Why Creation 'Science' Must Be Kept Out of the Classroom
Richard Young
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Table of Contents
Introduction
What is Creation 'Science'?
Creationism: Religion or Science?
Evolution: 'Only' A Theory?
Creationism in the Classroom
'Scopes II'
In Canada
Academic Freedom
Conclusion
Bibliography
References


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Introduction
Imagine a fellow telling you -- with a straight face -- that the earth was
created by a Supernatural Hand as described in the Book of Genesis over the
course of six literal days beginning at 9:00 A.M. on October 23 in 4004
B.C.E. Imagine this fellow then telling you that in the 22nd century B.C.E.
a man named Noah in anticipation of The Great Flood built a large ark from
gopher wood; that he and his family collected representatives from each of
several million living species of flora and fauna (including bacteria,
cacti, kangaroos, blue whales, penguins, polar bears, dinosaurs and the AIDS
virus) and placed them in this ark; that after forty days and forty nights
of Very Heavy Rain and a year afloat, the ark then ran aground on a
mountaintop in the Middle East and then each of the plants and animals
somehow managed to transport themselves to their respective continent(s).
Then he informs you that all 5.2 billion humans on earth today are descended
from those persons who were aboard the ark about 4000 years ago. You look
puzzled as this fellow continues to maintain his serious expression.
Finally, he says that he calls this account of origins Creation Science, and
that he believes God wants him to bring this 'explanation' into the science
classrooms of schools all over the world. It soon becomes apparent that this
is no joke.

Seventy years have passed since the infamous Scopes 'Monkey Trial' in
Dayton, Tennessee, yet the above 'imagined' scenario is a reasonable
representation of what is happening today in the U.S.A. and, to a lesser
extent (for now), Canada. It is the purpose of this paper to introduce the
reader to the creation/evolution controversy and to discuss its implications
for education in Ontario and abroad.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

What is Creation 'Science'?
Creation 'Science,' that notorious oxymoron, is a component of Christian
fundamentalism which -- with the tenacity of a pious, myopic pit-bull --
adheres to a doctrine of Biblical inerrancy (i.e. literalism) and growls
that Biblical views must be taught in all school subjects, particularly
science. So tenaciously do these Creationists hold to their literal
interpretation of the Bible that some will assure you that grasshoppers have
4 legs, that the Earth is flat, that all space flight has been hoaxed, that
the Sun orbits the stationary Earth, and that rabbits are ruminants, since
the Bible describes each of these matters thus, and the Bible is an "all or
nothing" document.

The Creationists believe that 'true' Christians must hold such things as
literal truths lest they run the risk of taking certain other, more
critical, Biblical passages metaphorically, leading, ultimately, to the
unraveling of their beloved fundamentalism. Figurative interpretation of
selected verses does not present a difficulty for most Christians, but, to
the Creationist's way of thinking, non-literal interpretation is the death
knell of Faith. It is precisely this loss of Faith, alleged to have been
caused by the proliferation of 'evolutionary thought,' that the Creationists
hold responsible for all of the evils of the world, including "sex
education, alcohol, suicide, women's liberation, terrorism, homosexuality,
inflation, socialism, racism and dirty books" [1]. Judge Braswell Dean, a
Georgia lobbyist for Creationism, lays an equally comprehensive spectrum of
crimes on the doorstep of evolution (and pulls no alliterative punches in
doing so):

...this monkey mythology of Darwin is the cause of abortions,
permissiveness, promiscuity, perversions, pregnancies, prophylactics,
pornotherapy, pollution, poisoning and proliferation of crimes
of all types. [2] Strangely, many of these woes have existed long before
Charles Darwin's 1859 publication of The Origin of Species. Perhaps the
Judge might suggest that advance copies of Darwin's book were somehow
presented to pre-nineteenth century wrongdoers by Satan himself.
Creationist institutes exist in several countries including the U.S.A.,
Canada and Australia. Several of them are listed:

The Institute for Creation Research (founded in 1970, in San Diego,
California by Henry M. Morris)
Christian Heritage College (founded in 1970, in the foothills of El Cajon, a
suburb of San Diego)
The Creation-Science Research Center (also founded in 1970 in San Diego, by
Nell Segraves)
The Creation Research Society (founded in 1963, in Ann Arbour, Michigan, by
ten Creation Scientists)
The Creation Science Association of Canada (founded in 1967, in Vancouver,
B.C.)
The Creation Science Association of Alberta (a registered charitable
organization whose primary objective is "to promote the inclusion of
scientific creationism in school curricula.")
The Creation Science Association of Ontario (Scarborough, Ontario)

