Creationists are building a tower to heaven, and they are raising the banner of antievolution upon its ramparts. They see themselves as participants in a holy war against forces that would undermine the foundations of true Christianity, and they see "evolutionism" as the godless philosophy that unites the enemy.
Though not always strictly Fundamentalist, creationists typically hold a literal reading of the Bible. They believe that there is only one correct interpretation of scripture—their own—and only one true stairway leading up the Tower to God. In public debates creationists often reject any explicit discussion of religion, insisting that they present only an alternative scientific position; but in their own literature, they make it clear that they are engaged in a religious battle for the hearts and minds of those who have fallen away from God and who would lead their children away from the true path to salvation.
Secular humanists and a few atheistic scientists are the most easily identified among the enemy because they wear their non Christian colors openly. But creationists also believe that the tower to heaven is put at risk by people who may think of themselves as Christian but who have compromised the integrity of their faith by accepting the scientific, evolutionary history of life, in opposition to the record of creation revealed in Genesis. The question of "origins," as creationists term the issue, lies at the very center of their theology.
Bible says but rather have been produced by evolutionary processes, then Scripture loses its authority as revealed truth and with it crumbles the ground of religion, morality, and the possibility of salvation after death through Jesus Christ. On their view, the teachings of Christianity and the theory of evolution are strictly incompatible. What this means is that those who accept evolution are either deceived or are not "true" Christians. The creationism controversy is not just about the status of Darwinian evolution—it is about a clash of religious and philosophical worldviews.
One reason that creationism is gaining adherents despite its fringe theology is that creationists have positioned themselves as part of the socalled Religious Right and so typically promote a conservative political agenda, especially on social issues. However, political terms like "liberal" and "conservative" do not adequately differentiate the camps because although creationists certainly would reject liberal Christianity, they also would reject the theological views of many politically conservative Christians. Some creationists now try to portray themselves as advocating only a tolerant ecumenical notion of "mere creation," echoing C. S. Lewis's notion of ''mere Christianity"—but scratch this surface and one finds a strict orthodoxy.
Creationists disagree vehemently among themselves about the theological details of what counts as a proper interpretation of Scripture, and since biblical interpretation drives their physical picture of the universe, we find a fascinating array of conflicting views. Chapter 1 takes a look inside the Tower and describes some of these internal struggles, showing how they are transforming creationism.
Chapter 2 provides an introduction to the elements of evolutionary theory and reviews some of the evidence upon which the theory is based, beginning with Darwin's own studies that led him to reject his earlier creationist views. It also begins to consider some of the major arguments that creationists give against evolution—that it supposedly violates the second law of thermodynamics, and that chance processes could not produce the world's complex and useful biological structures.
I take a new tack. Rather than discussing the evolution of organisms I talk about the evolution of languages. Linguistic evolution has strong theoretical parallels with biological evolution both in content and in the sort of evidence scientists use to draw conclusions about it; but it is also pointedly relevant to creationism, in that Genesis tells us that languages did not evolve but were specially created by God in the great confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel
After I started teaching, I was interested in creationism only as a pedagogically useful case study—until a series of events stimulated me to begin to take the subject more seriously
The first event was a creationist talk sponsored by a campus Christian group at the University of Texas at Austin. As I recall, I attended because I was teaching my course on the relationship of science and religion, "God and the Scientist," which included a section on creationism, and I wanted to hear if any of the standard arguments had changed. Indeed they had. What I heard was the argument of one Phillip Johnson, a professor from the University of California at Berkeley, who rehearsed just a few variations of the standard complaints but then launched into an indirect attack upon evolution by way of an attack on philosophical naturalism. The edifice of evolutionary theory had no supporting evidence, he claimed, but was merely scientific dogma propped up by a speculative philosophy
I also attended a symposium held at Southern Methodist University (S.M.U.) in March 1992 which featured a "debate" between Johnson and Michael Ruse, a renowned philosopher of biology who had played a key role as an expert witness in the important 1982 Arkansas trial that had overturned legislation mandating "balanced treatment" of creationism and evolution in the state's public schools. The daylong symposium was titled "Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference?" and here I encountered for the first time a group of creationists—Michael Behe, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and others—who followed Johnson's lead in attacking evolution as flimsy naturalistic philosophy and in advocating a new creationism, euphemistically termed #intelligent_design theory.''
My research that summer led to an article criticizing Johnson's view in his book Darwin on Trial. In 1994 my article, "Naturalism, Creationism and Evidence: The Case of Phillip Johnson," 1 was accepted for publication in Biology and Philosophy and material from it forms the core of chapter 4, which discusses the new creationists' attack on scientific naturalism, and Johnson's attempt to resuscitate purely negative argumentation. In it I dismiss Johnson's claim that evolution rests on a dogmatic metaphysical naturalism, and I show that science only makes use of naturalism methodologically.
I was invited to give a talk at Ohio State University, sponsored by the biology department. There I mentioned the forthcoming paper. Within two days Johnson had called Michael Ruse, who edits Biology and Philosophy, to say he had heard about my paper from someone in that audience and wanted to write a rebuttal. In his response Johnson criticized me for not having read his second book, Reason in the Balance. (Since that had only appeared in 1995 I felt I could not have been expected to have had the foresight—literally!—to read it two years in advance of its publication.) When I did read it for my reply 2 I realized that Johnson's project was not just to attack evolution, but to take arms against what he called the "modernist naturalist worldview" in general for what he saw as its inherent immorality. Like the creationists at ICR, though in a less cartoonish manner, he was arguing that evolutionary naturalist thinking gives rise to ethical relativism, and was causing the breakdown of traditional male and female roles, the acceptance of homosexuality, and what he took to be other forms of cultural and moral decay.
This led me to write a follow up article, "Naturalism, Creationism and the Meaning of Life: The Case of Phillip Johnson Revisited," 3 material of which forms the core of chapter 7, which discusses what creationists take to be at stake in the battle. The relationship between factual and moral issues in the controversy over creationism and evolution—the points of contact between philosophy of science and ethics—is one of the most interesting aspects of the issue that has drawn me into the debate.
The new creationists, including Johnson and philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga, reject these constraints and share the view that supernatural explanations should be admitted into science. My article on this issue, "The Prospects for a Theistic Science," which appeared in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 5 is incorporated here as a section of chapter 6.
Creationists are also becoming financially well supported; the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, which funds intelligent design creationists, was established in 1996 as a branch of Seattle's Discovery Institute upon receipt of a million dollars in grants. Intelligent design creationists are beginning to catch up in influence to the venerable ICR, which itself continues to draw wide support. I attended a three day Back to Genesis seminar led by the ICR at a Baptist church in Austin, and estimated an attendance of close to a thousand people
Let me say, however, that although I will argue against creationism as a science and do what I can to counter its divisive rhetoric, I do not mean to attack the sincerity or intentions of creationist believers. Also, none of what I write should be taken as an attack upon religion in general or Christianity in particular.
creationist program actually poses a real danger to that freedom. I will argue that "creation science" (or "intelligent design theory," or however it is euphemistically termed) is antithetical to science and certainly does not belong in science classrooms. Fundamentalist and evangelical Christians are not the only creationists who want their religious views to take precedence over science. We will also meet Native American tribes, Hindus, and others who have their own Creation stories that conflict with evolution, as well as a religious group that rejects evolution because its members believe that life on Earth was created by aliens who arrived in UFOs