The Elevation of Creationism

As usual, this entry is prompted by something I read that piqued my interest. BBC Editorial on Creationism in America. I'm not going to write a personal diatribe about the zealously right wing strand of American politics that has risen to power, almost unopposed, in the past decade. Instead, I just want to point out two things about Creationism.

First: Generally, should Creationism be considered on the same footing with Evolution? The article points out that el presidente Bush considers the Theory of Evolution and Creationism as two separate "schools of thought." I guess that's technically true under a certain definition. Mr. Bush has a disconcerting and irritating tendency of saying technically-true things that completely miss the point of why the issues are important.

OK, back up. What are we supposed to be teaching in school? I like to think we're supposed to teach our children facts, as best we can possibly ascertain, that allow them to understand and function in our society. "Facts" are sometimes the product of opinion (e.g., historically based sciences like history and evolutionary biology), but should always be backed up by firm evidence. Under that rationale, the only "schools of thought" that should be taught at our schools are those that are backed up by firm evidence.

Now the question becomes whether either Evolution or Creationism are backed up by "firm evidence." I think any reasonable person would agree that Evolution is backed up by firm evidence. As to the specific criticism of the formation of the cell, that's point two and I'll get to it. The question is whether Creationism is backed up by "firm evidence." I could be wrong, but my experience suggests that the Creationism that people want to teach is backed up only by the written tradition of Eurasian monotheism. I don't hear about people saying, "Hey, let's teach Native American creation myths where people were brought into existence by a large raven" (no offense to Native Americans intended). It is this favoritism towards a single creator that immediately discredits the Creationist movement and belies its religious motive.

Even if Creationists wish to teach each competing creationist myth in existence, which would probably better be dedicated to a whole separate course and taught by anthropologists rather than biology teachers, they haven't crossed the threshold question: does an oral and written tradition constitute "firm evidence"? In my opinion, it clearly does not. Some people point to archaeological finds in the Holy Land as evidence that parts of the Bible are supported by scientific evidence. I do not dispute that certain historical aspects of the Bible are most likely true. I do dispute the incredibly inductive reasoning that because some parts are true, ergo the whole must be true. What is missing is a logical, systematic theory that binds the separate parts together in a seamless way (i.e. can fill in logical gaps) that does not rely on pure conviction or faith divorced of reason to support its arguments.

Because Evolution, as a complete theory of creation, has systematically complete support through fossil and chemical evidence, it deserves to be taught as fact until proven wrong. Conversely, because none of the creationist myths in existence, by their nature, are backed up by firm evidence, they do not deserve equal footing with Evolution in our science curriculum. If people want to teach Creationism, cancel yet another music class and put in a new social science class called Creationist Myths of the World (and fight the ACLU and atheists while they're at it).

Second: The BBC article points out that prominent Creationist intelligentsia attack the theory of Evolution with pure skepticism about the formation of the cell. They say that such a complex structure as a cell could not have formed without divine intervention. A similar line of critique arises with the formation of the eye's lenses and focusing muscles. These are strong arguments for those with strong faith in God but little faith in nature.

However, for a biological spin on creation, I would suggest for the receptive The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. I'll probably update this section later, as I'm running out of time, but I will say this - in the primordial soup that existed in the dawn of Earth, organic chemicals such as proteins and nucleic acids would have formed from their monomers, and through the trillions of possible combinations that would have formed, self-replicating forms would have quickly dominated. As resources became more scarce, those self-replicating forms that were capable of breaking down other forms to use their components would have become more dominant. Any forms which could code for protection against those cannibalistic forms would then proliferate. One form of protection might be the utilization of a chemical barrier, or membrane to protect the self-replicating sequence within. An arms race would ensue over the subsequent BILLIONS of years, leading to, quite probably, the complexity of cellular life as we know it. Hence we come directly to a key point of Dawkins' book: we are merely souped up vehicles for the self-replicating sequences within our bodies. It's somewhat startling to the uninitiated, but quite logical. Yes, according to this theory, even you are only the latest "Pimp My Ride" episode of the great television-in-the-sky.

Boy, this blog entry went a little long. The point is, Bush has a nasty habit of speaking wayward truths and Creationists pick at Evolution in an attempt to veneer their beliefs with the stamp of scientific legitimacy.