Many of these institutes devote some time to writing loosely scientific
articles for creationist publications. They spend much more time, however,
giving presentations at churches, highschools and universities on "the
scientific evidence for Creation." They also carry out 'research.' This
'research' almost exclusively consists of the scouring of scientific
publications for quotes from prominant evolutionists which could be lifted
from their original context and then perversely recontextualized in order to
serve Creationist purposes. (Aside: Don Patton, a Texas Creationist, came to
do a three-day lecture series in November of 1994 at McMaster University,
Hamilton, Ontario. I attended the event and tape recorded it. The bulk of
the 'scientific lectures' consisted of a collage of these greatly recycled
out-of-context quotations from prominent evolutionists such as Stephen Jay
Gould. Patton euphemistically refers to this approach as the "Hostile
Witness." This tactic has angered many of their targetted scientists [3, pp.
34-44].) The closest that these Creationist institutes have come to
performing legitimate research was to carry out several expeditions to Mount
Ararat, Turkey, in search of Noah's ark. Still no sign of the gopher-wood
zoo-boat [4, pp. 97-101, 187-195].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

Creationism: Religion or Science?
Thirty years ago, Creation Scientists called themselves Creation Evangelists
and they proudly preached the 'Creationist Gospel.' Since then, the
Creationists have become much more sophisticated in their approach and have
had the word 'evangelist' replaced with the word 'scientist.' However, just
as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, the stinkweed of
Creationism remains rank. This strategic change in nomenclature was
necessary in order to sugar-coat the doctrine of Biblical fundamentalism so
that it would seem more palatable to those school and government officials
who have the power to allow Creationist dogma into a science classroom.

Now, what of the scientific merits of Creation 'Science'? One must assess
this question before deciding whether or not Creationism belongs in science
classes. Creation 'Science' offers none of the explanatory or predictive
capability of the theory of evolution, and provides no new insights into any
of the questions which evolution (or any other science) is presently unable
to answer. What the Creationists present as science is in fact
pseudoscience, much like palmistry, astrology and the alchemy of old. As a
scientific alternative to evolution, Creationism is a dismal failure.

It is, therefore, our unequivocal conclusion that creationism, with its
accounts of the origin of life by supernatural means, is not science. [5]

Furthermore, Creationism does not fare much better as a religion. Many
Christian thinkers find the Creationist brand of fundamentalist naïvité
embarassing at best, and, at worst, damaging to the whole of Christendom:

Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in
defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for
Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth,
Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord
with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by
Christians before harm is done. The persistent attempt of the creationist
movement to get their points of view established in educational institutions
can only bring harm to the Christian cause. Can we seriously expect
non-Christian educational leaders to develop a respect for Christianity if
we insist on teaching the brand of science that creationism brings with it?
Will not the forcing of modern creationism on the public simply lend
credence to the idea already entertained by so many intellectual leaders
that Christianity, at least in its modern form, is sheer anti-intellectual
obscurantism? I fear that it will. [6, p. 163]

Pope John Paul II, perhaps the world's most influential theistic
evolutionist, had this to say on April 16, 1986, on the subject of evolution
:

It can be therefore said that, from the viewpoint of the doctrine of the
faith, there are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man, in regard
to the body, by means of the theory of evolution. [7]
Perhaps the most telling feature of the true nature of Creation 'Science'
can be gleaned from the words of the grandfather of modern Creationism,
Henry M. Morris. He stated in 1978 that "the so-called geologic ages are
essentially synonymous with the evolutionary theory of origins. The latter
is the anti-God conspiracy of Satan himself." Real scientists do not accuse
their detractors and naysayers of being in cahoots with the Prince of
Darkness.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Evolution: 'Only' A Theory?
It is not the purpose of this paper to become overly enmeshed in the
specifics of the creation/evolution debate. However, a quick word regarding
the strategy of the Creationist attack will give the reader a good whiff of
the intellectual integrity of the underpinnings of Creation 'Science.'

