Notes on the Web - Unit Six- Part 7
Pseudoscientific Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Stealth Creationism
Bruce G. Stewart
General Objectives and Study Guide
Your objectives for these Notes on the Web and associated readings and exercises are:
Related Textbook Readings:
Introduction
As we thoroughly addressed earlier in the semester and earlier in this unit on evolution, the criteria of science are clear. It is possible to distinguish non-sciences and pseudosciences from true sciences by determining whether the criteria of science are met by a particular claim. Recall that the term "non-science" is not a derogatory term. In fact, non-sciences include a vast array of human endeavors which greatly enrich our lives and promote human progress. However, the pseudosciences, which make unsubstantiated claims of being science, are destructive cultural pathogens which obfuscate public understanding of the nature of true science. Pseudosciences furthermore lead to dysfunctional approaches to dealing with and understanding natural processes. Pseudoscientific beliefs exist regarding many aspects of the natural world as understood through modern science, and biology is no exception. Scientific literacy includes the ability to understand that such beliefs are not supported by science and why.
Please realize that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Evolution and religion are not incompatible, though you will find a wide range of beliefs among scientists (just as among the general public). If you would like to learn more about this viewpoint, try visiting the following link and read the essays that address this question: "How can you reconcile the conflict between evolution and religion?" Books like "The Language of God" by geneticist, Francis Collins, demonstrate that well-respected scientists who accept and embrace evolutionary science can also have their own beliefs of faith. Another useful example is the Oklahoma Academy of Science Statement on Science, Religion, and Teaching Evolution. The Interfaith Alliance Foundation of Oklahoma has weighed in on this topic because it also has implications in the violation of religious freedom should a specific religious belief such as creationism be masqueraded as science. A comprehensive site that also includes some theological perspectives on science and evolution is the official web site of Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education. This site has a number of links pertinent to the topics in our Notes on the Web.
Creationism and Intelligent Design Defined
Contrary to common thought, creationism and intelligent design do not represent a single creation story accepted by all "believers" in god. Creationism comes in many forms, some of which are not necessarily "pseudoscience," but rather represent faith beliefs without specific claims of being supported by science. This has been termed "biblical creationism" with reference to certain specific fundamentalist Christian groups. "Biblical creationists" believe that Genesis of the Bible provides a literal description of the creation by a supernatural god. There are many interpretations of how "literally" this is to be taken, and many forms of "creationism" in this sense exist. There is no major conflict with the function of science and science education when these religious beliefs are not masqueraded as science, though there is some evidence now that religious biases do influence the ability of students to understand difficult concepts that conflict with their religious teachings.
In its most fundamentalist and literal forms, creationism includes the "flat-earth creationists," "geocentricists," and "young earth creationists." Flat earthers believe that the bible supports a flat-earth model and geocentricists believe that the Earth rather than the Sun is at the center of creation and therefore the center of the universe. Young earth creationists believe that the Earth is very young (e.g. having been created in 4004 BC according to the chronology developed in the 1600's by Bishop James Ussher based his biblical interpretation). At the opposite end of the spectrum, there are "progressive creationists" who now accept many undeniable scientific theories (even the Big Bang), but who reject other supported scientific theories such as evolution. Here is a link to an excellent review of the various creationist belief systems, some of which are anti-evolution and some of which incorporate evolution in some form as god's method of creation: "The Creation/Evolution Continuum" by Eugenie Scott.
The forms of creationism that threaten our society's scientific dependence are those that promote false claims regarding the existence of scientific evidence they say supports their various religious interpretations of the bible. This has been called scientific creationism and represents a range of claims that there is scientific support for specific biblical creationist beliefs that outweighs evidence for evolutionary theory. Henry Morris, one well-known creationist stated that scientific creationism is distinguished from biblical creationism by requiring "no reliance upon biblical revelation, utilizing only scientific data to support and expound the creation model" (as quoted by Lewin 1985 in Science Vol 218 page 837). Since scientific support does not exist for the scientific creationism claims, a better term for these beliefs is "pseudoscientific creationism." Know that these two phrases refer to exactly the same set of beliefs. Simply calling something "scientific" does not make it so. The courts have consistently held that creationism in all its forms is not science and it is unconstitutional to present it as such in public school science education (e.g. see the McLean versus the Arkansas State Board of Education case later in these notes).
