SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM One of the major objectives of this course is to teach science as a way of knowing. The scientific creation movement provides an object lesson on how not to do science. Scientists mold their theories of physical reality to fit the facts; when theory and fact clash, fact wins out and theories are modified. Scientific creationists mold the facts to fit their idea of how the world operates. In this sense, application of the adjective "scientific" to these religious fundamentalists is totally inappropriate. Whereas biblical creationism bases its explanation of the history of life on a literal interpretation of the Bible and appeals directly to divine authority, scientific creationism (a relatively new creationist movement) purports to seek scientific evidence in support of creationism. It is clear, however, from the writings of scientific creationists that they subscribe to the biblical account of creation which guides their research and which they attempt to validate with physical evidence. They believe in the unerring truth of what is stated literally in the Bible and so if scientists develop a view of reality which contradicts the biblical account of creation, then these scientists must be wrong. By confirming the historical truths of the Bible through the use of "scientific" evidence, these creationists will then be providing support for the religious truths which cannot be studied empirically. This is an argument by way of analogy similar that used by selectionists regarding the significance of variation in structural genes as indicative of the variation in unseen (by electrophoretic technique) regulatory genes. The difference, however, is that scientific creationists distort the evidence to fit their goal and deny opposing evidence as invalid. I might note at this point that we have seen attempts by scientists to select facts to fit their theories and downplay opposing evidence (e.g., the neutralist explanation of interpopulation variation in allozyme frequency). This is simply due to the fact that they are human; hence, we need not come down too hard on scientific creationists for doing the same. Over the long run, however, science has been immensely successful as a way of knowing because eventually the evidence decides issues despite the bias of individual investigators. Neverthe- less, what scientific creationists do in opposing evolu- tionists is not excusable for they deal in half-truths and deliberate distortions to discredit the evolutionary account of species origin. Why they resort to this tactic is explained below. Scientific creationists follow two basic strategies. The first is to demonstrate that their approach to understanding the origin of life is on equal footing with the approach of evolutionists. The second is to show that evolution is false. Scientific creationism and parity with evolution Scientific creationists readily admit that creationism is not a science because it deals with an unknowable process (the act of creation) and a non-repeatable, historical event (creation of species); but, at the same time, they claim that evolution is not a science. Thus, if evolution can be considered a science, then their brand of creationism is also science - hence the name scientific creationism. Scientific creationists adopt the view (modelled after the philosophy of physics) that science only studies the proximate cause of repeatable and observable events which can be learned by testing hypotheses through experimentation. The study of ultimate causes of unique, historical events, they claim, is not scientific because these events are not observable and hypotheses regarding their causes cannot yield predictions (literal sense of the word) and so be tested experimentally. Consequently, they claim that the study of the origin of life and macroevolution belongs in the disciplines of philosophy and religion rather than science. You can imagine their delight with Popper's remark (later retracted) that Darwinism is more of a "metaphysical research programme" than a testable, scientific theory. The major thrust of scientific creationism is to argue that historical sciences are not sciences in the true Popperian tradition. They deny scientific status to the study of past, unique events and freely admit that their position is unscientific, based as it is on a supernatural and unknowable act (creation) which no amount of creature study will elucidate. Obviously they extend this same reasoning to evolution which they also argue is nonscience. Above all, they seek parity with evolutionary science and it does not matter to them whether both positions are classified as science or religion. If parity is granted, then scientific creationism can be taught on equal footing with evolution in public school science classes and these religious fundamentalists would have circumvented the liberal, political establishment to get their religious ideas across in public school classes. Thomas S. Kuhn, a noted philosopher of science, characterizes progress in science as involving revolutions wherein one comprehensive worldview, paradigm or model is replaced by another. In line with this idea, scientific creationists describe the evolution - creation controversy as one of conflicting models with the Creation Model in opposition to the Evolution Model. In so doing they attempt to give legitimacy to their movement as science. In the celebrated case of Rev. Bill McLean et al vs. The Arkansas Board of Education, Judge William R. Overton ruled that scientific creationism could not be taught in public school