Creationism, Evolutionism, And Antievolutionism Research Paper

1.2 Evolution

Evolution is a scientific view of the Universe as having reached its present form gradually over time. Evolution, then, is ultimately about history: galaxies, stars, the planet Earth, and living things are different today from what they were in the past; there has been change through time. Biological evolution, a subset of this larger view of change through time, is the theory that living things have descended with modification from common ancestors. As with all biological entities, human beings have a shared common ancestry with other living things; our closest nonhuman relatives are the living apes. The ape human common ancestor shared common ancestors with monkeys and other primates, other mammals, and then (more distantly) with reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. Biological evolution affirms a genealogical relation-ship of species through time. It thus contrasts sharply with special creationism, which requires that all living things be created in their present forms, rather than having descended with modification from common ancestors.

Religious views other than special creationism may be, and often are, compatible with evolution. Theistic evolution, the doctrine that God worked purposefully through natural law to bring about the Universe via evolution, is part of the accepted theology of the Catholic Church, mainline Protestant Christian churches, and Reformed and/orthodox Judaism. It is also acceptable in some interpretations of the Koran. In these theologies, Genesis is not interpreted literally, and the separate creation of ‘kinds’ of living things is not important. The focus is on God as Creator, rather than how God created.

1.3 Antievolutionism

Although evolution is widely accepted within the scientific community, evolution has come under attack in North America, and in a growing number of other countries, by holders of certain religious views. In North America, the controversy plays primarily in the arena of precollege public-school education, although antievolutionism is not uncommonly expressed in informal science education centers such as National Parks, museums, zoos, and science centers.

Young-Earth Protestant Christians following a biblical literalist religious tradition form the core of the antievolutionism movement, but in the USA at least, antievolutionism extends beyond biblical literalists to include some mainline Christians. These non-literalist Christian antievolutionists are uneasy about evolution because it appears to them to have serious existential consequences (Pennock 1999). They reject theistic evolution in favor of special creationism because they believe that if humans evolved through the same process that brought about oak trees and salamanders, then we would be less special in the eyes of God. Being less special to God implies to them that there is no special purpose for human beings, and thus that human life has no more meaning than that of any other creature on the planet.

For life to be a purposeless and meaningless —, and God to be at best impersonal, rather than directly concerned about and accessible to individuals, — is unacceptable. Forced to choose between creationism and existential fulfillment on the one hand, and existential emptiness and evolution on the other, they reject evolution. Other Christian traditions resolve these issues in a variety of ways, finding no theological problem with God’s working through natural law to produce humans, but still sustaining the Universe and interacting with humans in a meaningful way.

It can fairly be said that antievolutionism does not flow from scientific weaknesses in evolutionary data and theory, but from religious or philosophical objections. This is illustrated by recent secular ‘postmodernist’ critiques of evolution, which focus on alleged negative implications for society of Darwinian evolution (evolution through Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection). Much as did members of the progressivist movement at the beginning of the twentieth century, postmodernist antievolutionists criticize Darwinism as the source of racism, sexism, exploitation of workers, and other social evils. Ironically, conservative Christians criticize evolution for being the source of Marxism, while leftist postmodernists criticize evolution for being the source of ‘nature red in tooth and claw’ capitalism!

2. History

Antievolutionism has been most successful in the United States, for historical as well as cultural reasons. The United States was settled in part by religious dissidents, whose churches were strongly congregational rather than hierarchical in structure. The period since the early 1800s has seen the origin of a variety of unique American Christian theological traditions, and although many (Shakers, Millerites) have passed into history, some have continued into the twenty-first century (Mormons, Christian Scientists, Seventh Day Adventists). Decentralization also characterizes the American educational tradition, because isolated settlements were forced to create their own schools, hire their own teachers, and develop their own curricula. The United States has never had a national curriculum in science, or in any other field, and curricula may vary considerably from district to district even within a single state. Evolution may or may not be taught in a given school district, even if it is required in the district’s curriculum. Teachers often omit evolution from instruction because it is controversial in their communities.

