Creationism, Intelligent Design & Evolution
Why only one of the above belongs in a science curriculumby Rev. Neil MacQueen
Note: Please don't respond to this article if all you have to say is something insulting like "you're not a Christian" or something ignorant like "you need to get saved." Judging another person's faith because they disagree with your opinion is bad religion.
I'm probably one of the few Presbyterian ministers who has actually read Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species.
It was given to me as a gag birthday gift by a creationist friend of mine in college. He scratched out Darwin's name and wrote in mine. At the time I was an anthropology/archaeology major at Ohio State so I guess you could say I know a thing or two about evolution. The fact that I was also a Christian heading to seminary made the subject of evolution vs creationism of interest to me. I was often the target of remarks by agnostic classmates who immediately assumed because I was a Christian that I was a creationist (which just goes to show there is plenty of ignorance to go around.) Most Christians are not strict creationists. Rather, surveys indicate most believe God created the world. And there's a difference between these two ideas.
In the past few years, even most who had previously described themselves as "creationists" now describe themselves as believers in "intelligent design." But let's call it by it's real name: "God designed." I happen to agree with "God designed" though perhaps quite differently than you.
I think God created the universe and all natural laws, including the process of evolution. But I can't prove that. It's an article of faith, not science. "God" is a religious belief, not a scientific one, and thus doesn't belong in a pluralistic society's science curriculum. Religion belongs in a religious studies class.
Because Intelligent Design cannot prove God's existence, it is a belief, not science. Science deals in what can be observed and tested. God is not scientifically verifiable., and Natural Selection is.
Personally I wish God was scientifically verifiable ! But I happen to agree with the Bible when it says "Faith is the evidence of things NOT seen." (Hebrews 11).So why would some people want I.D. or creationism "mentioned" or taught in the public school science curriculum. Many both in and out of the Christian community believe that "I.D." is a wedge issue, -an issue designed to open the doors to additional religious agendas in secular settings. It is a popular idea which if legislated then sets a legal precedent for the ability to legislate a host of other religious beliefs, such as, "when does life begin, at conception?" and "who can enter into a civil union, just heterosexual couples?"
On a larger scale there is a larger problem. History indicates that once the wall of separation of church and state starts to come down intolerance rises. The last people I want calling the political shots in this country are preachers and their congregations. That's called a "Theocracy." Iran has a theocracy.
It is no coincidence that Western Civilization's scientific renaissance began to happen when the authority of the Church began to splint during the Reformation.
There are some strict creationists left. Fifty years ago most creationists believed the earth was about 6,000 years old. It was a pillar of their Biblical literalism. But many have left the creationist camp recognizing that the evidence for a much older earth and for evolution are now overwhelming. Those who have remained are true Biblical literalists. There's no arguing with them. If you don't agree with them, you're wrong. Though oddly enough, they are heavily aligned with the Intelligent Design movement. Intelligent Design, strictly speaking, believes in evolution/natural selection as the likely process that God has used over millions/billions of years to bring about all that we see. I.D. folks are mostly non-literal readers of the Bible. The problem of course is how one reads the Bible, literally, or not literally. I'm not a literalist. And in fact, most literalists aren't strict literalist either -truth be told. Even the most conservative Christians I've met are rather selective about which New Testament verses they act on, and which are better not mentioned. But that's another article. For more on what's wrong with the creation science, look toward the end of this article.
More about Creationism, and some of the "facts" they represent...
Most "creation science" is just bad science. For example: Creation "science" boldly puts forth the doctrine that "There have been no observable examples of species mutation or intermediary forms found between the species." You can find this in numerous creationist books and websites. And yet the newspapers, National Geographic and the fossil record regularly report such findings. Mutations are the basis for the horticulture and cattle industry. Genetic engineers take advantage of the mechanism by tweaking it for countless purposes. Creationist simply ignore this information. I've heard some claim that no intermediary species have ever been found. That's simply untrue. The longer we dig for fossils, the more the record speaks for itself. But "belief based people chose to ignore what's been discovered. Science tries to explain, while their beliefs often lead them to ignore the obvious or what you don't understand, or what you fear will shake your beliefs. Unwavering belief is a dangerous trait in our species. History is full of its resultant carnage. (Yet unwavering belief is what makes for faith. Thanks a lot God!)
If you've had an anti-biotic resistant infection lately, you've experienced mutation and natural selection. This was pointed out in the November 2004 National Geographic article on evolution. Evidence for evolution is all around us. Take staph germs for example. Why are they so dangerous these days? Because they have become resistant to antibiotics by mutating. You might say that medicine is at war with the "intelligent design" of natural selection. Indeed, lately I've heard some folks question the word "intelligent" in "intelligent design." Our bodies are certainly flawed in many aspects of their design. Many doctors have pointed this out. So even the vocabulary of the current discussion is in error.
I think the BETTER QUESTION is "why" God created our world and us in it like we are, rather than "HOW."
I actually heard a well-known creationist on television say that the dragons of bygone days were probably the dinosaurs! Such ignorance is beyond comprehension. And yet these are the types of people that are trying to get their foot in the door of our science classes. Better our children get NO religion than hear THAT kind of religion. And now some reformed creationists want us to believe that their Intelligent Design theories belong in our classrooms. No thanks.
Creation "Science" lacks Integrity,
...as does some of the "science" used to support the Intelligent Design argumentBehe is a bust. In the past several years creationists have flocked to the writings of one Lehigh Univ. professor by the name of Michael Behe. Behe's 1996 "Darwin's Black Box... a biochemical challenge to evolution" has been widely read, and also widely disagreed with by biochemists, botanists, et al. One scientist simply dismisses Behe as someone who "didn't check the available literature very well" before coming to his conclusions. You can read a short refutation of Behe's science at http://www.wfu.edu/~ecarlson/tasc/rational/n5/ You can read scientific research papers debunking the centerpiece to Behe's biochemical argument against evolution here.
