What Are Creationists Afraid Of?
by Edward Hudgins
This year marks the
eightieth anniversary of the 1925 trial of John Scopes, who
was accused of violating Tennessee’s prohibition on teaching
Charles Darwin’s theory of the evolution of species.
Prosecutor William Jennings Bryan, a three-time Democratic
presidential candidate and Christian fundamentalist, squared
off against famous defense attorney Clarence Darrow.
Although the anti-Darwinians won that skirmish, they came
off badly in court, looking like closed-minded bigots.
The Scopes “monkey trial”
marked the birth of “creationism”—the doctrine that man and
the universe were created out of nothing by some
consciousness only a few thousand years ago, rather than by
evolutionary processes taking millions of years. But in its
1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision, the U.S. Supreme
Court found creationism to be a religious belief and banned
its teaching in public schools, seemingly once and for all,
as a violation of the separation of church and state.
Now the war between
creationism and evolution has flared up again, and
old-fashioned Bible literalists are enjoying a resurgence.
As just one indicator, a $25 million, 50,000-square-foot
Creation Museum opened recently in Petersburg, Kentucky. Its
exhibits proclaim that Man is only 6,000 years old, and that
dinosaurs rode as passengers on Noah’s ark.
Most of today’s
controversies, however, center on those who want to have
“intelligent design” taught in schools as science. A
high-profile legal battle currently rages over a Dover,
Pennsylvania, school board requirement that science teachers
read a four-paragraph statement in class calling Darwin’s
science into question and offering intelligent design as an
alternative. One high school physics teacher in that
jurisdiction complains of pressure from school board members
not to “teach monkeys-to-man evolution.” Even President Bush
has jumped into the fray, suggesting that intelligent design
should be taught in schools along with Darwin.
Advocates of this belief
claim that the structure of the universe and human beings is
too complex to have arisen naturally and thus had to have a
“designer.” They maintain that their beliefs are not
religion but just another rational explanation of human
origins, and therefore should be taught in science classes.
Some of its advocates even maintain that science itself is a
“faith”; so if you can teach one faith in schools, why not
others?
Pitted against these
proponents are those who understand that all living
things—including humans—evolved from lower life forms over
millions of years. They answer the creationists by
explaining the science of evolution, and by observing that
creationists are really pushing a religious rather than a
scientific belief.
There are important points
that both sides in this debate must recognize. First,
creationists must appreciate that their beliefs are not—in
any way, shape, or form—science. Science entails a rational
method for acquiring knowledge, and the creationists are
disingenuous if they maintain that their faith-based beliefs
should be taught in classes as part of biology, geology, or
any other such discipline.
Second, those who take a
rational approach to knowledge must understand that deep
moral concerns motivate many creationists, and that these
concerns should be addressed. They fear that if humans are
merely animals produced by material processes, then there is
no firm foundation for ethics; indeed, some see the social
breakdown around them resulting in part from the teachings
of Darwin. Since they reject moral relativism, they believe
they must reject evolution. Thus, they find themselves
attracted to convoluted and unconvincing critiques of
science, and looking to mandates from God to supply humans
with a moral code.
Creationists are right to
reject moral relativism, but they are fundamentally mistaken
about the nature of morality. Indeed, their beliefs
ultimately undermine it. What they must grasp is that with
the proper understanding of the foundations of ethics, they
can have both morality and science.
<!--[if
!supportEmptyParas]-->To begin, we must define clearly what
science actually is, and what should be taught in schools as
science. <!--[endif]-->
Science Is Not a Faith
<!--[if
!supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Science is not simply a set
of beliefs. Rather, it is the chief method human beings use
to acquire knowledge of the physical world.
We observe interesting
phenomena. The moon goes through phases and changes position
in the sky. The temperature, precipitation, and length of
day and night change over a 365-day period. Lightning
flashes overhead, and rain falls. Why?
