Information for all biologists:

The following was recently written by a University of Wisconsin-Superior biology major who thoroughly investigated the inappropriate intrusion of a religious group called "Creation Science" into the science area. These "scientist impersonators" who "hang out" in the science area, try to discredit biological concepts which are important to all scientists. The science facade is important for you to recognize as you pursue further education in biology. You will want to read, print, or download this material to your files for your future reference. These non-scientists, posing as scientists, will try to confuse your thinking about the interpretation of the facts which are based on excellent scientific investigation. This group's main attack is on evolutionary theory especially where investigations do not support the literal interpretation of the Bible. Please consider that certification, competency, and graduate/professional exams in biology contain many questions which require considerable knowledge about evolutionary concepts.

To find out more about the inappropriate behavior of Creation Science,
visit the internet Home Page

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html

http://www2.uwsuper.edu/rmorden/test1.html

I will always have copies of this report in my office. Feel free to stop by and get one.

Dr. Morden

The report......

Before presenting my research paper on the creationism/evolution controversy, I feel the need to speak of my position on religion so the reader does misinterpret my aim. I want it to be clear, as I write about creationism and whether or not it belongs in the science classroom, that I am not against Christianity, but only against presenting creationism, a religious doctrine, as scientific theory. I feel this misrepresentation is harmful both to Christianity and to science education.

As a future biology teacher, I do not want to put my students in a position where they are forced to choose between their religious beliefs and the scientific evidence of evolution. In my view, this is what giving creationism equal time in the science classroom accomplishes. Balanced treatment in the science classroom would work against Christianity. Many religious leaders agree with me. Without creationism, Christianity and evolution can peacefully coexist as allies in expanding our knowledge and understanding. It is creationism, with its Biblical literalism and its two model approach, where students must choose between the creation "science" theory and evolution, that causes the conflict between religion and science. Religion and science serve two different roles. One provides us with insight into the realm of the physical world and one provides us with an understanding of the moral and spiritual realm. We need both religion and science. The problem comes in when we over extend one into the realm of the other.

This paper addresses the creationism/evolution controversy as it impacts the curricula of public school life science and biology courses. While creationists have failed thus far in their attempts to secure equal time with evolution in the science classroom through legislation, they continue to influence science instruction and science textbooks by pressuring state boards of education, local school boards, school administrators, teachers, and, consequently, textbook publishers, through State Adoption Programs. Therefore, it is crucial that science educators have a thorough understanding of the creation/evolution controversy. In this paper, I will look at the creation "science" movement, the validity of its claim to represent an alternative scientific theory that deserves balanced treatment with the theory of biological evolution in the life science curriculum, and the impact of the movement.

There has been controversy and opposition from Christian fundamentalists over the teaching of evolution in public schools in the past. In the famous "Monkey Trial", John Thomas Scopes, a high school biology teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, was charged and convicted of teaching evolution in 1925. In the decades that followed, textbook publishers avoided this controversial topic. However, the science curriculum reform of the 1960's, which was triggered by the launching of the Soviet Sputnik, resulted in the coverage of evolution in biology textbooks. But, some states, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee, still had anti-evolution laws on the books. In 1968, Susan Epperson, a high school teacher in Little Rock, Arkansas, challenged the legislation in her state arguing that a law preventing her from teaching evolution was an infringement on her exercise of free speech. (Grobman and Grobman, 1989)

She received support from the Little Rock Ministerial Association, which unequivocally stated that "to use the Bible to support an irrational and archaic concept of static and undeveloping creation is not only to misunderstand the meaning of the Book of Genesis, but to do God and religion a disservice by making both enemies of scientific advancement and academic freedom." (Nelkin, 1982, p.138)

Susan Epperson won in a local court. However, the Supreme Court of Arkansas upheld the constitutionality of the law forbidding the teaching of evolution. Later, on appeal, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court and the Arkansas anti-evolution law was ruled unconstitutional. Following this precedent, the last of the "Monkey Laws" was soon off the books. (Nelkin, 1982, p.34)

Evolution, or descent with modification, is a change in gene frequencies with time; the adaptive modification of organisms through successive generations. (Brewer, 1994) To evolve is to change. Simply stated, biological evolution is the step by step change that occurs in life forms over time. Descendants are slightly different from their ancestors. Through this process, over the course of geological time, more complex forms develop from simpler ones. According to the National Academy of Science, "No other biological concept has been more extensively tested and more thoroughly corroborated than the evolutionary history of organisms." (National Academy of Science, 1984, p.22) However, evolution does not fit into the Christian Fundamentalists' literal interpretation of the Bible. Therefore, the groups who tried to keep evolution out of the science curriculum in the past launched a new strategy in the late 1960's, creation science.

Several fundamentalist organizations were formed to promote the idea that the Book of Genesis was supported by scientific data. (Nelkin, 1982, p.17) Creationists argue that fairness and academic freedom require that their theory be given equal time in the science class whenever evolution is taught. To protect the religious freedom of all people, the First Amendment's separation of church and state prohibits the promotion of any religious doctrine by a government body. The Fourteenth Amendment makes this establishment clause applicable to the states. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Fourteenth Amendment makes this establishment clause applicable to the states.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution reads:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

However, creationists claim that what they want taught alongside evolution is not religion but an alternative scientific theory. Their definition of creation science can be found in Arkansas Act 590, The Arkansas Balanced Treatment Act. The Act represented their most coherent effort to date (1981) to remove the religious content and to define it as a scientific theory. (Nelkin, 1982, p.137)

Section 4 of the Act provides:
Definitions. As used in this Act:

(a) "Creation-science" means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.

