Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

Despite Overwhelming Evidence, Creationists Cling to Unreality

By Nathan Schneider, AlterNet. Posted July 31, 2008.


Battling creationists will not fix science education. Teaching science will.
Advertisement

The great Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once wrote -- or, rather, sighed -- that "creationism is an American institution."

As an institution, creationism has crossed social strata as easily as it crosses decades. Despite all that science and secularism can do to explain it away, the crusade against evolution -- the foundation of modern biology -- is as intransigent, and strangely modern in its anti-modernism, as ever. The actor-author-documentarian-presidential speechwriter Ben Stein, with his movie Expelled, has become only the latest in the long line of its media-savvy critics. Today, around half of all Americans prefer creationism, in some form, to the scientific consensus.

Few know this better than Lauri Lebo, author of The Devil in Dover: An Insider's Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America. When the trial over intelligent design theory in Dover, Pennsylvania, caught the attention of the world, Lebo was the lead local reporter covering the case. For her, the controversy was personal as well as professional; as the trial unfolded, she struggled to come to terms with the impending death of her Pentacostal father, desperate for assurance that he would see her in the creationist-only hereafter. In The Devil in Dover, Lebo combines the dramas of family and courtroom into an engrossing story, trading illusions of journalistic objectivity for hard-won personal truths.

An American Pastime

The Dover trial followed in the footsteps of its notorious predecessor, the famed Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. Like Dover, Dayton was a set-up, orchestrated by money and interests from far away. The ACLU backed Clarence Darrow, the great freethinking lawyer, against the towering populist politician William Jennings Bryan, who fought, literally, to his death -- he died, exhausted and disgraced, a week after the trial ended. All of it was immortalized by H.L. Mencken of the Baltimore Sun, one of the foremost journalists of his generation. Since then, evolution trials have become a kind of national pastime, with a big one occurring every few decades and smaller ones even more often than that: Arkansas in 1968, the Supreme Court in 1987, and Georgia in 2004, to name a few.

By 2004, members of Dover's school board began working with the Thomas More Law Center, an organization of conservative Christian lawyers ("the sword and shield for people of faith"), to insert alternatives to evolution in the high school biology curriculum. They were joined by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based group that formed following the 1987 Supreme Court decision against teaching "creation science" in public schools. It has aggressively promoted the theory of "intelligent design," seemingly an even more scientific creationism, which was specifically designed to slip past the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. When word got out about the school board's plans, the ACLU came to Dover looking to stop intelligent design in its tracks.

Dover held its own as courtroom theater. While on the stand, biologist and devout Catholic Ken Miller gave a slideshow that turned Judge John E. Jones III (and Lebo) into transfixed college kids. The defendant school board members bore witness to their Christian faith in the face of humiliation, disgrace, and finally, a lost election. Plaintiff Cyndi Sneath, despite having "no big degrees," pleaded against the indoctrination of her children. Richard Thompson, the lead lawyer from Thomas More, preached a fiery "revolution in evolution" to the press outside the courtroom, while nearly dozing off in court. As in 1925, there were really two trials going on: one carried out in a court of law, and one blasted around the world by camped-out news correspondents.

In 1925, the creationists won in court -- but lost in the papers and public opinion. In 2005, they lost both.

The Devil in Dover details the demise of the school board's case unforgivingly. Nearly from the start, Lebo insists, board members lied about their intentions for introducing intelligent design. Before the lawyers taught them more secular-sounding language, they spoke openly about creationism and Christianity at meetings. "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross," one challenged. "Won't somebody stand up for him?" Though these remarks were recorded by cameras and newspapers, the board members claimed to have never said them, in order to meet the legal requirement for "secular purpose."

