[Note: Just to put this post in context, today I was feeling extremely frustrated with the seemingly blind acceptance creationism receives because it makes some people feel comfortable. This is surely not my best work, and if anything it represents me trying to sort out the reasons why I keep coming back to the debate even though it can be aggravating at times.]
On a cold Sunday afternoon last February, I sat down to share a few slices of pizza with the man who had invited me to come speak about evolution to the Congregation for Humanistic Judaism of Morris County, along with my wife and his family. As would be expected most of our conversation centered on evolution & the pernicious pseudoscience known as creationism, but towards the end of our lunchtime engagement he asked me (and I'm paraphrasing) "Don't you ever become discouraged seeing so much creationist nonsense?" I could only reply honestly; "Of course I do."
A few years ago you could probably label me as a believer in evolution in the most literal sense. I knew about a few transitions and I believed that it explained the diversity of life, but I really didn't know much about it. Still, I knew it was an important concept to talk about, and when I had the opportunity to speak to a 5th grade public school class as part of a "communicating ocean science" program I knew I wanted to schedule at least one lesson about evolution. I started making up a lesson plan to help the students understand how whales evolved from creatures that lived on the land, but a few days after I turned in my lesson plan I received some disheartening news. The principal of the school said the topic was way too controversial and didn't want to field phone calls from angry parents. I would have to pick something else.
I was appalled by this decision. How could evolution be controversial? I thought that evolution provided a wonderful explanation for how life changed over vast ages, and there didn't seem to be any reasonable alternative. While it was perhaps not the wisest thing to do I decided that I was going to teach the evolution lesson anyway. I didn't receive word of any angry phone calls or parents asking for my head on a pike.
The semester soon came to an uneventful end, but how anyone could deny the reality of evolution still bothered me. Was there something I didn't know about going on? I resolved to learn as much as I could about evolution to try and figure out what the problem could be. While it might seem naive (knowing what I know now), I started off with a book I found lying on the floor of my fiancee's house that seemed to be a good place to start. It was called Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells.
[I'll continue when the laughter subsides]
To be completely honest, I could not make it through Wells' book the first time I picked it up. I soon became bored with it, and I decided to skip to the last chapter to see what the hell the author was trying to get at. I could hardly believe what I read. Evolutionary scientists were nothing but dishonest hucksters, siphoning off valuable taxpayer dollars so that they could stick feathers on dinosaurs and other such things to support "Darwinian orthodoxy." I didn't know what to think. This guy seemed totally off his rocker, but being that I had not well-versed in evolutionary science, I couldn't exactly refute all the claims even if I knew something smelled rotten.
In order to untangle this web of strange claims and accusations, I figured that I should probably dig a little deeper and find out a little more about Regnery Publishing, the group that produced the book. Almost as quickly as I put "Regnery Publishing + Icons of Evolution" into Google, I found out that Wells was associated with the Discovery Institute, an innocuous-sounding organization if there ever was one. Still, I wasn't content with leaving it at that; what did the Discovery Institute stand for and were the beliefs of Jonathan Wells representative of the group?
I soon found the Discovery Institute website and checked out a few articles, many of which were deeply concerned with the evils of "Darwinism." This was all very strange, especially since there didn't seem to be any suggestion of what might explain the "origin of species" if evolution was wrong. Fortunately for me, my search for "Discovery Institute" also turned up a number of posts at Pharyngula and The Panda's Thumb. Everything started to make sense. The Discovery Institute, while sounding harmless, was really a group promoting intelligent design, a program that seemed to assert "God did it" and leave it at that. I soon found that things were far worse, however.
The claims of the Discovery Institute members seemed almost mild in comparison to the beliefs of young-earth creationists, and I was shocked that anyone believed that dinosaurs and people lived together less than 6,000 years ago. I just couldn't get my head around that concept. Here were people saying that the book of Genesis was a science text, and I couldn't see any good reason for anyone to do so. I had no idea that so many people could believe in a literal 6-day creation of the universe and everything in it, but I knew that I had to find out more.
If the public controversy surrounding evolution was really so bad that I couldn't even teach it in a classroom, I figured it would be best to know the arguments of the group I now identified as my opponents. In addition to a spate of books about evolution, I also ordered titles like The Lie: Evolution, Dinosaurs by Design, It Couldn't Just Happen, and Refuting Evolution. They were all terrible, filled atrocious illustrations, mind-numbing text, and vapid examples of "creation science," but I felt that it was important to know the arguments of creationists. Plus, I have to admit, I was a little curious. How could anyone believe that there once existed a real Eden where Tyrannosaurus munched on coconuts next to Adam & Eve?