[Arkansas Stat. Ann. 80-1663, et seq. (1981 Supp.)]

As can be seen in (2) above, creationists sometimes explain creation science by attempting to discredit evolution. But, creationists do not just question the validity of evolution, they blame it for many social problems. Henry M. Morris, one of creationism's leading spokesmen, writes:

Evolution is thus not only anti-Biblical and anti-Christian, but it is utterly unscientific and impossible as well. But it has served effectively as the pseudo-scientific basis of atheism, agnosticism, socialism, fascism, and numerous other false and dangerous philosophies over the past century. (Morris and Clark, 1976)

Creationists advocate a two model approach, that is, they maintain that there are only two positions with respect to the origins of life. A person must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or believe in what they call evolution. There are only two options according to this approach, and they are mutually exclusive. However, many Christians are able to mesh their religious beliefs with evolution. These people do not feel that it is necessary to interpret the Bible literally. Therefore, the choice that creationists force on people through their two model approach may be unnecessary depending on a person's interpretation of the Bible. For many people, belief in God and acceptance of the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. The creationists' two model approach claims that any creation myth other than the one found in Genesis must be part of the evolution model. And, according to the creationists, this two model approach requires that any argument against the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism, and is, therefore, creation science evidence. (Nelkin, 1982, p.215) But a scientific theory is not validated simply by disproving a competing theory. The theory itself must stand up to repeated testing.

When the creationists' two model approach is presented in the science classroom, students are encouraged to choose between creationism and evolution. In some classrooms students are even required to vote between the two theories and the one that gets the majority vote is taken to be the "correct" theory. (McInerney and Moore, 1993)

The leading creationist organization is the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Through the Creation Life Publishing Company, the ICR is the leading publisher of creation science material. Henry M. Morris is the Director of the ICR and Duane Gish is Associate Director. Another creation science organization is the Creation Research Society (CRS). Their objective is "to reach all people with the vital message of the scientific and historical truth about creation." (Nelkin, 1977, p.66) To be voting members in the CRS, members must have a post graduate degree in science and must believe in the literal truth of the Bible (signing a written document that attests to this). Another organization, The Creation Science Research Center (CSRC), was formed from a split in the CRS. Its aim has been "to take advantage of the tremendous opportunity that God has given us...to reach the 63 million children in the United States with the scientific teaching of Biblical creationism." (Nelkin 1977, p.67) Its main activity has been a curriculum reform program. The CSRC has published a magazine, a textbook series, film strips, cassettes, and an "action kit" including the legal, organizational, and technical information necessary for a creation theory curriculum in public schools. (Nelkin 1977, p.67) The CSRS has also been involved in legal activities to stop the expenditure of federal funds for "biased" textbooks while offering its services to publishers to "neutralize" textbook material.

Throughout the 1980's and 1990's there has been an effort by creationists, through attempts at state legislation, and attempts to influence state boards of education, local school boards, and teachers, to get equal time for their theory on the origins of life in science classrooms when the theory of evolution is presented. (Tatina, 1989) By pressuring state boards of education, creationists can force textbook publishers to water down or delete evolution from the curriculum because of State Adoption Programs. (Grobman and Grobman, 1989) In states which employ State Adoption Programs, the textbook purchases of a school district are paid for with state funds, providing that the textbooks appear on a list of acceptable books which is put together by the State Board of Education. Because textbooks amount to a substantial expense, school districts of those states cannot afford to choose books that are not approved. Therefore, textbooks which do not appear on the list lose a large share of the market of textbook purchases. Rather than do this, textbook publishers remove or water down the objectionable or controversial issues. With creationists pressuring State Boards of Education, evolution becomes one of these issues.

With their plea for equal time, creationists appeal to the all-American notion of fair play and present themselves as an oppressed minority whose voice is not allowed to be heard. They bring up the point that exposure to new ideas is an important part of education. And, they remind us that open-mindedness to alternative theories promotes scientific advancement. Creationists also claim that they are victims of censorship; I will look into this claim later in the paper.

If creation "science" is a valid scientific theory-complete with supporting evidence, an alternative theory that explains the diversity of life-then it would be reasonable to present it along with evolution in the life science/biology curriculum. The crux of the controversy is the question of whether creation "science" is really science. If it is science, then their arguments may be justified. But if, instead, it is religious doctrine, then the Constitution would prohibit its promotion in public schools, through the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. To determine this requires an understanding of the nature of science. Looking at their own literature, one wonders how complete their understanding of the nature of science is. A passage from Evolution? The Fossils Say No! by Duane Gish, a leading creationist intellectual, will illustrate. (Incidentally, this book is intended for use as a textbook in public school science classrooms.)

We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's emphasis]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creation processes used by the Creator. (Gish, 1978, p.40)

If this is the case, I wonder what the goal of creation science is and what sort of research creation scientists could be involved in. According to Gish, there is no possibility of new discoveries being made through scientific investigation.