The most effective Creationist tactic has been to prey upon the ignorance of
the general public in regards to things scientific. On this matter the
renowned science and science fiction writer -- the late, great Isaac
Asimov -- lamented that

...it is precisely because it is fashionable for Americans [and Canadians,
doubtless] to know no science, even though they may be well educated
otherwise, that they so easily fall prey to nonsense. They thus become part
of the armies of the night, the purveyors of nitwittery, the retailers of
intellectual junk food, the feeders on mental cardboard, for their ignorance
keeps them from distinguishing nectar from sewage. [8, p. 210]

The Creationist battle cry can be stated thus: Public ignorance is
Creationist bliss.
The most ubiquitous and most thoroughly exploited element of scientific
illiteracy has been -- and continues to be -- the misunderstanding of the
word 'theory.' Creationists, in their public presentations and in their
literature, invariably describe evolution as being 'only' a theory.
Colloquially, the word 'theory' has come to mean 'guess,' and, well aware of
this misconception, the Creationists demand that their 'guess' regarding
origins be given 'equal time' in any classroom that mentions the theory of
evolution -- all ostensibly in the spirit of fair play and democracy. 'Equal
time' is what they are demanding today. They are well aware that any attempt
to completely eradicate evolution from textbooks would fail. In other words,
this business about 'equal time' is only a matter of political expediency.

What, exactly, is the Creationist understanding of the word 'theory'?
Certainly they would not object to the teaching of music theory for the
reason that it is only a theory. They would not dare deny the existence of
music. Similarly, Newton's Laws of gravity and motion are also just as
'theoretical' as evolution (though they are called 'laws' because the word
'law' was more fashionable in Newton's day), but no Creationist would deny
the existence of gravity. They are only interested in belittling those
fields of science that threaten their doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.

So, then, what is the proper definition of a scientific 'theory'? It is
this: a theory is a set of ideas that describes and/or explains a
phenomenon. Karl Popper, perhaps this century's most renowned philosopher of
science, arrived at the most universally accepted criterion: a theory must
be falsifiable. A theory also must have predictive powers. The theory of
evolution satisfies both of these criteria; Creationist 'theory' satisfies
neither. It contains its conclusion in its premise, i.e., that our origins
are as described in the Book of Genesis, verbatim, and, consequently,
scientific observations must either be twisted or ignored accordingly.
Creation 'Science' has no scientific content whatever, despite Creationist
protests to the contrary, and, therefore, it has no place in a science
class. However, it somehow still manages to infiltrate the schools, as we
shall see.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Creationism in the Classroom
Henry M. Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research, has said
that "true education in every field should be structured around creationism,
not evolutionism," and that "textbooks need to be rewritten and teachers
retrained!" [9]. Morris's right hand man, Duane T. Gish, writes of the
urgent need for Creationist handbooks, educational materials and school
textbooks to neutralize "the cancer of evolution oriented secular humanism
that is destroying the minds and faith of our young people," and urges
"God's people" to fight back with prayers and money [10]. This would be
laughable were it not for the fact that the Creationists have made
significant inroads in many states and provinces over the last few decades.

States which have been affected by Creationist attempts to have equal time
laws enacted include at least the following: Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, New York, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,
Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Canada, without any
counterpart to the American first amendment (regarding the separation of
church and state), is inherently more vulnerable to the Creationists. In
fact, Creationism is being taught at several schools across Canada, some of
which are in Ontario [11].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

'Scopes II'
In some cases where definitive decisions have yet to be made, Canadian
courts will follow the American lead [12, p. 92]. For this reason, it is
well worth examining a particularly relevant American court case.

Perhaps the best known legal battle involving the Creationists' attempt to
infiltrate the classroom in recent history began in Arkansas at the end of
1981. Penned as 'Scopes II,' this court case was a result of the state of
Arkansas' passing of a bill requiring state schools to give "balanced
treatment" to both evolution and "scientific creationism." The law was to
take effect in the 1982-83 school year, and covered all educational
materials and programs that dealt in any way with the subject of the origin
of man, life, energy, the earth, or the universe. Governor Frank White,
who -- by his own admission -- did not even read the bill, signed it. Thus
was Act 590 born. The Act drew immediate opposition from the American Civil
Liberties Union on the grounds that it violated the first amendment.
Interestingly, most of the twenty-three plaintiffs were actually clergymen
who viewed Act 590 as a threat to religious freedom.