Intelligent design is a more recent reincarnation of creationism and has been defined as follows:
"Intelligent design (ID) is the assertion that empirical evidence supports the conclusion that the initial life on earth, and perhaps some of its present details, was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents; additionally, or alternately, it may include the idea that different empirical evidence supports a similar conclusion regarding the universe itself" (from "Intelligent design - Definition" as described in wordiQ). This evolved form of creationism has also been soundly defeated in the courts as a scientific explanation when attempts have been made to force its religious components into the science classroom (see the Dover case later in these notes).
Stealth Creationism is the current incarnation of the creationist movement. Among its stated goals as expressed in the "Wedge Document" of the pseudoscientific organization, The Discovery Institute, are the following two governing goals:
Clearly, this movement would, if successful, do irreparable harm to our society by destroying the ability of science to function.
Dangerous Cultural Pathogenic Thinking
It is critically important that you objectively evaluate the facts about the pseudosciences of "scientific creationism" and "intelligent design" so that you can recognize that these constitute specific religious viewpoints, not scientifically valid theories or principles. In Oklahoma, there is a growing religious and politically-motivated movement to force certain religious beliefs into the science classroom. This movement is just as misguided and dangerous as were: the anti-science beliefs of the Middle Ages; the beliefs of the Marxist, Trofim Lysenko who destroyed Russian agriculture and genetics in the 1930's as a result of his anti-Darwin beliefs; and other attempts to legislate or dictate scientific explanations rather than to rely on the proven methods of science. A recent local example of such destructive beliefs can be found in a two-part op-ed article published in local southern Oklahoma newspapers (e.g. the Capitol Democrat of Tishomingo, Oklahoma and the Durant Daily Democrat) during December 2010. PDF files of these articles (the versions published in the Durant Daily Democrat) can be read at the following links: Brecheen discusses evolution and Darwinian Theory - (1st installment of two-part column) and Brecheen says the religion of evolution is plagued with falsehoods - (2nd installment of two-part column). These two articles demonstrate classic misrepresentations of science and present various scientifically-invalid and scientifically-illiterate arguments. There have been numerous excellent, responsible, and scientifically-valid responses to Senator Brecheen's articles, and a reading of a couple of them is instructive in understanding the extent of the inanity and naivety of Senator Brecheen's position relative to the science of evolution. Here are links to a couple of the first responses and most comprehensive evaluations of Senator Brecheen's scientifically-invalid articles:
When did Oklahoma start electing shaved apes to their legislature? (by Dr. P.Z. Myers, Biologist and Associate Professor, University of Minnesota)
Oklahoma’s Josh Brecheen: Creationist Cretin (from the science blog, The Sensuous Curmudgeon, that deals with logical thought)
Please note that I am not endorsing, condoning, or condemning any statements regarding any particular politician, political party, political ideology, religion, or lack of religion made in these various articles (including Senator Brecheen's). I am, however, specifically supporting and offering agreement with the scientific evaluations pointing to the scientific failings of pseudoscientific assertions such as those made by Brecheen and other more original pseudoscientific creationists. Pseudoscientific claims such as Senator Brecheen's and others are scientifically ludicrous and dangerous... and they represent cultural pathogenic thinking with respect to science and science-education in our modern society.
Required Assignment Related to Brecheen's Anti-evolution/Anti-science Articles
Read Senator Brecheen's articles and the response articles at the links provided above. Write a 500-word (minimum) document (to submit through Blackboard as a Turnitin.com assignment) and address the following questions relating to Senator Brecheen's claims:
1) Did Senator Brecheen's claims reflect evidence of support through the peer-reviewed scientific publication process? Explain.
2) Does Senator Brecheen accurately reflect the meaning of the terms "fact," "hypothesis," and "theory" as defined by the National Academy of Sciences and in our Notes on the Web? Explain.
3) Do Senator Brecheen's claims regarding creationism meet the five criteria of science discussed in Unit One Part 1 of our Notes on the Web regarding the definition of science? Explain.
4) Is there evidence of biased thinking as described by Francis Bacon in 1620 as quoted in Unit One Part 3 of our Notes on the Web, "For what a man would rather were true he more readily believes." Explain.
