Demonizing Test Tubes: Evangelicals and Evolution (Part 2)
This post isn’t intended as open debate of Creation vs Evolution , and 
it isn’t about what I believe, or what I think you should believe. Rather, it’s about the anti-science aspects of the Creation/Evolution arguments, and how they are contributing to a confused and negative perception of science in the US. For more info, please see part 1 in this series.
The problem appears straight-forward and simple on the surface; The Theory of Evolution flat out conflicts with the literal interpretations of the Bible’s account of Creation. Many Christians don’t see the conflict as relevant to their lives, and they move quietly beyond it, whatever they actually believe.
But for Fundamentalists, the conflict is clearly relevant. For them, there is no doubting that life arose as described in Genesis, created by God along with the rest of the Universe in less than 7 days. In their view, the Theory of Evolution is not only inaccurate, but it is an evil and atheistic argument against mankind’s unique relationship with God.
Since it conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible (which they believe to be the inerrant and literal word of God) Evolution is also a denial of the Truth of God’s Word - a denial that their children are forced to learn, accept and repeat in public school. As a result, they are waging a grass-roots war against Science and Science education - even if they don’t put it in those terms.
A Broader Front Than Evolution
Though the argument is usually framed as “Creation vs. Evolution” it’s more along the lines of “Creation vs. A-Whole-Heck-Of-A-Lot-Of-Science”.
In mainstream scientific circles, the Theory of Evolution provides a well-tested explanation for the wide variety of life, how that diversity developed, and predicts how it will continue to develop. It doesn’t address the origins of life itself, the origins of the universe, or the age of the earth - just the diversity of life.
But in Creationist circles, “Evolution” means something different. It’s become an umbrella term covering pretty much any science that conflicts with the Biblical creation stories - anything about the origins of life, humanity, the Earth, or the Universe itself.
So when Creationists speak out against Evolution and “Darwinism” they’re not just taking issue with one aspect of Biology, but also with much of Astronomy, Geology, Palentology, Anthropology, etc, etc, etc. Dissembling aside, the conflict is really between Creationism and Science, as a whole.
But Why Wage A “War”?
“War” isn’t a literary metaphor introduced for the sake of drama in this post; it’s the language often used within the Evangelical movement itself.
Some Evangelical Christians bring Charismatic elements into the mix - including the belief that they ( as both individuals, and as a religion) are under constant spiritual siege. They view themselves as engaged in ongoing spiritual warfare against tangible forces of evil.
Combine the idea of spiritual warfare with Creationist belief, and the Theory of Evolution isn’t just wrong, or “against God” in a theoretical philosophical way. It becomes as a literal attack by demons against followers of God and Faith. Further, the war is not of their choosing; rather they see themselves as soldiers on the defensive, in a war waged by Satan.
Redefining Science
Since the infamous Snopes Monkey Trial of 1921, the face of Creationism has changed greatly, and new tactics have been brought to the fight - most notably attempts to put Creationism on equal ground with Evolution as a competing scientific theory, and an attempt to undermine confidence in mainstream science, scientific techniques, and scientists themselves.
Thus was born the “alternative theories” of Creation Science (which turns out to be not very scientific) followed by Intelligent Design (which tries to take the religion out of it, but is still flawed when it comes to actual science.) But what disturbs so many in the mainstream scientific community isn’t just the bad science in these “alternative theories” or the “challenges to Evolution” but the attempts to change the definition of science itself.
In 2005, when the Kansas public school science standards were revised, a minor but notable change was made.
“Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us” was replaced with “Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”
The problem? The new definition left the door open to supernatural explanations, which by definition, cannot be tested. If that change were accepted, science would become a competing field of beliefs, rather than falsifiable, tested and retested theories.
Even more muddling of vocabulary goes on: Instead of the scientific meaning of “theory” (a repeatedly tested, accepted and proven explanation generally accepted as fact) they continually muddle the water with the lay meaning of theory (an unproven idea, speculation or hunch). These mixed up definitions have been introduced into the public school curriculum debates, insisting that Evolution be taught as “a theory, not a fact.”