Early on, seeing how the case would go, the Discovery Institute withdrew its support. The board members pressed on, intent on carrying out their religious duty against the demonic religion of Darwinism. Bearing witness in this way, even in hopeless causes, became a badge of merit; worldly defeat could still mean spiritual victory. In her tender portraits, Lebo reveals how creationism fits into the fabric of faith in these men's lives -- the same faith that carries them through personal illness and the "war on terror." After 9/11, Dover parents petitioned to bring back prayer in schools, and six months later, a mural in the high school depicting evolution was destroyed by a janitor. Clearly, the heart of the matter is about more than scientific doctrines. In court, the board members couldn't even summarize the central claims of the intelligent design theory.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: supreme court, evolution, creationism, intelligent design, discovery institute, the devil in dover, thomas more law center, clarence darrow

Nathan Schneider lives in New York City and writes about religion. He blogs at The Row Boat.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Creationists are part of the primordial soup
Posted by: Richard House on Jul 31, 2008 12:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One problem with Creationists is that when they are “exploring the scientific possibility that God had a hand in making us” they don’t use scientific methodology to show how that was supposed to happen. Yet, oddly, they rely on scientific terms and methodology to discredit evolutionary science. They say you can’t “prove” God doesn’t exist. And, of course, this is true because any scientist will be unable to disprove God does not exist. But when you ask the Creationist for proof for the existence of God this logic is conveniently thrown out the window. As Richard Dawkins says, the scientific world is incompatible with supernaturalism.”

All most atheists are saying is that there just isn’t any proof for it and I’m sure they would be gratified if there were. Creationists/Intelligent Design supporters also say Darwinian evolution is all about randomness and chance when it is the very opposite; which shows they don’t understand evolution or have decided to ignore it. Like the author says, we need to get past this funny business and concern ourselves with educating a modern work-force who will be able to compete in the global economy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

religion. stupid.
Posted by: soulrebeljc on Jul 31, 2008 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that is all

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: religion. stupid. Posted by: donl51
How abysmal?
Posted by: UnionMac on Jul 31, 2008 3:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Schneider states:

Despite its theatrical appeal, battling creationists will not fix science education. Teaching science will -- with high standards, qualified teachers, and access to lab equipment. If it is necessary to point out how abysmally American students fare compared to those in other countries, so be it.

My question is, Just how abysmal is the current state of scientific knowledge, or lack thereof, of American students in comparison to students of other countries? It would have been helpful if Schneider had provided background for this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How abysmal? Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: How abysmal? Posted by: NathanSchneider
Long Live
Posted by: paulaH on Jul 31, 2008 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Those who have never heard of Pastafaria should look it up on Wikapedia. Very interesting and very amusing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Long Live Posted by: NathanSchneider
» RE: Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? Posted by: Outsidetheboxlookingin
Too bad creationism further stifles scientific creativities of innovations and inventions.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 31, 2008 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's bad enough that for the past 3 decades, science has been privatized. Any new scientific discovery that is perceived as a "threat" against corporate interests even if it is actually a potentially tremendous benefit to society will be red taped with phoney "patents" and/or frivolous lawsuits and we all know which side most courts will favor these days. I guess that's not enough for the religious fundies, is it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Gosh, you're right Posted by: improperly_sedated
» The new ''DARK AGE'' Posted by: donl51
Like nearly every campaign issue, McCain flip-flopped on intelligent design
Posted by: HughScott on Jul 31, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following was extracted from an article posted by Media Matters on Monday, Oct 30, 2006.

In 2000, McCain declared that the teaching of "intelligent design" was a matter for local school boards to decide, in contrast to then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush's position that creationism should be taught in classrooms.

As the New York Times reported on August 3, 2005, however, McCain expressed more openness to the idea of intelligent design that year, saying that "different schools of thought" about the origins of mankind should be presented to students. The later statement mirrored what President Bush had said just three weeks earlier, when he defended the teaching of intelligent design by saying, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."


This year, in another New York Times interview, Flip-Flop McCain again punted on the intelligent design issue:

Q: How do you feel about teaching evolution [and intelligent design] in schools?

