Several years ago, the Muslim apologist Harun Yahya published an expensive and elaborate text known as the Atlas of Creation. This “science” book put forth the belief that evolution is a hoax, and sought to prove this by juxtaposing images of ancient fossils with images of contemporary creatures which resembled them. Yahya identified the fossils with the now-living creature and claimed that their identical structures proved that these species had not evolved (and therefore evolution is not real). Unfortunately, most of his species’ identifications were incorrect, and his science was beyond sloppy (in one case, his “modern creature” was actually a picture of a fishing lure… No shit). (c.f. Richard Dawkins’ critique of the Atlas, as he can no doubt explain it much better than I). And yet, despite the fact that this beautifully illustrated yet marvelously absurd Atlas of Creation is a massive collection of errors and (whether purposefully or not) false evidences, this is precisely the sort of “science” that the uninformed point to in order to bolster their faith arguments. And it is these sorts of disingenuous scientists who prey upon the scientifically illiterate.
Take, for example, the disciplines of scientific creationism and intelligent design. Both of these perspectives are currently being pushed forward to be taught in public schools as alternatives to scientific teachings such as evolution and the naturalistic origin of the universe. And yet, both scientific creationism and ID have been rejected by the vast majority of credible scientists and have been deemed, by the Supreme Court, as religious ideologies lacking the essential characteristics of real science! And still we talk about how they should be included as alternative perspectives?!
The argument is that these theories are just as likely as evolution, which is (after all), just a theory as well. But this fails to take into consideration the fact, for the responsible scientist, that “theory” does not mean “an unproven guess.” No, in science, a theory is “a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts.”[1] In other words, in science, a theory is an explanation that is supported by the facts, which are garnered through experimentation and observation. Evolution is not a guess; it’s an explanation that accounts for and is heavily, heavily demonstrated by the available facts.
On the other hand, creation science, at least insofar as I have been exposed to it, relies on a limited base or foundation of information, and either reinterprets, ignores, or discounts outright any evidence that contradicts the (faith-based) hypothesis. For example, the belief that the earth is only a few thousand years old requires a rejection of the findings of the scientific, archaeological, anthropological, and historical communities, which by and large agree that it is much, much older. How can the earth itself be younger, by several thousand years, than the oldest known civilization? Obviously, there is a problem with your scientific method if “ignore all opposing data” is one of your operational guidelines.
The problem with scientific creationism and ID are not that they assume God’s role; the problem is that they use shoddy science to try and gain credibility with the (scientifically illiterate) masses. They have their hypothesis (“God created everything through specific, non-evolutionary means), and they refuse to revise that hypothesis when opposing information is introduced. That pretty much takes the science right out of these “faith-sciences.”
I have no problem including opposing viewpoints in the discussion of scientific unknowns. If you think something other than natural selection drove the evolutionary process, and you have at least enough evidence to give reasonable support to your theory, by all means, teach it in science class.[2] But if your theory is a religious doctrine propped up by the fringe pseudo-science of a few less-than-credible “experts” (like our friend Harun Yahya) it does not belong in public education. We cannot teach every theory, so we damn well better teach the best ones available.
_______________________
[1] Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn, 1989. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[2] I intentionally neglected to say, “If you think something other than evolution brought about all the varied species…” because, to every credible scientist, evolution is fact, or as near to it as science can get.
Unfound Places 