Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction

Scott M. Kruse, in his review of this book, writes: "Eugenie Scott explains the nature of science: Science is guided by natural law, is explanatory by reference to law, is testable against the empirical world, is always tentative and subject to revision and is falsifiable." Almost none of this correct. Scientists rarely talk any longer in terms of natural law, testing is not always empirical, falsifiability is a confused relic from Karl Popper's philosophical work of more than a half-century past, and science is by no means "always tentative."

A huge amount of misconception owes to the widely-advertised but poorly-explained fact that the propositions of empirical science are logically contingent. That a propositions is logically contingent means only that it's NOT logically necessary, that both its truth and its falsity are logically possible. But that a proposition's falsity is logically possible does NOT entail that the proposition is ACTUALLY false or even PROBABLY false; in fact it does NOT entail even that the proposition MIGHT be false as a PRACTICAL possibility. Want an illustration? That you yourself now exist is only a contingent truth. Do you therefore DOUBT your own present existence? Do you believe it only TENTATIVELY? Are you willing to allow that, in fact, you MAY NOT now exist? How much credence are you prepared to give to purported evidence that you actually DON'T now exist? There are lots of contingent propositions about the truth of which science is not the least bit tentative.

Oh, and by the way, about the nature of science. The difference between a science and a non-science isn't to be found in some contrast between their respective subject matters but in a contrast between their respective concerns with the VALIDATION OF METHODOLOGY. To VALIDATE experimental methodology, for example, is to ascertain the conditions under which the results of conducting the experiment(s) in question ACTUALLY COUNT AS EVIDENCE (whether positive or negative). To validate a problem-solving methodology, likewise, is to ascertain both: (1) the conditions under which a given problem is genuinely of the kind that the methodology has been designed to solve (which involves the validation of DIAGNOSTIC procedures); (2) the conditions under which the results of applying the methodology to problems of the appropriate kind ACTUALLY COUNT as SOLUTIONS to the problems. Accordingly, a discipline is SCIENTIFIC if, and only if, NO result is ACCEPTED AS ESTABLISHED within the discipline unless it has been obtained by way of the discipline's VALIDATED METHODOLOGY. This is why science abounds in so many studies that purport to show what everybody already knows to begin with. Even widely-accepted so-called "common knowledge" must first pass through a science's validated methodology before it can be accepted as ESTABLISHED within the disciple and thus be invoked and employed as a premise in scientific argument.

The friends of Creation Science frequently bemoan the fact that accounts of the Evolution-vs.-Creation debate lack "balance". These folks just don't get it. One doesn't encounter balanced, unbiased discussion of the controversy for the simple reason that such discussion is FORENSICALLY IMPERMISSIBLE: the epistemic postures of the opposing sides are practically incommensurable. "Balance," after all, requires the participants to countenance at least the POSSIBILITY of scientific parity between the two positions. However, nobody who knows the difference between real science and merely pretend science will stultify himself by conceding even for the sake of argument that Creation Science has face validity; likewise, true believers in the Book of Genesis can't concede for an instant that the Theory of Evolution is even remotely plausible, no matter WHAT evidence is adduced in its support. Evolutionists and Creation Scientists can no more engage in dialectically balanced debate than two trees can do so.

This last point needs to be fleshed out a bit. It's one thing simply to pit the Theory of Evolution against the Book of Genesis. The two sources, of course, offer strongly incompatible stories about the origins of the universe and life on Earth. Debate about the relative credibility of these two sources has therefore been described as a war between Science and Religion---specifically, an epistemological war waged to adjudicate the balance of veridicality between scientific method, on the one hand, and revelation, the ultimate basis for religious doctrine, on the other.

So, which of the two, Science or Religion, is the more reliable source of information about the world? A plausible case can be made that the contest boils down to nothing more than a cost/benefit analysis weighing faith in scientific method against faith in revelation. It's in this context that the friends of Religion attempt to carry the day by observing that the propositions of empirical science aren't NECESSARY truths: "Scientific method leads at best to TENTATIVE BELIEF in mere CONTINGENCIES; revelation, by contrast, affords UTTER CERTAINTY about ABSOLUTE TRUTH!" Alas! It still requires an act of faith to embrace revelation as veridical, even if one accepts a strong version of the thesis that science deals only in contingency.

The friends of Religion, however, have not been content to let the contest's outcome depend on an act of faith. Questions of contingency notwithstanding, scientists often speak with the fist of authority. And because scientists manage to sound pretty convincing when they invoke the shibboleth of EVIDENCE, spewing torrents of technical discourse, citing volumes of complex experimental data, and rehashing gouts of ultra-sophisticated mathematical analysis, it's small wonder that the layman is impressed by their pronouncements. Face it: scientists are thought to exhibit high levels of sagacity and consequently enjoy immense prestige throughout the civilized world. Many friends of Religion just can't STAND it. They fear that by responding to the technicalities of Science with talk about revelation they invite unflattering comparisons.

