Positive Consequences of the Current Interest in Creationism

271

Positive Consequencesof the Current Interestin Creationism

James Stewart

Introduction

Babies are often thrown out withthe bath water, and biology educa-tion might be about to lose yet an-other one. In the most recent articlesthat have appeared in professionaland popular journals on creation-ism, it seems that two issues are be-ing conflated. On one hand is thequestion of whether or not creation-ism should be included in sciencecourses, particularly biology, onequal footing with evolutionarytheory. And on the other is the posi-tion that the creationist debate canhave positive influences on highschool biology teaching, primarilybecause it could lead to a deeper un-derstanding of evolution and ofscience itself.

Creationist organizations such asthe Institute for Creation Research(ICR) and Students for Origins Re-search insist that creationism is anequally valid alternative to evolu-

School Science and MathematicsVolume 83 (4) April 1983

272 Positive Consequences of Interest in Creationism

tion, and thus should be taught in the public schools. This issue has re-cently been the focus of litigations in California and Arkansas. The re-sponse to this position from scientists, philosophers of science, and his-torians of science has been justly unequivocal: creationism, no matterwhat the current label, is not legitimate science. The inadequate empiri-cal basis for considering "scientific creationism" as valid science hasbeen pointed out, as has its inadequate epistomology (Eldredge, 1982),and the less-than-honest tactics employed by its supporters (Brush,1982).What needs to be recognized is that there is a second issue, one of

pedagogical importance, that is distinct from the scientific legitimacy is-sue. The pedogogical issue should be of as much interest as the first toscience educators in that it could positively influence teachers and stu-dents in high school biology. I am not trying to lend educational respec-tability to the position of the ICR (Bliss, 1978) which states there is edu-cational value to the "two-model" approach. Rather, the current offen-sive by creationists could lead to an increased knowledge of selectedscience content areas, particularly evolutionary theory. In addition, anincreased comprehensive about what science itself is could result from achanged curriculum emphasis with respect to evolution.

Increased Knowledge of Evolutionary Theory

Mayr (1963) points out that evolution is the foundation upon which allof modern biology is built.

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 abewildering chaos of facts until given meaning by the evolutionary theory. There is noarea in biology in which that theory does not serve as an ordering principle.

Any increase in teachers’ and students’ understanding of evolutionarytheory, then, could easily result in a more coherent view of all of biology.The current increased interest in creationism could lead to greater under-standing of evolution on the part of biology teachers and students in sev-eral ways.One possibility would be for teachers to become familiar with crea-

tionist writings. By preparing to respond to the claims and argumentsused (see Table 1) in Morris’ Scientific Creationism (1974) and Gish’sEvolution: The Fossils Say No! (1972) for example, teachers would berequired to increase their knowledge of evolution. It is important torecognize that many issues that creationists raise, which they claim are to


Positive Consequences of Interest in Creationism 273

TABLE 1: Some Examples of Creationist Statements

A theory which incorporates everything really explains nothing! It is tautologous. Thosewho survive in the struggle for existence are the fittest because the fittest are the ones whosurvive, (emphasis on original)

(Morris; 1974, p. 7)The universe, in all its aspects, evolves itself into higher levels of order (particles to people)by means of its innate properties.

(Morris; 1974, p. 10)In the organic realm, natural selection acts as a conservative mechanism to screen out anynovel features which intrude on a previously adjusted system, thus tending to preserve thestatus quo in nature.

(Morris; 1974, p. 22)We are warranted, then, in concluding that the evolutionary process (the hypothetical Prin-ciple of Naturalistic Innovation and Integration) is completely precluded by the SecondLaw of Thermodynamics.

(Morris, 1974, p. 45)Modern molecular biology, with its penetrating insight into the remarkable genetic code im-planted in the DNA system, has further confirmed that normal variations operate onlywithin the range specified by the DNA for the particular type of organism, so that no trulynovel characteristics, producing higher degrees of order or complexity, can appear. Varia-tion is horizontal, not vertical!

(Morris, 1974, p. 51). . . , the phenomenon of a truly beneficial mutation, one which is known to be a mutationand not merely a latent characteristic already present in the genetic material but lackingprevious opportunity to expression, and one which is permanently beneficial in the naturalenvironment, has yet to be documented.

(Morris; 1974, p. 56)Mutations are harmful, not helpful, and natural selection acts to try to prevent their gettingestablished in the population as a whole.