More helpful to me, however, were science blogs. Books could only tell me so much, but science blogs presented a day-by-day (and even hour-by-hour) stream of information about creationism & intelligent design. Without the community aspect, the ability to see what other people thought and what was happening, I might have lost interest along the way. Once I started writing myself, however, I became increasingly drawn into the "long argument" over evolution, although it is not without its frustrations. Over the past few years I've been challenged by a number of creationists, often admonished for being a delusional "Darwinist" that has imbibed the academic Kool-Ade. They don't know that I do my best to keep up on creationist arguments and even relish reading old creationist tracts to see how they stand up to the modern strains of the virulent dogma, but it is rare they offer me a similar courtesy and educate themselves about evolution.
Indeed, this is probably the most frustrating aspect of my interactions with creationists. We're not on the same playing field. I want to talk about science, asking them what they think about fossils, speciation, evolutionary patterns, extinctions, etc. When I press creationists for details on these issues, they become uneasy and claim that they don't really know the science, even though they're trying to present their own pet hypothesis as a scientific theory! The goal posts shift maddeningly fast, and even if I come in contact with someone willing to debate particulars, it's usually rehashed AiG propaganda or an argument that has been floating around since young earth creationism (as we know it now) really got going in the 1920's. This disparity makes communication exceedingly difficult and slow, and often times any conversation that might be had dies out of the gate.
So yes, I definitely get frustrated when I see the same creationist arguments trotted out over and over again as if they were something new. Even intelligent design, trying to co-opt the science of microbiology, is little more than Paley's Watchmaker in some new clothes. Undoing this damage takes time, however, time that few people are willing to give. It's easy to believe what makes us comfortable or fits in with our beliefs, and the reason creationism is so successful is because it has immediate appeal. It neatly packages everything up and God's stamp of approval is put upon it; what more could you ask for?
It takes a lot of time, energy, and money to become well-versed in what evolution is and why it is so essential to understand. I've spent countless hours pouring over books, technical papers, and articles trying to catch myself up and I know that I still have a lot to learn. I keep going because I still have questions and hope to work on finding some answers myself one day, but even though the process is arduous it is highly rewarding. The basic idea of evolution is easy to grasp, yes, but the particulars take some more effort to fully grasp.
I suspect that I'm in the minority when it comes to my interest in evolution, though, but that is precisely why I spent so much time talking about it. I know that I may never convince anyone that creationism is without merit and that evolution provides a simple (yet intricate) explanation for the unity & diversity of life, but I'm hoping to at least get people interested. At the very least I can hope to spark a conversation, make someone aware of a good book on the subject, or start asking questions about the natural world. At that point it's entirely up to them, I can't force anyone to be interested who isn't, but I do want to make evolution both interesting and relevant to people who don't know very much about it (regardless of whether they agree with it or not).
Some days I get fed up with the unwarranted acceptance of creationism, but at the same time I simply can't stop myself from talking about evolution, either. I'm never going to write anything so manifestly brilliant that it makes the scales fall from the eyes of people who previously considered evolution to be a fantasy, but I can persistently keep illustrating how there really is, as Darwin put it, "grandeur in this view of life."
- Log in to post comments
I've been debating creationists, one way or another, since lunchtime in high school. The arguments from the creationist side have not gotten more sophisticated in the years since; in the cafeteria, we began with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and when that spiel got them nowhere, we rather quickly progressed to the "science is just another faith" genre. (Now that I think about it, that does seem to denigrate "faith" — and I thought that was my job.) Once I left for college, it all became Somebody Else's Problem, for the most part, but a few years later, Wikipedia and science blogs came around, which pulled me back into the "long argument" all over again.
You're singin' my song, Brian. I've gone through nearly this same experience and frustration. It does not seem to be getting better.
I understand what you're saying. I am more creationist leaning myself but I know how people can be. People of both sides say the same things about one another. Creationism is definitely on the losing side of things politically speaking, as every major university favors evolution over creation. But I am still studying so I will see. Good post!
I think you mean "become discouraged" rather than "become disparaged." Overall, a very informative and interesting essay.
I've followed and participated in this debate for several years now, and that's a question I'm not sure I'll ever be able to answer. I'm not someone who believes that science will ever be able to disprove god, but I am an atheist and, I'd like to think, for good reasons. As you've noted in your article, people who fall for creationism don't usually care about the actual scientific evidence, although there is enough published nonsense out there that it is possible for honest people to be hoodwinked for a time. No, it isn't about evidence or reality, it's about people's strong desire to latch onto a consistent narrative, a comforting worldview.