A passage written by Henry M. Morris, Director of the ICR, makes me question if creation science provides us with scientific knowledge:

...it is...quite impossible to determine anything about Creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wishes to know anything about Creation (the time of Creation, the duration of Creation, the order of Creation, the methods of Creation, or anything else) his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was there when it happened. We were not there...Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word. This is our textbook on the science of Creation! (Morris, 1977)

The National Academy of Science states that scientific knowledge "is based on explanatory principles whose verifiable consequences can be tested by independent observers. Scientific interpretations of facts are always provisional and must be testable." On the other hand, according to the Academy, "Religion is based upon knowledge and wisdom believed to be revealed by a divine creator or through a supernatural order." (National Academy of Science, 1984, p.8) This statement on religion seems to sound a lot like those passages (above) from Gish and Morris on creationism. The Academy goes on to say, "the goal of science is to seek naturalistic explanations for phenomena within the framework of natural laws and principles and the operational rule of testability."

The creationists have difficulty consistently maintaining the claim that creationism is science, as can be seen in another quote from Gish:

Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious). (Gish, 1981)

In the passage above, we can see the creationists' alternate strategy. If they can't get their creation theory to fly as science then they claim that evolution is also religion (an aspect of "secular humanism") and so, when taught alone, violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. (Grobman and Grobman, 1989) However, they claim that if creationism were also presented along with evolution, then things would be balanced out and it would be fair. Creationists often use twisted logic, and this one case of it. Of course, if evolution were really religion, then the only remedy would be to teach neither one.

So, what is science? How do we decide if creation "science" and evolution are science? A leading invertebrate paleontologist, Norman Newell, offers an opinion:

Science is characterized by the willingness of an investigator to follow evidence wherever it leads. It rests on testable observations and natural processes continuously moving ahead with new evidence and new viewpoints. It is, of necessity, self-correcting. On the other hand, the "proofs" of the creationists consist not of testable observations, or analysis of the basic processes of creation, but of attacks on scientists and their methods. (Newell, 1982)

Michael Ruse, a historian and philosopher of science, says that science's key distinguishing factor is its appeal to and reliance on natural law: blind, natural regularity. He claims everything else follows from an unpacking of that notion: explanation, prediction, testing, confirmation, falsifiability, tentativeness. (Ruse, 1984, p.322)

There seem to be some recurring themes here to pursue; some essential characteristics of science which we could look for in creationism and evolution; some criteria we could use to determine if they are "equally valid scientific theories" as the creationists claim.

Natural Law

Natural law seems to be quite central to science. A natural law identifies a class of regularities in nature from which there has been no known deviation after many observations or trials. (National Academy of Science, 1984, p.10) Natural laws are broad generalizations, essentially descriptions, of the way nature has been repeatedly observed to operate. If a phenomenon depends on supernatural intervention, then it is not relying on natural laws, and it is not explanatory by reference to natural law. (Overton, 1982)

Does creation science appeal to and rely on natural law? Does evolution? Can they be explained by natural laws, natural regularity? Do they use natural law to explain the history and diversity of life?

The main premise of creation science, as the name indicates, is the existence of a supernatural creator. In his public school edition textbook on creation science and evolution, Duane Gish defines creation: "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation." (Gish, 1978, p.40) In the Arkansas Balanced Treatment Act that I mentioned on page three of this paper, the creationists made a conscious effort to keep religion out of their theory and state it scientifically because they knew the critical issue in the success of the legislation was the question of whether creation science is science or religion. However, even in this act, which creationists carefully worded themselves, we see that the theory's unifying idea is the occurrence of "Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing." Thus, the creation science theory does not rely on natural law and does not offer naturalistic explanations.

But does biological evolution rely on natural law? Does it explain the history and diversity of life through natural law? The theory of evolution requires the existence and regularity of at least some laws of nature, such as the laws of chemical combination. And, to explain how the necessary atoms were available to form the biological molecules necessary for the evolution of life requires reliance on other laws of nature from the physical sciences. (Chaisson, 1981). The theory of evolution attempts to explain how successive forms of life evolved by specifying the natural laws, such as principles of biochemistry, genetics, and cellular biology, that were and are involved in this process. Therefore, evolution does appeal to and rely on natural law. There is no need for supernatural forces and miracles to explain the development of life from primitive forms to more advanced forms using the theory of evolution. In fact, this is exactly what disturbs many people about evolution. They worry that if the need for a god to explain the existence of life is removed then people will stop believing in a god. Some fear that this might lead to a loss of control over people or to the decay of morality. A view of evolution from one of the leading creationist organizations, the Institute of Creation Research:
If man is an evolved animal, then the morals of the barnyard and jungle are more natural...than the artificially imposed restrictions of premarital chastity and marital fidelity. Instead of monogamy, why not promiscuity and polygamy?...Self-preservation is the first law of nature; only the fittest will survive. Be the cock-of-the-walk and the king-of-the-mountain. Eat, drink, and be merry, for life is short and that's the end. So says evolution. (Nelkin, 1977, p.129)

Falsifiability

Another essential characteristic of science is the requirement that a scientific theory be falsifiable, that is, that it be testable. Falsifiability, as a criterion of a scientific theory, is a stickier issue. I say stickier because evolution theory, as most if not all scientific theories do, has some trouble with this criterion. The philosopher Karl Popper, logically concluding that while many positive instances cannot confirm a universal statement, one negative instance can refute it, claimed in 1959 that the essential mark of science is that it is falsifiable.