Using the scientific
approach, we put forward theories that attempt to explain
the causes of these phenomena and to predict other facts. We
then test those theories, seeking facts that might prove
or—just as important—disprove them. In light of new facts we
reject a theory, accept it, or, more often than not, amend
and refine it. Science is a self-correcting methodology.
On a voyage around the
world, Charles Darwin observed how different animals showed
variations in their attributes that allowed them to fit into
certain environmental niches. On the basis of mountains of
observations he speculated that over long periods of
time—perhaps millions of years—the characteristics of living
things change. Some changes help certain organisms to
survive better, and they produce offspring with the same
features. Other changes put other organisms at a
disadvantage, and they die out.
This theory predicts that
we should find very old fossils of life forms that no longer
exist, as well as fossils of intermediate forms of life
between those old ones and live ones that still bloom, swim,
walk, or fly today. Sure enough, we find hundreds of
fossilized dinosaur skeletons and fossils of intermediate
creatures—for example, the archaeopteryx, between
dinosaurs and modern birds.
But most dramatically, we
find hundreds of bones of creatures that are clearly not
modern humans but are fundamentally different from apes and
other simians. They had bigger brains than monkeys and
skeletons that indicate they walked upright. There are
handmade rock tools and fire-burnt sites associated with
their fossils, too.
The hard-won knowledge from
other sciences supports these findings. Biology shows us
that genetic mutation was the mechanism that changed the
physical characteristics of living things, and it also shows
us in great detail exactly how humans are related to modern
primates. Geology tells us that it takes millions of years
for the physical features of our planet to change. Physics
tells us how to date rocks based on radioactive isotopes
found in them. Thus, we can accurately date the pre-human
fossils that we find.
For example, from the
fossils of more than three hundred individuals we find that
Australopithecus afarensis lived 3 to 4 million years
ago, stood upright, but still had a small brain, closer in
size to an ape’s. Homo ergaster lived about 1.6
million years ago, had a far larger brain (though still
smaller than those of modern humans), and had more extensive
tool technology. By such means paleontologists trace the
human family tree back three hundred thousand generations.
<!--[if
!supportEmptyParas]-->There is no serious disagreement among
scientists about whether humans evolved. Rather, their
questions concern, for example, whether evolution was smooth
or occurred in swifter, punctuated bursts of change, or
whether certain species led directly to humans or were
dead-end creatures that died out. <!--[endif]-->
Design Flaws in Creationism
<!--[if
!supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Creationists manifestly do
not follow this scientific methodology to come to their
beliefs. They simply assert that humans were created pretty
much in our current state only a few tens of thousands of
years ago, and they then pick away at some of the open
questions of paleontology. Their starting points in fact are
religious texts. If they are honest at all, they will
acknowledge that their beliefs about human origins are part
of their religious convictions—matters of faith, not
science—and so they will not insist that those beliefs be
taught as science or as a challenge to science. By what
standard could they mount such a challenge? There is no
epistemological equivalence between the assertions of
creationists and knowledge acquired through the scientific
method.
The advocates of
intelligent design fare little better. Their argument
amounts to: We’re amazed at how intricate, complex, and
well-integrated the universe is in general and humans are in
particular. This couldn’t have happened by chance evolution.
While humans perhaps did evolve, some designer must have
been guiding the process.
This is an old argument in
new clothing, one that might qualify as an attempt at
philosophy but certainly not at science.
First, intelligent design
by its nature is a belief based on religion, not science.
Who is the designer? A human? Can’t be—we’re the ones being
designed. Aliens from other worlds? Not metaphysically
impossible, but, again, we’ve got no evidence for that
whatsoever. Well, then, the designer must be—you guessed
it—a divine entity. A god.
Second, if we are awed at
the complexity of humans, how much more awed should we be at
the complexity of our omnipotent designer? If complexity
requires explanation, we might rightly ask, “Who designed
the designer?” The answer from intelligent design proponents
is always, “He/she/it didn’t need one. God always was.” Oh?
