum by a nonreligious view,
Materialist Evolutionism. It is important to distinguish two ways that
"materialism" is used. One is in science, which is described
as a "materialist" enterprise, focusing on matter and energy
and their interactions. Modern science operates under a rule of
methodological materialism that limits it to attempting to explain the
natural world using natural -- matter and energy -- causes. Science in
and of itself is neutral to religion: by definition, it lacks the
ability to hold constant supernatural forces. It is neither
antireligious nor pro-religious: it is neutral because supernatural
forces are outside of what it can consider as causation. MEs go beyond
the methodological materialism of science to propose that the laws of
nature are all there is: the supernatural does not exist. This is a form
of philosophical materialism (naturalism or scientism), which is
distinct from the practical rules of how to do science. Antievolutionists such as Phillip Johnson criticize
evolution and science in general as being philosophically materialistic
(Johnson, 1995). This is a logical error. It is very likely the case
that all philosophical materialists are also methodological
materialists. The converse is not necessarily true: that all
methodological materialists are also philosophical materialists. It may
be the case, but this would have to be determined empirically, it does
not follow logically. In fact, such a claim is empirically falsified, as
there are many scientists who use methodological materialism in their
work, but who are theists and therefore not philosophical materialists.
In addition to many living scientists, Gregor Mendel is a classic case
of a scientist who was a methodological materialist but not a
philosophical one. Teachers of both high school and college have told me
that many students come into a class with the attitude that evolution is
somehow unacceptable for a religious person. Such students are reluctant
to learn about evolution. One way to assuage their concerns is to use
the "creation/evolution continuum" to illustrate the wide
range of opinion within Christianity towards evolution, which helps
religious students understand that there are many options available to
them as people of faith. Most students will recognize themselves
somewhere on the continuum, whether believers or nonbelievers; it makes
for an engaging lecture. It is perfectly legal for teachers to
describe religious views in a classroom; it is only unconstitutional for
teachers to advocate religious ideas in the classroom. I have also
presented the "creation/evolution continuum" in public
lectures to general audiences, and they have also found it of interest.
Many people are unaware that there is far more variation among
creationists as to how things came to be than there is among
evolutionists! References cited Bible-Science Association. Bible-Science Association
Conference Schedule. August 14 -15, Cleveland, OH: Bible-Science
Association; 1985. Behe M. Darwin´s black box. New York: Free Press;
1996. Cartmill M. Oppressed by evolution. Discover 1998,
March. Coyne JA. God in the details. Nature 1996;383:227-228.
Davis P, Kenyon DH. Of pandas and people. Dallas, TX:
Haughton; 1989. Eiseley L. Darwin´s century. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday & Company, Inc; 1961. John Paul II P. Magisterium is concerned with question
of evolution, for it involves conception of man. L´Osservatore Romano
1996.October 30; 3, 7. Johnson P. Reason in the balance. Downers Grove, IL:
Inter-Varsity; 1995. Kaufman SA. The origin of order. New York: Oxford
University Press; 1993. Miller KR. Darwin´s black box: the biochemical
challenge to evolution. Creation/Evolution1996;16(2):36-40. Paley W. Natural theology: or, evidences of the
existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of
nature. London: Faulder; 1803. Robinson GL. Leaders of Israel. New York, NY:
Association Press; 1913. Schadewald RJ. Earth orbits? Moon landings? A fraud!
Says this prophet. Science Digest 1980 July:58-63. Schadewald RJ. Introduction. In: De Ford CS, editor. A
reparation. Washington: Ye Galleon; 1991. p 62. Scott EC, Cole HP. The elusive scientific basis of
creation "science". Quarterly Review of
Biology1985;60(1):21-30. Scott EC. The struggle for the schools. Natural
History 1994 July:10, 12-13. Scott EC. Antievolution and creationism in the United
States. Annual Reviews of Anthropology 1997; 26:263-289. Whitcomb JC, Morris HR. The Genesis flood: the
biblical record and its scientific implications. Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed; 1961. Young DA. Christianity and the age of the earth. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan; 1982. |