The Future of Ohio's Schools

God In The Classroom

If a small but very vocal group of Christian fundamentalists have their way, something they call "Creation Science" may soon be taught in science classes as a legitimate scientific alternative to evolutionary theory. What, exactly, is "Creation Science" and how does it stack up against the real thing? Let's have a look. Let's see if we can establish in the brief time and limited space available to us whether "Creation Science" is science or salesmanship.

First of all, "Creation Science" begins with the premise that the Genesis myth is the literal, inerrant and irrefutable truth, and then goes about trying to find evidence to support that assumption. Hmm...seems we have a problem right from the start. That isn't how real science works. Real science starts with the evidence and formulates a conclusion based on that evidence. "Creation Science", it seems, starts with the conclusion and then tries to force the evidence to fit. How is that scientific? Answer: It isn't. Real science also follows the evidence no matter where it leads, even if it leads to some totally unexpected conclusions that refute long established tenets. There are abundant examples of this, and it illustrates quite well the self-correcting nature of true science. "Creation Science", by contrast, ignores or dismisses as erroneous anything that contradicts its forgone conclusion. To the creation "scientist", the Book of Genesis is the literal, absolute, undeniable truth and anything that contradicts it must by default be false. The Bible is true and nothing can refute it. This, needless to say, is hardly a scientific approach. In true science, any theory is at least potentially falsifiable, that is it could possibly be disproved by new, unforeseen discoveries.  "Creation Science", on the other hand, is not falsifiable because the explanation it offers (in essence, "God did it") is not empirically testable, and the "theory" makes no predictions regarding future discoveries that could reasonably be expected if the basic premise is correct. It explains nothing while claiming to explain everything. There is, in short, no actual scientific theory of creation to be potentially falsified. Additionally, any contradictory evidence creation "scientists" don't disregard entirely, they simply "explain" away as only seeming to be contradictory to those who choose to "deny God." Any alleged problems, they claim, are purely in the eye of the beholder. Again, not scientific. Not even close.

So we see that even a cursory comparison of basic methodology reveals that "Creation Science" has precious little in common with real science. However, in case you still have any doubts regarding the totally unscientific nature of "Creation Science", let's look at a few specific examples. Since the fundies want their views taught as a viable alternative to evolutionary biology, that's what we'll focus on.

Example A - Speciation

Very simplified, speciation occurs when a part of a population, most commonly through geographic isolation (termed 'Allopatric Speciation'), diverges from the parent species and over time changes sufficiently to be considered a distinct species. It's a phenomenon that, despite creationist denials, has been observed and documented. Real science explains it quite handily in terms of 'genetic drift', also sometimes referred to as 'descent with modification.' In the strictest scientific sense, the two terms aren't identical, but close enough for our purposes.

How real science explains speciation;

In order to keep it as simple as possible, we'll limit this illustration to the effects of genetic drift. We won't get into other contributing factors, even though some, such as environmental pressures (i.e. "natural selection") are equally as important. Stated simply, no two individuals of any species (with the exception of identical twins) are exactly alike. There is always some degree of genetic variation both between individuals and between generations. As long as a population remains unified, any modifications that crop up will spread through the entire population so that while the species as a whole changes over time (descent with modification), it remains homogenous. All individuals are still the same species. However, if this single population becomes broken up into two or more populations isolated from each other, the picture changes. Descent with modification continues as before, but with the exception that genetic variations that arise in population A can no longer be passed along to population B and vice versa. Each new, isolated population develops along its own genetic pathway and over time will diverge to the point where successful interbreeding (i.e. producing viable offspring) may no longer be possible. What was once a single species is now two or more. As still more time passes, the degree of genetic divergence will become even greater.

How "Creation Science" explains speciation;

"What speciation? They're still frogs (or fruit flies or whatever). I didn't see any frogs turning into cats. There's no evidence for evolution.."

Granted, that's a bit tongue in cheek, but it isn't far from the truth. "Creation Science", whether through genuine ignorance of real science or deliberate dishonesty, throws together an utterly ridiculous "strawman" construct that bears only a superficial resemblance to any actual scientific theory, makes a great show of pointing out its obvious flaws while trumpeting loudly about how silly it all is, and then declares that evolution has been soundly refuted. In their dreams. Creationism can offer no logical, testable explanation for the observed, documented fact of speciation, so it deals with the problem the same way it deals with many other facts that contradict its claims. By denying it exists.

Example B - Nested Hierarchies

Again due to space constraints, this must be overly simplified, but basically "nested hierarchy" is simply a term used by scientists to describe how life forms show evolutionary relationship to each other. For example, humans are hominids, primates, mammals, vertebrates, eukaryotes, etc., dogs are canids, carnivores, mammals, vertebrates, eukaryotes, and so on. 

