The
Evolution of Creationism
Creationism is evolving. Several new varieties of creationism have
appeared recently and are competing to stake out a niche in the
intellectual landscape. Someone who last looked in on the creationism
debate in the 1980s would today still find much that is familiar
but would also be struck by the significant changes the controversy
has undergone. For instance, while the vast majority of creationists,
the "young-earth" groups, still hold fast to the idea that
God created the world and all its creatures some six to ten thousand
years ago, some have returned to an earlier interpretation of the
"days" of Genesis as ages, and these "old-earth" creationists
are willing to accept the geological chronology, though they still
reject evolution. Such theological differences among creationists
about just what counts as a "plain reading" of the Bible have
led to significant factional divisions within their ranks.
What may be the most significant recent development in the conceptual
evolution of creationism is a powerful movement that is  gaining
strength and is beginning to take the lead in the battles against
evolution in the field. This is the group of creationists that advocates
"theistic science" and promotes what they call "intelligent-design
theory." Creationism-watchers have called the advance guard of intelligent-design
creationism (IDC) the "upper tier" of creationists because,
unlike their earlier counterparts, they carry advanced degrees from
major institutions, often hold positions in higher education, and
are typically more knowledgeable, more articulate, and far more
savvy. The most influential new creationist and unofficial general
of this elite force is Phillip Johnson, of the University of California
at Berkeley. Johnson is neither a scientist nor a philosopher nor
a theologian, but is a professor of criminal law at Berkeley Law
School. Johnson burst onto the field of battle in 1991 with the
publication of his book Darwin on Trial, which he has followed up
with more books and a barrage of articles.
In most of his writings and speeches, Johnson tries to avoid making
specific commitments on the points of contention that divide the
main creationist camps. This is one of the identifying characteristics
of intelligent-design creationists (IDCs). Although IDCs include
both old- and young-earthers, in their writings one never sees anything
about the Great Flood, and the issue of Noah's Ark is avoided like
the plague. As far as possible, they shun even mentioning
the Book of Genesis or its interpretation. Usually, one has to look
carefully to find a veiled reference, let alone a forthright statement,
that indicates a specific stand on the age of the earth. Their plan
is to unite the different camps under a generic banner and keep
these factional issues out of sight until the main battle is won.
In their activism involving the public schools, all creationists
are working toward the same end-destroying evolution-and here too
their strategies of attack have evolved. Having been repeatedly
defeated in their attempts to get major creationist legislation
to stick, they have turned their attention to more local activism.
In 1997, I attended a public hearing held by the Texas State Board
of Education on their proposed curriculum standards for the state
schools, and I listened in amazement as creationists stood in turn
to testify against  inclusion
of evolutionary terminology in the science curriculum. They claimed
that biologists were abandoning the theory and that, in any case,
it was "not that important in biology" and so students should
not waste their time on it. If evolution had to be included, then
at least teachers should be instructed to present the scientific
evidence against it as well.
Religious conservatives on the board spoke in strong support of
these proposals and urged that evolutionary concepts be omitted
or put in "neutral language." Another proposal they recommended
was to include discussion of "alternative theories" such as
"design." This same scenario is played out in public hearings
around the country and, with too few scientists taking creationism
seriously enough to pay close attention, state boards of education
have often compromised or given in to creationists' demands. In
Alabama and recently Kansas, the proposed curriculum was amended
to water down statements on evolution, while other states have included
evolution "disclaimers." Furthermore, across the country, communities
from Vista, California, to Plano, Texas, to Merrimack, New Hampshire,
have discovered that they have inadvertently elected creationist
"stealth candidates" to their local school board who then work
to modify the science curriculum in such ways. |