Then why not conclude the same thing about the universe—the
natural world and its processes?
Third, complexity does not
imply “design.” One of Adam Smith’s most powerful insights,
developed further by Friedrich Hayek, is that incredible
complexity can emerge in society without a designer or
planner, through “spontaneous order.” Hayek showed how in a
free market the complex processes of producing and
distributing goods and services to millions of individuals
do not require socialist planners. Rather, individuals
pursuing their own self-interest in a system governed by a
few basic rules—property rights, voluntary exchange by
contract—have produced all the vast riches of the Western
world.
Many creationists who are
on the political Right understand the logic of this insight
with respect to economic complexity. Why, then, is it such a
stretch for them to appreciate that the complexity we find
in the physical world—the optic nerve, for example—can
emerge over millions of years under the rule of natural laws
that govern genetic mutations and the adaptability of life
forms to changing environments? It is certainly curious that
many conservative creationists do not appreciate that the
same insights that show the futility of a state-designed
economy also show the irrelevance of an “intelligently
designed” universe.
It is also strange to see
conservative creationists adopting a policy practice that
was central to Stalinist Russia.
Trofim Lysenko was a Soviet
pseudo-scientist who rejected the Darwinian insight that
evolution occurs through genetic mutation. He believed—with
the earlier, discredited theorist
Jean-Baptiste
Lamarck—that living creatures can, in effect, simply will
their evolutionary change. For example, as the environment
changes and there are fewer low-hanging leaves, short-necked
critters stretch their necks to reach leaves higher on the
trees. Over time these critters will themselves, in effect,
into becoming giraffes.
Communist
doctrine held a similar view of the evolution of human
nature. Communism is, of course, contrary to human
nature—most of us look out for ourselves rather than
contently sacrificing for the “common good.” But the Reds
thought that by changing our political-economic environment,
we could simply will a change in our nature to make us into
post-capitalistic, altruistic, socialistic men.
Scientific
evidence did not support this belief, but the Bolsheviks
did; so they mandated that this ideological article of faith
be taught in schools, and they simultaneously repressed the
critical, empirical approach to biology.
<!--[if
!supportEmptyParas]-->Anti-communist creationists certainly
have disagreements with Darwin that are different than
Lysenko’s. But creationists also hold beliefs based on
ideology rather than the scientific process and wish to
foist those beliefs onto the science curricula by power of
law. No, they are no longer pushing to ban the teaching of
evolution from classrooms, as did their predecessors in many
states, including John Scope’s Tennessee. But their
political pressure has had a chilling effect on textbook
publishers and teachers, making them reluctant to openly
discuss the purely rational pursuit of knowledge.
<!--[endif]-->
Evolution: A Communist
Plot? <!--[if
!supportEmptyParas]-->
<!--[endif]-->
Yet another fear causes
creationists to reject the findings of science.
Many early proponents of
science and evolution were on the political Left. For
example, the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 affirmed support for
evolution and the scientific approach. But its article
fourteen stated: “The humanists are firmly convinced that
existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown
itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in
methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A
socialized and cooperative economic order must be
established to the end that the equitable distribution of
the means of life be possible.”
Subsequent humanist
manifestos in 1973 and 2000 went lighter on the explicit
socialism but still endorsed, along with a critical approach
to knowledge, the kind of welfare-state democracy and
internationalism rejected by conservatives. The unfortunate
historical association of science and socialism is based in
part on the erroneous conviction that if humans can use
scientific knowledge to design machines and technology, why
not an entire economy?