A major historical influence on American antievolutionism was the development during the second decade of the twentieth century of fundamentalism, a uniquely American Protestant religious tradition. Written be- tween 1910 and 1915, the 12 pamphlets known as ‘The Fundamentals’ laid out a back-to-basics Protestant theology that relied heavily on the inerrancy of the Bible. Emerging during the unsettled social and political conditions preceding World War I, fundamentalism’s comforting tenets were accepted rapidly by large numbers of Americans. Biblical literalism, however, had not been part of British Anglican, or continental Lutheran or Catholic traditions, and fundamentalism remained an American phenomenon.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, the theory of evolution had become widely accepted by scientists both in Great Britain and in the USA (Moore, 1979). In Great Britain, the Anglican church adjusted relatively quickly to evolution, accepting within a few decades of the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species that God created through the process of evolution. Textbooks in the USA at that time routinely discussed evolution as the organizing principle of biology. But the rise of fundamentalism was to change that, because evolution contradicted a literal interpretation of Genesis. Because Darwinism was associated in the public mind with social Darwinism, Christian social progressives such as William Jennings Bryan opposed it as they sought to ban child labor, improve the lot of workers, provide for women’s rights, and promote other progressive causes. By the early 1920s, efforts were being made in many states to ban outright the teaching of evolution.

2.1 Banning Evolution

Although between 1921 and 1929 antievolution legislation was introduced into 37 states, only five states passed such laws: Oklahoma, Tennessee, Florida, Mississippi, and Arkansas. Tennessee’s law was challenged by a high-school teacher named John Scopes, which culminated in the famous Scopes trial of 1925. Scopes lost, and the Tennessee law remained on the books for over 40 years.

Even though during the Scopes Trial the popular press pilloried the creationist view as old-fashioned and ignorant, antievolutionism did not go out of favor. In fact, the Mississippi and Arkansas antievolution laws were passed after the Scopes trial. The coverage of evolution in textbooks declined sharply after the Scopes trial, until by the mid-1930s, hardly any textbooks included the topic. Antievolutionism remained triumphant until the late 1950s, when the Soviet Union’s launch of the first orbiting satellite, Sputnik, caused the federal government to reexamine its science policy and to begin a major science education reform movement. This movement included the production of textbooks written by scientists and master teachers rather than in-house writers in publishing companies.

The federally-funded Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) cited evolution as an organizing principle in its textbooks, and soon commercial publishers followed suit. By the late 1960s, evolution was once again prominent in high-school textbooks. In 1968, antievolution laws such as the Tennessee law under which Scopes had been tried were overthrown by the Supreme Court in Epperson s. Arkansas.

2.2 Creation Science

The resurgence of evolution in textbooks caused an antievolutionary backlash. A strategy developed: if creationism could be presented as an alternative scientific view, then it would deserve a place in the curriculum. ‘Creation science’ first appeared in developed form in 1961 in The Genesis Flood by John Whitcomb and Henry R. Morris, in which the authors argued that modern geological features could be explained by Noah’s flood. Its mix of theology and science characterized future creation science efforts, and Morris became the foremost proponent of creation science in the latter part of the twentieth century. Creation science is associated closely with ‘young Earth creationism,’ in which the six days of Genesis took place about 10,000 years ago. Most creation science literature focuses upon supposed flaws in evolution, the reasoning being that evidence against evolution is evidence for creationism.

In 1972, Henry Morris and others founded the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, CA, as an antievolution ministry. It remains the flagship antievolution ministry, but there are other national organizations such as Answers in Genesis, the Bible-Science Association (recently renamed Creation Moments, Inc.), and several regional and local ministries that also promote the young Earth creationist views of Henry Morris. A sizable corpus of antievolutionary material consisting of books, videos, compact discs, filmstrips, tape recordings, posters, and curricula is publicly available from these organizations.