Thus, the friends of Religion conjure nightmarish scenarios in which the Scientist---cool, composed, invincibly sane, basking in an aura of radiant personal genius---addresses an adoring public: "I propound the hard results of the most intellectually exacting discipline, whereas my Religious opponent---observe him closely, if you will: yon incontinent buffoon who stands before you red-faced and sputtering as he savors the rich ignominy of his now-manifest feeble-mindedness---offers nothing more than a call to hysterical acts of credulity. Whom, I ask, do YOU emulate?"

Is it any wonder that the friends of Religion seek to level the playing field by concocting the notion of Creation Science? The strategy is simple enough: trot out a phalanx of apparently respectable scientists to impress upon the lay public not only that the Biblical account of creation has a BASIS IN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, but that the scientific foundation for the literal truth of Genesis is EVEN MORE RIGOROUSLY DEVELOPED than the one alleged for the Theory of Evolution. To this end, the purveyors of Creation Science have regaled their public with volumes and volumes of advocacy for the supposed scientific-ness of the creation story in Genesis. The authors of these volumes purport to enjoy the highest standing within the scientific community. Several of them are advertised as having Ph.D.s in demanding subjects (astrophysics, biochemistry, etc.) and as occupying positions at prestigious universities and research institutions.

An opus of Creation Scientist unfolds in three movements. First, the overture: a series of supposed-to-be-awe-inspiring "Isn't-the-Universe-Amazing?"-type rhetorical questions ("Have you ever wondered why nobody has ever determined which would win in a fight-to-the-death between a rhinoceros and a giant squid...or a school of piranhas and a colony of army ants?"), followed by a flourish of very, very general information about astronomy, physics, chemistry, and/or biology. This information, by intention, is sufficiently elementary to be digested easily by readers with no more than an eighth-grade education, but it's also supposed to be just "science-y" enough to create the impression that the author is a scientific expert. Most of the time, this initial information is quite uncontroversial and has no real bearing on the Evolution-vs.-Creation controversy (Footnote: Unaccountably, presentation of the initial science information is often riddled with mistakes---occasionally, with downright blunders). The point of introducing this information should be kept in mind, though: the intent isn't to advance debate but to establish the author's scientific bona fides.

Second movement: what purports to be a scientifically rigorous refutation of evolutionary theory. Early in the discussion it usually emerges that (surprise!) the target of the author's critique is not merely biological evolution a la Darwin but "conventional" science's ENTIRE ACCOUNT of the origin and development of the whole Universe. This involves the author in efforts to discredit the Big Bang hypothesis, astronomers' estimates of the Universe's age in billions of years, geologists' estimates of the Earth's age in billions of years, and many other matters of orthodox science. Refutation of Darwin's particular views is offered as a sort of climax to the general broadside against Evolution-in-the large. Typically, the I'm-Going-To-Refute-ALL-of-Conventional-Science part of a Creation Science book is JUST technical enough to lose its target audience completely while leaving the impression that the author sure knows what he's talking about. It's usually this section of a Creation Science book that REAL scientists have a field day tearing apart.

Finally, there's the Allegro Con Brio finale: the affirmative case for Genesis' account of creation. This case invariably unfolds as an elaborate theme-and-variation rehash of the Argument From Design, perhaps most famously formulated by the Cambridge scholar William Paley (1743 - 1805) in his "Natural Theology" of 1802. It's no accident, then, that Creation Science's latest incarnation has been dubbed "Intelligent Design."

The basic strategy (which could aptly be dubbed "Proof By Unanswered Rhetorical Question") was exploited by Erich Von Daniken in "Chariots of the Gods". First, you cite some (presumably surprising) fact. Next, you recount, in singularly unflattering terms, what's supposed to be the received explanation of that fact. You then ask a how-can-this-be-possible?-type question cunningly formulated to invite the tacit reply, "It CAN'T be possible!" You now promptly conclude AGAINST the received explanation and, finally, segue to your FAVORED explanation exactly as if it's OBVIOUSLY the ONLY rational alternative. Thus: "The Great Pyramid is an architectural marvel. It's supposed to have been built six thousand years ago by ignorant Egyptians using only slave labor. But how could puny, know-nothing terrestrials possibly have erected such an artifice employing only primitive Bronze Age technology? 'They couldn't!' Well, if they COULDN'T, then they DIDN'T! But if TERRESTRIALS didn't build the Great Pyramid, then that leaves only ONE alternative (drum roll, please): EXTRA-terrestrials did it! Q. E. D." Intelligent Design works in precisely the same way: "Wow! The Universe sure is a complicated place! Science says it came about exclusively by random events and blind natural processes. But how could 'blind', random processes possibly result in anything so complex and sophisticated as, say, the human eye? ['They couldn't!' screams a tiny voice from the gallery.] Well, if they COULDN'T, then they DIDN'T. But if blind Nature didn't produce the Universe, then, obviously, it required an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER! Q.E.D." See how easy it is?

