Archived: Nov 19, 2007

> Editorial

The politics of origins

As technical knowledge, evolution isn’t for everyone

By Johanan Raatz

The vast majority of people will never need to use evolutionary theory in their life.

Let me begin by briefly stating my positions regarding evolution, creationism and intelligent design. Though I grew up as a creationist, I came to realize that evolution explains the evidence in ways creationism simply can’t.

Creationism can’t explain why the dozen or so Tyrannosaur fossils have been found exclusively in late-Cretaceous strata. If the fossils were buried in the flood they would be spread out through many strata.

Unlike evolution, creationism also does not explain why the majority of the world’s marsupials are located exclusively in Australia.

Unlike with creationism, the situation with intelligent design (or ID) is more intricate. Is ID science? Not really, as it cannot be empirically verified.

Does this mean it is necessarily wrong? Again, not really; all it means is that no experiment could, in principle, prove it.

Although ID is not science, the arguments made for it actually put it close to information science in that it is really a logically systematized form of the Turing test used to determine artificial intelligence.

In the same way one would look to see if an A.I. displays sentience, ID looks for statistical evidence of sentient design. In this sense it is similar in some ways to A.I. research, and what is done at SETI.

Stepping outside the scientific realm, there seems to be a bit of a fuss over creationism in the political arena. This fuss has gotten so bad that communities that teach creationism have been challenged in courts at the federal level.

Though I don’t believe in creationism, I do not share this petty, negative attitude towards creationism. Why? Simply put, evolution is technical knowledge. It isn’t for everyone.

The vast majority of people will never need to use evolutionary theory in their life. What would a clergyman, a soldier, a politician or a day laborer need to use evolution for? They wouldn’t. The knowledge evolution brings us is extremely useful, but only in the realm of science and certain technological fields. I do not see the harm done in a local school district educating its children by its own community standards, so long as evolution is also taught.

However, at this point the argument is raised that if creationism is taught in schools, children might not properly learn about evolution. Though perhaps technically true in some regards, I do not believe this is the case in regards to students who are naturally interested in science.

I speak from experience here. As a science major who also happened to grow up learning creationism alongside evolution, I was able to determine that creationism simply didn’t fit into the rubric of science. There were too many holes in it and there were too many things that it couldn’t explain and evolution could.

Despite my early education, I now possess a far greater knowledge about evolution than most people ever will in their lifetimes. Having a natural interest in science, my curiosity lead me to understand that evolution accurately accounts for the facts in a way that creationism doesn’t. Learning creationism in my youth in no way affected my views as a science major today.

People with a natural interest in science will be able to see what is scientific and what isn’t, simply due to their natural curiosity. As long as they are also taught evolution, creationism will not really affect them.

If someone doesn’t have a natural interest in science, that person won’t desire to become a scientist and won’t need to believe evolution. As such, I don’t really see a problem with non-scientists believing creationism.

Being a creationist does not make someone a bad person. In fact many of the most decent, civil people I know are creationists.

I don’t see how it would make them unproductive members of society or affect their judgment in regards to morals or political virtues in any adverse way. Bringing the fuss over the creationist movement into the political realm is really much ado about nothing. Creationism may not be science, but it is nonetheless harmless.

The moral philosopher Leo Strauss once pointed out that cultural heritage and beliefs are inseparable from civic virtue in a society. Creationism has grounding in our cultural heritage and as such it is a natural part of society. Removing it would be unnatural.

> Comments

Richard on Nov 20, 2007 at 02:02 PM:

Wow! I can't believe you are a science major. Let us begin with your assumption that creationism in politics doesn't matter. There are members of President Bush's inner circle that believe if there is a nuclear war in the middle east, it will be the beginning of the end times and Jesus is returning -which is great in their minds. Second with the belief in creationism, who cares about climate change?

In reality, if evolution is taught and our citizenry understands it then a sea of change happens. Abortion and gay marriage would be non-issues. Wars caused by the my god is better than your god attitude would cease. The list goes on.

However, after reading the "One Nation..." piece you wrote in the issue, I understand your bias. You state that the fear of god keeps people moral if the state cannot scare you enough. Slavery was legal, state supported and Sunday school supported. I am glad that the state didn't scare citizens in this case or with labor unions. The state is often wrong, and so are you.

Johanan Raatz on Nov 20, 2007 at 06:28 PM:

"Wow! I can't believe you are a science major."

