Closed Minds

For many years I have pondered the question Why do so many persons openly oppose teaching scientific creationism in the public schools?

Would not their energy be better spent attacking real evils than in opposing creation concepts? Indeed, why attack something like creationism that doesn't hurt anybody? In view of the fact that there are hundreds of creationist scientists with Ph.D. degrees in the natural sciences, the assault against teaching creationism could be construed as nothing more than another example of the majority repressing the minority.

I've often wondered why evolutionists become so emotional, even unreasonable, in their efforts to force scientific creationism out of the public schools. They rarely allow public school educational material to contain any antievolution data that would cause the reader to doubt the adequacy of the evolution model. The only answer I've come up with is that many evolutionists have doubts about their own position! Doubts, not confidence, cause one to react emotionally against the possibility that a creationist view of both the living and non living world may be correct.

One would think that fully adjusted, convinced evolutionists would just smile and wonder how anyone could believe in "simple-minded" creation theories. Yet the emotionalism sometimes exhibited by evolutionists and their unkind words about creationists inevitably raise the question Is such behavior a defense mechanism to deal with basic uncertain ties regarding their beliefs? When we run short of ways to discredit a position, even the best of us resort to name-calling and generalizations.

How many evolutionists have care fully researched with an open mind the other side? Few that I know. But I have found that many of those who do this at least change their tone from contempt to respect. Sometimes they even switch sides!

Unfortunately, most science majors never hear the other side. Most State university libraries have very few, if any, antievolution or pro-Creation books. Of the dozen or so prestigious American universities I have visited, few had more than twenty-five books on creationism. But thousands of proevolution books lined their shelves. In the process of earning several degrees from secular universities, I have found, almost with out exception, that my professors mentioned creationism or even the arguments against evolution only for the purpose of ridiculing all nonevolutionary positions. Rarely did they clearly and cogently explain the problems of evolutionary theory, although many such problems are apparent in the scientific literature.

As a result, most students, even in Ph.D. programs, either are totally ignorant of the creationist position or are unaware that any competent scientist seriously holds a position other than evolution. One biologist even wrote to Science News magazine expressing amazement that certain scientists did not accept evolution. ¹ This biologist re quested that someone send him information about nonevolutionary positions to reduce his ignorance regarding alter native viewpoints. Obviously, on this issue our country's schools effectively indoctrinate only one side, In my opinion, such a situation is deplorable.

Fortunately, a number of forces are working against the current state of affairs. A number of well-researched articles that look at both sides are appearing in highly respected journals. For example, an article in the June, 1979, issue of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy² pointed out that it is unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause to teach evolution alone; scientific creationism must be taught together with evolution if either is taught. Another article by Wendell Bird, published in Yale Law Journal, discusses the creationist movement in general and the fact that a two-model approach is the only constitutional one for teaching theories of origins.³ In addition, a booklet that dis cusses many sound educational reasons for teaching both sides of the creationevolution controversy was published in 1979 by the Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.⁴ Because these publications are highly respected in their field, one may hope that the articles will, in time, have an impact on both public policy and actual school practice, and that public schools eventually will provide a more impartial treatment of origins. Creationists are asking for nothing more.

What is my position on the issue of origins? I could discuss my beliefs, but the only intellectually honest "scientific" position is "I don't know." I, personally, believe there is a tremendous amount of scientific support for creationism. But I know of no solid, scientific proof for any theory of origins.Telling students that scientists know life originated and developed by evolutionary processes is not honest, nor does it facilitate scientific progress, which depends on an honest assessment of our present position in order for us to do the research necessary for improvement and advancement.

Does our knowledge of the origin of life really rest ultimately on the statement "We don't know"? Well, proof is generally understood by scientists as empirical evidence that can be duplicated. For example, the experiments that were originally used to demonstrate or prove the law of gravity can be duplicated, checked, and authenticated. Since the scientists who have done so have repeatedly found that the law holds up to whatever test they carry out, they consider the law of gravity to be proven. Regarding origins, though, we are looking at something that happened at least thousands, and some claim billions, of years ago. The only way we can deter mine what happened eons ago is to look at the present state of the earth and try to reason (or interpolate) from what we find. We can attempt to duplicate in the laboratory what we think happened, but we still do not know whether what we are doing in the laboratory is what actually happened long ago. The past leaves certain traces, footprints, if you will; but these footprints must be studied and interpreted.

For this reason many scientists have pointed out that evolution is unproved and unprovable. They are not saying they do not believe in evolution; they are merely stating the difficulty in proving evolution according to the scientific method. Thus, there probably will always be—at least under the present order debates about the validity of almost every argument developed that cannot be demonstrated directly by replication.

This does not mean that many of these ideas cannot be supported beyond a fairly reasonable doubt; but it does mean that we should demonstrate a willingness to listen carefully to every side. It also means not coming to a conclusion before we have heard all the facts. Ideally, we should have enough respect for others to listen, while having sufficient confidence in our own convictions not to be unstable. Believing we are correct is one thing, but being so sure we are correct that we will not listen to the other side is one reason so many of us never grow beyond our first set of childish beliefs.

It is often said that religionists are dogmatic, narrow-minded, and have an amazing ability to block out dissonant information. There is abundant evidence that evolutionists equal the religionists' unenviable record. No doubt this dogmatism exists because both creationists and evolutionists are human, not be cause they opt for one theory of origins or the other.

Students should be trained to look at all sides, to not terminate the case before they have finished researching it, to not condemn (or accept) anything without careful consideration of all the data. The school system should be honest in fairly considering all of the information avail able. This is of extreme importance in view of the tremendous amount of dam age that has been caused (in the history of science as well in the history of religion) by uncritical acceptance of a set of beliefs—any set of beliefs—and a reluctance to reason, question, ponder, think, examine, doubt, and explore. To assume we know and then to build a science upon our assumptions and dogmatize it in the schools without allowing the structure to be questioned is pernicious.

In all communication, whether in the classroom, the pulpit, or elsewhere, let us be honest enough to distinguish clearly between what we know and what we believe. And let us be secure enough to consider viewpoints other than our own.