a

 

 

-- THE OTHER PRESS

“Battle of the universe

In March of 1981, the legislature of
the State of Arkansas passed a bill
requiring that biology teachers in the
state_give ‘‘balanced treatment’’_in

by MICHAEL RUSE
UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH

 

‘their classes, both to evolutionary
ideas and to a subject called ‘’Creation
science.’’ We all know what evolution
is. Following Charles Darwins’s great
work, On the Origin of Species, first
published in 1859, it is argued that
organisms, past and present, are
descended front-one or a few simple
forms, by a process of slow change and
development. Although Darwin him-
self did not have absolute figures, it is
now believed that this Earth of ours is
over 4% billion years old, and that life
has been here for at least three-quar-
ters of that span.

Creation science may be less well-
known, for it is not something which
appears in orthodox science textbooks.
Helpfully, however, the Arkansas bill
spelt out its contents in some detail.
‘Creation science means the scientific
evidences for creation and inferences

| from those evidences. Creation science

includes the scientific evidences and
related inferences that indicate:
1. Sudden creation of the universe,
energy and life from nothing.
2. The insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection in bringing about
~ development of all living kinds from a
single organism.
3. Changes only within fixed limits of
originally created ‘’kinds’’ of plants
and animals.
4. Separate ancestry for man and
apes.
5. Explanation of the earth’s geology
by catastrophism, including the oc-
currence of a worldwide flood.
6. A relatively recent inception of the
earth and living kinds.’’

No one spoke out against the bill,
and so, after only ten minutes debate,
it was passed. The Governor signed

the bill into law, without first bother-

ing to read it.
In the United States, one may not
teach religion in  state-supported

schools. Such a practise is barred by
the U.S. Constitution’s First Amend-
ment separation of church and state.
In the eyes of many, within and
without Arkansas, Creation science is
nothing but Genesis by another name.
Therefore, those who felt this way
decided to challenge the Creation

law’s constitutionality, and to this end
the aid of the American Civil Liberties
Union was sought.

The ACLU is no stranger to pro-
Creation/anti-evolution laws. It was
this organization which backed John T.
Scopes -in the 1920’s in Dayton
Tennessee, when he was prosecuted
for teaching evolution. Eagerly rising
to the call, the ACLU took on the case,
and began at once to search for expert
witnesses who could testify in court
(the trial was to be in Federal Court,
before a judge) as to the true nature of
Creation science. Obviously, what the
ACLU needed were theologians and
scientists who could tell the Court
about the nature of religion, about the
nature of science, and about why
Creation science is religion and not
science. This was where | came in, for
the ACLU team decided that, between
the theologians and the scientists, it
needed someone with philosophical
and historical expertise, to talk at a
theoretical level about evolutionary
biology, its history, and the threats.
under which it stands today.

In fact, | have never taken a biology
course in my life; a point that the
Arkansas lawyers were to dwell on at
some length! However, | have written
extensively on biological theories,
analysing their structures and looking
at their pasts. Moreover, | have just
completed a work, Darwinism De-
fended: A Guide to the Evolution
Controversies (1982a) which looks in
some detail at the claims made by the
Creationists. In short, it was almost as
if | had spent my whole academic life
preparing to take on the Arkansas law.
For this reason, | was asked to serve as
an expert witness by the ACLU. |
happily accepted the call, and hence,
at the beginning of December, when
the case came to trial, | headed south
for Little Rock, Arkansas. Telling us
something about ourselves, | found
that Canadian newspeople had the
utmost difficulty accepting that some-
one trom Ontario might have a
contribution to make. Surely there
must be some mistake? (Some Euro-
pean reporters had a simple solution.
They just said that Ontario is part of
the U.S.A.)