Leaders in the Creationist movement continually mis-educate their audience as to what Evolutionary theory actually says, how scientific theories are tested, and so on. They’ve created their own supposedly scientific theories to support their views, and patiently explain the supposed “weaknesses” in Evolution to eager audiences, even though their ideas don’t hold up to even light scrutiny through accepted scientific methods. Science is sometimes presented as if it were a competing religion with Evolution as its Creation myth… and sometimes casting Darwin as it’s founder. Since some of the most vocal defenders of Evolution are avowed atheists, it’s that much easier for Creationist leaders to cast “Darwinism” as an atheistic religion (which should therefore not be taught in school, goes the logic.)
Losing The Battles, But Winning The War?
To date, the US Court systems and school boards have yet to allow Creationist or Intelligent Design as an ongoing part of public school curriculums, though the skirmishes continue. But that doesn’t mean Creationists are losing - they are successfully undermining the general understanding of science for a large segment of the US population.
According to Gallup polls, about half of Americans believe in some version of Young-Earth Creationism, and about the same number says they doubt or disbelieve the Theory of Evolution. Those numbers have stayed roughly the same for 20 years, with neither side gaining an edge - even while the evidence in favor of Evolution mounts.
I don’t think those numbers will change any time soon, and frankly, the numbers themselves don’t worry me. What does trouble me is that increasingly, believers in Creationism don’t acknowledge it as a matter of faith, but believe it is a matter of *Science*. Their concept of science is becoming warped and confused, at the same time that they believe themselves to be more informed and better educated on the issues. Further, they are becoming convinced that the mainstream scientific community is prejudiced, atheistic, closeminded and…. at times… even evil.
In The End…
Whatever our faith, religion, or lack of it may be, the Creation vs Evolution arguments are contributing to a growing anti-Science rumble in at least some parts of the US. That rumble influences education programs, government science funding, consumer support, and so on.
Will it come to a boiling point and create a larger problem for the US, or just fade quietly into the background? I don’t know. But I’ll ramble on about it in part 3 of this series, assuming I haven’t alienated half of my audience with this post 
MindTweak: All evolution in thought and conduct must at first appear as heresy and misconduct. - George Bernard Shaw
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
The problem with Creationists is that many of them have identified with their faith since they started attending churches at a very young age. By the time they are adults they are their faith. If you ask a Christian of a Muslim who they are they will reply, ‘I am a Christian,’ or ‘I am a Muslim.’ Everthing they do in life revolves around their identification with a faith.
So when evolution contradicts everything they’ve spent their lives identifying with they feel threatened. It’s a direct attack on their very being, or what they perceive to be their being. And when you get big passionate groups of these people in one place, they form a collective defence of their self, and attack that what condradicts their being - science.
So, I believe, the Creationists’ attack on science is not because of the facts of the science, but because it is an ‘evil’ that contradicts that what they’ve identified with.
How is it possible to have a reasoned debate with these people? I’m not sure, but a good starting place would be to remind them that they are first human beings, not Creationists. Maybe then they wouldn’t look at science as an attack on their selves.
The problem with the ‘Science’ side - or the way this argument is set up - is that it is a false debate fostered by the media….the “Science” side as depicted in the media Science=Evolution. Richard Dawkins thinks the entire universe can be explained through natural selection.. it (evolution) has been coopted by those embracing a political theology as a tool in a ‘war’ against the last vestiages of Christian culture in the West…and in doing so it comes becomes just as unscientific - one only need see how these so called defenders of scientist scatter like cockroaches when James Watson was being grilled in the media over his comments on race, genetics and IQ - and Watson had to recant in a manner every bit as humiliating and unscientific as Galelio …where was Dawkins then? Lambasting some church in Colorado over what they teach in their church?