The case came to court in Little Rock, Arkansas with federal Judge William
R. Overton presiding. The ACLU fought its case on the grounds that
Creationism is religious, not scientific, and that its teaching would
therefore violate Constitutional separation of church and state as well as
the academic freedom of both teachers and students. Local science teachers
testified that they had no idea how a sensible course combining Creationism
with evolution could be designed, and if forced to teach both, would be at a
loss as to how to proceed [13, pp. 71-74].

On January 5, 1982 Judge Overton ruled that Arkansas Law 590 violated the
principle of separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution.
He declared that it represented nothing more than a transparent attempt to
introduce the Biblical version of Creation into the public schools. He also
ruled that Creationism is not science, and that evolution is not religion
(as the defense had insisted). Furthermore, even if evolution was a
religion, then the proper course of action would be to cease teaching
evolution in public schools, not to begin teaching another religion in
opposition to it [14, p. 59].

Even if the Creationists never win any major battles in court, they could
significantly affect the quality of science education at the local level.
The pressure takes the form of subtle intimidation of teachers with the
result that many tread very lightly around evolution to avoid controversy.
This is a part of the rationale for the Creationist 'road shows': to foster
a bottom-up, grassroots movement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

In Canada
The Creation Science Association of Canada is responsible for most of the
strides that Creationism has made in this country. One of their
accomplishments is a 13,000-name petition sent to the (former) Minister of
Education for Ontario, Dr. Bette Stephenson, calling for Creation 'Science'
to be included in all textbooks, school courses, and museums where evolution
is espoused [15, p. 5]. It also sent a 7,500-name petition to the Minister
of Education in British Columbia demanding equal time for Creationism in the
Science program. The B.C. Minister conceded that it might be beneficial to
teach both views, and some school districts now teach Creationism along with
science [16, p. 23]. In Canada, generally, the Provincial Ministries of
Education have not defined any specific policy with respect to Creationism,
so that it is neither on the curricula nor off. As a result, it is possible
that Creationism may be taught in schools wherever there are teachers with
Creationist beliefs, though not necessarily with the endorsement of the
Ministries. For example, in 1982 Quest magazine reported that the president
of CSAC, a teacher of biology and chemistry at Burnaby South Senior
Secondary School in Burnaby, B.C., taught Creationism unchallenged for many
years. It reported as well that a director of the Ontario chapter of the
Creation Science Association, who teaches biology at North Park Secondary
School in Brampton, Ontario, has taught 'Scientific' Creationism in the
school for years [16, p.23].

In the Ontario Ministry of Education's Intermediate/Senior Science
Curriculum Guideline (from 1985, but I suspect that more recent guidelines
also adhere to this policy) it is recommended that

if the material being studied in a particular unit is felt by the student or
his or her family to be incompatible with deeply-held religious beliefs, the
student may be excused from that portion of the course alternative project
of equivalent educational value and an alternative project of equivalent
educational value should be supplied for that student.

Could the "alternative project of equivalent educational value" involve
Creation 'Science'? From a scientific perspective, absolutely not. However,
in the political interests of the powers that be, the answer is likely a
timid "o.k." It is also recommended that evolution be presented as providing
"only one set of insights as to the origin of life on earth," and that
"other fields of study such as religion, philosophy and astronomy influence
personal hypotheses on the origin of the universe and the life in it."
(Exactly how astronomy can conflict with evolution is unknown to me.)
Nowhere in the Guideline is Creationism explicitly mentioned, but clearly,
it is Ministry policy to handle it with care [13, pp. 65-66].

Regulation 298, section 28(2), of the Ontario Education Act has some bearing
on this matter. It states that if a school board decides to provide a course
about religion, then the program of education must

(a) promote respect for the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and (b) provide for the study
of different religions and religious beliefs in Canada and the world,
without giving primacy to, and without indoctrination in, any particular
religion and religious belief.