I shall not require of a scientific system that it shall be capable of being singled out, once and for all, in a positive sense; but I shall require that its logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience." (Popper, 1959, p.41, his emphasis)

Using this criterion, Popper has come to the conclusion that evolution is not a testable scientific theory but rather a "metaphysical research programme" which could serve as a possible framework for testable scientific theories. (Popper, 1974, p.134)

Creationists jumped on Popper's assertions of evolution as unfalsifiable. Creationists openly admit that their theory is not falsifiable. The central theme of creation science‹that the universe, earth, and life were created from nothing by a supernatural creator‹cannot be tested. There is no way to check out this assertion and disprove it. However, creationists claim that evolution is equally unfalsifiable, citing Karl Popper. They point out that an investigator cannot make evolutionary predictions and then go forward millions of years in time to see if the predictions prove to be true. Likewise, an investigator cannot go back in time to see the evolution of mammals during the Mesozoic to verify that it occurred in the order evolutionists claim that it did or to check if indeed natural selection was at work.

But science philosopher Michael Ruse cautions that we must be careful not to take our criteria too literally or too narrowly or we will end up counting out just about all our science. (Ruse, 1982, p.136) He suggests that a theory must be judged as a whole. A theory should not be tossed out just because some aspects are not testable.

One must look at the total picture and see if the theory is protected, in fact or in principle, from any empirical phenomenon that might impinge and refute it. If this is so, then obviously the theory must go - it is not real science. (Ruse, 1982, p.136)

I would say creationism fits this bill, we certainly cannot test whether or not God created the heavens and the earth or life, the central theme of creationism. As Morris says in the quote on page eight (above), "We were not there."

There is falsifying evidence against several of the less central tenets of creationism. There is evidence that the world is more (much more) than 6,000 to 20,000 years old. Radiometric dating techniques provide an age of about 4.5 billion years for the earth. (Berra, 1990, p.38)

Creationists use their tenet of the occurrence of a worldwide flood that was severe enough to cover the earth's mountain tops by many feet to explain the fossil record, which contains evidence of multitudes of organisms that are extinct today. However, there are many problems with the idea of a worldwide flood of this magnitude. The most obvious ones are the questions of where all this water came from (without supernatural intervention) and where all the water went after the flood was over. Enough water to cover the entire surface of the earth to a depth that could cover its mountain tops is an incredible amount of water. This quantity of water is not present in the earth's hydrological cycle.

There is considerable evidence that man and apes do have common ancestry. Many transitional fossils have been found. Also, the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA provide evidence of common ancestry. (Caccone and Powell, 1989)

However, creationists do not allow their "theory" to be falsified. They will not accept as valid any evidence that refutes their claims. Instead of discarding the theory, they discard the evidence.

Ruse goes on to suggest that if real checks are available for the bulk of the theory (and the theory is not falsified in these tests), then we can show some tolerance in the areas of the theory that are not testable.

We can test the overall theory of evolution by making predictions about observable consequences we should find in the present and in the record of the past, the fossil record. Our predictions don't have to be about what will happen in the distant future. We can make predictions and observations through experiment on small scale evolution that occurs over a short time scale when dealing with an organism with a short generation time such as bacteria or fruit flies. The classic case of Industrial Melanism in the Peppered Moth in England is an example of an observed change in a gene pool due to natural selection. When tree trunks became dark and lichen free due to coal soot, the dark strain of the moth became the dominant form. As the soot on the trees diminished, the frequency of the light colored strain again increased. In this case, moth-eating birds were the selecting agent; they ate the less camouflaged moths. Furthermore, paleontologists can make predictions about the evolution that occurred in the past and then go out in the field and confirm these predictions by examining the fossil record. Evolution could be falsified by the fossil record if, for example, a mammal fossil was found in rock that was a billion years old. Or, if authentic human foot prints were really found in the same rock strata as dinosaur tracks as was claimed to be the case in the Paluxy "Man Tracks" of Glen Rose, Texas and was later disproved. (Eve and Donn, 1990)

Ruse concludes:

Neither the central mechanism (by which Ruse means natural selection) nor the Darwinian theory (evolution) taken as a whole stand outside of the bounds of genuine empirical science. To go on arguing otherwise is to put ideology and ignorance above reason and experience. (Ruse, 1982, p.142)

Similarly, science philosopher Philip Kitcher responds to the creationists' accusations that evolution is not falsifiable with the assertion and demonstration that an application of "naive falsificationism", the falsifiability criterion adopted from Popper, shows any science not to be science. (Kitcher, 1982, p.43) The problem, says Kitcher, is that, "On their own, individual scientific laws, or the small groups of laws that are often identified as theories, do not have observational consequences." Consequently, they cannot be falsified.