Exactly. However, this would suggest that for the most part, science outreach and education will have little affect on creationists. As Mark Twain said, you can't reason a person out of what they weren't reasoned into. Personally, I believe that the answer must lie in challenging the rationales behind magical thinking and the belief that faith is a valid method of apprehending reality. I feel that only by addressing these root causes can substantial ground ever be gained against the anti-science creationist elements in our society, although this does tend make those with supernatural beliefs less inconsistent with reality uncomfortable as well.
Welcome to the Culture Wars.
I was pulled into the "debate" several years ago by a friend who asked me what I thought of evolution. Turns out she wanted me to explain it to her -- but "I don't want to be convinced" she assured me.
This was someone who had studied nursing in college, so I was dumbfounded that she was questioning evolution. (Actually, denying it.) I was so wigged out by the encounter, I began to worry that I had traveled through the looking glass. I went to several friends I knew to be religious and asked them what they thought and was relieved to find I was not surrounded by ... how shall I say it ... nut jobs.
Since then I have been almost obsessed with this discussion. It's fascinating in sort of a perverse way. Instead of watching some Hollywood pop tart self destruct, we share gossip about the undoing of Expelled. At least the obsession has gotten me more interested in and educated about biology and science in general.
Good for you, Brian! I'm glad you had the courage to present evolution despite the "controversy." If more people would stop knuckling under to creationists and deluded parents, science education might have a chance of actually teaching science.
Daniel, I hope your studies help you understand the nature of the debate. Evolution isn't in universities and schools because it's winning politically. It's "favored" over Intelligent Design for the same reason that chemistry is "favored" over alchemy and astronomy is "favored" over astrology. Evolution, chemistry and astronomy are science. Intelligent Design, alchemy and astrology are not. It's that simple.
It continues to fascinate me that something so simple seems so impossible for people to comprehend.
I think that part of the problem is that creationists tend not to be that interested in biology or paleontology as subjects unto themselves. To them modern scientific theories related to these subject are just ideological irritants that interfere with their theology. They don't read about evolution because that's a lot of work for something that deep down they aren't aren't interested in. ID is great, it sounds scientific enough that they can think of it as science and it takes very little time to master its arguments.
Keep up the good work, and don't back down. Excellent post BTW - I always find it interesting to understand how someone becomes active in this long battle.
Very insightful. I'm often tempted to write about the subject myself, but other people do a much better job than I ever could. Good for you, teaching about those whales anyway! I've only encountered problems with teaching evolution once, and that was with some very rude young children who were obviously just parroting what their parents had drilled into them.
Have you ever considered writing for the Talk Origins Archive? There are quite a few dinosaur and fossil articles on there, and the Talk.Origins newsgroup, which is where most of the material in the Archive comes from, is very active. (You've probably heard about this already, but if you're not writing for them, you should be!)
This is the key issue. Are you dealing with someone who has genuine curiosity and a desire to learn or are you dealing with someone who has fantasies of destroying the scientific establishment like Samson tearing down the temple?
Are you dealing with someone who wants to incorporate verifiable truth into their worldview or not?
Because if someone says, "I can feel the truth in here," (thumps chest), than you should just switch the discussion over to movies or cookie recipes or something. You ain't ever gonna budge the stupid. (Not to say that such people are more stupid than the rest of us; I've got plenty stupid myself. It's just that their stupid blocks legitimate discourse on this particular subject.)
There are a few responses that I've been known to use just to blow off steam on the way out of the discussion. Only for use with those who can take it. Not intended to be applied in Grandma-related situations.
"No, we didn't come from apes. We are apes. Get back to me after you've looked at some skeletons, Chimchim."
"If you don't even know what the word theory means you don't get to talk about this. It's like the roller coaster. You have to know this much to get on this ride."
and
"And I can't believe you buy into that Easter Bunny bull****. Grab me a beer, will you?"
I'd always been aware of creationism, but it was only in recent years that I came to understand that it wasn't just a reactionary minority that clung to it, but rather that the majority of Americans either believed it, or were too ignorant to have an opinion. It's depressing.
Your story is similar to my own. I didn't grow up in an actively religious family and though I understood the concept of evolution, I was hardly well versed in it. I accepted it as it simply made sense and thought that was the norm for the country. I grew up sheltered I guess, even though my parents are somewhat religious (and surprised to discover I was an atheist, though it wasn't a big deal, thankfully) as I really had no idea America was so religious in general and creationism was so prominent specifically. Seriously, when I discovered Laelaps (then on wordpress), Panda's Thumb, and Scienceblogs, my eyes were really opened. The more I read, the more I was shocked by what so many people ignorant of science believed. Since then I've learned a lot more about evolution and rekindled my enthusiasm for science in general. I also actively try to educate people on evolution when the opportunities present themselves. Anyway, keep up the excellent work. This is a blog I regularly refer to when trying to enlighten folks. You write very clearly. Keep it up and I'm looking forward to that book.