Further, many supporters of
evolution were or appeared to be value-relativists or
subjectivists. For example, Clarence Darrow, who defended
Scopes in the “monkey trial” eight decades ago, also
defended Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. These two young
amoralists pictured themselves as supermen above
conventional morality; they decided to commit the perfect
crime and killed a fourteen-year-old boy. Darrow offered the
jury the standard liberal excuses for the atrocity. He
argued that the killers were under the influence of
Nietzschean philosophy, and that to give them the death
penalty would hurt their surviving families. “I am pleading
for life, understanding, charity, kindness, and the infinite
mercy that considers all,” he said. “I am pleading that we
overcome cruelty with kindness and hatred with love.” This
is the sort of abrogation of personal responsibility, denial
of moral culpability, and rejection of the principle of
justice that offends religious conservatives—in fact, every
moral individual, religious or atheist.
In addition, nearly all
agnostics and atheists accept the validity of evolution.
Creationists, as religious fundamentalists, therefore see
evolution and atheism tied together to destroy the basis of
morality. For one thing, evolution seems to erase the
distinction between humans and animals. Animals are driven
by instincts; they are not responsible for their actions. So
we don’t blame cats for killing mice, lions for killing
antelope, or orca whales for killing seals. It’s what they
do. They follow instincts to satisfy urges to eat and
procreate. But if human beings evolved from lower animals,
then we might be merely animals—and so there would be no
basis for morality. In which case, anything goes.
To religious
fundamentalists, then, agnostics and atheists must be
value-relativists and subjectivists. Whether they accept
evolution because they reject a belief in God, or reject a
belief in God because they accept evolution, is immaterial:
the two beliefs are associated, just as are creationism and
theism. By this view, the only firm basis for morality is
the divine edicts of a god.
<!--[if
!supportEmptyParas]-->This reflects the creationists’
fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of morality.
<!--[endif]-->
Morality from Man’s Nature
<!--[if
!supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
We humans are what we are
today regardless of whether we evolved, were created, or
were intelligently designed. We have certain characteristics
that define our nature.
We are Homo sapiens.
Unlike lower animals, we have a rational capacity, an
ability to fully, conceptually understand the world around
us. We are self-conscious. We are the animal that knows—and
knows that he knows. We do not survive automatically, by
instinct, but must exercise the virtue of rationality. We
must think. We must discover how to acquire food—through
hunting or planting—how to make shelters, how to invent
medicines. And to acquire such knowledge, we must adopt a
rational methodology: science.
Furthermore, our thinking
does not occur automatically. We have free will and must
choose to think, to focus our minds, to be honest rather
than to evade facts that make us uncomfortable—evolution,
for example—because reality is what it is, whether we like
it or acknowledge it or not.
But we humans do not
exercise our minds and our wills for mere physical survival.
We have a capacity for a joy and flourishing far beyond the
mere sensual pleasures experienced by lower animals. Such
happiness comes from planning our long-term goals,
challenging ourselves, calling on the best within us, and
achieving those goals—whether we seek to nurture a business
to profitability or a child to adulthood, whether we seek to
create a poem or a business plan, whether we seek to design
a building or to lay the bricks for its foundation.
But our most important
creation is our moral character, the habits and attitudes
that govern our actions. A good character helps us to be
happy, a bad one guarantees us misery. And what guides us in
creating such a character? What tells us how we should deal
with our fellow humans?
A code of values, derived
from our nature and requirements as rational, responsible
creatures possessing free will.
We need not fear that with
evolution, or without a god, there is no basis for ethics.
There is an objective basis for ethics, but it does not
reside in the heavens. It arises from our own human nature
and its objective requirements.
Creationists and advocates
of intelligent design come to their beliefs in part through
honest errors and in part from evasions of facts and
close-minded dogmatism. But we should appreciate that one of
their motivations might be a proper rejection of
value-relativism, and a mistaken belief that acceptance of
divine revelation is the only moral alternative.
If we can demonstrate to
them that the basis for ethics lies in our nature as
rational, volitional creatures, then perhaps we can also
reassure them that men can indeed have morality—yet never
fear to use that wondrous capacity which allows us to
understand our own origins, the world around us, and the
moral nature within us.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->
<!--[endif]-->
Edward Hudgins is the
Executive Director of The Objectivist Center.