Kitcher claims that the naive falsificationist criterion is "hopelessly flawed" and is a very poor test of genuine science. He suggests replacing this criterion with three characteristics of successful science: independent testability (which is achieved when it is possible to test auxiliary hypotheses independently of the particular cases for which they were introduced); unification (which is the result of applying a small family of problem solving strategies to a broad class of cases); and fecundity (a theory must open up new and profitable lines of investigation, it must be fruitful).(Kitcher, 1982, p.48) In the remainder of his book, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, he goes on to show that evolution passes these tests of successful science and that creationism fails miserably. To express the value of the theory of evolution, Kitcher quotes a great ecologist, Ernst Mayr, and a great geneticist, T. Dobzhansky:

The theory of evolution is quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory in biology. The diversity of organisms, similarities and differences between kinds of organisms, patterns of distribution and behavior, adaptation and interaction, all this was merely a bewildering chaos of facts until given meaning by the evolution theory. (Mayr, 1970, p.1)

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. (Dobzhansky, 1973)

Verifiability

Verifiability is another characteristic of science. Once a hypothesis is tested through experiments or predictions and found not to be false, other investigators must be able to repeat the test to confirm independently, or verify, the results of the original observation. The verification may employ different techniques, equipment, and tests, and it may occur in a different place.

Is creationism verifiable? If a hypothesis about the sudden creation of all "kinds" of life from nothing cannot be tested in the first place, then the test certainly cannot be verified by independent investigators.

Observable consequences of the theory of evolution, on the other hand, have been verified. Examples of verification can be found in many aspects or branches of evolution. Archaeopteryx, the transitional fossil that shows characteristics of both reptiles and birds, is one case of verification. It has been verified in the sense of independent investigators verifying the authenticity of a specimen of the fossil, in response to allegations that it was a forgery, and in the sense that other investigators have found other specimens of the same fossil organism. (Charig, 1986) Fossils of the "missing link" between man and apes, Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy"), were found by two independent anthropologists. Donald Johanson found specimens of this fossil species in the Hadar region of Ethiopia, and Mary Leakey found specimens in Laetolil, Tanzania, near the fossil-rich Olduvai Gorge. (Volpe, 1985, p.221)

From the realm of biochemistry and DNA molecular clocks, a study done in 1987 by Sibley and Ahlquist, regarding dates of divergence from our ape relatives, was verified by Caccone and Powell in 1989 using slightly different, more precise methods; the results were the same. (Caccone and Powell, 1989) Hybrid DNA is used in DNA clocks. That is, single strands of the DNA of two species are mixed. These two strands form a double strand, just as DNA from a single species does. However, these hybrid double strands are not as tightly bound together as the double helices from a single species, because the two strands are not as close a complementary match. (Berra, 1990, p.98) The hybrid DNA is heated, and the temperature at which the strands separate is recorded. A higher temperature is needed to separate strands of more closely related species because there are more bonds between their DNA strands than between those of more distantly related species.

Tentativeness

Another essential characteristic of science is that it is tentative. Nothing is "set in stone" in science, although, scientists are sometimes reluctant to give up long standing theories. Out of verification and tentativeness comes the important fact that science is self correcting. In science, when a hypothesis or theory does not fit with the evidence, it is modified or discarded and replaced by one that better describes the data, the observations.

Creation "scientists" really fall short as scientists (but not as faithful, devoted followers of their religion) in regards to tentativeness. They start with their conclusions and accept only the "evidence" that appears to support them. Moreover, most of their "evidence" is not for the creation model, but, instead, is against the evolution model. When creationists come up against evidence that falsifies aspects of their theory, rather than modifying or discarding the theory, they discard or ignore the evidence. One example is radiometric dating data and their claim that the earth is between 6,000 and 20,000 years old. Even though the evidence shows them to be off by about 4.5 billion years, they maintain their recent earth view. So, while this aspect of their creation science theory is falsifiable, they will not recognize it as falsified. The untentative nature of their "science" can be seen from these examples of the writing of Henry M. Morris:

It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible and, therefore, there is no need to fear that a truly scientific comparison of any aspect of the two models of origins can ever yield a verdict in favor of evolution." (Morris, 1974, pp.15-16)

The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology. (Morris, 1978, p.94)

Clearly, Henry M. Morris, the Director of the Institute of Creation Research, the self-proclaimed scholarly branch of creation science, does not show a tentative attitude. It is obvious that regardless of what evidence scientific investigation might turn up, Morris would not change his ideas about the age of the earth. Moreover, he is insisting on a total reliance on divine revelation as our source of knowledge. But scientific knowledge does not come from divine revelation.

But, to be fair, I should explain how the creationists manage to deny that their view of a recent earth has been falsified. This will also illustrate how the creation "scientists" go about "doing" science.

Radiometric dating compares the amount of radioactive parent material present in a rock sample to the amount of daughter material, which is the result of the parent material's decay. It couples this information with a rate of decay for the parent material to estimate how long ago the rock was formed.