The initial cite-surprising-facts stage of the Design Argument affords Creation Scientists additional opportunities to sound like real experts. Ideally, each cited fact will be so mind-numbingly complicated that readers can't help being skeptical about the received explanation offered by orthodox science. This, of course, sets up the all-important, putatively unanswerable "how-could...?" question and thus facilitates the very uncomplicated but crucial inferences that follow.

Time to face the music. The literature of Creation Science is an exercise in preaching to the choir: only people already predisposed to believe the Genesis account of creation are impressed by it. Sorry, but the alleged specialist in astrophysics who endorses the Genesis account of creation at the expense of Evolutionary Theory is no more a respectable scientist than a pineapple is a blue whale. The books written by these "experts" just plain stink. Virtually every page betrays its author's scientific incompetence.

Incidentally, anybody who's interested in getting a fix on what GENUINE scientific debate about evolution looks like may consult Kevin Padian, "The False Issues of Bird Origins: an Historical Perspective", in NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE ORIGIN AND EARLY EVOLUTION OF BIRDS, Jacques Gautier and Lawrence F. Gall, Editors (New Haven, Connecticut: Peabody Museum of Nature History, Yale University, December, 2001), pp. 485 - 499. And for those who'd like to see what a truly balanced, unbiased PHILOSOPHICAL discussion of Creationism looks like, consult David Sedley, CREATIONISM AND ITS CRITICS IN ANTIQUITY (The University of California Press, 2007).

Scott's book is like her debates on the subject--full of emotion and argumentum ad hominem. Her attacks on creationists are so visceral at times that the reader (or the listener of her debates) cannot help but get the distinct impression that Scott is actually at war with herself. Scott defends her actions by stating that she openly "takes this issue personally" for various reasons, but the acuteness of her words against a Creator and creationism borders on slander and religious bitterness, and while her shrill and vocal objections to the 'science of creationism' are many, they are not original, nor remarkable. They do however accomplish one very important task that Scott desperately requires: a smokescreen for her own flimsy defenses of Darwinian evolution, which are based firmly on a foundation of spontaneous generation--an absolute scientific impossibility.
Should Creation Science be required teaching in public schools? This is a difficult question, but considering the alternative is the teaching of many aspects of Darwinian evolution that are obviously non-scientific and non-rational, (namely the origins of life from chance and speciation via mutation), American students are not really getting a science education that promotes critical analysis--they are getting indoctrination from a government institution that openly stifles free thought and free speech.

Scott's book is a good summary of everything in the so-called "debate", possibly the best that can be found in one 254-page book. There isn't much detailed evolutionary theory in there, but what I found valuable was the summary of the legal history of Creationism in the schools and the discussions of the methodology of science, especially the role of naturalism in the historical sciences. She tries to be fair in dealing with religion but is quite firm in stating that Evolution is science and Creationism is not.

The second half of the book is a selection of readings from both sides and its success is mixed. Partly that is due to the representatives of Intelligent Design refusing to let their writings be reprinted. As a result, Scott has to give a summary of them. What *does* get reprinted are some writings of the old-style Creationists, (with responses from real scientists) so some might argue that is in not a fair representation.

Interestingly, there are a couple of physics howlers that somehow got by the editors. On p. 13 she says "Newton's law of gravitation has to be modified ...under conditions of a vacuum." (Say what? It's the air that messes up clear observations of the effects of gravity! Newton's law is fine in a vacuum!) On p. 120 she seems to think that the monthly phases of the moon are due to the shadow of Earth falling on it. Now, those are silly statements, but here's the difference between Eugenie Scott and the Creationists: If she is shown evidence that those statements are wrong, she will change her mind.

This book is a solid overview of basic issues in the debate over evolution and creationism. The author shows that there are various positions to take on the issue, including intelligent design, creation science, theistic science, or atheistic science. Although striving for objectivity, the author clearly favors the theory of evolution over "creation science" (which may not be a "science" at all), as does this reviewer. For new students seeking to grasp some of the ideas, or teachers preparing to teach the subject itself, Evolution vs. Creationism makes for a fairly solid and comprehensive introduction.

I view this book more as a survey of the science literature rather than an approachable book on the subject for an average person. Personally, it was great for me but I feel that for someone new to the subject or with a non-technical background it would not be suitable. I would like to be positive about the book because to me it was pretty useful. Nonetheless, I would be dishonest if I didn't say it was a bit of a slog and ultimately unconvincing in that it often sidestepped many of the major burning questions in this debate (or was very weak). Ultimately, I felt that `if that is the best case that can be made for Darwinism then it might be in serious trouble'. Nonetheless, I haven't managed to find anything better to date in this type of book and so it's hard to complain. If I had to repurchase some of my existing library on Evolution I would certainly consider for pro-evolution: `The Blind Watchmaker' (Dawkins), and `Evolution' (Colin Patterson) and for pro-design: `Evolution a theory in Crisis' (Denton) and `The Edge of Evolution' (Behe). Nonetheless, I am not sure I would definitely repurchase this title (sorry).