science courses precisely because it was not science based on several criteria used to identify science. Judge Overton noted that science is characterized by the following qualities, none of which apply to scientific creationism: "(1) It is guided by natural law; (2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; (3) It is testable against the empirical world; (4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and (5) It is falsifiable." He further argued that the scientific community does not publish creationist ideas in any reputable, peer-reviewed journal and so scientific creationism is rejected by scientists themselves. Scientific creationism is thus an oxymoron and the true intent of this movement is religious. The logic of discrediting evolution Although one of the goals of scientific creationists is to find evidence that will support creationism, they have been singularly unsuccessful in that attempt. Thus, their major thrust is not so much to support creation, but rather to discredit evolution. Their basic argument runs as follows: Their are only two possible explanations for the origin of organic diversity - creation and evolution. Evolution can be shown to be false, therefore creation must be true. The following four examples will suffice to show how scientific creationists use misinformation and distortions to discredit evolution thereby "proving" creationism according to their logic. Evolution is only a theory Creationists use the term "theory of evolution" to discredit the fact of evolution. Since no generalization in science can be accepted as absolute fact due to the principle of falsifiability, scientists refer to widely accepted and comprehensive generalizations as "theories" - for example, the atomic theory, cell theory and gene theory. The use of the term "theory" does not mean that scientists are uncertain about the acceptance of the generalization, but only that they recognize the possiblity that future discoveries could reject or modify the current generalization. It must be emphasized that the term "theory" is used synonomously with "fact" and possesses the highest level of certitude that can be attached to scientific explanations. Scientists are in general agreement that evolution is a fact, but often disagree on the details of the process or mechanism underlying the fact of evolution. Thus, "the theory of evolution" is considered to be a fact, but there can be as many differing "theories of evolution" as there are scientists attempting to explain the process of evolution. Scientific creationists equate controversy over the details of the process of evolution with evidence for doubt within the scientific community regarding the fact of evolution, thereby misrepresenting the current status of evolutionary science. Furthermore, besides the fact of evolution, the general details of Neo-Darwinism as an explanation of the mechanism behind evolution also enjoy near universal acceptance and what is currently under debate is the relative importance of other factors, e.g., other modes of selection and genetic drift, which also contribute to evolution. Evolution and the laws of thermodynamics The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that without a source of energy any organized system will become increasingly disorderly, i.e., it will move from a state of order to disorder. Scientific creationists cite this law to demonstrate that evolution is impossible. Any tendency to move from simple or lower states of organi- zation to more complex or higher states of organization would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law, however, applies only to closed systems which lack an energy source from outside the system. Our planet, the only stage upon which the evolutionary drama is known to unfold, is an open system which receives outside energy from the sun. Hence, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply, and the energy derived from the sun can allow increasingly higher states of organization to develop locally through the process of evolution even though the universe as a whole might follow this law. Cambrian fossils as evidence for creation Scientific creationists cite the observation that representatives of all the major phyla can be found in Cambrian rocks. From this they argue that all species were created at the same time. They ignore, however, recent discoveries of invertebrates in pre-Cambrian rocks about 700 million years old and prokaryotic cell fossils some three billion years old. While it is true that all the major phyla are represented in the Cambrian, paleontologists have no record in these rocks of the advanced vertebrates, e.g., bony fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, which appear only later during geologic history. As a general rule, the higher the strata of fossiliferous rock, the later the appearance during evolutionary time. Creationists have their own unique interpretation of the appearance of advanced vetebrates in higher strata. They claim that all species were created at the same time but that the appearance of advanced species in higher (=more recent) strata is due to their greater mobility. During a great, worldwide flood (guess where they got that idea!) only the more mobile species were able to escape to higher altitudes before finally being trapped by the rising water. Thus, they are found in the higher strata which was the last to form before the flood subsided. Argument from design One final example of the attempt to discredit evolution can be seen in the creationist argument of design. Species are designed for survival in