To begin with, Mr. Morris identifies three assumptions of radiometric dating: the system must have been a closed system; the system must originally have contained none of its daughter components; and the process rate must always have been the same. He claims that none of the assumptions are "provable, testable, or even reasonable." (Morris, 1974, p.139) Geologists, of course, are aware of the assumptions they make in radiometric dating (although, they do not identify all the same ones that Morris does). They take great precautions and have developed ways to cross check their results. They do not assume that the number of atoms of daughter component was zero at the time of formation of the rock. And, they do not assume that the system is uncontaminated, that is, that the system has remained closed. (Kitcher, 1982, p.162)

In terms of positive evidence for a young earth, creationists assume a constant rate for processes even though we know these particular rates have not been constant, as the following example will show. They use these rates to estimate the time at which the process began.
One of the rates the creationists use is the rate of decay of the earth's magnetic field. Thomas Barnes, writing for Creation-Life Publishing in 1973, used the current observed rate of decay of the earth's magnetic field to conclude that prior to about 10,000 B.C. the earth's magnetic field would have been impossibly strong. (Kitcher, 1982, p.163) However, while the earth's magnetic field does decay, it decays in cycles and is constantly renewed by the motion of the liquid core of the earth. (Berra, 1990, p.127) The fossil magnetism record shows repeated and irregular polar reversals.

Another creation "science" argument for a young earth employs the current rate of growth of the human population, assuming that it has remained constant over time. This assumption ignores modern advances we have made in preventing starvation through agriculture and food distribution, preventing and curing diseases, preventing lose of life during childbirth, etc. The rate of human population growth is much higher now than it was in the past. However, Henry M. Morris uses this inappropriate rate to calculate the time required for the present population size to be reached starting from an original pair of humans (Adam and Eve, of course). (Kitcher, 1982, p.163) He comes up with a figure of about 10,000 years for the age of the earth, which fits nicely with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Of course, accepting his method of calculating the age of the earth requires accepting the idea that humans were present on the earth from the beginning.

This example is typical of the creation "science" strategy. For those aspects of their theory that are falsifiable, they "refute" any evidence that would falsify them, acknowledging only the "evidence" that supports their preconceived conclusions. They discard observations and data rather than discarding or modifying the theory. This must be what Morris meant in the passage on page 23 when he said, "the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture." It doesn't sound like science to me. It certainly doesn't lead to self correction of the "science".

But, how do the biological evolutionists score in maintaining tentativeness and allowing for correction of the theory? Evolution, like any other long-standing, useful, productive, scientific theory, would be hard to toss out. I'm sure that even legitimate falsifying evidence would have to be looked at hard and long if it threatened the overall picture of evolution.

However, the current debates over the specific mechanisms of how evolution occurs, such controversies as punctuated equilibrium (jerky, episodic evolution) versus the traditional view of gradualism, shows a willingness, at least on the part of some evolutionists, to modify and correct the theory. Unfortunately, this tentative attitude is being rewarded by well publicized accusations by creationists that some leading evolutionists, such as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, doubt the existence of evolution. Creationist Luther Sunderland tells his hopeful readers, "It amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor." (Gould, 1981) Stephen Jay Gould responds, "Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand." (Gould, 1981)

It's ironic that punctuated equilibrium is being used to lend support to the creationist cause because evolution in spurts followed by relatively stable periods with little change offers and excellent explanation for the relative scarcity of transitional forms in the fossil record. Creationists frequently use this scarcity of transitional fossils to deny evolution. So, punctuated equilibrium should work against creationists, but they manage to twist it around to their advantage.

Creationists' abuse of this attempt by evolutionists to refine the theory of evolution hampers the self correcting nature of this science. Some evolutionists, reluctant to give creationists more ammunition for distortion, try to curb the healthy debate within evolution to present a united front to the public. But instead, the debate should be taken as a sign of a healthy, growing science, a useful theory that continues to fuel new research, and an expression of the tentative nature of science. The fact that we do not have all the details of evolution worked out means there are more hypotheses to be tested; there is more yet to be learned using the theory. Evolutionists are showing the tentative attitude so critical to self correction when they are willing to modify the theory.

After examining several essential characteristics of science, reliance on natural law, falsifiability, verifiability, and tentativeness, I have found little evidence to support the assertion that creation "science" is a science. On the other hand, evolution has passed this test quite well.


Scientific Literature Supporting Creation Science?

Another way to define science is in a descriptive way. One could say that science is what is accepted by the scientific community and is what scientists do. (Overton, 1982) One thing that scientists do is to use the scientific method to conduct research. Of course, starting with a conclusion and selecting "evidence" to support it does not really fit this bill. Scientists also publish their research in scientific journals that are recognized by the scientific community. To be accepted for publishing in these journals, the research and the research paper must meet certain requirements. For example, as well as using the scientific method in their research, scientists are expected to define terms, make logical arguments, and to use and acknowledge other scientific literature on related research.

Eugenie C. Scott and Henry P. Cole, figuring that there should be scientific literature supporting creation science if it indeed is a legitimate scientific discipline, conducted two studies to search for evidence of published scientific research supporting creation science. As Scott put it "We were curious about whether any creationist science existed outside of their own journals and publishing houses." (Scott and Cole, 1985) In their first study, in 1982, Scott and Cole used SCISEARCH, a computerized listing of 4000 scientific journals to search the literature published from January 1978 to October 1981 for articles by 28 prominent creation scientists. They also searched under many key words related to creation science. (Scott and Cole, 1985) The key word search came up with 18 items, but they were not research papers; rather they were such things as letters to the editors expressing opinions on the creationism/evolution controversy. The name search was more productive in that it yielded 52 articles. However, none of the articles dealt with research on creation science. Instead, they were research papers from the technical field of the author. For example, one article was on vibrations and stresses in aircraft wing structures. While this showed that there were some competent scientists in the group, capable of conducting scientific research and publishing research papers, it did not give any evidence of valid scientific research on creation science.