(Morris; 1974, p. 56)It is thus inconceivable (to a doctrinaire evolutionist) that a living system could ever beformed by chance.

(Morris; 1974, p. 64)The evolutionist assumes that the accumulation of many such minor changes eventuallycould result in a new basic type and in increasing complexity, but this is purely an assump-tion. What is required is experimental evidence, or historical proof, that basic changes ofthis type actually did take place.

(Gish, 1979, p. 50)Not a single, indisputable, metazoan fossil has even been found in Precambrian rocks!

(Gish, 1979, p. 67)



be arguments in an evolution/creation controversy, are really aspects ofdebate mthin evolutionary theory. Therefore knowledge of them willadd to teachers’ knowledge of evolution. In order to respond to creation-ist claims concerning these evolutionary debates, teachers would have tobecome familiar with the literature concerning progress and direction-ality in evolution; the energetics of evolution; modern molecular evolu-tion; current views on mutation and genetic regulation; and the tempoand mode of evolution. In the end teachers might better understand theheuristic role of evolutionary theory in data collection and analysis in allof biology. They then could better appreciate Dobzhansky’s (1973) ob-servation: " . . . nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolu-tion" (p. 125). An overview of one of these current evolutionary issueswhich creationists have misinterpreted and helped to publicize follows.Up until very recently a gradualistic view of evolutionary change,

called the "modern synthesis," has prevailed among evolutionists. Thedominance of this view of the tempo of evolutionary change is now beingchallenged by theorists and field workers who do not accept that the"gaps" in the fossil record exist because the record is poor (Eldredge andGould, 1971; Gould and Eldredge, 1977; Stanley, 1979; and Gould,1980). These scientists are suggesting that the gaps are real (stasis is data)and are to be expected, and that new forms of life come into existence ingeological instants. Gould and Eldredge (1977, p. 115) state:

We believe that punctuational change dominates the history of life: evolution is con-centrated in very rapid events of speciation (geologically instantaneous, even if tolerablycontinuous in ecological time). Most species, during their geological history, either donot change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with noapparent direction. Phyletic gradualisms is very rare and too slow in any case, to pro-duce the major events of evolution.

This model, punctuated equilibrium, posits a very rapid temp for macroevents in evolution, as contrasted to the slow view of the modern synthe-sis. The two positions also differ as to the mode of evolutionarychange: traditional evolutionists maintain that species arise primarily bymeans of slow allopatry. However, Gould and others (1980, p. 125) arequestioning an allopatric model for macro events:

But it now appears that "slow" allopatry by itself may be less important than a host ofalternatives that yield new species even in ecological time.

Many of these alternatives are tied to breakthroughs in the genetics ofregulator genes and of developmental controls (Gould, 1977; 1980a;1980b; 1980c).



This one example provides an idea of the particularly exciting periodwhich evolutionary theory is now undergoing. By familiarizing them-selves with these controversies, high school biology teachers could add totheir own knowledge of evolution and in turn increase their students’ un-derstanding not only of evolution but of science in general. It is ironicthat, if such an increase in biology teachers’ knowledge were to occur,creationists could be given much of the credit.A second positive side effect of creationism would benefit students

more directly. Creationist literature could be used in high school biologyclasses. If students and teachers were to work through creationist books,not to provide balanced treatment, but rather intending to increase stu-dents’ understanding of evolutionary theory, pedagogically importantoutcomes could result. Similar views have been advocated by Cloud(1978), Wemberg (1977), Alexander (1977) and Moore (1978). In particu-lar, a greater appreciation of the important role that controversy andmultiple hypothesis play in any science could be a result.

In a similar vein, Gould and Lewontin (1979, p. 597) have argued forthe value of pluralism in science, which will engender debate:

We feel that the potential rewards of abandoning exclusive focus on the adaptationistprogramme are very great indeed. We do not offer a council of despair, as adaptation-ists have charged; for non-adaptive does not mean non-intelligible. We welcome therichness that a pluralistic approach, so akin to Darwin’s spirit, can provide. Under theadaptationist programme, the great historic themes of developmental morphology andBauplan were largely abandoned; for if selection can break any correlation and op-timize parts separately, then an organism’s integration counts for little. Too often, theadaptationist programme gave us an evolutionary biology of parts and genes, but not oforganisms. It assumed that all transitions could occur step by step and underrated theimportance of integrated developmental blocks and pervasive constraints of history andarchitecture. A pluralistic view could put organisms, with all their recalcitrant yet intel-ligible complexity, back into evolutionary theory.

