Once Again, Evolution

Much of the public is reluctant to dismiss calls to teach creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution in school science classes. That is one result of recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. So was I, as the entry made last month shows. My reluctance has faded as I have give the idea more thought.

Part of that thinking comes from an article in the Guardian Unlimited that addresses the issue forcefully. It argues that the epistemology of intelligent design is questionable. In other words, we do not know how those who favor intelligent design know what they know. Creationists argue that the theory of evolution has gaps that intelligent design can fill, but they do not present the evidence for intelligent design over other theories, a revision of evolution, for example. Contrast, how Copernicus destroyed Ptolemaic cosmology, to take an obvious example. His observations, carefully recorded and reproducible, showed that the earth does not sit at the center of the universe. New facts were brought in to destroy an old theory. In contrast, creationists argue simply that the ineffable complexity of the universe makes a man-made theory like evolution untenable.

A glance at the pages of the Discovery Institute's web site confirms what the Guardian article say about the lack of evidence presented in favor of intelligent design. It includes a page that lists peer reviewed publications that make the intelligent design argument. Several are listed, but they show only that there are gaps in evolutionary theory or that alternative theories are possible, a priori. Who would argue otherwise? Moreover, the page begins by saying that peer-reviewed articles are not necessary for the argument in the first place.

The fact is that one can accept both evolution and the existence of an intelligent designer. After all, Darwin did. So have most biologists since. That God has a place in the universe is not at issue in the physical sciences; scientific theory and the existence of God are not in conflict. Rather, the issue is over how we learn what we do no know about the universe. The creationist answer seems to be to abandon the scientific enterprise in favor of either a closer reading of the Bible or a search for proof of a theory whose truth they do not doubt. If there is another answer, they have not made it apparent.

The Pew poll is disturbing for several reasons. The high proportion of people who seem to believe in creationism is one. Another is that it shows that those who favor creationism have advantages that minority interest groups often have--they are less divided on the topic and more certain of their argument than the opposition. These are advantages that, the poll shows, that are able to take full advantage of.

The Guardian authors fear that a victory for creationism in their efforts to have the theory taught in schools "would be the end of science education in America." As my earlier entry says, the stakes are higher still: Not just education, but science itself.