particular environments and adaptive design requires a designer. Since mutation is a random occurrence, most mutations are harmful, and natural selection is an erosive force, evolution cannot possibly produce the precision, order and design found in nature. Needless to say, this distortion ignores the wealth of variability that exists due to sexual reproduction and the creative role of natural selection in producing adaptation. They further argue that complex adapted structures like the eye or mammary gland could not have evolved gradually, otherwise they would have been useless in their less-than-perfect developed state. As we have seen before monotreme babies are able to survive quite well using their mother's nippleless mammary gland and imperfect adaptations, e.g., the panda's thumb, seem very capable of contributing to survival and reproduction. The arguments used by scientific creationists represent a collection of distortions, half-truths and oversimplifications which have failed to convince open-minded nonscientists that their position is superior to that of evolutionists. Furthermore, their basic logic of two contrasting explanations of species origin was shown to be false by Judge Overton who cited a third alternative: the cosmozoa theory or theory of panspermia which holds that life arrived on Earth from outer space. Thus, even if scientific creationists succeeded in disproving evolution, they would not by so doing have proven their case on grounds of logic. Macroevolution vs microevolution The static worldview of scientific creationists is in direct conflict with the dynamic view of reality adopted by evolutionists. Nowhere can this be better seen than in their view of the origin of different "kinds" of animals and plants. Faced with the abundance of coherent evidence obtained from population genetics theory, lab experiment- ation and field obsevation regarding population variation and change through natural selection, scientific creation- ists have been forced to accept the basic principles of microevolution. They deny, however, that macroevolution has taken place and refuse legitimacy to any evidence suggesting intermediaries between different higher taxa. In so doing they adopt the typological species concept which views species or "kinds" are substantially different, immutable and either eternal or created. To allow for the growing evidence in favor of microevolution, scientific creationists have shifted their position to admit "degenerative" evolution within a kind, but they still holdfast to the idea that evolution (macroevolution) cannot occur between kinds. They are quite vague on what they mean by "kind" but the term represents a Platonic, typological viewpoint wherein species (kinds) are immutable, perfect forms capable of a limited amount of specific within-kind modification. Thus, they conceive of a dog "kind" which represents the perfect, abstract canine. This kind or form was created but, through established microevolutionary process, could have given rise to a variety of canine species, e.g., dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals, etc. Under no circumstance will they admit that the perfect canine "kind" either evolved from or to a different kind. When confronted with a mammal-like reptile which possesses characteristic between therapsid reptiles and modern mammals, they deny intermediary status and classify it as a reptile, a mammal, or as a completely separate kind. Hence, no amount of fossil evidence in favor of transitional species within an evolving lineage will be recognized as such by scientific creationists. Motivation behind Scientific Creationism Scientific creationists are biblical literalists and so know they have the word of God on their side: they cannot be wrong! This being so, any approach to discredit evolution, however implausible, irrational or intellectually dishonest, is justified by the correctness of their position. Furthermore, they see in science, especially evolutionary theory, the root cause of atheistic materialism which must be opposed at all costs. According to them, all social evils of this modern age can be attibuted to the rise of science, the spread of secular humanism, and acceptance of the theory of evolution as the explanation of human origin. An even stronger motivation for their movement comes from the idea of evolution itself. If, as evolution holds, we humans have always been progressing to our current state, the concept of initial perfection and subsequent fall through original sin for Christ's redemptive act. Hence, if the evolutionary explanation of human existence is true, Christianity is a farce. Thus, the belief of these fundamentalist Christians that the Bible is literally correct and their inability to view the biblical message as written within the context of an ancient culture have forced them to oppose evolution through use of dubious methods. Scientists and Scientific Creationism Although scientists reject scientific creationism as a true science for reasons you should understand by now, they do not oppose the teaching of creation in public schools as long as it is not taught in a science curriculum. The opposition of scientists to giving creationism equal time with evolution is based on the idea that students should be taught what science is as well as the basic principles of science in any science course. To allow equal time to creationism would confuse students about the nature of science during their formative years in education and make a joke out of American science education, which has enough problems today without this complication.