Why does Creationism and its cousin, Intelligent Design continue to persist in American culture despite the fact both have been exposed as entirely motivated by religion? Even though no serious scientists anywhere accept the baseless theories of ID, the general public in the United States is convinced a serious debate over evolution is being fought. Just what is going on here? As I will demonstrate in this article, there are three main reasons why Intelligent Design continues to persist, despite the valiant effort of scientists and other highly educated professionals. They are, namely, the fact (1) people have a poor understanding of science, and evolution in particular; (2) Intelligent Design appeals to our intuition: the universe appears, at first glance, to be designed; and (3) there is a highly organized movement designed to systematically misinform the public, and replace biological science with creationist dogma.
What’s a Theory in Science, and why is Evolution right?
Despite the fact the findings of science are so pervasive in today’s society, influencing the way we view the world around us, and driving the technology that manages our complex and sophisticated society, most individuals have a poor understanding of the fundamental discoveries of modern science. So uninformed are we that we can easily dismiss a theory so thoroughly tested as evolution based only on the fact the word theory accompanies it. A theory is a guess, right? It means it isn’t proven, and like every discovery we’ve made in science, it will inevitably be invalidated, to be replaced by some other theory eventually, right? Well, no, not really. A theory in science is not a guess (that’s actually called a hypothesis), and although there have been times when a new discovery has displaced an old one, science more often than not builds on the foundation of other theories and models, constantly refining itself. If a theory is shown to be false, it is not generally discarded, since it may still work well to describe the natural world. Newton’s theory of Gravitation was shown to be inconsistent with the some of the findings of Relativity, but it is still used today because of its reliability in describing the movements of planets, stars, and even galaxies (incidentally, it was Newton who once said, in a letter to his friend Robert Hook, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”).
It is our poor understanding that makes someone unable to defend the theory from the sophisticated methods Creationists use to try and invalidate it. For starters, most of us would agree a ‘theory’ is a loosely based idea, a conjecture which has yet to be proven. It certainly sounds as though if something is only a theory, then it can essentially be disproven. But in science, the word theory means something completely different. It isn’t simply an educated guess, or some armchair philosophizing. A theory is a thoroughly tested model that describes a process of nature. Notable theories include the Theory of Gravitation, or General Relativity. No one would believe for an instant gravity was an incomplete model of how bodies attract one another, this despite the fact the theory has undergone certain changes since its inception. Of course, gravity is always being felt, and as such is a phenomenon we can directly observe. To deny the reality of gravity would be foolish. So why then is it so easy for people to dismiss the Theory of Evolution, despite the fact it is one of the most rigorously tested and proven theories in the history of science?
Evolution is a lot like geology; it involves enormous lapses of time. As such, in our lifetimes, we don’t really get to experience first hand the process of evolution, any more than we experience the drifting of the continental shelves. Human beings are pragmatic creatures; we tend to want to believe our senses are the best tools to understand the natural world. The mind, however, is not a laboratory, and sometimes plays tricks on us. Our intuition would have us believe the world as we see it today is unchanging, immutable. Of course, we know the earth did not always exist as it does today because of science, and not our intuition. For instance, geologists know, 250 million years ago, the continents were all fused together, in a super continent called ‘Pangaea’. The continents are actually still moving a few centimeters each year. The simple fact we don’t notice it does not mean it doesn’t happen. It takes rigorous science to uncover the truth about ancient earth.
Why does Creationism Exist?
If the scientific community is entirely convinced evolution is real, why do so many people object to it? The answer, unsurprisingly, is the Theory of Evolution is very troubling to many deeply religious individuals who feel the general randomness and lack of design in evolution contradict their notion of God as Creator. For most people who believe in God, the incompatibility of both evolution theory and the Bible seems to be a non-issue, but to religious fundamentalists, who demand their religious text be taken as literally true, the idea of a mechanism that contradicts the notion of the immutability of species threatens their core beliefs. It is in their interests, therefore, that they take an active role in trying to undermine the legitimacy of evolution in order to preserve their teachings. Obviously such activism is not to our advantage; undermining science is already having disastrous effects. The lack of understanding of evolutionary theory, for example, is drastically slowing down our ability to fight off viruses and other pathogens, which become resistant to treatment as time goes on.
There is a tendency, mostly among young people, to assume the teaching of evolution has been a staple of academic life for a long time. Alas, despite the fact the Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection will soon turn 150 years old in two years (marking the commemoration of Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species), the truth is for most of that time, the idea was not largely accepted by the public. In fact, in most parts of the United States, the teaching of evolution was banned. This changed almost immediately when in October 4, 1957, the Soviets successfully launched Sputnik, the world’s first man made object to orbit the Earth. This initiated a massive reform of various schools’ curricula around the country, focusing much more heavily on science education, which had previously been seriously lacking. It was believed at the time without such reform, America would be overwhelmed by a more scientifically advanced Soviet Union.