By the late 1970s, creationists instituted a movement to propose ‘equal time’ legislation in state legislatures, requiring that if evolution were taught, creation science would also have to be taught. At least 23 states had equal-time legislation introduced, and two states passed these bills: first Arkansas and then Louisiana. Although both laws were challenged in the courts, only the Louisiana decision reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in 1987 in Edwards vs. Aguillard that equal-time laws violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which requires that public institutions be religiously neutral. Creationism, being inherently a religious view, cannot be advocated in the public schools; thus laws promoting equal time for creationism are unconstitutional. Efforts to pass such legislation largely ceased, and school districts around the country that had required the teaching of creation science quietly changed their regulations.

2.3 Neocreationism

Although public-school teaching of creation science itself has been ruled unconstitutional, antievolutionism continues in the United States. More recent antievolutionary strategies avoid reference to any form of the root word ‘creation’ and go directly to trying to discourage the teaching of evolution without banning it directly. Whereas in the 1980s and early 1990s, school districts and teachers were exhorted to ‘teach evolution and teach creation science to balance it out,’ now antievolutionists encourage them to ‘teach evolution and the ‘‘evidence against evolution’’ to balance it out.’ In some districts, teachers are required to read a disclaimer that evolution is ‘only a theory’ to students before teaching the subject, and in fact, ‘only a theory’ disclaimer stickers have been placed in textbooks in Alabama and in several school districts around the country.

During the mid-1990s, a movement to ‘teach evolution and ‘‘intelligent design theory’’ to balance it out’ appeared and began to spread. ‘Intelligent design theory’ is a restatement of William Paley’s 1802 argument from design, an apology for the existence of God. Paley argued that because complex, intricate structures such as the vertebrate eye could not have occurred naturally, they must have been created specially by God. Intelligent design creationists update Paley by claiming that the structure of DNA or functions of the cell are ‘too complex’ to have been brought about by the alleged ‘random’ process of natural selection.

3. International Antievolutionism

Antievolutionism has been strongest in the United States, but there are movements in several other countries as well. American creation science materials have been circulated in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and as translations into languages other than English have become available, into dozens of other countries including Korea, the Philippines, Turkey, the nations of Europe, and in the former Soviet Union. Antievolutionism has not taken root in Europe, probably because secular culture predominates there, but in the current disarray in which Russia and other former components of the Soviet Union find them-selves, antievolutionism is increasing in proportion to the increase of adherents to conservative Christian sects.

International antievolutionism is largely the result of activities of American conservative Protestant Christian missionaries. The withdrawal of official Catholic approval for ‘liberation theology’ has caused many in Central and South America to search for a religious alternative to Catholicism, and Protestant missionaries have stepped up their proselytizing efforts in this part of the world. Missionaries distribute antievolution materials as well as more traditional tracts. In Russia, Protestant missionaries have long been teachers of English, and with the breakdown of the central government’s oversight (and the increase in interest in religion since the dissolution of the Soviet Union), antievolution materials have proliferated. The Institute for Creation Research has cultivated anti-evolutionists in Russia as well as many other nations, in order to spread creation science as well as biblical literalist Christianity.

Of interest is the growth of non-Christian antievolutionism, as seen in a small but vocal movement in Islamic Turkey, as well as in Israel from ultra-Orthodox Jews. In both cases, the literal interpretation of Genesis is foundational to the opposition to the teaching of evolution in schools. Of the two, the Turkish movement is more organized, and uses translations of American creation science materials. In fact, ICR employees have made several trips to Turkey to cultivate the antievolution movement, apparently without promoting Christian conversion.

