Creationism Take 2

One of the things that will get me all fired up and irritated is trying to push Creationism in schools. I don’t care what you call it, Intelligent Design, Creationism, Ju-Ju Fairies Making The World, whatever, it’s not something that should even be considered to be taught as scientific fact to our children. There is a reason there is a separation of Church and State in this country. Trying to teach Creationism as fact impinges upon the rights of citizens of this country to have freedom of religion, and forces them to believe a religious doctrine at an impressionable age.

 It seems the debate has come up again, and I guess it’s time to pull out something I wrote a few years ago on the subject.

An article published in Wired magazine by Evan Ratliff discusses the issue of Creationism’s reintroduction into public schools. According to the Ratliff, Creationism now called “Intelligent Design” was voted back into the classroom. Ohio is the first state to allow the teaching of the new version of Creationism as controversy along side scientific method and learning. Few academic subjects are susceptible to general vote – science is not one of them.

In order to understand what kinds of disciplines of academia lend themselves democratic vote, the differences between sciences of philosophy, and sciences of quantitative fact and reasoning need definition. Amongst the vast number of categorizations of academic disciplines, the majority of them fall into two distinct groups. The first group, concerns disciplines requiring interpretation. Humanities disciplines, such as philosophy, literature, art and religion would fall in this category. The second group, concerns disciplines based on facts proven through some sort of scientific method. This group would include: biology, chemistry, geology, physics and mathematics.

Proving a theory through scientific method does not make it available to an arbitrary vote. The American Heritage dictionary defines science as: “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena,” none of which is applicable to “Intelligent Design.” According to Ratliff, the theory behind “Intelligent Design” lies mostly on faith. Faith has no place in science when it comes to defining the world. Faith based arguments are best left to the humanities disciplines, rather than disciplines based on scientific method and fact.

Studies of Humanities are generally open to interpretation. These interpretations lend themselves to debate because they are derived from personal beliefs and examination of logical rhetoric. Beliefs are either gained through life experience or are impressed upon individuals at early stages in mental development. Different people, having different beliefs, when analyzing a philosophical text could formulate as many interpretations as number of people involved. The reason for this diversity in interpretation points to the fact that, individual life experience and beliefs are unique to the individual. Humanities disciplines teach the formulation of opinions without bias, to come to a logical conclusion. Those conclusions are debatable by the interpretation of another person’s conclusions. These conclusions, derived from a combination of individual experience and rhetoric, allow for debate. In philosophical debate, different sides are not necessarily wrong, and at times, numerous interpretations are valid. Humanities disciplines are concerned with the debate of the human condition. Some of the arguments made in these various disciplines are unable to make it past faith. In the case of “Intelligent Design”, it also lends itself to philosophical debate, because it has no empirical proof to ultimately back up its claims.

Quantitative science is not open for arbitrary vote on the validity of the facts it conveys. Science in relation to biology, chemistry, geology, physics and mathematics conform to rules formulated from observation and experimental investigation. Scientific theories also depend on the ability for independent sources to arrive at the exact same results. These properties of quantitative science do not leave it open for debate, unless there is empirical proof to refute an already recognized scientific convention.

To disprove a widely accepted scientific theory, refutation requires facts to dispute the original theorem. Some examples of indisputable facts are; two plus two is equal to four, the earth is round, and the observation that chemicals react to each other in relation to their atomic properties. None of these examples lend themselves to debate. There are no facts to dispute any of these theorems. The same applies to a number of discoveries on how different organisms adapt to their environment through natural selection. Although natural selection is theory, there has yet to be another theory that wholly disputes the validity of its claims through scientific method. Jon Van Wyhe in his presentation of Darwin’s theory of evolution by means of natural selection states, evolution is a process in nature, where living things adapt to their environment and pass those traits on to their offspring. The passing of traits that enable the parents to survive, enables their offspring to survive in the same conditions. Those less adapted to their environment tend to become extinct due to their inability to cope with their environment. Organisms that survive long enough to reproduce, pass their inadequacies on to their progeny, rendering them ineffectual to survive in their environment (Van Wyhe no pag). Many different species around the world are examples of this theory. There has yet to be a factual dispute of this observation.

According to the Ratliff’s article in Wired, “Intelligent Design” claims controversy is acceptable in the classroom when it applies to theories that are irrefutable through scientific method. To claim that controversy is acceptable when it comes to science is a fallacy. The fact that some flawed observations, supported by seemingly convincing rhetoric crumble under intense scrutiny is proof of this fallacy. Often many rhetorical arguments support flawed observations based on faith. Faith is not tangible. Faith relies on the interpretation by the individual believer. By definition, faith based claims have no way of being proven or refuted, which is not what quantitative science is based upon. For instance Rene Descartes in his “Meditations on First Philosophy” is unable to prove human existence and comes to conclude, “I think therefore I am.” There is no factual evidence to support Descartes’ conclusion, its basis lies in his own beliefs. The philosophical conundrum of existence is still open for debate, albeit not an easy topic to debate effectively. In essence “Intelligent Design” falls within this category, because it can be debated and has no factual evidence to support itself.