The following sections examine some other examples that address some selected pseudoscientific points. Please note that the scientific literature on this topic is extensive, and you can visit many of the recommended links to explore further and more extensive reading.
Pseudoscientific Creationists Claim that Science Supports Their Beliefs, But is there Evidence for Scientific Creationism?
Our first example will be drawn from the following article from the prestigious journal Science:
JPG File of Lewin, R. 1985. Evidence for Scientific Creationism? Science Vol 218: 837. (17 May 1985)
PDF File of Lewin, R. 1985. Evidence for Scientific Creationism? Science Vol 218: 837. (17 May 1985)
Click on the citation above to download an image of this one-page article. Read it carefully. Note the following major ideas either directly from the article or from our class discussion:
What is the definition of "Biblical Creationism?"
What is the definition of "Scientific Creationism?"
Who is Henry Morris and what does he claim about "scientific" creationism?
Recall that scientific procedures for critically examining evidence and the claims made about that evidence involve the scientific peer-review process. (Go back to your notes and handouts on this from our earlier lectures if you need to refresh your memory.) To make a claim that there is extensive valid evidence that supports a particular hypothesis or theory, one would have to show that there are peer-reviewed, published scientific journal articles that concur with that claim. Otherwise the claim of widespread support is simply and plainly wrong. This could be due to such things as a) honest misunderstanding of the evidence and/or scientific process, b) religiously-biased "tunnel-vision" which prevents objectivity, c) general ignorance, or d) purposeful lying about the facts.
Lewin (1985) cites an extensive study by E. C. Scott and H. P. Cole who conducted a review of scientific literature to see if there is widespread evidence in support of the so-called "scientific" creationism views. Answer the following questions regarding their findings.
How many journals over how many years did they survey for information?
How many articles/letters even addressed the issue of "scientific" creationism?
How many of these were empirical studies that supported the claims of "scientific" creationism?
How many submitted articles to how many journals did they survey for information on "scientific" creationism?
How many articles dealing with the issue of "scientific" creationism did they find?
How many of these were accepted for publication?
How many of these were scientific empirical studies?
Given the results that you noted above, is there scientific evidence that supports the "scientific" creationists claims?
Dr. George W. Gilchrist in an article, "The Elusive Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design Theory" (1997) followed up with a similar review of scientific data bases and found the same pattern for creationism in the form of intelligent design. The claim of scientific evidence support of ID is simply a lie. Here is his figure giving the results of the scientific data base literature search:
One does not need a degree in mathematics to understand this pattern! Gilchrist wrote about the analyse of the few papers that even addressed ID that "This search of several hundred thousand scientific reports published over several years failed to discover a single instance of biological research using intelligent design theory to explain life's diversity." I should add that the status of the lack of scientific support for both "scientific creationism" and "intelligent design" remains the same in the 21st century!
The support for evolution within the body of science and across other disciplines that rely on evolutionary theory for understanding their own field is overwhelming. Here are links to important statements describing the status for the scientific support for evolution from the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, and Baylor University. Countless such positions have been formally stated by countless legitimate scientific and educational institutions around the world! For a more comprehensive list of such statements that include both science and religious groups, visit the last link on Voices for Evolution.
University of Oklahoma Department of Zoology Statement on Evolution
Oklahoma State University Department of Zoology Statement on Evolution
Baylor University Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Statement on Evolution
Baylor University Department of Biology Statement on Evolution
National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution
Here is a resource document that has dozens upon dozens of examples of statements of support for evolution! This is a PDF document of "Voices for Evolution," 3rd Edition published by the National Center for Science Education.
All Major Court Cases with Final Rulings Have Affirmed that Creationism is not Science: Two Important Examples
No less than nine major court rulings have affirmed the same basic conclusion that evolution is science and various renderings of "scientific creationism" are not science!
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education.
This example illustrates the "lie of 'scientific' creationism." We will briefly review the court case, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. This case dealt with a state law (later struck down as being unconstitutional) passed in Arkansas which required the teaching of "scientific" creationism as science in the public schools. The text of Judge William Overton's famous ruling should be visited at the following link:
You do not need to read the whole ruling, but scan through it to answer the following questions.
Who were the plaintiffs against the teaching of creationism in the public schools of Arkansas? (found in the Introduction of the ruling)
Kitzmiller, et al. versus Dover Area School District, et al.