McCain: I think, first of all, it's up to the school boards. That's why we have local control over education. So my personal view is that children should be exposed to as much as they possibly can so that they can make their decisions and be the best informed. But I really believe that school boards are elected in order to make a lot of those decisions, and I respect their decisions unless they are unconstitutional in some way or, you know.

Q: If you were on a school board, how would you vote?

McCain: I don't know. I'd have to see the proposal, I'd have to see where it lies in the curriculum, I'd have to - I can't. I'm not running for school board.


I have listed other McCain flip-flops on my new nonprofit Web site: www.UnfitMcCain.com

The home page banner says, "Five reasons why you should not vote for Sen. McCain in 2008."

The last reason -- McCain distorted his POW record and exploited it for political gain -- summarizes my investigation of "Songbird" McCain's behavior as a POW during the Vietnam War and shows that he acted dishonorably. Part of the information is based on my recent communications with a former POW.

If you agree with my findings and love America, please tell your friends and family about UnfitMcCain.com.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam veteran, lifelong registered Republican and former McCain supporter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Grow up already Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» Hugh using Bush's tactics... Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Once again, C-B, Posted by: donl51
» Were you a hall monitor in high school? Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» Is that why you have been ignoring me? Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» You're correct max ! Posted by: donl51
» Is it really? Posted by: Illiteratilumen
If you want to battle creationists, you need to debate theology
Posted by: Jasonix on Jul 31, 2008 5:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Creationists insist that everything was "made" and "designed" by God in a precise, piece-by-piece fashion because that's the way that humans go about building things. We often improve on other people's work, but since God is perfect, he presumably does not need to do this, and gets it all right the first time. Creationists are fighting for their underlying, unstated belief - that God is essentially human in the way he thinks and operates, and that our minds are attuned to understanding God's ways in an intuitive, natural fashion. Human beings need to believe that their intuition is a reliable source of truth. People become deeply afraid when faced with the fact that the way they naturally think can lead them astray.

When you debate a Creationist, it's pointless to debate things like the existence of God or the technical details of evolutionary theory. Their minds are closed against any counter-arguments you have. You need to take the debate straight to its core - the fact that Creationists are presuming to say what God is like, and that they understand how God works. That is a bold, arrogant claim, and one that comes very close to being "idolatry" in the sense that the Creationists are making God in their own image.

When one debates a Creationist, one should aggressively assert that the Creationists are presuming to know what no human being can know. Their own scripture says of God that "my ways are above your ways, my thoughts above your thoughts...as high as the sky is above the earth, so are my ways above your ways." The New Testament later concurs when its says that "we speak with human terms...because of your human limitations," and that "we see through a glass darkly." Whatever the Bible means when it says God "made" the earth in "six days," we cannot be sure - it's God who "makes" in God's "days." What these mean, we can only guess. Those who presume to know such things are arrogant.

Creationists are making God in their own image rather than acknowledging that God is a mystery beyond their comprehension and definition. Those who debate creationists should go straight to the heart of the matter - the creationists attempt to put God in a box.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» in our own image Posted by: susanh
Creationists and socialists are true believers, impervious to rational arguments
Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist on Jul 31, 2008 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
followers of creationism and Marxism share many of the same views. They are impervious to rational argument. Have absolute faith and are very inclined to conspiracy theories.

They find that a minor flaw in the opponents theory is cause enough to disprove the whole set of theories. They believe that even if their own theory cannot be proved to work, it is still correct.

The idea of hardline creationism as well as hard line communism is as absurd. Intelligent design and socialism is less obvious.

But both in the battle between ID and evolutionism and socialism and market economy evolutionism and market economy is winning by leaps and bounds. However the true believers just keep getting more fanatic. You have only to watch the ravings of Chavez to understand the quality of thought and argument or for that matter the likes of Reverend Phelps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Writer of the Article Needs Course in Civics
Posted by: monkeyrocketsurgeon on Jul 31, 2008 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some strange conclusions drawn in the article:

"pro-evolution science establishment" (um... could anyone find a more vague attempt at a noun? fact is there is no "establishment" with an agenda, that is discounting the "constitution of the USA" and the court system that backs it up. The ACLU takes up the cases simply because the facts dictate that laws are violated.)

