Ben Cartwright April 28, 2001
Creationists are masters at redefining terms to suit them, and the issue of teaching creationism in schools is no different. Whenever a Bible-believing Christian is �witnessing� to someone, he will typically tell them that God is �just,� �good,� �loving,� and other nice things. What this unsuspecting person doesn�t realize is that he shouldn�t take those terms to mean �just,� �good,� or �loving,� since the God of the Bible does not exhibit these qualities. When pressed, a Christian will say, �Well, we just don�t understand justice. God�s idea of �justice� is so much higher and better than ours.� Of course, this means it was pointless for this Christian to ever tell someone else that God is these things, since the person hearing this would obviously apply the common definition of the terms, and would never suspect that they can�t be taken at face value. In doing this, the Bible-believing Christian has effectively protected himself on every side. He can use these words in their commonly accepted understandings when trying to convince someone to become a Christian� but when questioned as to why the Bible contains so many instances in which God does not exhibit these qualities, he can say, �Well we can�t use our commonly accepted understandings of these terms when we are discussing the God of the universe,� or some other such sidestepping technique.
The pressure from right-wing groups to put the teaching of creationism in schools is similar, in that key words are redefined and used in such a way as to confuse the listeners into submission. One of the ways this is accomplished is by the introduction of the word �evolutionist.� This is a subtle tactic, but when one really considers the matter, there is no such thing as an �evolutionist.� It would be like calling someone a �heliocentrist� for believing in a Sun-centered solar system or a �Newtonist� for trusting calculus to accurately predict where a falling object would land. People know evolution to be true for the same reasons that they know these other things to be true�science has proven it. The reason the word �evolutionist� was invented was to be the opposing side to the �creationist� viewpoint. Once this word has become a part of the mainstream culture, the ordinary person is duped into thinking that �evolutionists� and �creationists� hold two sides of the same issue, and that there is as much reason to believe one as there is the other. One phrase creationists are fond of uttering is, �It takes more faith to believe evolution than it does to believe in creation.� By saying this, they introduce another key idea�evolution is just a belief system which is, like Christianity, based on faith and not on evidence.
What creationists would like us all to believe is that creationism is proven on the same grounds that evolution is, and that neither can really be proven at all, and must be believed by faith. If they can convince us of this, it is not a far jump to introduce the teaching of creationism into schools, since it is put on equal footing with evolution.
Now, anyone with even a slight bit of science in his background knows that in science, a hypothesis is formed, data is gathered, the data is compared to what the hypothesis predicted, and where it doesn�t match, the hypothesis must be modified. This type of thinking is responsible for all our modern technology, including the computer you now use to read these words. The problem with creationism is that it begins with the idea that the Bible is perfect and infallible, even (perhaps �especially�) in the area of science. Since this is believed from the start and not as a result of evidence, any data which contradicts the foregone conclusion that the Bible is perfect must be thrown out or interpreted in a strange way. For an excellent example of this, see all the wild theories thrown out for why light from stars is �apparently� millions of years old. The average person who sets out to discover how old stars are will perform calculations, and then accept whatever the evidence indicates. But someone who already believes the light couldn�t possibly be more than 10,000 years old will see that same evidence, but instead of accepting it at face value, will say, �Hmmm� we already know that these stars can�t be more than 10,000 years old. So how can we find a way to make these calculations match our already decided-upon conclusion?� The problem with this is that it simply isn�t science. In science, you aren�t allowed to already have your conclusion before you begin testing. Sure, you can have a hypothesis, but you�d better be ready to modify it or throw it out altogether if the evidence dictates that your hypothesis was wrong. The problem with creationism is that it assumes it can�t be wrong, so any modification or (God forbid!) throwing out altogether is out of the question.
Now let�s get to the thrust of my argument: why the teaching of creationism in schools violates the Constitution. We have all heard the phrase �the separation of church and state,� and even though it is often misunderstood, the idea behind it is very good. The Establishment Clause says that �Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I have heard many Christians berate this clause on the grounds that �Our country was founded on the gospel of Jesus Christ,� but it is crucially important that government not sanction religion. I imagine most Christians would object to the Koran being taught in schools as scientific fact, and they would be right to do so. Religion is an affair of the heart, and should not be sponsored by government agencies. When it is, such as in the time of Constantine, religion becomes something which is forced upon people, rather than something they choose to follow because of inner motivations.
What some Bible-believing Christians have done is sufficiently blur the lines between what is science and what isn�t to the point that most people really can�t tell the difference anymore. They give certain examples of �holes in the evolutionary theory� and feel that this somehow lends more credence to creationism (most of these �holes� are easily explained by a scientist, but the explanation is often so tedious that the creationists� simplified straw man version is still the one which makes more sense to the layman). Creationists play on the scientific illiteracy of most Americans, and dig in on commonly misunderstood concepts like the �missing link� or polystrate fossils.
What I mean to say in this article is simply this: there really isn�t a need to label anyone an �evolutionist� any more than there is a need to label someone a �round earth-ist.� Evolution is not a �belief system� any more than the idea of a round earth or a Sun-centered solar system is. Science has proven that evolution is the way that gene pools have changed, do change, and will continue to change. It is a fact. When creationists label people as �evolutionists,� it only clouds the issue. Like it or not, creationism is a direct extension of a certain version of Christianity which believes (by faith) that the earth is very young, and that species did not come about by the process of evolution. The reason they believe this is that their religious book�the Bible�tells them so. They have formed an entire community of �scientists� who already believe that the Bible is a perfect science manual, and will find a way to reject any evidence (even the massive evidence for evolution) to the contrary. They are crafty in their approach. They realize that since the Establishment Clause exists and prevents the government from supporting one certain religion, they must create the false notion that creationism is only peripherally related to a religion, and that the reason it should be accepted is because it is scientifically valid. But the fact is, creationism isn�t good science. And for it to be taught in schools is a clear violation of the Constitution.
Forget, for a moment, the fact that this form of Christianity is well-known for propagating all sorts of intolerance and hatred, from the belief that homosexuality is an abomination to the idea that everyone except Christians has to burn eternally when they die. The issue is that when creationism is taught in schools, a specific religion is supported and funded by the government. To me, no amount of calling people �evolutionists,� talking about how evolution is �believed by faith,� or explaining why the light from stars seems so old will ever change the central issue, which is that to teach creationism in schools is to support a specific religion, and to forever blind our children to good science.
Think for yourselves! Don�t let a creationist cloud the relevant issues to the point that you, too, become convinced that creationism is on equal footing with real science. If you do, it won�t be long before all our kids are humming �Jesus Loves Me� while they attempt to learn science from antiquated religious literature.
Go to the message board!