One of the most recent and important of these cases (Kitzmiller et al. versus Dover Area School District, et al.) received considerable coverage in the popular press during 2005-2006, and once again, reason prevailed in the judge's ruling. The complete ruling can be found at the following link:
This link goes to a PDF file which is rather large and may take some time to download. The document is 139 pages long; however, you might go directly to the conclusions section starting on page 136 to get the main points of the ruling. Or.... read the following quote from Judge John Jones III's ruling:
H. Conclusion
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, 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.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions. Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal
damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.
3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.
s/John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge
The Dover Area School District wasted $100,000's on this case.
The State of Pseudoscientific Creationism in Oklahoma State Law
Oklahoma's Department of Education Science standards have been routinely rated at a level of "D" or lower over the past few years. Although descent with modification is a component, the foundation principle of evolution and the theory of natural section are not even named! It is no wonder that Oklahoma students are confused on this issue! Legislation similar to the unconstitutional Dover Area School District and other such anti-science legislation has been introduced in committees of the State of Oklahoma legislature over the past few years. Fortunately, none of these destructive, unconstitutional, pseudoscientific type of religiously-based proposals have made their way in to State Law. Were any to actually be enacted, they would surely be challenged and struck down on constitutional grounds. This would be at great taxpayer cost and would severely damage the reputation and future of our State. To read some of the reasons, visit the following link:
ANY law that would destroy the integrity of science-education and/or the ability of science to function would be a bad law!
The Fred Flintstone Belief Syndrome (FFBS). Did Dinosaurs and Humans Exist at the Same Time?
Although we could give dozens of examples that illustrate the point that "scientific" creationism is a pseudoscience, we shall add only one more here. A common claim of "scientific" creationists has been that there are human footprints found along with dinosaur footprints. This has not been supported by the scientific evidence. Abstracts of the following two papers will be provided to you in class. Read these to get a feel for the reasons that the "human" footprint stories are nothing more than myth or wishful thinking.
Hastings, R. J. 1987. New observations on Paluxy tracks confirm their dinosaurian origin. Journal of Geological Education Vol. 35, p. 4.
Monroe, J. S. 1987. Creationism, human footprints, and flood geology. Journal of Geological Education Vol. 35, p. 93.
Self Study Critical Thinking Exercise. Based on the examples given above, on our lecture discussions, and on any other sources you may wish to provide, explain why "scientific" creationism is (A) a pseudoscience and (B) a religious assertion. This is not an exercise you will turn in.
An Optional Self-study Exercise
Review the following two pseudoscientific articles published by the Creation Research Society in a pseudoscientific journal. Write an essay of at least five paragraphs including (A) an introduction to the "scientific" creationism issue, (B) a critique of article one, (C) a critique of article two, (D) a brief discussion on the cryptic format that is used in the articles to give the appearance of a true peer-reviewed science journal, and (E) a conclusion.
Davidheiser, Bolton. 1991. What is a species? Creation Research Society Quarterly 27:149-151.
Frair, W. 1991. Original kinds and turtle phylogeny. Creation Research Society Quarterly 28:21-23.
Links to Further Explore the Creationism/Evolution Issue
As with all materials throughout the semester, you will have opportunities to ask questions or ask that any relevant material from your assignments be discussed in class and/or in threaded discussions on Internet.
Some Recommended Readings
Berra, T. M. 1990. Science, Religion, Politics, Law, and Education, Chapter 5, pp. 120-144 IN Evolution and the myth of creationism: a basic guide to the facts in the evolution debate (by T. M. Berra). Stanford University Press. Stanford, California.
Committee on Science and Creationism of the National Academy of Sciences. 1984. Science and creationism: a view from the National Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press. Washington, D. C.
McCollister, B (ed.). 1989. Voices for evolution. The National Center for Science Education, Inc. Berkeley, California. AND a more recent online updated version of Voices for evolution can be found at: "Voices for Evolution," 3rd Edition published by the National Center for Science Education.
© 2005, 2007, 2011 Bruce G. Stewart
| Biology Homepage |  |
Back to sciencethinking.org |
| Zoology Homepage |
Last Updated: 07-Jan-2011 10:39 PM