One of the stranger chapters in modern antievolutionism is the development of a form of creationism based on Hinduism. A Krishna Consciousness organization in the United States, the Baktividanta Institute, contends that modern evolutionary science is not true. But instead of substituting creation science, Institute personnel argue for the literal truth of the Hindu Vedas. According to these religious scriptures, the world and living things have come and gone according to a series of cycles, and we are currently the midst of one. Humans were created 350 million years ago, and did not evolve only within the last few million years. Ironically, in a movie shown on American television during the 1990s (‘Mysterious Origins of Man’), antievolution creation science arguments were used, but stripped of their biblical references, and also of their young-earth references. Like creation science, ‘Krishna creationism’ claims that modern scientists are in a conspiracy to hide the ‘truth’ of the lack of scientific support for evolution from the public.

4. The Future

Will antievolutionism increase or decrease over time? The future of social movements is always difficult to predict, but no predictions are possible without an understanding of the roots and motivations of such movements. Clearly, the foundation of antievolutionism is the concern (if not fear) that religious views will be proven untrue, or at least require major modification. This is most apparent with biblical literalists, who tie salvation to the literal truth of the book of Revelations, and tie Revelations to the literal truth of Genesis. But, as mentioned earlier, nonliteralist Christians may also be uneasy about evolution if evolution is seen to imply or require that only natural processes could be involved in the production of the Universe—that God is completely removed from Creation. Beliefs about such existential issues will be very influential in either the increase or decrease of antievolutionism.

Antievolutionism is correlated with conservative religious belief. Although sacred texts such as the Bible have been interpreted as making claims about the natural world, as science has grown and proven its worth, most varieties of Judaism and Christianity have gradually ceased to attempt to explain the natural world through revelation.

Even though there are religious traditions within which evolution is not acceptable, it is probable that theological change will continue. There are only a handful of Christians who believe that the Bible incorporates geocentrism, and perhaps on some future day, all Christians will look back on the era of religious opposition to evolution much as they do upon Galileo’s conflict with the Church of his time: as an example of the gradual replacement of theological statements about the natural world with scientific data and theory.

Not surprisingly, polls show high acceptance of evolution in nations where religious belief is low. In a world of nonbelievers, one would find little antievolutionism. But faith does not seem to be on the decline. Secularism is more common in economically developed nations than in less developed countries. The United States, in fact, is atypical among developed countries for its high percentage of individuals who profess belief in God. But even with increased prosperity among developing nations, one would be unwise to predict a linear increase in secularism. Adherence to religion waxes and wanes through time, depending on a network of factors affecting the social and economic environment.

In Russia under the communists, for example, there was reportedly a very low level of religious adherence. Of course, there were reduced opportunities to practice religion in a state where religion was actively discouraged. But with the collapse of the communist system and government, more churches and synagogues are opening in Russia and more people are attending services at the start of the twenty-first century than for decades previously. Reportedly, the Chinese communist government has not been successful in fully stamping out religious adherence. It would be premature indeed to generalize the secularization seen in developed nations in Europe to other nations: traditional religious beliefs are very resilient.

So a decrease in support for antievolutionism is most likely to occur, if it occurs, because of changes in current religious views now hostile to evolution, rather than because of large numbers of people’s abandoning religion. Antievolutionism may in fact increase in the future, if there is increased adherence to traditions requiring the literal interpretation of sacred texts (the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Vedas, and perhaps others).

Antievolutionism is also related to the public under-standing of science: people who understand evolution as a scientific idea that explains natural phenomena rather than as an inherently antireligious idea are less likely to reject it. Thus, if there is improvement in the public understanding of science, antievolutionism may decrease. An improvement in science education in countries in which antievolutionism is established or growing may reduce its effect.

Bibliography:

1. Larson E J 1985 Trial and Error. Oxford University Press, New York
2. Montagu A (ed.) 1984 Science and Creationism. Oxford University Press, New York
3. Numbers R L 1992 The Creationists, 1st edn. Knopf, New York
4. Pennock R T 1999 Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
5. Strickberger M W 2000 Evolution, 3rd edn. Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury, MA