But back to the matter at hand..Evolutionists assume that any argument against Evolution is an argument against science and therefore wrong…in other words they are just as dogmatic as they think ‘creationists’ are …
…. and the problem with both sides is they approach the discussion by outlining “the problem” with the other side ; ) (I’m often just as guilty of that as anyone)
I think *both* sides of the argument identify strongly with their approach, and that makes it very personal. Most of those on the Biblical Creation side certainly have a powerful identity as Christians (I don’t think that’s bad, btw) and those on the Evolution side usually pride themselves on being rational, logical intellectuals.
And I think both approaches have been co-opted by people with agendas. As “me” points out, some of the most visible defenders of Evolution are outspoken opponents of religion (I call them Evangelical Atheists). At the same time, some very visible promoters of Creationism seem to have a specific goal of re-introducing religion into public schools.
Maybe a good place to start in trying to have a reasoned debate would be not thinking in terms a of “these people”
The discussions work best when they’re approached not as a debate but as a discussion, with each side trying to understand the language and reasoning of the other.
In a large part, I agree with “me” that it is a false debate in many ways - and when people approach the discussion with a sincere interest in understanding the other side (rather than converting one another) some interesting things happen.
Personally, I’ve never seen religion and science as incompatible; rather, I see them as dealing with different questions that fill different needs in our human desire to understand the world around us. Clearly, a lot of people disagree with me, and I could just as easily have turned this particular post upside down, and turned it into “The War on Religion”. And I might do that, after I’ve finished with the Science bits
Hey TD,
I want to play. But first can’t we differentiate religion from faith?
I am reading Richard Dawkins’s “The God Dillusion” and find it utterly unputdownable. His arguments are so well constructed and articulated and the humour that pervades makes this book essential reading for theists and atheists alike.
The creation-design argument is in my view (with a hat tip to Dawkins), a no brainer. There is a simple question to ask and that is - who designed the designer?
I shall leave it at that. Because I like this site and want to use the red button use the red button use the red button use the red button use the red button use the red button use the red button to rest my brain.
@Reg of course you can play! And define all you want. One of the problems with this topic is the huge amount of defining that is involved. I took some shortcuts and made some horrid generalizations, which I may go back and fix. After I finish part 3 in the series, I may post another bit on the evolution/creation topic, as a sort of mind-exercise thing. We shall see. Meanwhile? Define away.
@Robert I’ve intentionally avoided Dawkin’s book - I can get too easily caught up in this particular debate and I can envision myself spending way, WAY too much time on it! ( I get addicted to resolving arguments, cutting through BS, mending fences, and most especially, wallowing in pseudo-science)
One thing I have learned through my short lived forays into this battle:
While my views seem a no-brainer to me… every one else’s views seem like no-brainer’s to them, to. So everyone is running around with no brain, which explains a lot.
Simple solution: Spend more time on MindTweaks! ; )
Oh perchance to wallow in anything pseudo? Aaah, that would be tres pleasant.
Well you said it - spend more time here so here I am mamma! Where’s the red button?
Tori - To see an example of the marvel of science, but also the danger of what happens when only those with the finance/power can utilise such technology watch the following video:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7578059.stm
Fear (in this case, fear of kidnapping) is being used to sell this product. Yes there will always be whatever dangers (kidnappings, peadophiles, terrorists) the media & government continually inform us of. But when certain groups possess the ability to watch others’ movements then people will understandably become suspicious and frightened, not of the technology, but of those using it.
As usual, the media’s (which likes to sell fear) argument against science being used in this way would be to label me paranoid.
I know this post is about demonizing science, but I can’t help relating this to a people problem. Today, governments and big business have a terrible reputation; they lie, spin, and are addicted to greed and power. Put this kind of technology in their hands and people like myself become supsicious.
Just to make you angry -
There are 500 trillion connections in the brain - how fast did they evolve? How many per year?