"Together they are a recipe for endlessness." "I don't know where the common ground is." and "The note Lebo ends on, for good reason, is impassioned stalemate." (no, the debate has always ended with a court's decision in favor of the constitution separating the state from religion).

Just because one group opposing law, is loud and obnoxious, continually and passionately making noise, doesn't mean that the issue will have any other end... that is unless you consider the reality that tides turn and laws are subject to changes by congress (after all the constitution states plainly that "the income of the people will not be taxed"... until you get down to an amendment.)

with that in mind here are some considerations:

award winning teacher researches public school creation and determines the industrial heads designed it to thwart drive and free thinking (they needed assembly line workers). (search: John Taylor Gatto)

no child left behind directly effects the teaching of critical thinking, science and the arts. (america needs low information workers). (search: no child left behind effects on science)

republican national committee directly employs churches and religious organizations to control politics and affect public discourse (america needs ignorant workers). (search: republican evangelicals funding delay rove)

kansas (like so many americans) continue to vote against their best interests (the efforts above are working) (read: 'what's the matter with kansas' by Thomas Frank).

This progressive site has an article that has conclusions void of civics 101. (i'm beginning to worry).

PLEASE GET OUT AND VOTE in November!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it really worth the fight?
Posted by: LMNOP on Jul 31, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How pathetic America is. This late in the evolution of scientific knowledge, much of America, about half according to this author, still clings tenaciously to fairy tales as the rest of the developed world moves ahead.

Find a civilized patch of the world with a decent culture and begin there anew. Leave the superstitions to enjoy the fruits of its cherished theocratic state. I can smell the witches burning already. Why continually expend so much energy in an endless and fruitless effort to keep out of your courtrooms and your child's classroom?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is it really worth the fight? Posted by: pdxlinuxchix
» I agree Posted by: LMNOP
Hard Times for Real Christians...
Posted by: Godfather89 on Jul 31, 2008 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is unfortunate that most of these Christians are obsessed with trying to find "physical" signs of God. These Christians cannot admit that that Their Religious texts are not literal truth but rather stories - myths - that hold truths that go beyond the need to prove for some physical existence.

Because, of this tom-foolery propagated by these so-called "Christians," I as well as other Christians I have met are going deeper to understand Christ, God, and where the Divine belongs in the world.

I can assure you though that in my travels of trying to piece together where God is in the world, I can assure you that it has to do more so with psychology and other fields that deal with the improvement of self than with geology and biology.

These Creationist Christians seem more so to do with the literal interpretation of religious texts as well as Right-Wing Christian Fundamentalism in America. To me these types of "Christians" are those who borrowed the name at interest and not bothered to improve themselves, let alone get closer to what God really is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hard Times for Real Christians... Posted by: monkeyrocketsurgeon
» Thank you. Exactly ! Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Thank you. Exactly ! Posted by: Godfather89
Why is the liberal blogosphere filled with Darwin dummies?
Posted by: nemonemini on Jul 31, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While holding no brief for creationists, the fact remains that the Dover trial was a triumph of Darwin propaganda against the bungling of the creationists. Let us grant the questions of church and state and the inevitability of the ruling on constitutional grounds. But the fact remains that Darwinism is flawed and violent pseudo-theory serving the ideology of powerful establishments and the parents of many children are sick of it being promoted as 'science', especially in the legal system. The judge at the trial did a lot of playing to the gallery and in the commotion a simple point was lost: a team of quibling lawyers such as we saw could just as well expose the flaws in Darwinian selectionist theory, twice before breakfast, but instead were given the chance to throw the whole weight of ridicule onto the creationists. We deserve to have 'Darwin on Trial' and didn't get it.
The liberal blogosphere has been brainwashed here and a little of investigative journalism might help on this issue, to expose the falseness of the Darwinian paradigm domination. Forget the creationists for a moment, and set the house of science in order.
From Darwiniana