Natural selection is a theory of quantitative science, formulated by observation and accumulation of facts. Through the observation of different organisms, Darwin concluded that species evolve to adapt to environmental conditions. The observation of mutations in genetic material, and the expression of those genes also support Darwin’s claims. These two observations combined, prove that organisms survive based on an ability to adapt to their environment. Because of factual evidence and observations, natural selection is a science based on scientific method, not faith or debate.

David Quammen, in the November 2004 issue of National Geographic explains the distinction of a theory of quantitative science. Quammen discusses the idea that discounting evolution because it is not scientific law does not mean it is invalid. Just as Einstein’s theory of relativity, or Copernicus’s idea of the relationship of the earth to other celestial bodies are theories based on observation, so is evolution (4). Quammen states, “Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact” (6). Because evolution has undergone the scrutiny as other theories of science and accepted by experts in that field, it is not something that can be disputed by faith.

According to the Ratliff, “Intelligent Design” makes no observations of natural phenomenon based on fact, or presents any facts to support it. Because there are no facts to support “Intelligent Design”, it relegates itself to philosophical debate. “Intelligent Design” having no concrete proof, also relegates it to the category of a humanities science. Natural selection has endured the rigors of scientific method, and nothing has refuted it by the same means. By virtue of the evidence for natural selection, and no evidence against it, it falls in the category of quantitative science.

Another aspect of the debate over evolution and creationism is the role the government has to play in whether or not creationism can be taught as a science. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States has caused many controversies over the centuries since its enactment. Trying to be concise, the wording, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” has been the focus of many debates, including the validity of teaching evolution theory in public schools. The interpretation of the First Amendment has lead to a few well-known cases, some of which are recent, and could affect the standings of scientific findings in regards to evolution theory taught in schools.

The most well known case involving interpretation of the First Amendment in relation to evolution theory is the case of The State of Tennessee vs. John Scopes in 1925. In Jeffery Moran’s analysis of the trial, the interpretation of the First Amendment became an issue because the State of Tennessee felt it was morally wrong to teach evolution in public school. Moran quotes the State’s claim that teaching evolution “[w]as against the peace and dignity of the state”, thus interfering with the free exercise of Christianity” (80). Evolution has nothing to do with religious belief. Evolution does not attempt to criticize or discount religious belief. Evolution states a theory based on observation. According to the Tennessee interpretation of the First Amendment, the fundamental basis of evolutionary theory is an argument against the teachings of Christianity. Moran notes that the defense argued that prohibiting the teaching of a theory of science based on a religious context impinges upon individual’s First Amendment rights (82). Moran notes the defense used the example of the Copernican theory, which states that the center of the universe is not the sun (82). Copernicus was persecuted for his theory because it was in conflict with the Christian church’s opinion of the workings of the universe. Copernicus’s theory holds soundly to this day, backed by centuries of astronomy. If his theory was had never been believed simply because it did not agree with religious doctrine, we would still believe the center of the universe was the sun. This historic case has brought about many others that claim teaching evolution theory violates the First Amendment.

One of the more important cases in which the First Amendment needed interpretation was Epperson vs. Arkansas in 1968. In this case, the Supreme Court found an Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in schools to be unconstitutional. The Arkansas law prescribed that creationism be taught as a direct refutation to evolution theory, and without doing so, evolution theory was to be left out of the curriculum. The Supreme Court decided the Arkansas law was unconstitutional because the law deemed evolution to be in conflict with a religious doctrine. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment’s exercise clause stated by Justice Fortas, “Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice” supported this finding (3). The interpretation that Arkansas used of the First Amendment was that teaching evolution was not religiously neutral because refuted a religious doctrine. Requiring a specific religious doctrine to refute a scientific theory, would in essence be promoting a religious doctrine over others. This action would violate the First Amendment because it would require students to affirm the validity of creationism as an indisputable fact, not an opinion. 

In 1987, a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals dealt with a law enacted by the State of Tennessee. This law allowed students to choose not to participate in aspects of the curriculum that went against their religious beliefs. In Mozert v. The Hawkins City Board of Education, the Court of Appeals decided that even though the plaintiffs considered the subject matter to be objectionable to their religious beliefs, it did not violate their free exercise of religion. If students are not required to affirm a belief that is contrary to their own, then there is no violation their First Amendment rights. Judge Livley pointed out in reference to Epperson vs. Arkansas, “the Supreme Court has clearly held that it violates the Establishment Clause to tailor a public school’s curriculum to satisfy the principles or prohibitions of any religion” (7). This decision required students to participate in a curriculum, which exposes them to ideas that could conflict with their religious beliefs. 