@Robert Wallow away, my friend. And the red button is that-a-way —————->
@Peter Yepp, finding and resolving a fear *is* a marketing basic. It’s not always a bad thing, though, in my opinion. Sometimes the fear isn’t manufactured, and the solution is valid. Interesting link, and I’ll be pondering the implications for a while. I’d have never considered that particular application of microchips, but then, I don’t live where kidnappings are common.
But I agree with your take on it all as a “people problem” not a science problem. Science is neutral…. it’s what we do with it that is good, or bad, frightening or healing.
@Novpal Welcome to MindTweaks , and you’ll have to work harder than that to make me angry!
Unfortunately I don’t really understand your question - Are you asking how long the human brain with all of its complex connections took to evolve? Or the development of those connections from the human brain from embryo to adult? If you clarify, I promise to *try* and figure out an answer, assuming it isn’t “above my paygrade”
Thanks for your reply. Indeed, your 1st guess is right.
However, I’m a little worried by the phrase “above my paygrade”. Surely the idea of evolution is that it’s so obvious, that there’s NO EXCUSE for any doubt?
Hasta la vista, hombre.
Hi again, novparl. As I’ve said, I don’t really want this comment section to become a debate over Evolution. But I did promise an answer.
How long did the human brain take to evolve? My take would be “about 4 billion years” counting from the rise of the simplest single celled organisms, to modern humans (about 200,000 years ago).
I’d assume their brains were pretty much like ours, except for likely very different neuroplastic responses to the environment and stresses. (The how many connections per year question doesn’t really make much sense, so I can’t answer it like that)
The “paygrade” comment was a joke (refering to Obama’s ill-chosen Saddleback response) and a way of saying “I am neither a neuroscientist nor an evolutionary biologist, so there are definite limits to my knowledge”.
The Theory of Evolution is not “obvious” - much of it can seem counter intuitive, which is why it’s so easy to make it seem silly by those who dont like what they think are the implications.
And nope, there’s no doubt among scientists (or for me) that it’s a sound theory, but that doesn’t mean there is no room for doubt, or for questioning it. Even basics like the Theory of Gravity are constantly being questioned and refined.
And I’m not an hombre
For what I am about to do, I can’t ask for anything other than for you all to kickback, relax and have a super 2 weeks ahead. For I and the missus are off to a Greek Isle to do my neon white whale blubber bit on a beach near Kos town!
There shall be a stampede to the nearest taverna to escape the glow! Heck, after a few summers of zero sun where winter continued into the next one, I am a whiter than the whitest shade of pale.
Anyway I found this:
“In a move modeled after the Vatican’s apology to Galileo, the Church of England will apologize to the author of the theory of evolution on its website marking the scientist’s 200th birthday: ‘Charles Darwin, 200 years from your birth [in 1809], the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still.” Although the action has been ridiculed by many, including his great-great-grandson, the Church is hoping to distance itself from fundamentalist organizations that continue to argue against the theory. One descendent more in favor of the move explains that he believes “…this apology would have pleased him,” in light of Darwin’s fear of offending as well as his wife’s own Christian devotion.”
And on this ecclesiastical bombshell I shall bid y’all adieu!
Robert, I miss the Aegean and am so green with envy right now…
Thanks for your reply.
Sorry I called you an hombre - I made an interesting assumption! I now recollect Tori Amos - tho’ visiting her Wikipedia pages I don’t remember any of her songs.
Also sorry I missed the Saddleback reference (we Brits just LERV apologising). The Campain gets mega-coverage in Europe, but 70% of it is attacking Sarah Palin, 20% McCain’s too old (strangely, Biden’s age doesn’t matter) and the Saddleback thing didn’t really feature (Sarah wasn’t there).
So if we say the brain’s been evolving for 4 billion years, the answer in my terms is 125,000 a year.
(That’s just made me think of the £400 billion GWB wants to give the bankers to reward them for ruining millions of lives!)
Buena suerte, senyora!