Creation 'Science' would violate both of these conditions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Academic Freedom
Some might argue that the disallowance of a science teacher (with
Creationist inclinations) to teach Creation 'Science' in a science classroom
is in violation of the teacher's academic freedom. This is not so. Proudfoot
and Hutchings write in their book, Teacher Beware, that

...they must not promote their own beliefs and opinions to the exclusion of
others, particularly when their beliefs do not conform to the approved
curriculum. If the department of education and the board prescribe that the
theory of evolution be taught in the science curriculum, a teacher cannot
refuse to teach the theory because it contravenes his own religious beliefs.
Nor can he choose to teach "creation science" in lieu of the prescribed
curriculum. Academic freedom is limited by the curriclum and the directives
of the employer. [17, pp. 354-355]

The bottom line is that academic freedom does not mean teaching whatever one
feels like teaching. Nor does it mean that teachers can impose their own
beliefs upon their students, since students are entitled to the same right.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Conclusion
One of the issues here is the integrity of our students' education: Creation
'Science' does not offer a valid scientific theory regarding our origins
and, therefore, it does not belong in a science classroom any more than the
theory of leprechauns and the theory of unicorns do, though I wholheartedly
concede that the subject of Creationism could and should be taught
elsewhere -- perhaps in a course on comparative religion, critical thinking,
or abnormal psychology). As one educator has put it, "Why should we teach
levitation in a pilot training course? Why should we teach the "Stork
Theory" in a sex education class?"

Left unchecked, Creation 'Science' will damage public perceptions of both
Christianity and science. In a way that Charles Darwin never could, Creation
'Science' has the potential to make monkeys of us all.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Bibliography

Toumey, Christopher P., "God's Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular
World" Rutgers University Press (1994)

Time, March 16, 1981

Gould, Stephen Jay, "Misquoted Scientists Respond" Creation/Evolution, 6
[4], (1986)

Plimer, Ian, "Telling Lies For God" Random House Australia (1994)
"Science and Creationism" National Academy Press, (1984)

Young, Davis, "Christianity and the Age of the Earth" Zondervan (1982)

John Paul II "Man in the image of God is a spiritual and corporeal being
General Audience" no. 7 (16 April, 1986)

Asimov, Isaac " 'X' Stands For Unknown" Avon Books (1984)

Morris, Henry M "Scientific Creationism" Creation Life Publishers (1974)

Morris, Henry M.; Gish, Duane T.; Hillestad, George M. (eds.) "Creation Acts
Facts Impacts" Creation Life Publishers (1974)

Anonymous "A Personal Testimony..." Creation Science Association of Ontario
Newsletter Vol. 7, No. 3, (1994)

Brown and Zuker "Education Law" Thomson Canada Ltd., (1994)

Young, Willard A. "Fallacies of Creationism" Detselig Enterprises Ltd.
(1985)

Cherfas, Jeremy "Victory for Science -- and the American Way" New Scientist,
January 14 (1982)
"From Adam or a Single Cell?" Canada and the World, April (1981)

Amernic, Jerry "The Creation Debate: God Versus Darwin in the Classroom"
Quest, April (1982)

Proudfoot and Hutchings "Teacher Beware: A Legal Primer For The Classroom
Teacher" Detselig Enterprises Ltd. (1988)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


References

Moyer, W.A. "How Texas rewrote your textbooks" Science Teacher, 52 [1], pp.
23-30

Overton, William R. "Creationism in Schools: The decision in the MacLean
versus the Arkansas Board of Education" Science, 215, pp. 934-943

Jukes, T.H. "Quackery in the Classroom: the aspirations of the creationists"
Journal of Social Biological Structure, 7, pp. 193-205 (1984)

Eisenberg and MacQueen "Don't Teach That!" Paper Jacks, pp 65-70 (1972)

Lewin, Roger "Creationism on the Defensive in Arkansas" Science 215, 33
(1982)

Darder, Antonia "Culture and Power in the Classroom" Bergin and Garvey
(1991)

Zuker, Marvin A. "The Legal Context of Education" OISE Press (1988)

Hurlbert and Hurlbert "School Law Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms"
University of Calgary Press (1992)

Eldredge, Niles "The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism"
(1982)

Gould, Stephen Jay "Ever Since Darwin" W.W. Norton and Co., (1977)

Gould, Stephen Jay "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" W.W. Norton and Co.,
(1984)

Johnson, F. Henry "A Brief History of Canadian Education" McGraw-Hill (1968)

Numbers, Ronald L "The Creationists" Alfred A. Knopf (1992)

Dawkins, Richard "The Blind Watchmaker" Oxford University Press (1986)

Dawkins, Richard "The Selfish Gene" Oxford University Press (1976)

Dawkins, Richard "The Extended Phenotype" Oxford University Press (1982)

Leakey, Richard "The Origin of Humankind" Basic Books (1994)