Of Design and Deception: Kansas, Conflict and Creation

The Kansas School Board’s decision to remove evolution from the state’s curriculum standards has taken the often abstract debate between science and religion to a sudden flashpoint in the ‘real’ world of politics, policy and the everyday lives of ordinary citizens. Philosopher Robert Pennock examines the controversy and the Creationist¹s claim that evolution is a ‘conscious deception.’

by Robert T. Pennock

The decision by the Kansas Board of Education to remove evolution from the state’s curriculum standards has taken the often academic debate between science and religion to a sudden flashpoint in the "real" world of politics, policy and the everyday lives of ordinary citizens. The Creationists behind the decision claim that evolution is not only "bad science" but a conscious deception. Can this be true? Or does the deception at the heart of the conflict lie elsewhere?

A Deceiving God?

By the middle of 19th century, scientists who had expected that their investigations of the world would conform to a plain reading of the Bible were having to reconsider. The standard interpretation of the record of the ages in Scripture was that the world and all its life and landforms were young, created by God only some 6000 years ago; but the record they were uncovering in the rocks indicated that the earth was ancient — thousands upon millions of times older than expected. Philip Henry Gosse, a naturalist, had been troubled by this problem, but thought he had a solution. The answer, he offered, is that God had so designed the world that it gave the appearance of age, like someone who builds a table with a fake finish to make it look like an antique. Few Christians were happy with Gosse’s clever apologetic, however. It had one great theological fault: Could God really have been so deceptive in designing the world?

Thoughts about design and deception have been on the minds of many of us in recent weeks in the wake of the vote by Christian conservatives on the Kansas State Board of Education to remove evolution from the state’s science curriculum standards. In the ongoing controversy about evolution and Creation, there is one question we are compelled to ask: Who is deceiving whom about design?

Evolution as Deception?

After a committee of scientists and science teachers had drafted the curriculum standards for science, Board of Education member Steve Abrams, a veterinarian and former head of the Kansas Republican Party, rewrote these with the help of creationist lobbyists. They deleted most of two pages on evolution, leaving only reference to
microevolution within species. They removed references to the big-bang and the geological time-scale. They diluted seemingly innocuous lines that spoke, for instance, of learning how fossils provided evidence of organisms that lived "long ago," to the more indefinite "in the past." Tom Willis, director of the Creation Science Association for Mid-America, who helped in the rewrite, explained his viewpoint, telling reporters that teaching evolution
misleads students. "It’s deception," he opined.

Here and elsewhere, Willis was articulating a central tenet of creationist belief: that evolution is not only false, but an intentional deceit whose purpose is to lead the innocent and unwary away from God. Evolutionary biology, as creationists see it, is "The Lie." A book by that title published by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the largest and most influential creationist organization, pictures on its cover a serpent with an apple in its mouth formed of the letters "EVOLUTION." There is little subtlety in this symbolism. With such images, creationists depict evolution as the work of the Great Deceiver himself. ICR publications tell us that evolutionism was devised by Nimrod and Satan at the Tower of Babel to undermine Christianity, and that all religions except those in the Judeo-Christian tradition are woven of the same dark threads.

Such a viewpoint, even in less extreme variations, is hardly conducive to a fruitful dialogue between science and religion, let alone between believers of different faiths. Evolution is not the fruit of the devil, but simply a fact of nature. Most theologians accepted this long ago, and there is an extensive literature going back to Darwin’s day, that discusses how beliefs about the nature of God, Creation and ourselves fit with our knowledge of evolution.
That discussion continues, as serious Christian theologians and scholars who have a real understanding of science —

thinkers such as Howard Van Till, Arthur Peacocke, Robert John Russell, Nancey Murphy, William B. Drees and others — work through the meaning of evolution for thoughtful believers. Creationists are either ignorant of this
literature or pretend that it does not exist, for they continue to portray those who accept the scientific evidence for evolution as being anti-Christian materialists who belong to "the Church of Darwin."

Creationists also make false statements about what evolution actually says and about scientific method. Take, for instance, Abrams’ comment that "It is not good science to teach evolution as fact." Some people who say this sort of thing do so out of simple misunderstanding of scientific terminology. Taking words in a colloquial sense, they take "fact" to mean very nearly the opposite of "theory," so they think that because scientists speak of "evolutionary theory" it must mean that evolution is not a fact, but just a guess. In science, however, a particular "guess" that is put forward for testing is called a "hypothesis," whereas the term "theory" — as used in speaking of germ theory, or Newtonian gravitational theory, or evolutionary theory — refers to interlocking bodies of hypotheses that have been tested and confirmed, and that provide an explanatory framework upon which further research is based.

Or take Willis’ contention that science cannot show evolution to be true because "you can’t go into the laboratory or the field and make the first fish." To see what is wrong with this argument, compare it to the question of mountain building. If this reasoning were correct, then we should also conclude that science cannot determine how mountains form, because scientists can’t make a mountain (let alone the first one) in the field or lab. But science can say how mountains have formed, and it has done so in considerable detail. The incremental uplift that is forming the Himalayas as the Indian subcontinent crashes (oh so slowly) into Asia is comparable to the incremental changes of biological organisms that add up over millions of years to the large differences that make for a new species. Nor do volcanoes disprove geology’s knowledge. (Creationists point to Mount St. Helens to try to do this, and they inserted reference to it in the Kansas science standards.) Scientists can tell the difference between igneous and sedimentary rocks, for instance, and between mountains that have formed by volcanism versus those that arise from the uplift caused by the movements of continental plates.