Many creationist "experts" simply are not. Visit this website for a list of supposed creationist experts and their "academic credentials." Here's another list of Creation Research Institute and other creationist authors and their false degrees http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html. Many of these creationist lecturers and writers have been scrutinized and found to be claiming degrees from non-existent schools, or claim science degrees from mission schools and seminaries, not accredited universities with science departments. A number of creationist authors have their degrees from well-known degree mills. One website supposedly lists actual scientists who are Creationists. The Problem: those with actual degrees listed rarely have their degree in fields that deal with evolutionary biology. A degree in physics doesn't qualify you as an expert in evolution. It makes you wonder WHY good Christians are so easily misled.
A fellow emailed me in response to this webpage comment about "phonies" suggesting I read "Dr. Philip Johnson's" famous book refuting Evolution. The Problem: Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist. Furthermore, in my investigation of that book, I ran across a review of it at "talkorgins.org" which clearly called into question many of the supposed "quotes from evolutionists" Johnson excerpted to prove his case. The reviewer ran through a list, in fact, of Johnson's misquotes of those scientists, or worse, deliberate misquotes.
Many creationist "proofs" that evolution is a bad theory are easily rebutted. Read one of the best rebuttals of creationism on the web at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm#14 . Another set of proofs is the famous 29 Evidences to MacroEvolution at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. This bit of research is regularly updated with new scientific reports from around the world.
Yet another problem is that some creationist authors, such as the infamous Dr. Behe, a biochemist, claim that there is no literature/research in their field that refutes their argument. The problem is that others in their field READ these ascertains, and then respond with bibliographies! In Darwin's Black Box, a best seller, Behe wrote "There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems." However, one single reviewer at talkorigins.org compiled an impressive list of books and papers!
Then there are the Creationist Entrepreneurs like Ken Hovind and his popular evangelical ministry's offer of $250,000 to anyone who can prove Evolution. Problem: Hovind is bankrupt. Read the fact here or just type "Hovind Bankrupt" into Google. He is hawking dinosaur mousepads at his creationist site. Oh, and his "doctorate" came from a degree-mill non-existent college too. Nice.
The latest greatest creationist website, Answers in Genesis, hawks a book, Refuting Evolution, by an Australian Physical Chemist by the name of Dr. Jonathan Sarafati. His area of expertise is superconductors, not biology.
Clearly, the creationist movement is hurt by bad science and un-credentialed pseudo-scientists.
The Intelligent Design movement has 'solved' this problem by finding evolutionists who believe in God.
But that's not hard to do, and no reason to let it into the science curriculum. I'm an evolutionist who believes in God too.Well enough. It's sickening to see doctrine in search of science. It's scary to hear those in the "majority" religion want equal time in a science class where they have no business.
Which brings up the following -more interesting questions:
If God has invented evolution... what is God evolving us toward?
I believe God is interested in our own personal journey toward being more loving of him and fellow creatures. This journey does not end with death, but continues in the afterlife. I'm not making this up. Irenaeus, the third century Bishop of Alexandria, called God a "soul-maker" who seeks to shape us. God has designed the universe to shape souls on a journey toward wholeness (in Hebrew, the word shalom and linguistically related to the Old Testament word for "heaven"). Reinhold Neibuhr, the great 20th Century Protestant theologian was on this same track when he described us as in a state of "becoming."
What might God be up to on an evolutionary time scale?
All indications are that God driven-human evolution is on track to produce a more "altruistic being." In other words, God is evolving a creature not merely created in the image of God, but one that is coming closer to living up to that potential! Consider that God may be working on an evolutionary time scale also helps to further explain God's forgiveness, he knows we don't have it in us....yet.... to be all that God wants us to be. In this paradigm of thinking, Jesus is not merely a man in the past, but the man of the future. Fits quite nicely with Pauline Christology too. It is convenient to think of God in merely personal terms, or to confine God to history. But God is Creator and Redeemer working in an eternal scale we can barely fathom. Long after this world is gone, God will still be calling forth beings in his image. It's part of God's nature. God can't stop being God.
Strangely enough, many science fiction writers have picked up on this theme of "what we might become" when creating futuristic worlds. Often these worlds operate as sinfully as our own. But many writers imagine a better world populated by a better race of human beings. One need look no further than Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek to catch a glimpse of this imagined future. And it is good to imagine the future, whether it is stardate 2365 or one hundred thousand years in the future. Why? Because God has always held out a vision for humanity. In the Old Testament it was called "The Promised Land." In the New Testament, it was called "The Kingdom of God." Here in bits and pieces, seeded among us, but also not yet.
Scripture teaches us to reflect on our nature.
As science unravels the mysteries of what we are,
faith makes us wonder who and whose we are.
Or as the psalmist said,
"What are human beings that you are mindful of them?"Thank you for letting me share my thoughts. If you'd like to thoughtfully respond, please email me at sundaysoft@ee.net. If your response is full of "hell, fire and insults" like some have been, well, you're not much of a Christian so don't bother pretending to be one with me.
<>< Neil MacQueen , December 2001, updated January 2003, July 2004, November 2004. REVISED May 2005.
Neil MacQueen is a family man, teacher, Presbyterian minister, Christian education author, Archaeology/Anthropology Major (Ohio State Class of '81) and president of Sunday Software Inc. Copyright 2001. This article may be freely used provided its source is cited.