Why? I'm not questioning science, I'm just not bigoted against the faith-based community. There is no reason evolutionists like myself and creationists can't coexist without constantly fighting. All you have to do is respect a communities decisions about its own education system.

"There are members of President Bush's inner circle that believe if there is a nuclear war in the middle east, it will be the beginning of the end times and Jesus is returning -which is great in their minds."

First of all what part of Bushes inner circle are you reffering to? The people advising for a larger conflict in the middle east are not the people you think they are. They are infact mostly quite secular in regards to politics. Secondly this assumes that religion and in particular Christianity really conflict with evolution. I might point out that major Christian theists like Dinesh D'Souza and C.S Louis don't and didn't find a conflict between evolution and their faith.

"Second with the belief in creationism, who cares about climate change?"

There is actually religious motivation to be concerned with climate change. The problem I have is that the mainstream environmentalism seems to be at least in part motivated by things other than the environment. See my article on global warming ("Win-win solution" for more on this). I haven't seen this same motivation in the religious counterpart.

"In reality, if evolution is taught and our citizenry understands it then a sea of change happens."

I like change but not all change is good change.

"Abortion and gay marriage would be non-issues."

That would be a bad change. Not being a biased against gays I am not such a stickler on gay marriage, but I would point out that many of social values derived from religion are actually quite natural and in light of sociobiology are actually healthy for a human society. As for legal abortion I find that to be a rather disgusting abuse of secularism. It's like saying there's no God so therefore no one will stop me from taking slaves or killing my neighbors.

"Wars caused by the my god is better than your god attitude would cease."

This is a misconception. "God" here really translates to "ideals" Wars are and ought to be fought over ideals if those ideals because ideals have consequences. And it's also a misconception to suggest that these wars are explicitly religious. Wars have been fought over religious ideals as well as secular ones (just look at communism).

"I understand your bias."

It's not bias. What objective use would a non-scientist have for evolution?

"You state that the fear of god keeps people moral if the state cannot scare you enough. Slavery was legal, state supported and Sunday school supported."

Yes the state can screw up, but people without order or a sense of purpose are more prone to screw up. You end up with a tyranny of the majority then which can be far more dangerous. BTW the incipient opposition to slavery came from what might be called the "Religious Right" today. So I wouldn't think that religion in society would be a bad thing in this context.

"I am glad that the state didn't scare citizens in this case or with labor unions."

If you look at history it actually took a more slightly more Hobbesian state to outlaw slavery. Remember Lincoln had to undermine federalism to some extent to keep the Union together and ban slavery. In this instance the state was right and the slave-owning people were wrong.

Sincerely. ~Johanan Raatz

Joshua McCracken on Nov 20, 2007 at 09:58 PM:

Subjectivity plays a large part in all arguments, and in all fairness since this is an op-ed section there is naturally going to be a measure of bias since it is after all a person's opinion which they are airing. However, I have to agree with Mr. Raatz, creationism in school may not have a scientific basis, however if it is taught WITH evolution so that people can make up their own minds about what they think is correct, I see no reason why it should not be taught. There is always a middle of the road option, and the two being taught side by side, especially in light that knowledge of either one does not particularly change a person's already established identify, should not pose a problem to anyone who does not have an agenda to pursue.

Richard on Nov 24, 2007 at 01:01 PM:

Great rebuttal. However these are just the tip of the iceberg. Let us assume your against evolution, and not the whole of science. Then we can use the rest of science to show evolution is correct. However, if you believe that all of science is anti-religion then no meaningful discussion is possible.

Astronomy proves that the earth is Billions of years old. Geology is in complete agreement that eons have happened and billions of years of history are captured in layers. Genetics is also filling in all of the tree of life over billions of years. Paleontology digs up very simple transition forms every year. Chemistry also proves that atoms are built over eons in stars and accumulate protons to build the Periodic Table of Elements.

Therefore, if creationism is taught and it is contradicted by Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Geology, ... why teach any science? If a philosophy (creationism) which is contradicted by every science is taught then we should stop doing science.

Really, you have a moral dilemma and think religion(s) help civilize people. People without purpose? You have a seriously poor view of human nature. Atheists, in a study done in England, are generally more moral and less prone to end up in prison. I know your pastor would hate to hear that!

Do some research on how almost every science completely supports evolution. All point to vast quantities of time to have passed before we were born. And as pointed out in the Dover ID case, every new discovery only confirms Darwinian evolution to a more precise degree. Check out the PBS special on teaching creationism in Dover School District.

Richard on Nov 24, 2007 at 02:36 PM:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html