The trial lasted for ten days, with
the ACLU as plaintiffs (i.e. those who
objected to the law) going first.
Obviously, whatever the strict legal
situation may have been, evolution
was on trial just as much as Creation
science. Those who accept the latter do
so as much for negative reasons as

 

 

 

 

positive ones. They loathe evolution,
because they see it as ungodly, as
leading to atheistic materialism and to
the total collapse of morality. Setting
the scene, therefore, the ACLU were
keen to establish right from the start
that, in fact, science and religion
properly understood do not threaten
each other. Hence, the first witness
called was the Methodist bishop of
Arkansas, who said that he had
nothing against religion (!), but that he
did not want it taught in science
classes, pretending to be something
that it is not. Religion is about God,
man, and man’s relationship to God--
our moral obligations now and our
hopes for the hereafter. The teaching
of evolution is not, in itself, ungodly,
nor does it require an immediate
critical response by true believers.

Following the bishop came the
professional theologians, who traced
the history of American Fundamental-
ism (i.e. supporters of Biblical literal-
ism), and who pointed out the comp-
lete parallel between Creation science,
as defined in Act 590, and the story of
Creation given in the early chapters of
Genesis.

Then, on the second day, it was my
turn. In my testimony, before the
judge, the lawyers, and the press of
the world, | tried to establish two basic
points. | argued that it is certainly not
the case that the ideas contained in
Creation science are being arbitrarily
dismissed by scientists and educators.
By tracing the history of evolutionary
thought, |

sought by scientists from the sixteenth
to the nineteenth century. So hopeless
had the quest proven, that by the time
Charles Darwin published his Origin of
Species, in 1859, virtually no scientist
took Genesis literally. All could see
that the world is obviously of great
age: certainly much older than the
traditional 6,000 year time-span cal-
culated from genealogies given in
Genesis. Furthermore, no one could
find any evidence of a universal flood.

Second, turning from history to
philosophy, | gave an in-depth analysis
of Creation science--based on the
description of the Arkansas law and on
the voluminous literature that lies
behind--showing that Creation science
violates every criterion of what makes
something scientific. Science appeals
to law, that is to unbroken regularity.
Creation scientists are brazen in their
invocation of miracles. For instance,
pints of ink are split on the miraculous
causes of the Flood, and of the special
powers that God used to get all of the
animals into the Ark.

In short, Creation science is dogma-
tic religion, and | openly referred to
the tactics of Creation scientists as
“‘sleazy.’’ Nor would | modify this
claim on cross-examination.

Following me, came some of
America’s most distinguished scien-
tists. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard
gave a scintillating account of the
fossil record. Francisco J. Ayala of the
University of California told us of
experimental successes in producing
new species of organism; and G. Brent
Dalrympie, who led the team dating
moon rocks, gave a truly brilliant

 

showed that scientific .
evidence for Biblical ideas had been

  
    

 
  

WARRY-STOP THar
SLY EVOLVING
AND Come Home|

aie

 

  

disquisition of the ways in which
geologists date the Earth and its
contents. Listening to these men, one
sensed so strongly the power and the
beauty of science--science for its own
sake. We transcendour simian origins
through great ideas, whether these
ideas come in the arts or in the
sciences.

After moving testimony by local
school teachers, who pleaded that they
not be forced to teach the simplistic
notions of Creation science, the ACLU
case was complete. It all added up to a
powerful presentation. Nor was the
ACLU case at all damaged by the
performances of the witnesses for the
State of Arkansas. Opinion differs as
to who did most damage to the
Creationist case. Some thought it was
the first witness, a Baptist minister
with scientific pretensions. He candid-
ly confessed to a belief in flying
saucers, citing as support an article he
had read in the Readers Digest.
Others--including the judge, as it
turned out--thought the State’s most
damaging witness was N. C.
Wickramasinghe, a physicist from
Cardiff in Wales, who thinks that the
earth was seeded with life from
outer-space, by forces unknown. In-
credibly, on cross-examination,
Wickramasinghe calmly agreed with
the ACLU lawyer that no reasonable
person could possibly think the earth
less than a million years old, or the
prcduct of a monstrous flood!

Early in January, Judge William
Overton (1982) handed down his