A Changed Curricular Emphasis

It is not a new proposal that science teachers have a responsibility toteach students something about the "nature of science." In 1948 thisview, an outgrowth of the writings of James Conant, was summarized ina AAAS Committee Report: "Because biology is the only contact withscience for so many students more attention should be given to the ’tac-tics and strategy’ of science" (reported in Hurd, 1961). Over the yearsthere have been additional manifestations of this concern: teachingscience as inquiry; scientific literacy; and NSF-sponsored curriculum de-velopment projects of the late fifties and sixties.A primary focus of these approaches has been the increased use of

laboratory work as integral to developing an "understanding of



science." The question could be raised as to whether the lab approachhas been successful in this endeavor. It is interesting, however, thatConant (1951, p. 17) felt that an historical approach would lead to great-er understanding of science:

I propose to examine the question of how we can . . . give a better understanding ofscience ... it is my contention that science can best be understood by laymen throughclose study of a few relatively simple case histories.

Focusing on the history of evolutionary theory in particular as a meansof increasing knowledge of science could be justified on severalgrounds: it is of fundamental importance in biology; its history has beenextensively written about; it is generally misrepresented in texts; and thedemise of creationism as science is well documented in the history ofevolutionary thought. A set of three interrelated ideas from the philoso-phy of science could be presented to students in this historical con-text: the heuristic value of theories (Cracraft, 1979; Ghiselin, 1969; Sieg-fried, 1982); the tentativeness of scientific theories; and the view thatscience is essentially a problem solving activity. While high school textsoften do allude to the above three characteristics of science, they areusually treated superficially.An historical approach to the teaching of evolutionary theory could

give insight into the nature of science while providing a better basis forunderstanding modern evolutionary theory. It could also provide a basisfor rejecting claims that creationism is good science.At the present time, the history of evolutionary thought is given little

attention in high school texts. This is not surprising, since emphasis onevolution itself is decreasing in many texts (Skoog, 1980). The same thinghappened when the teaching of evolution was affirmed by the courts fol-lowing the Scopes trial in 1925. Publishing firms quietly removed orwatered down their treatment of evolution in texts in order to maintainsales (Gould, 1982).

In today’s texts, evolutionary history is limited to Lamarck and Dar-win although many texts don’t mention Lamarck, and at least one

(Bauer, Magnoli, Alvarez, Chang-Van Horn, and Gomez, 1981) contains

no reference to Darwin. The treatment of Lamarck in most texts malignshim, failing to point out what problems he was attempting to solve, andimplying that he was not a sound thinker, or he wouldn’t have acceptedthe misguided theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Thesetexts state that Lamarck’s theory was not supported by empirical evi-

dence, citing a convincing demonstration that took place 75 years afterLamarck’s. The text writers thus failed to provide a sense that science



takes place in the conceptual framework of a given time: inheritance ofacquired characters was almost universally accepted when Lamarck waswriting. Lamarck’s work is judged in these texts on the basis of com-pletely inappropriate standards. One aspect of the structure of sciencethat should not be withheld from students is that it is dynamic. An his-torical approach can show how science conceptions change.There are some important questions that would be both accessible and

meaningful to most high school biology students. What problem wasLamarck trying to solve? How did his solution differ from pre-Lamarck-ian solutions? What was the empirical basis of his solution? In what wayswas he unable to throw off the chains of earlier special creationists’ solu-tions? How did creationism influence Lamarck? What was Lamarck’sinfluence on Darwin? If the study of "Lamarck were approached throughsuch questions, not only could this subject be more interesting and chal-lenging to students, it could help them to understand important aspectsof the "nature of science." It could demonstrate how science progressesby interactions between the theoretical and the empirical, and how theo-retical commitments guide the activities of scientists.Although Darwin is given more attention in biology texts, the histori-

cal context in which he worked is also glossed over. The "great man"view of science is furthered�after his trip on the Beagle, Darwin, in iso-lation, slowly and methodically wrote On the Origin of Species. As in thecoverage of Lamarck, many questions are ignored: What was the prob-lem Darwin was trying to solve? What position was he reacting to? Whatwas the Darwinian revolution?Darwin knew of Lamarck’s work but dismissed it as having no lasting

influence on his own evolutionary theory. Yet high school biology texts

posit that Darwin was reacting to Lamarck. Although Darwin down-played Lamarck’s work, it is important to realize that both were advanc-ing evolutionary answers to the organic origins question. This is not of-ten acknowledged in texts. It is also important to recognize that anytheory has antecedents in earlier theories. Darwin himself in the Origin(p. 256) states what he was reacting to:

Let us now see whether the several facts and laws relating to the geological succession oforganic beings accord best with the common view of the immutability of species, or withthat of the slow and gradual modification through variation and natural selection.