Although Creationism tried valiantly to make its way back into classrooms, vigilant groups like the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) continually fought to keep it out, and to keep the institutions of religion and government separate. More recently, a group of very clever Evangelicals, funded primarily by a conservative religious think tank called the Discovery Institute, has revamped Creationism into the more scientifically sounding ‘Intelligent Design’ argument.
Why Is Intelligent Design Wrong?
The clever thing about Intelligent Design is, to any reasonable person with very little understanding of evolutionary science, it actually sounds plausible. For instance, ID’ers argue life is so complex, the odds of any one organism existing is astronomically huge. For all the components to come together simultaneously, the equivalent would be to throw a bunch of metal scraps into a tornado and expect a Boeing 747 to come out. It takes a clever person to realize just how flawed this reasoning is. Trying to measure the odds of something happening after the fact makes no sense. Life did not spontaneously come together. Instead, life evolved in a series of lengthy and gradual steps, from very simple organic molecules to increasingly complex and specialized species. Another Intelligent Design argument, one conjured by the ID ‘superstar’ Michel Behe, called Irreducible Complexity, states some organisms appear to have organelles which only work if all the parts work in conjunction with one another. His most famous example is the Bacterial Flagellum, a propeller like tail containing some 20 parts that act very much like a motor. Remove any one component, Behe argues, and the whole structure becomes useless. To the lay person, this would certainly seem compelling. But again, this argument simply fails to prove anything other than the lack of understanding of evolutionary biology on the part of Behe. Although he may be a biologist, he failed to realize his argument had already been discussed by evolutionary biologists, and dismissed. It was shown some species of bacteria contain intermediate parts of the motor which serve different purposes. Evolution operates this way; often adapting existing systems, and slowly converting them to serve other functions.
Behe’s argument is based on the idea intermediate improvements would somehow be inadequate to the survival of a species. What would be the point of half a wing, or 5% of our present vision. We will ignore for the moment the fact species currently exist that have intermediate stages of development in both vision and flight. The point is the very question ignores the evidence of evolution that shows any slight advantage over rivals, both as a result of an arms race from selective pressures from predators or from other individuals of the same species (competing for food), increase the chances of that individual to survive and thus procreate. What is the good of half, or even the quarter of a wing? Anything that can get you to get out of range of any potential predator is reward in itself.
All of these questions, even if they were valid, fail to even make a real case for Intelligent Design. Because ID is unable to create a model to replace evolution by means of natural selection, it has no predictive powers, and instead presents itself as a false alternative to evolution. In other words, ID tries to prove evolution simply to say ‘oh well, if they are wrong, surely we must be right’. Anyone familiar with the rules of logic knows this is a poor argument. The equivalent would be ‘You are not from Nebraska, therefore you must be from New York’. Even if the first premise was proven true, it does not follow that the second one is. You could be from any other state, or you could be from a different country, or even a different planet. The simple act of disproving one thing does not prove another in a case where a multitude of options exist. This is why science never tries to prove something with a negative.
Why Creationism Persists.
At the heart of creationism is the need for certain individuals to believe the accounts of the Bible are factually true. Though many of us would consider this to be only a small minority of the population, in the United States, Evangelicals are the fastest growing religion. Their growing numbers allow them to exert a great deal of political pressure. Since many of them vote for the same people, the ‘Evangelical Vote’ is often sought after by politicians eager to be elected. In exchange, however, these religious groups seek to gain an ever larger foothold in political decisions, and this includes trying to introduce Creationism in schools.
But the news is not all bad. In 2005, in Dover Pennsylvania, a landmark case shattered the hopes of ID’ers that their pet theory might be accepted as a legitimate form of science. The judge, a Republican appointee, concluded Intelligent Design had serious religious underpinnings, and it failed to make its case as a type of science. The defeat has obviously not deterred those who wish to displace the Theory of Evolution as the supreme scientific explanation on the origin of life, but for now, the victory has begun to galvanize the efforts of those who fight to keep religion out of the classrooms. A growing number of scientists, who previously had refused to even humor the attempts of creationists to spread their faith based mythology in schools, have grown more vocal. They correctly see the usurpation of science threatens not just the future of scientific endeavors, but even the future of mankind. It is interesting to contemplate Creationism may in fact create the opposite effect ID’ers intended; mainly of bringing scientists together to fight against the purveyors of ignorance.
