The Creationist Fallacy

by Goldwin J. Emerson

Many of the more extreme believers in creationism think that they should not accept the theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin approximately one hundred and forty-five years ago. Fundamentalist creationists believe that not only are the two accounts of the earth’s origins different but they are completely incompatible. For these believers it is thought that one must choose either creationism or evolution as being true and they argue that it would be only fair to present both views in our public school systems so that children along with their parents can be to make the "right" choice.

On the face of it, this deceptively simplistic argument has a ring of fairness about it.

Regrettably, there are very few publicly supported schools in Ontario at the secondary school level, even within science classes, which deal with the theory of evolution in any detail. Worse still, some teachers have failed to understand the theory themselves. Teaching about how different species change and mutate is often shifted to discussions about how animals adapt their behaviour to the changing conditions around them rather that how species themselves change and evolve in response to natural selection.  In the elementary schools systems the concept of evolution is unlikely to be mentioned at all. On the other hand, there are many opportunities for teachers to reinforce creationist views. Without actually teaching creationism per se one can find many references to Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, the evil snake, forbidden fruit, a six day creation, God's creation, etc. These references abound in school literature, and in art and music classes, and they are so much a part of what students are expected to accept that neither they nor the teachers are encouraged to ask rational questions concerning this part of the schools' activities. In the light of these unquestioned assumptions about God's creation and the scarcity of meaningful teaching about evolution, David Herbert's calls for "equal treatment" on behalf of Citizens Concerned about Education and Origins and for "equal time" for both views have a rather shallow ring about them.

What follows are some reasons why the "equal treatment" argument is problematic:

1. It’s only a theory

Proponents of creationism argue that evolution is only a theory. They claim that it is therefore not well-founded and not proven and consequently it doesn’t properly belong within school curricula and, at the best, evolution deserves no higher educational standing than creationism.

Perhaps creationists confuse the terms hypothesis and theory, both of which are important in science. Theories such as atomic theory, or the theory of how gravity works or how electricity is transmitted along wires or how viruses affect the human body deal with elements in the scientific world which are not directly observable to the human eye. Nonetheless, the effects of such forces are both observable and measurable and can be tested. Theories about them are open to research and to modifications so that such theories can become an accurate representation of our world as it really is.  

In the case of the theory of evolution this theory is built upon literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of concrete evidence. It would be much more accurate for creationists to say that their own beliefs about how the universe began are based upon pre-scientific explanations and conjectures of how things came to be a very long time ago. Actually such pre-scientific musings are often interesting, and for their time in history, many of them were rather clever myths about the nature of the universe. It is unfortunate that by refusing to look at new scientific information creationists are caught  in a time-warp of confusion. Considering the heavy burden of proof that they impose upon scientific theories, creationists are rather easily satisfied with the lack of measurable evidence in support of their own beliefs.

2.What to Keep and What to Discard?

Throughout history, frequently there have been beliefs formulated in such a way as to provide an explanation for the unknown factors in people’s lives. These myths and allegories give some psychological support to enable humans to have a feeling of being in some measure of control and of understanding even though such beliefs arise out of pre-scientific thinking. Some examples are the geocentric concept of planet rotation, the idea of the four humours (including blood letting) or its converse, that taking blood into the body (transfusion) is sinful and against God's will, as is still tenaciously upheld by some religious sects. There is also the flat earth concept which in the past has been upheld by a reference to the biblical text in Revelations 7:1 regarding the four angels positioned upon the four corners of the earth. There is as well, the idea that when one is sick or insane that the best cure is to exorcize the evil spirit. Of course, the list of examples could go on and on.