Scott and Cole conducted a second study later. To be more thorough in their search they carefully selected 68 scientific journals that creation scientists would be likely to submit their research papers to and surveyed the editors of those journals to find any creation science research literature submitted from 1980 to 1983. (Scott and Cole, 1985) This strategy to find creationist research work netted five journals reporting the submission of a total of 18 articles. However, all 18 submissions were rejected. Incidentally, one science education journal accounted for 12 of the 18 articles submitted. The reasons given for rejection related to poor presentation (no coherent arguments, high school theme quality, etc.) and failure to follow accepted scientific canons. (Scott and Cole, 1985) So, of 135,000 articles submitted to these 68 journals during the four year period, only 18 of these related to creation science research, and these appeared to be written by laymen rather than by professional scientists. The creationists' claim of censorship is not supported by this research. They are submitting very little research work on creationism, and that which was submitted appears to have been rejected for legitimate reasons, not out of bias against creationism.

The researchers pondered as to why the professional scientists among the creationists did not publish empirical, experimental, or theoretical evidence for creation science in scientific journals. When it comes to the topic of creation science, they only submit and publish their work in "in house" creation science sources such as Creation-Life Publishing. Scott and Cole suggested that part of the answer to this mystery comes from the difference in scholarship found in "in house" creationist material and that required to be published in "mainline" scientific journals.

Among the differences was a difference in the application of logic. (Scott and Cole, 1985) The logic of the creation science published material revolves around the two model approach creationists take, which I described on page 5. Arguments against evolution become arguments for creationism. In "mainstream" scientific journals falsifying one theory would not "prove" an alternative theory. Positive supporting evidence must be shown for the rival theory before it would be considered substantiated.

Another strategy found in "in house" creation science literature is the use of extreme extrapolations, often based on outdated or inaccurate data or employing current rates that are inappropriate to the past (as in the examples I described on page 21). Other tricks they would not get away with when submitting to "mainstream" scientific journals are the reliance on anomalies for evidence (to bring the whole theory of evolution tumbling down) and making unreasonable leaps beyond what would be appropriate with the given data. (Scott and Cole, 1985)

So here again, using the criterion that science is what the scientific community accept and is what scientists do, creation "science" does not appear to be science.

Creationist Legislation

In terms of state legislation, the creation "science" movement has not been successful in its demands for equal time with evolution in the science curriculum. While the Arkansas Balanced Treatment Act was signed into law by Governor Frank J. White, who did not even bother to read it, on March 19, 1981, it was repealed on January 5, 1982 by a U.S. District Court. According to the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, as I said earlier in the paper, an establishment of religion by a government body is prohibited by the First Amendment. (Boles, 1983, p.170) And, the Fourteenth Amendment makes this establishment clause applicable to the states. In the U.S. District Court judgment of Act 590, a three part test formulated by the U.S. Supreme Court, that of Lemon v. Kurtzman, was employed to determine if the Act violated the establishment of religion clause:

First the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion...; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." (Overton, 1982)

Failure to pass any one of the three parts of the test would indicate a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

In Federal District Judge Overton's decision he coupled his first conclusion that, "creation science has, as one major effect, the advancement of religion" with a second conclusion that, "creation science has no scientific merit or educational value as science," to come to his final conclusion that, "the only real effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion." (Overton, 1982) As such, it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

In the memorandum of his decision, Judge Overton addresses some other relevant issues. In regards to the creationists' alternate strategy, in which they admit that creation science is not science but claim that evolution is also religious, Judge Overton said:

Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution; not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause, Epperson v. Arkansas...(Overton, 1982)

Additionally, in regards to the claim by creationists that their theory should get equal time with evolution in the science classroom because the public school curriculum should reflect the subjects the public wants taught, Judge Overton replied:

The application and content of First Amendment principles are not determined by public opinion polls or by a majority vote. Whether the proponents of Act 590 constitute the majority or the minority is quite irrelevant under a constitutional system of government. No group, no matter how large or small, may use the organs of government, of which the public schools are the most conspicuous and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others. (Overton, 1982)

After several skirmishes on the state level, a similar "equal-time" bill in Louisiana, the Creationism Act of 1981, finally made it to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987. (Berra, 1990, p.137) It was struck down by a vote of 7 to 2, with the two recent Reagan appointees, Rehnquist and Scalia, dissenting.

Conclusion

That the creationist movement could get as far as it has, should raise real concerns about people's understanding of the nature of science, their understanding of evolution and geology, and their critical thinking abilities. Creationism leads to a misunderstanding of science and gains strength from a misunderstanding of science. That anyone could read creationist literature, including Duane Gish's life science textbook, Evolution? The Fossils Say No!, and perceive it as science is indeed frightening. That this issue could reach the level of the U.S. Supreme Court is even worse. It's hard for scientists to take the creation "science" movement seriously; that it could be thought of as science is so ridiculous. However, as a political movement and as a harmful influence on science education, creationism must be taken very seriously. Its success shows a real disenchantment with science among the general public. To me, it shows that people are desperate. They are afraid of high crime rates and "the decay of morality"; they will do anything to move back towards the mythical "good-old days".