I've been interested and involved in the subject since the 1980s, first in a small way (the occasional Letter to the Editor) and then increasingly (a decade on talk.origins, with a number of articles, and now my blog) and the ignorance among creationists remains unabated. However, the game isn't decided there, I think. The important demographic lies between the creationists on one side and scientists and the science literate on the other. There have been some inroads in that segment of the population. For example, just three or four years ago, during the run-up to the Kitzmiller case, the news media, for the most part, treated ID as a legitimate idea overall and as arguably scientific. The treatment of Expelled, however, has been much different with many more media types recognizing it for what it is ... creationism in a cheap tuxedo ... and saying so.
There's a long way to go but we've come some good distance too.
Your not alone, Brian. I began teaching high school biology a few years ago and was shocked by the seemingly ridiculous ideas from students and their creationist parents. This forced me to invest many hours educating myself on the creationist/ID literature so I could give appropriate responses to students questions. I find myself not opening my evolution lectures to much open discussion since it can quickly degrade to an open debate. Overall, I think I have had some success as I do get positive comments from some students and parents. My frustration; however, is the amount of time I have had to invest into countering the creationist/ID claims. As I also teach at the local community college, my time is important and could have been spent on other relevant activities.
I grew up in a very Christian family and my father openly questioned evolution, but I took an independent interest in life sciences at a young age and just ignored ignorant comments. Fortunately, this was in the 70s, before the subject was aggressively politicized, and my parents encouraged my interests. My first encounter with explicit anti-evolution attitudes was from one of my best friends, whose family was Mormon, at around age 11. I once mentioned something to do with the fossil record to illustrate some point and he said, "What?! You believe we came from monkeys?!" It was so irrational and strange that I didn't know what to think and just kept talking as though he hadn't said what he said. That's pretty much the way I've dealt with it ever sense. Keep talking about valid, well-researched science, and don't let irrationality distract you too much, like you did by continuing with the subject of your talk. But I get depressed too sometimes about people's weirdness. The mental habit of putting belief before reality causes harm in so many areas.
It occurs to me that the appropriate response to this would have been, "No, I accept that we came from monkeys".
[pedant] "No, I know that Monkeys & Humans share the same ancestors".[/pedant]
I know that I may never convince anyone that creationism is without merit and that evolution provides a simple (yet intricate) explanation for the unity & diversity of life
Odds are you won't. As has been mentioned, creationists aren't interested in the science, just the threat evolution poses to their pet mythological creation story. Hence all the misrepresentations, dishonesty, deceptive tactics, quote mining, and mischaracterizations (and frequent character assassinations are thrown in too) that show up in their "arguments". These are acts of desperation in the face of evidence.
But don't worry. There are plenty of people like me, who were former conservative creationist Christians that changed our minds. I went to a Christian high school and college, firmly a YEC. But the biology course work in my fundy college started me questioning the evidence and arguments, as it was riddled with all the characteristics I mentioned previously. The dishonesty unsettled me immensely. Eventually, I rejected creationism as a fraud. The evidence was firmly and overwhelmingly on the side of the Theory of Evolution. The lack of intellectual integrity on the part of creationists was their own undoing, at least in regards to me and others I know.
You might want to go over to "Debunking Christianity" and get the stories of two of the contributors there; Evan (an MD and former YEC), and Shygetz (academic research biochemist). I think the upshot of their stories, like mine is that the rejection of creationism by a creationist revolves more around ethics, personal integrity, introspection, and willingness to endure the losses (family etc.) that come with intellectual honesty.
So don't be discouraged. We're out there. And even if they object to your arguments and evidence, some of them (like me) will come around, on our own, and cherish the beauty of evolution.
The political sides of the debate ARE disheartening, but its going to be tough for Darwinian evolution in the face of real science like that presented in " signature in the cell" by Stephen C meyer. ID is not biblical creationism, but valid science. This book shows how scientifically bankrupt most evolutionary theories have become. Forget about debunking Christianity. Lets find the origin of the information in DNA.
than their dogmatic behaviour and the misconduct of many supporters of global warming quite fast to correct measured temperatures for the more than legitimate critics.
Our company has 25 years experience in the most populous district of Istanbul, which offers BaÄcılara'da deserve quality transportation service.
I wish you continued success
Types of wire knitting, wire mesh fence, wire mesh concrete pole, decorative wire fence