“The most publicly
contentious issue in science – the teaching of evolution – illustrates the
point: About half of those surveyed by NSF do not believe humans evolved from
earlier species, and two-thirds think that creationism should be taught
alongside evolution in public schools.
But there is some good news: Acceptance of human evolution inched into
the majority for the first time (53 percent).
Moreover, according to a poll by People for the American Way (www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2095),
a substantial majority (83 percent) think that evolution should be taught and
that it is not incompatible with a belief in God (70 percent). One conclusion from this is that despite the
substantial number of people in this country who are steeped in mysticism and
supernaturalism – among their beliefs are astrology, UFO landings, and the
stuff of séances – Americans’ common sense and pragmatism can rise to the
surface.”
What
this does, of course, is set up a false caricature of dissenters from
evolution, a caricature that does not describe in any reliable fashion any of
the most prominent critics of traditional evolutionary theory. It certainly does not faithfully describe
prominent proponents of intelligent design (which Cracraft attacks in his next
paragraph) such as William Dembski, Michael Behe, Philip Johnson and others.
In
addition, the statement that “the teaching of evolution illustrates the point”
is disingenuous. Evolution is precisely
the area with the greatest controversy, precisely the area where one would
expect the most disparate results in the poll, and precisely the issue that
Cracraft is trying to address. It
hardly “illustrates” anything about science in general. Mightn’t the data in fact illustrate that a
large portion of the population does not buy into the materialistic philosophy
and speculative assumptions that characterize evolutionary theory?
Cracraft
continues:
“These encouraging
signs tend to get lost in the ongoing hullabaloo over “intelligent design
creationism” (IDC). Creationism – and this is true of all its guises – is an
antiscientific worldview. It rejects
the fundamental precept of science that phenomena in the natural world should
be interpreted through naturalistic explanations that are accepted (always
tentatively) or rejected by reference to observation. Followers of IDC are no different from the creationists of old;
at some point each wants to back away from rational scientific inquiry and
explain phenomena by appeal to supernatural causation.”
I
cannot ascertain whether Cracraft’s first two sentences are a gross error or a
deliberate attempt to distort the facts.
He lumps intelligent design in with all other forms of creationism, from
young earth creationists to old earth creationists and everything in
between. He does this first by defining
it as “intelligent design creationism,” a term that I have never heard from any
prominent proponent of intelligent design.
All forms of creationism, Cracraft assures us from his presidential
chair on high, are bad, are unscientific.
And I have just told you that intelligent design is another form of
creationism, and therefore, by definition, it is bad.
Let
me tell you about what true science is, Cracraft continues. It is inquiry that excludes a priori
any explanation for events other than a purely naturalistic explanation. Never mind that no-one was around to observe
the alleged evolutionary events in question.
Never mind that SETI, archeology, forensic science and other areas
routinely rely on explanations that evoke the activity of an intelligent agent. No, let’s ignore all that and just agree
that intelligent design is bad.
Cracraft’s
last sentence above follows a classic define-and-twist approach: science is
purely naturalistic; and that, according to Cracraft, also means it is
“rational.” Anything outside of pure
naturalism is therefore irrational and unscientific.
Next
Cracraft takes a stab at imputing motives:
“Although the IDC
propaganda machine is focused on getting creationism in the public schools,
this Trojan horse hides a more concerted attack against science education in
general. As did the creationists before
them, IDC adherents use evolution as a “wedge” to dismantle the naturalistic
foundation of all science (if this sounds far-fetched, see www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6786_unlocking_the_mystery_of_illus_7_1_2003.asp). Although not all proponents of IDC are
biblical fundamentalists, for each some scientific finding will eventually be
considered threatening to their religious beliefs. They organize around such threats, misrepresenting contemporary
science and manipulating the emotions of others, many of whom do not share
their narrow religious viewpoints. To
allow their biblical interpretations to be taught as science, however, is an
affront to this nation’s constitutional protection to worship as one
pleases. A religious worldview, under
the pretext of science, should not be imposed on children in the public schools
– hence the need for science education that deals squarely with the nature of
scientific inquiry.”
Amusing
as Cracraft’s paranoia is, I am not sure it warrants a response; but let me
give it a try. So according to
Cracraft, the real goal of the intelligent design movement is to
undermine science education? (Pause for
laughter.)
First
of all, intelligent design is a broader concept than just biological origins,
although that is the area that has received the most press attention. Second, Cracraft’s assertion of the
“naturalistic foundation of all science” is a question of science philosophy
that is much older than the recent intelligent design movement. Although widespread acceptance of
intelligent design in the public schools may depend on reducing the
naturalistic bias in contemporary “science,” it is not something that is being
introduced as a Trojan horse of intelligent design. There are plenty of thoughtful individuals who have challenged
the naturalistic assumptions of contemporary “science” completely outside of
any discussion of the intelligent design of biological organisms.
Additionally,
Cracraft apparently has not read very many primary sources in the intelligent
design movement. Having reviewed quite
a bit of Dembski’s, Behe’s and Johnson’s work, I have failed to find instances where
they support their arguments by reference to “biblical interpretations.” I would invite Cracraft to point to specific
examples of “biblical interpretations” that any prominent proponent of
intelligent design theory has suggested be taught in the science
classroom. Significantly, Cracraft
never even tries to address the central issues of
intelligent design. No, it is much
easier to simply mislabel the arguments as “biblical interpretations” and then
dismiss.
Finally,
a point on which Cracraft and I concur: I agree wholeheartedly with his last
sentence above – no religious philosophy, including any naturalistic or
atheistic philosophy, should be imposed on children in the public schools.
And
finally,
“AIBS, in collaboration
with the National Center for Science Education, is working to meet the
challenge of creationism (see www.aibs.org
and www.ncseweb.org). Over the course of this year, AIBS will be
launching new educational initiatives, including a symposium at the 2004 annual
meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers (www.nabt.org),
to expand and improve the teaching of evolution. It is critical that all scientists, including nonbiologists, see
themselves as part of this effort.”
So there you have it. Never mind the materialistic philosophy that underlies the enterprise. Never mind the numerous cogent arguments that have been raised in contra. Never mind the myriad scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Fear not the large number of irrational creationists (you know, those astrologists and UFO seekers and IDers). Let’s carry on with our indoctrination of students of all ages. Let’s use any means at our disposal, including (if one takes a page from Cracraft’s actions as well as his words) stereotypes, name calling, and good old-fashioned spin in furthering the cause.
One might hope for an educational system that presents a balanced review of the facts and theories, as well as the assumptions underlying those theories. If such a system would help to improve science literacy and education, then Cracraft’s approach is the real threat.
Eric Anderson
January 9, 2004