He was reacting to the Biblically-inspired position of special crea-tion: the immutability of species. Although this point has been welldocumented (Gillespie, 1979), it is almost never mentioned in texts.



The demise of special creation, then, is chronicled in the history ofevolutionary thought. By taking an historical approach to evolution, theanomalies that were surfacing in the doctrine of special creation as a re-sult of extensive natural history explorations can be examined. Even aslate as the early nineteenth century, special creation was essentially un-challenged in geology and biology and did function to guide research.Historians of evolutionary science have discussed the problems that newfindings posed for special creation (Gillespie, 1951; Gillespie, 1979;Ruse, 1979; Lovejoy, 1036, Green, 1959; Eisley, 1961; Glass, Temkinand Strauss, 1968). What is particularly evident is that the scientist-crea-tionists who at the turn of the eighteenth century began to doubt the liter-al veridicality of Genesis with nature (on empirical grounds) were notanti-Christian�they were Christians. To adopt such an historical ap-proach to the teaching of evolution may increase student understandingof how and why theories change. It would be demonstrated that scienceis practiced in a cultural milieu, and that creationism was not abandonedas science for theological reasons, but rather because of conceptual andempirical problems which it could not solve. Additionally, as studentswork through the history of evolutionary theory, they are apt to feel asense of "deja vu." The current creationist arguments are similar tothose of 150 years ago, not only in form but also in specific content�forexample with respect to a world-wide flood, created kinds, and the age ofthe earth. The result of this historical approach could be that studentsand community groups would no longer feel that biology teachers arecovering up an acceptable alternative to evolutionary theory. If the cur-rent interest in creationism sparks such a shift in teaching, or even a de-bate about such a shift, it will have been useful.

Conclusion

Educators might have reservations about letting creationism into theclassroom, even for the purpose of providing an historical treatment ofthe development of evolutionary theory, for creationists could sieze uponthis opening to continue to advocate their equal-treatment position.However, it is obvious that the value of evolutionary theory for explor-ing nature is great, and that "scientific creationism" has no heuristic orexploratory possibilities. The debate which the creationists view as scien-tific is in fact pseudo-scientific as attested to by scientists and philoso-phers of science at the recent Louisiana trial. Yet creationism could havepedagogical value both in terms of increasing teachers’ and students’ un-derstanding of evolutionary theory, and because it may focus attention



on the role that history and philosophy of biology might play in biologyeducation.

It would be a shame if, as happened following the Scopes trial, evolu-tion were treated less extensively in high school biology texts and classes.However, it would be almost as bad if evolutionary theory continued tobe presented as it currently is. The time is right for educators to examineways of capitalizing on the interest in evolutionary theory generated bycreationists so that biology instruction can be improved.

SUGGESTED READINGS1. ALEXANDER, R. D. Evolution, Creation and Biology Teaching. The American Biology

Teacher, 1978, 40, pp. 91-104.2. BAUER, P. H., M. A. MAGNOLI, A. ALVAREZ, D. CHANG-VAN HORN, and D. T.

GOMES. Experience in Biology. Riverforest, Illinois: Laidlaw, 1981.3. BLISS R. B. A Comparison of Students Studying the Origin of Life from a Two-model

Approach vs. Those Studying from a Single-model Approach. ICR Impact SeriesNumber 60. San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1978.

4. BRUSH, S. G. Finding the Age of the Earth by Physics or by Faith. Journal of Geologi-cal Education, 1982, JO, 34-58.

5. CLOUD, P. Scientific Creationism�A New Inquisition Brewing. In Lightner, J. P.(Ed.) A Compendium of Information on the Theory of Evolution and the Evolution-Creationism Controversy. Reston, Virginia: The National Association of BiologyTeachers, 1978.

6. CONANT, J. B. On Understanding Science. New York: The New American Library,1951.

7. CRACRAFT, J. Phylogenetic Analysis, Evolutionary Models and Paleontology. In Cra-craft, J. and N. Eldredge (Eds). Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1979.