In each of these examples, many individuals have interpreted the First Amendment’s reference to the individual’s freedom of expression of religion. In each case, a higher court has ruled, in order for government to not violate the First Amendment, laws enacted by the government must remain neutral. Public schools fall under state and federal limitations of this interpretation. By exposing students to theories, schools do not require students to affirm or deny any religious belief. If the public school system required an individual to denounce their religious belief in order to participate curriculum, then it would be a violation of their First Amendment rights. Requiring students to affirm a religious doctrine or denounce their beliefs would constitute a violation because it would promote another religious doctrine over another. In no manner does the theory of evolution attempt to promote a religious doctrine, or require a student to denounce their beliefs in order to understand the concepts behind it. There has yet to be a case in which evolution theory’s presentation requires students to deny their religious beliefs or adopt different ones.

Ratliff notes in his article that “Intelligent Design” claims biology is complicated enough to imply a designer (158). A simple philosophical debate can easily shatter the foundations of “Intelligent Design” as shown by Bertrand Russell in his essay “Why I Am Not a Christian”. In his argument, Russell debates “Intelligent Design” by means of stating that “the whole idea that natural laws implies a law giver is due to a confusion between natural law and human laws”(732). Therein lies the fallacy of “Intelligent Design”, suggesting the concept of natural law is related to the concept of human law. Russell also points out it is inconceivable that the designer of the universe would produce such a flawed reality (732).

By absence of facts to refute natural selection, it has remained a logical explanation for natural phenomenon. Because no sufficient refutation of natural selection exists, and natural selection bases its arguments on fact and measurable observation, it belongs to a group of disciplines not open to popular vote. The fact that “Intelligent Design” is open for debate also implies it is open for vote. “Intelligent Design” as a refutation to the theory of natural selection implies that natural selection is not fact. Unfortunately scientific observation is not refutable by faith.

Proponents of “Intelligent Design” in Kansas state in their letter to the Kansas Board of Education that because modern biology looks at organisms and the function of organisms as being designed for a purpose, implies a designer. Using the definition that biology perceives organisms as designed for specific purposes the Kansas Science Writing Committee tries to imply an omnipotent designer in their letter to the Kansas Board of Education (2). Without evidence of a designer, the theory of “Intelligent Design” has no factual basis. Due to the fact that scientists have not adequately and completely explained the origins of life with natural selection, proponents of “Intelligent Design” discount the theory as incomplete and irrelevant. The proponents of “Intelligent Design” only use logic to come to their conclusions, logic which is based on faith, not factual observable evidence. Without being able to present some observation to back up their claims, it does not make sense to simply believe their doctrine. The Kansas Science Writing Committee’s main argument against evolution is based on their own belief that the same rules that govern physics and chemistry are inadequate for use in explaining the origins of life (2). Through scientific research, it has been discovered that biological functions do indeed follow the same cause and effect relationships that chemistry and physics do, due to the fact that organisms rely on these concepts to exist.

The writer of the letter to the Kansas Board of Education, William Harris, takes a quote from the supreme court decision Edwards v. Aguillard and misinterprets its meaning. He states that, the supreme court’s decision would have supported the position of the proponents of intelligent design because “[i]t would have encouraged the teaching of all scientific theories about the origins of humankind” (3). What Harris fails to mention is that the reason for Edwards v. Aguillard was in fact due to the idea that creationism must be taught in school whether or not there is evidence to support the idea that there is an omnipotent designer of the universe, not because evolution discounted this idea. The reason “Intelligent Design” has not been taught before along side evolution is the fact that there is no empirical evidence to support its claims. The Supreme Court made its decision because the idea behind creationism promoted a religious doctrine. If creationism had scientific backing the Supreme Court probably would not have made such a ruling.

Science of quantitative measures should not be subject to an arbitrary vote. Unless another supposition, proven by scientific method, effectively disputes a widely accepted theory, the original theory in dispute stands on its own. Because the organizations that would be privy to vote on school curriculums are governmental bodies, they must be neutral in respects to religious doctrine. By promoting “Intelligent Design” those groups would be violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Works Cited:

Descartes, Rene “Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy” 1640. Ed.
Donald Cress. New York: Hackett Publishing Co. Inc., 1999.

Epperson v. Arkansas. 21 L.Ed.2d 228. Supreme Court of the United States. 12 Nov
1968.

Harris, William S. PhD. Letter to the Kansas State Board of Education. 10 Dec. 2004.
Recommendations For Further Revision To The First Draft Of Kansas Science
Education Standards. Kansas Science Writing Committee, 2004.
< http://www.kansasscience2005.com>

Houghton Mifflin. “Dictionary.com” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition. Various. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.
< http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science>

Moran, Jeffery P. The Scopes Trial A Brief History with Documents. Boston/New York:
Bedford/St. Martins, 2002.

Mozert v. Hawkins City Board of Education. 827 F.2d 1058. United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Tennessee. 24 Aug 1987.

Quammen, David. “Was Darwin Wrong?” National Geographic November 2004: 2-35.
Ratliff, Evan. “The Crusade Against Evolution.” Wired October 2004: 157-161, 202-203.

Van Wyhe, Jon. “The writings of Charles Darwin on the web” On The Origin Of Species
By Means Of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation Of Favoured Races In The
Struggle For Life. John Murray. London: W. Clowes And Sons, 1859.
<http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin1859/origin_fm.html>

~ by g0thicicecream on November 19, 2007.