Don’t Call it a Comeback: Creationism Evolves

In Parts I and II of this series, we looked at the history of the Creationist movement and Creationism’s first foray into establishing itself as science. In this final installment, we’ll explore the latest attempts to insert Creationism into science classrooms, and discuss what the future of American science education may hold.

Creation Science Part II: Intelligent Design
The legal losses it suffered in 1982 and 1987 caused the Creationist movement to take a step back. The US Supreme Court had ruled Creation Science to be inherently religious, and therefore concluded that its presence in schools was unconstitutional. Some movements would have given up the fight, but the Creationists soldiered on, reinventing themselves once again with something called Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design (ID) argues that certain aspects of life are too complex to have evolved naturally. Instead, there must be a form of intelligence, a “designer,” to provide guidance along the way. Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, is one of the central proponents of this idea, though he is a bit vague as to who this “designer” may be. Behe’s 1996 book, Darwin’s Black Box, outlines the main principles of ID.

ID is deceptively attractive. Its failure to identify a “designer” means that it can distinguish itself from the religious overtones of traditional Creationism. It creates the appearance of being a secular idea.

Rather than attempting to prove Creationism as the best explanation for the origins of life, ID proponents focus on disproving evolution. Looking for weaknesses in evolution is one of the central strategies of the ID movement. And, unlike earlier Creationist movements, they have had some success.

Kitzmiller vs. Dover

Perhaps one of the most well-known examples of ID entering the classroom was in the small town of Dover, Pennsylvania. In 2004, the Dover School Board passed a policy requiring biology teachers to discuss a scientific alternative to evolution, namely Intelligent Design, with their students. To assist them, teachers were given copies of a textbook called Of Pandas and People. (Ed note: Adorable name for such an insidious publication.) This book espoused the ideas promoted by Behe and others. It was promoted by the Discovery Institute, an Intelligent Design think-tank based in Seattle.

On the surface, Pandas seemed to be a mostly benign book that discussed the complexity of life. However, one look inside will reveal its true nature:

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their distinctive features intact, rather than gradually developing.

This argument is central to ID. ID argues that evolution by natural selection can’t be the best explanation because we have yet to discover any ‘transitional fossils:’ plants or animals that seem to exhibit features of two different types of animals.

Kevin Padian, professor of paleontology at University of California-Berkeley, begs to differ. As he describes in a critical review of Pandas:

The earliest known fish, for example, were quite different from the fish we recognize today. The earliest fossil forms lacked many of the characteristics possessed by fish today, including jaws, paired limbs and bony internal skeletons, and yet Pandas wishes to tell students that fish (and all fossil forms) appear in the fossil record “with their distinctive features intact.

Both teachers and parents in the Dover school district, led by parent Tammy Kitzmiller, filed suit in federal district court in 2005. They argued that Of Pandas and People - and therefore Intelligent Design - was not a scientific alternative to evolution. Instead, ID was simply Creationism reinvented. It was religious, not scientific, and therefore unconstitutional.

With the help of the ACLU, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), and a whole host of scientific and religious experts, documents were discovered linking the Creationists to the ID proponents. Earlier editions and manuscripts of Of Pandas of People used the term “Creationism” instead of “Intelligent Design” and had explicit religious references. Central tenets of ID itself were proven to be unscientific and just plain wrong.

The judge, John E. Jones, ruled in favor of Kitzmiller, and his ruling was sweeping. In a 139-page memorandum opinion, Jones called out the Dover School Board and proclaimed Intelligent Design itself as a wolf in sheep’s clothing:

We have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy…

According to Nicholas Matzke, one of the key NCSE staff members involved in the case, Dover proved that “ID really is just creationism relabeled, and anyone who thought otherwise was either naively misinformed or engaging in wishful thinking.”

Judge Jones’ decision was definitive and sweeping. No appeal was filed. But Creationists and ID proponents did not go quietly into the night.

The Future of Creationism

Nearly five years after Dover, the debate continues in our schools, school boards, and in state governments across the country. The Dover decision forced Creationists again to reinvent themselves; today they are almost entirely focused on finding weaknesses in evolution, without ever proposing a valid scientific alternative. In 2007, a new creationist book called Explore Evolution appeared on the market. Unlike its predecessor, Pandas, this text focuses solely on poking holes in the theory of evolution without ever mentioning Creationism or Intelligent Design.

What does all this mean for the future of science education in America? The answer is unclear. Creationists and ID proponents are tenacious, as we have seen from their “evolving” strategy over the past century. The scientific community should therefore be equally tenacious. We must engage in open dialogue between scientists and politicians. We should get involved in our local school boards, making sure their curriculum decisions are based on science, not dogma. We must instill in our own children the importance of sound science in this country.

And we must continue to observe the opponents of evolution with a scientific eye. As Matzke stated after the Dover trial, “history shows that anti-evolutionism does not disappear after defeat in the courts: it merely evolves.” If we are to succeed in fighting this highly adaptable “species,” we must know its shifting shape as well as we do our own.

For more information on the evolution/Creationism controversy, check out these online resources:

The National Center for Science Education
NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial
Understanding Evolution
Talk Origins Archive
The Skeptics Society