How real science explains nested hierarchies;

Once again, science has a handy, testable explanation. Based on the evidence, i.e. the observation that life forms appear to naturally fit into a "nested hierarchy" of related forms, science formulated the idea of 'common descent', that is life forms today show similarity because they descended from a common ancestor. This idea is supported by the fossil record, by analysis of homologous structures and by genetics, and is a fundamental part of evolutionary theory. For one example, unlike most other animals, humans, due to a "broken" gene, are unable to manufacture Vitamin C. We possess the gene, but it's nonfunctional. Other "higher" primates (i.e. gorillas, chimpanzees, etc.) have the same "broken" gene, while "lower" primates (monkeys, lemurs, etc.) do not. This is just one of many indications that all higher primates, including humans, descended from a common ancestor. This ancestor already possessed that broken gene, and this mutation occurred after the common ancestor split off from the main primate lineage, but before that side branch split again into the lineages that led to the species we know today. This explains why the gene is nonfunctional in humans and other apes (yes, Virginia, biologically, humans are apes) but not in monkeys and other lower primates, and is exactly the sort of thing we would expect to see if common descent is true.

How "Creation Science" explains nested hierarchies;

"What's a hierarchy? Doesn't prove a thing. Evolution is baloney."

Again tongue in cheek, but again not far from the truth. "Creation Science" explains biological relationships by claiming that all life was created by God, therefore similarities in "design" should come as no surprise. In the creationist view, nested hierarchies do prove common origin, but that origin is divine creation by God, not common evolutionary descent. Needless to say, testable empirical evidence supporting that claim is conspicuous by its absence. Creationism can, for example, offer no logical evidentially supported explanation as to why the same nonfunctional gene referred to in the preceding paragraph is found in all primate species within a certain group, but not in any other primates, or why that certain group also displays many other genetic similarities not shared with other primate groups. Nor can "Creation Science" explain why DNA analysis shows alligators and crocodiles to be genetically closer to birds than to other reptiles. Evolutionary theory doesn't have a problem with either case. Common descent explains both quite adequately.

Example C - Transitional Fossils

Briefly, a transitional fossil, or more properly a transitional form, displays a combination of characteristics placing it midway between two different animal groups, such as between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals or reptiles and birds. Archaeopteryx is undoubtedly the most famous, but hundreds of known examples exist.

How real science explains transitional forms;

Science quite satisfactorily explains transitional forms by way of  our old friend 'common descent'. Such "in between" forms pose no problem for evolutionary theory because they're exactly what we'd expect to find if the theory is correct. Transitionals not only don't pose a problem for evolution, the theory actually predicts that they should exist. Transitional forms appear to fall in between two separate groups because they in fact do. They actually are evolutionary transitions. If common descent is correct, we should expect to find fossil evidence of forms midway between reptiles and mammals, reptiles and birds, etc. And that's exactly what we do find.

How "Creation Science" explains transitional forms;

"There are no transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx is nothing but a perfectly ordinary bird. Evolution is crapola."

Yep. I see birds with teeth, clawed wings and long bony tails at my back yard feeder every day, don't you? Not much to add to this, unfortunately. The above quote is entirely genuine (other than the "crapola" part) and pretty much sums up the creationist position. As with speciation, creationism "explains" transitional forms by denying that they exist.

So there it is in a nutshell. "Creation Science" claims that the earth and all life on it were magicked into reality a mere 6,000 to 10,000 years ago by an omnipotent supernatural being for whose very existence there is not the tiniest scrap of objective evidence. Creationists turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to anything and everything that contradicts their primitive beliefs, all the while insisting that, despite the fact that the biological process we call evolution has been observed and documented numerous times, despite the fact that the theories explaining this process are supported by more empirical data than any other scientific theory, and despite the fact that in the more than 150 years since the inception of modern evolutionary theory, each new discovery has only made the theory stronger and the fact more certain, somehow the many scientists, some of them quite brilliant, who have dedicated their careers to the study and advancement of evolutionary biology have all been utterly wrong. The leaders of the creationist movement deliberately resort to misquotes, misrepresentations and outright fabrications in order to give their claims the appearance of legitimacy, and their legions of scientifically illiterate supporters believe every dishonest word. They systematically reject and deny hard facts, while clinging desperately to an illogical, impossible story they stubbornly insist is true despite overwhelming physical evidence against it. And this is the irrational, superstitious nonsense they want to force onto our children as proven fact in their science classes. They should be ashamed of themselves.

 Bookmark this page, folks. More to come soon.

Coming soon - The HOX Gene - A Creationist's Nightmare

I'm not a biologist, and so can't swear that the contents of this page are 100% accurate. However, any errors are entirely my own and should not be taken as indicative of any serious problems with current scientific thought.

Addendum: We've seen that "Creation Science" isn't science by a very long shot, but some are of the opinion that it isn't even religion. Some believe the ongoing attempt to force creationism into our public schools is only part of a far larger agenda, one which is neither scientific nor religious, but political. Christian fundamentalists, they fear, are hoping to gain enough political power to force their beliefs onto every man, woman and child in the United States, and they see the "Creation Science" controversy as just one tactic being employed to that end. I don't think that fear is entirely unfounded.