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Social Darwinism Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Social Darwinism Posted by: Dboy
Why is the liberal blogosphere filled with Darwin dummies?
Posted by: nemonemini on Jul 31, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While holding no brief for creationists, the fact remains that the Dover trial was a triumph of Darwin propaganda against the bungling of the creationists. Let us grant the questions of church and state and the inevitability of the ruling on constitutional grounds. But the fact remains that Darwinism is flawed and violent pseudo-theory serving the ideology of powerful establishments and the parents of many children are sick of it being promoted as 'science', especially in the legal system. The judge at the trial did a lot of playing to the gallery and in the commotion a simple point was lost: a team of quibling lawyers such as we saw could just as well expose the flaws in Darwinian selectionist theory, twice before breakfast, but instead were given the chance to throw the whole weight of ridicule onto the creationists. We deserve to have 'Darwin on Trial' and didn't get it.
The liberal blogosphere has been brainwashed here and a little of investigative journalism might help on this issue, to expose the falseness of the Darwinian paradigm domination. Forget the creationists for a moment, and set the house of science in order.
From Darwiniana

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America needs dumb citizens to sell them propaganda on "WMD", "Islamofascists"
Posted by: PakiBoy on Jul 31, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it any wonder that America imports foreigners to fill graduate schools and run the high-tech and life sciences R&D?

Bill Gates recently claimed that the top 60% of students (graduate schools) in America are foreigners and that US must ease up the immigration rules so that the high-tech and the life science based companies don't have to outsource the work.

To quote your dumb President: Stay the course morons!

ID/creationism is nothing but a way to keep the citizenry dumb and ignorant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 10,000 Year Old Hypocrisy
Posted by: loxias on Jul 31, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many anti-science creationists does it take to use a computer to convert analog information to digital form, in order to transmit this data from one location to another at nearly the speed of light? Just one. Using all that science they deny. Then they get in their car, and drive on highways, using LED's, and cell phones, and traffic lights, and gauges, and the conversion of liquid fuel to energy, so that they can use motored-machines to walk on while they bask in the glow of moving images broadcast from boxes of wires. If they have a heart-attack from eating too much irradiated, genetically-modified food-like compounds, they are rushed by an tech-laden emergency vehicle to a building stocked with more technological devices than the space shuttle in order that they may see another day to deny science. Talk about blessed thou art (in your criminal ignorance.) If this were a rational world, all those that denied rational thinking would be denied the use of the results of rational thinking. Wonder how many Christians adore their little Labradoodle. When they say the meek will inherit the earth, they mean the people who were inside studying while the devout were buying guns and burning books.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The 10,000 Year Old Hypocrisy Posted by: SolitonMan
Intelligent Design IS theology (and not science), but...
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 31, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Evolution is mostly speculation. The physical evidence from the past is fragmentary; of the one billion species believed to have existed, 99 percent did not leave fossils.

In the deliberate breeding of species, there are limits to the changes one can make. When pushed beyond a limit, species become sterile and die out or revert to their standard design. We can induce changes in existing forms via breeding, but cannot generate new complex structures.

If this cannot happen by man's conscious efforts, why should it happen by blind natural processes? No satisfactory evolutionary models have ever been made.

Darwin's theory is being demolished. Michael Cremo & Richard Thompson's Forbidden Archaeology (1993) is a step in that direction. This controversial book shocked the scientific community and became an underground classic.

The book's premise is that evolutionary prejudices held by powerful groups of scientists act as a "knowledge filter" which has eliminated evidence challenging accepted views, and left us with a radically altered understanding of human origins and antiquity.

Forbidden Archaeology shocked the scientific world with its evidence for extreme human antiquity. It documented hundreds of anomalies in the archaeological record that contradicted the prevailing theory and showed how this massive amount of evidence was systematically "filtered" out. This is how mainstream science reacts (almost like a religion) to any challenge to its deeply held beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]