People can be fooled into believing that Creationism is science because they are not clear on what the nature of science is. They can be led to believe that the theory of evolution is on shaky ground because they don't understand the theory and have not learned to recognize faulty logic or to evaluate evidence and sources of information. It is no wonder that they have not mastered these concepts and abilities if creation "science" is being presented to them as an example of valid science and the creationist rhetoric, as seen in Duane Gish's public school edition textbook mentioned above, is being presented as an example of acceptable logic, reasoning, and use of "evidence". Creationism, presented as a valid scientific theory, only offers the student confusion. It adds to our already substantial shortcomings and problems in science education. Creationists manage to have an impact on our students' learning even where the creation "science" theory does not make it into the science classroom, through their successful attempts at watering down or eliminating biological evolution from the science curriculum. This in itself has a drastic effect on the understanding of biology by our students. (Clough, 1994) Without the unifying theme of evolution, biology becomes a series of unrelated, meaningless facts. A person really cannot understand biology without evolution.

All this should concern science educators. It should concern scientists who rely on public support for funding of their research. And, it should concern society as a whole because scientifically literate young people are critical to the future of our society. The students of today are our future. They will be our future voters, consumers, policy makers, business people, and scientists. Their understanding of science will determine the future of science and technology and the future of our culture. It is true that science has had a hand in some of the problems we face today, such as the energy crisis, pollution, and other environmental issues. But, it is also true that science holds the only possible solutions to these problems. Those solutions will not be found if our young people don't understand science and how to "do" science.

The creationism controversy, through its impact on science education, has many implications for science and for society. A decision to present creation "science" as science in the classroom should not be taken lightly. Each educator will need to decide for themselves how best to approach the controversy based on their local situation. However, a good place to start would be by helping students develop a thorough understanding of the nature of science and the ability to critically evaluate evidence. These goals would serve students well in many ways and would help them distinguish for themselves the difference between religious knowledge and scientific knowledge.

Bibliography
Berra, Tim M. 1990. Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.

Boles, Donald E. "Religion in the Schools: A Historical and Legal Perspective." In Did the Devil Make
Darwin Do It? Ed. David B. Wilson. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State Univ. Press, 1983, pp. 170-188.

Brewer, Richard. 1994. The Science of Ecology. 2nd Edition. Fort Worth: Saunders College Publishing.

Caccone, A. and J. R. Powell. 1989. "DNA Divergence among Hominoids" Evolution, Vol. 43,
pp. 925-942.

Chaisson, Eric. 1981. Cosmic Dawn: The Origins of Matter and Life New York: W.W. Norton and Co.,Inc.

Charig, Alan J. 1986 "Archaeopteryx Is Not A Forgery" Science, Vol. 232, May 2, pp.622-626.

Clough, Michael P. 1994. "Diminish Student's Resistance to Biological Evolution" The American Biology Teacher, Vol 56, No. 7, pp.409-415.

Eve, Raymond A. and Dana Dunn. 1990. "Psychic Powers, Astrology and Creationism in the Classroom?" The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp.10-21.

Gish, Duane T. 1978. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! Public School Edition. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.

Gish, Duane T. 1981. "Letter to the Editor" Discover, July.

Gould, Stephen Jay. 1981. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" Discover, Vol. 2, May, pp.34-37.

Grobman, Arnold and Hulda Grobman. 1989. "A Battle for People's Minds: Creationism and Evolution" The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp.337-341.

Kitcher, Philip. 1982. Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Cambridge: The Mass. Institute of Technology.

Mayr, Ernst. 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

McInerney, Joseph D. 1993. "Voting in Science: Raise Your Hand if You Want Humans to Have 48 Chromosomes" The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 55, March, pp.132-133.

Morris, Henry M. 1974. Scientific Creationism. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.

Morris, Henry M. and Robert T. Clark. 1976. The Bible Has the Answers. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.

Morris, Henry M. 1977. Studies in the Bible and Science. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.

Morris, Henry M. 1978. The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.
National Academy of Science. 1984. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Science. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Nelkin, Dorothy. 1977. Science Textbook Controversies and the Politics of Equal Time. Cambridge: The Mass. Institute of Technology.

Nelkin, Dorothy. 1982. The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the Schools. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.

Newell, Norman D. 1982. Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality? New York: Columbia Univ. Press, p.xxxi (preface)

Overton, W.R. 1982. Memorandum on Rev. Bill McLean et al. LR C 81 322 (January 5, 1982).

Popper, K.R. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson Publishing.

Popper, K.R. 1974. "Darwinism as a Metaphysical Research Programme," in P.A. Schilipp ed., The Philosophy of Karl Popper. Lasalle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing.

Popper, K.R. 1980. "Letter to Editor" New Scientist, Vol. 87, p.611.

Ruse, Michael. 1982. Darwinism Defended. Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley Publishing Co.

Ruse, Michael. 1984. "A Philosopher's Day in Court," in Ashley Montagu ed., Science and Creationism. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Scott, Eugenie C. and Henry P. Cole. 1985. "The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation Science" The
Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp.21-30.

Tatina, Robert. 1989. "South Dakota High School Biology Teachers and the Teaching of Evolution and Creationism" The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp.275-280.

Volpe, E. Peter. 1985. Understanding Evolution 5th Edition. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.