Fortunately, most believers are able to accept new scientific evidence, modify their religious views to keep their religion in tact, and move along until the next scientific advance requires yet another revision of their religious beliefs. However, those who are less able to modify their religious beliefs in keeping with scientific knowledge have often tenaciously held to such uninformed ideas leading to unfortunate results. When one starts down the path of rejecting science where it appears to threaten religious faith there is no easy cut-off place to decide to reject and what to keep. Well-meaning believers in religion who are prepared to sacrifice scientific knowledge to uphold their faith in a six day creation, or in exorcizing evil spirits from mentally disturbed people, or in refusal of blood transfusions to those who need them, engage in destructive and irrational behaviour.

3. The Search for Universal Truths

Religion assumes for itself the role of being the interpreter of how God thinks on various important "universal" truths. Since God is thought to be all-knowing and all-wise, fundamentalist adherents believe that the more tenaciously they cling to their religious principles the more they are in possession of universal truths. However, there are in the world, approximately one thousand different religions each one having among its believers,  individuals who have their own particular interpretations of the "universal truths" that their religion presents. Consequently, the notion that religion is in possession of universal truth seems to have very little credibility in light of the fact that there are very serious disagreements among religions as evidenced by inter-religious wars. and theological disagreements. This situation is further mired in trouble by the idea that God’s universal truths are unchangeable and thus there is little hope that adherents are likely to consider the views of those who see things differently from themselves or to incorporate new scientific knowledge into their thinking.

For those who desire to think in terms of universal truths a better claim could be made by science itself. At least in the case of science, the knowledge obtained is more universally open to those of both genders, to all racial groups, to every geographic area and to all religious adherents who care to use the methods of science. In the search for truth, the findings of those scientists who precede  as well as those who follow the searcher are important. Good scientists do not think in terms of universal truths per se. It is for this reason that scientific giants such as Newton and Einstein have had their ideas tested and re-tested and modified by other scientists who followed so that those ideas can be brought into harmony with what we presently know about the nature of the physical world. It is this self-correcting method within science that de-emphasizes the hasty conquest for universal truths. Instead, the emphasis is placed upon continuing improvements and additions to the present body of knowledge.

4. Which Creation View is to be Taught?

It is clear that when proponents in favour of teaching creationism, such as Citizens Concerned about Education and Origins who speak on this matter, that they are referring only to the Christian concept .In fact, David Herbert would be vehemently opposed to any other versions which are held within Hindu religion, Greek mythology, Shintoism, or by North American Aboriginals, or in fact any other non-Christian versions. This despite the fact that religious scholars find many common themes in religious creation stories such as the unfortunate idea that women, right from the beginning, are supposedly more prone to giving into temptation and consequently are not to be trusted with God's universal truths.

A study of creation mythology from early Egyptian and Babylonian cultures to those found much later among Navaho and Polynesian cultures reveals that there are many recurring themes within creation stories. Many of these parallel the Genesis accounts of creation. For example, the creator, according to the Babylonian epic, created man in his own image and later created a second being out of the body of his first creation. Mythology has many stories of lesser gods who compete for power and eventually one supreme God emerges overall. This Supreme Being typically resides in highest heaven and is jealous of other gods who compete for the attention of humans. These similarities with later Christian versions strongly suggest that Christianity, like other religions, borrowed and adopted their creation beliefs from previous mythologies and from their religious forerunners.

What is clear from David Herbert and his ilk is that “in the interests of fairness” only Christian creationism is to be taught. Moreover, this form of indoctrination rather than education is to be taught as part of the science curriculum although what Christian creationism has to do with science is hard to imagine.

The question of which creation view is to be taught is further compounded, even for fervent Christians, such as David Herbert, by the fact that there exist within the first and second chapters of Genesis at least two different accounts of creation.... a fact which I hope has not escaped his notice.

Conclusion

When arguments for equality are presented on the teaching of creationism and of evolution it is important to determine whether or not these arguments are in favour of true equality or are they arguments for preferential treatment instead. Is the purpose of instruction in creationism meant to serve the best interests of education or is it to operate as a tool for indoctrination in the Christian religion? Let us hope that members of the Thames Valley District School Board are not misled by the arguments of Christian zealots and fundamentalists.