Creationist Deceptions?

The Kansas case reflects recent developments among creationists. In the 1980s, creationists introduced legislation to require the teaching of "creation-science," but U.S. courts repeatedly struck down such laws. Creation-science is disguised religion, they ruled, so it is unconstitutional to teach it in the public schools. Now creationists often speak instead of "abrupt appearance theory" or "intelligent design theory." In line with this new terminology Abrams’ group also had attempted to insert into the science standards the words: "The design and complexity of the design of the cosmos requires an intelligent designer." Though that sentence did not make it into the final version (on advice of counsel, no doubt), they did include a line saying that no "evidence or analysis of evidence" that conflicted with current scientific theory could be censured, opening the door for it and other non-scientific viewpoints.

However, instead of introducing a specific "creation model" to compete with evolutionary theory, the new creationists keep the details of their view under wraps. The positive "theory" of "intelligent design" — at least as revealed in public — does not extend beyond repetition of those two words. This is a clever political stratagem, but it is hardly the way that sincere seekers after truth comport themselves. It is disingenuous to say that students should examine the evidence for "alternative theories" when there are no credible alternatives. Science requires that one provide a detailed account of the relationship between the data to be explained and that which is proposed to explain them. It also requires that one present these for peer review. Scientists must be scrupulous about setting out their specific hypotheses and confirming (or disconfirming) evidence. Scientific research papers report these in tedious detail so that other scientists are able to evaluate the results. Creationists do none of this.

Because they have no detailed positive view (or because they dare not reveal it), the new creationists’ mode of operation is entirely negative. They point to some unsolved puzzle in biology (usually one that biologists themselves have previously brought up as an interesting research problem) and pronounce it unsolvable, or they try to trivialize or cast doubt upon some evidence for evolution, and then quickly move to what irritated biologists have called "the creationists’ Big Lie": that evolutionary theory is on the verge of collapse. In books, lectures and editorials, creationists speak of the "sagging credibility of evolution," claiming that scientists are "abandoning a sinking theory" and that they "admit in private" that it is not supported by the evidence, but hold onto it nevertheless as a "dogma." Repeat this sort of falsehood often enough and people who don’t know better will begin to believe it.

However, it is a fallacy to think that negative argumentation against evolution could establish even a vaguely worded notion of intelligent design, and the truth of the matter is that evolutionary theory is stronger than ever. Every week brings reports of new fossil finds, new insights into the relationships of descent among organisms, and better understanding of the causal mechanisms and molecular basis of evolutionary change. It is no deception to say that evolutionary theory is among the most well-established of scientific theories.

Of course, there is always debate among biologists about one or another specific detail of evolutionary theory, but this is true in all areas of science and is a sign of a healthy, progressive research program. Creationist leaders regularly quote out of context from such discussions, misleading their listeners about their import. Such was the case recently, when intelligent design creationists referred in a nationally televised debate to the work of a scientist who had published a paper showing inaccuracies in line drawings made by Ernst Haeckel in the mid-19th century depicting similarities among vertebrate embryos. They implied that this undermined evolution’s ability to explain embryology. Few viewers saw the scientist’s own assessment that Haeckel’s inaccuracies "do not invalidate the mass of published evidence for Darwinian evolution." On the contrary, he wrote, "the mixed pattern of similarities and differences among vertebrate embryos gives evidence of evolutionary change in developmental mechanisms inherited from a common ancestor." Moreover, he noted that "[i]ronically, had Haeckel drawn the embryos accurately, his first two valid points in favor of evolution would have been better demonstrated."

The Misuses of Enchantment

According to Plato, "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant." Deception clouds our better judgment as if by some magical spell. In saying that evolutionary theory is a deception, creationists seem to take Plato’s point rather too literally, claiming that evolution really is a spell, and one designed by the devil himself. Theologians who understand science do not agree.

A general belief in design is compatible with any number of different design scenarios, including those that work by means of evolutionary processes, so one would expect that the real task would be to investigate the world, as scientists do, to try to discover how the process of creation works. But creationists cannot accept scientific discoveries because they insist upon reading Genesis as though it were a science text. Yet, the fact remains that the earth and its mountain ranges don’t look merely 6000 years old, and species certainly don’t look to be all unrelated to one another. Of course, perhaps Gosse had it right all along, that God designed the world so that it appears as though the world is ancient, as though mountains rise up with unhurried majesty, as though species have descended with modification from common ancestors. Most creationists today believe just this. So, are evolutionists, the devil, and God as well, all enchanters?

Viewed objectively, it looks like it is rather the creationists’ view that is the enchantment. This story they present about evolution is a kind of mythic fairy-tale, a morality play of a battle between good and evil. But is their story — of a conspiracy of scientists who hide the truth to advance "the Church of Darwin" — realistic?

We must consider carefully: who is deceiving whom about design? Rather than continue to accuse one another, let us examine the specific details of the views and then look honestly at the evidence. In the end, if we ignore the evidence, then we are simply deceiving ourselves.

Robert T. Pennock is a philosophy professor at The College of New Jersey. He is the author of Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism, published this year by the MIT Press.


Further Reading

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/Reuters19990811_1718.html

Michael K. Richardson, et al., "Haeckel, Embryos, and Evolution," Science (Letters), Vol. 280 ( May 15, 1998), pp. 983-985.