8. DARWIN, C. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. (The ModernLibrary Edition) New York: Random House, 1859.

9. DOBZHANSKY, T. Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except the Light of Evolution, TheAmerican Biology Teacher. 1973, 35, 125-129.

10. ELDREDGE, N. The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism. NewYork: Washington Square Press, 1982.

11. ELDREDGE, N. and S. J. GOULD. Punctuated Equilibrium: An Alternative to PhyleticGradualism. In T. J. M. Schoff (Ed.) Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Free-man, Cooper and Co., 1972.

12. GHISELIN, M. The Triumph of the Darwinian Method. Berkeley: University of Cali-fornia Press, 1969.

13. GILLESPIE, N. C. Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation. Chicago: The Univer-sity of Chicago Press, 1979.

14. GILLISPIE, C. C. Genesis and Geology: The Impact of Scientific Discoveries upon Re-ligious Beliefs in the Decades before Darwin. New York: Harper, 1951.

15. GISH, D. T. Evolution, the Fossils Say No! San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers,1972.

16. GLASS, B., 0. TEMKIN, and L. STRAUS JR. Forerunners of Darwin: 1745-1859. Balti-more: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1959.

17. GOULD, S. J. Ontogeny and Phytogeny. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Univer-sity Press, 1977.

18. GOULD, S. J. Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging? Paleobiology,19S02L.6, 119-130.



19. GOULD, S. J. Hen’s Teeth and Horses’ Toes. Natural History, July, 1980b, pp. 24-28.20. GOULD, S. J. Hopeful Monsters. Natural History, October 1980c, pp. 6-15.21. GOULD, S. J. Moon, Mann, and Otto: God Bless the Teachers of This World. Natural

History, March 1982, pp. 4-10.22. GOULD, S. J. and N. ELDREDGE. Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of

Evolution Reconsidered. Paleobiology, 1977, J, 115-151.23. GOULD, S. J. and R. LEWONTIN. The Spandrels of San Marcos and the Panglossian

Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proceedings of the Royal So-ciety of London: Series B, 1979,205,581-598.

24. GREEN, J. C. The Death of Adam: Evolution and Its Impact on Western Thought.Ames, Iowa: The University of Iowa Press, 1959.

25. HURD, P. D. Biology Education in American Schools: J 890-1960. Washing-ton: American Institute of Biological Sciences, 1961.

26. LOVEJOY, A. 0. The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. Cam-bridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1936.

27. MAYR, E. Populations, Species and Evolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Har-vard University Press, 1963.

28. MOORE, J. A. Dealing with Controversy: A Challenge to the Universities. The Ameri-can Biology Teacher, 1978, 41, 544-547.

29. MORRIS, H. M. Scientific Creationism. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974.30. RUSE, M. The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press, 1979.31. SIEGFRIED, R. Evolution as an Heuristic: A Darwinian Defense. A paper presented at

the 1982 National Association for Research in Science Teaching annual meeting. LakeGeneva, Wisconsin.

32. SKOOG, G. The Textbook Battle over Creationism, The Christian Century. October,1980, pp. 12-16.

33. STANLEY, S. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman &Co., 1979.

34. WEINBERG, S. L. A Reply to Walker, Mertens and Hendrix on the Creation-EvolutionIssue. The American Biology Teacher. 1977, 39, 548-549.

James StewartUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison225 N. Mills StreetMadison, Wisconsin 53 706

HALLEY’S COMET SIGHTED

Halley’s Comet has been sighted, according to a team of astronomers from theCalifornia Institute of Technology. Led by David Jewitt and Edward Danielsonof the Institute, the team used a 200-inch telescope at Palomar Mountain Obser-vatory in California to locate the comet for the first time since it last appeared in1910.Halley’s comet was 24.2 magnitude or 19 million times fainter than the faint-

est star seen with unaided eye when it was sighted in October 1982. This was sev-eral hundred times fainter than when first seen in 1910. It will not become visibleto the naked eye for three or more years.The sighting activates the seven center International Halley’s Comet Watch

which will coordinate observations of the comet as it approaches and recedesfrom the sun. The main headquarters of the watch is the Jet Propulsion Labora-tory in Pasadena, California.


Date post:	30-Sep-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	james-stewart
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Positive Consequences of the Current Interest in Creationism

Documents