Creationism – Abusing our Children

 

Isn’t teaching an alternative to evolution the right thing to do? Shouldn’t we look at Intelligent Design as a scientific theory equal to the theory of evolution? What is wrong with teaching the controversy? What about the new Ben Stein movie Expelled:  No Intelligence Allowed? 

The release of the “Wedge Strategy” written by the Discovery Institute — Center for Science and Culture gives us the exact strategy that we see in almost every creationist attempt to inject the Intelligent Design theory into public schools. There are several points I would like to articulate first that are present in both the “Wedge Strategy” and in other ID literature. 

1.       The first strategy you will notice that is universally employed by most creationists is the “Evolutionist vs. Christians.” Looking at the usual suspects, we find the following:

Ken Ham, in an article found on the website “answersingenesis.com” states: “Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.” [1]

He then goes on to remove the term “creationist” and the term “non-Christian” from his article and simply refers to “evolutionist” and “creationist”. This makes it seem that you must pick a side, either evolution or Christianity. This is one of the oldest tricks in the book and it needs to be viewed in that context, as a trick.

The basis of this seems to be the “Wedge Strategy” of: “Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism”

To rebuke the claims that Evolution and Christianity are anything but incompatible a large group of Christians participate in “Evolution Sunday”. Currently there are 816 congregations in all 50 states and 9 countries that are involved. [2]

It is possible to find “Theistic Evolutionist” in every Christian denomination as well as Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and other world religions. One of the greatest theists of our day wrote:

"Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." (Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Science”

The tactics employed by Creationist to divide “evolutionist” from “Christians” seems to give the status of true believers only to those who adhere to the precepts of Creationist claims. This is not only false, but false to such an extent that intentional deception is the simplest answer. When presenting this argument to children in our schools or to the teachers who instruct them, it forces a false “Religion versus Evolution” quandary. Faced with this choice, there will inevitably be those who turn their back on Evolution as a testament to their faith in God. 

2.       Intelligent Design isn’t Creationism

This is simply wrong. This is seen in Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688. The suit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking injunctive relief. Since it sought an equitable remedy there was no right to a jury trial; the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution did not apply. It was tried in a bench trial from September 26, 2005 to November 4, 2005 before Judge John E. Jones III. On December 20, 2005 Judge Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision, ruling that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated in a November 8, 2005 election by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated that the board does not intend to appeal the ruling.[3]

The reason this is so important to both Christian and non-Christian parents alike involve allowing theological arguments to enter the science classroom. While it may be the instinctual reaction from Christian parents to allow this one exception to keep their children from questioning the beliefs of their religion, few of them would be willing to allow Astrology, Alchemy, Flat Earth, Holocaust denial, or Numerology into schools via a “Teach the Controversy” method. If a non-science hypothesis such as Creationism (or Intelligent Design) is allowed to skip the normal scientific requirements then other unorthodox views must also be allowed. 

3.       Evolution is just a theory, why is it being taught?

I can find no better statement regarding this than the one found at talkorigins.org. 

“The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:

Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;

Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;

Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;

Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.” [4]

The argument of Evolution being “just a theory” is someone trying to use common wording in order to pull the wool over your eyes. People who are educated in science or the intelligent design movement know this better than anyone else and are being deceitful if they try and use it. Do not let people lie to you or your children with this argument. 

4.       Evolution is a theory in crisis!

No, it isn’t. Telling this to children is nothing more than lying to them. There are no gaping holes in the theory of evolution. There is no “missing link” that provides reasonable doubt as to our descent from a common ancestor.   While “creation scientist” make well funded and produced video’s on the subject, they are usually destroyed by normal free thinking individuals within hours of their release. In the few occasions that eminent scientist are confronted with “Intelligent Design” claims of holes in the evolutionary theory the result is usually an intellectual evisceration of the ID nonsense. Simply put, not one single claim of Intelligent Design has been proven true while Evolution has withstood 150 years of the most intense scrutiny science can muster. 

To put it more directly, if there was proof that the theory of evolution was flawed there would be many hot-shot scientist looking to make their name and their fortune writing peer reviewed papers and making practical experiments involving the “Intelligent Design” model.

5.       Don’t make our children stupid.

If we make the teaching of the Theory of Evolution an exception to our normal teachings on science then we call into question all the things we derive from it. Making the above listed arguments as a reason teach Intelligent Design is both deceitful and violates the law. Teach your children whatever morals you wish, but don’t teach them lies or falsehoods, it will only make them seem less intelligent and more closed minded in the long run.

 

 

Todd Branch

todd.branch@gmail.com 

 

1^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

2^ http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evolution_weekend_2008.htm

3^ ^Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design', Michael Powell, The Washington Post, December 21, 2005

4 ^ http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html