Being careful about creationism

The recent uproar at the revelation that “10%” of Britons are creationists who deny the theory of evolution (according to the BBC), and the outrage following the suggestion by Michael Reiss, education director of the Royal Society and an ordained Church of England clergyman, that creationism be taught in British schools, has prompted much indignant and (secular) self righteous response. This can especially be found in the pages of the ‘high brow’ press, where proud rationalists and public intellectuals complain that science lacks the respect it deserves. They point to the terrible example of America, where something with no scientific basis can achieve equal status in science classrooms with what the scientific community regards as the only explanatory game in town. They warn that it could happen here.

And they right, it could happen here – but this attitude of righteous indignation and the lavishing of scorn upon the opposition is what paradoxically feeds the creationists’ strength. It is worth slowing down and reflecting before we continue on our merry course bashing away at the creationists. Likewise, it is worth making a serious effort to resist the temptation of overtly or implicitly dismissing them as brainwashed and backward bumpkins. For there is more at work here than a simple “science versus stories” contest – and to lose sight of the subtle dimensions in play by assuming that science must always trump stories risks inadvertently handing victories to the other side. If you are wondering what kind of victories, you could do worse than asking Sarah Palin.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a believer in evolution – after all I’m not a backward bumpkin who dares to resist the mighty rationalist conclusion of western empirical research and the scientific method. Not for me the bowing down and unquestioning acceptance of authority from above. At least, so I’d like to think. Yet it occurred to me the other day that perhaps I am not so different from a creationist after all, at least except for the fact that I believe humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor rather than being created ready-made 6,000 years ago by an old bloke with a white beard who sits on clouds waiting to judge us. Those last sentences might sound hopelessly self-contradictory, but bear with me.

If I ask myself why I believe in evolution, not creationism, if I am being totally honest I cannot reply that it is because I boldly follow the facts wherever they lead – and that the facts lead back way more than 6,000 years. This is because I am not an evolutionary biologist, not even a scientist. I’m a part-time political philosopher who watches too many old episodes of Have I Got News For You. The reason – at root – that I plumb for evolution over creationism stems from the fact that this is what my parents and school teachers told me was true when I was younger. For sure, I have supplemented this with a little reflection and concluded that the rudimentary theory of which I am aware makes enough sense. Gradual selection over immense periods of time based on suitability in terms of survival and reproduction in a given environment does explain how we might share a common ancestor. But have I studied the fossil record to check for myself? No. Have I examined similarities in DNA structures to verify the scientific claim? No. Have I even bothered to attempt to understand the nuances and complexities of a theory much developed since Darwin? Not even once.

Of course, the fact that I am an atheist helps sustain my adherence to the evolutionary account. Due to the fact I don’t believe in God – and this I have spent more time seriously reflecting upon (being a philosopher at heart) than evolution – I have no viable alternative than what the scientists tell me for explaining the origin and diversity of species. But that doesn’t detract from the fact that to a significant extent I take what the scientists tell us at face value, and believe in it because science and scientists act as an authority to which I defer. I trust that authority and consider myself unqualified to judge against it – and so I don’t. So it seems that my adherence to evolution over creationism is not rooted in the fact that I am more rational, more thorough, or more hard-nosed about, and aware of, metaphysical truth than any creationist necessarily need be. It owes far more to my trusting in the authority of those who claim – and probably rightly so claim – to know more about this than me.

So let’s now change the picture a little. Imagine I am from a deeply religious family and have been brought up believing that the authority of God – revealed through His written word in the Bible – is the ultimate authority. Sure, some of the stuff in the great book sounds kind of strange, but then who am I to question such eternal truths? I’ve heard of this evolution malarkey, but frankly it sounds pretty far fetched – we all came from slime billions of years ago? As if! What makes far more sense is that God – whom I know in my heart of hearts to exist – created us all separately and by purposeful design. Sure I accept the authority of God fairly unquestioningly, but if I’m going to accept anyone’s authority I’d rather accept His than that of some angry puffed-up bloke from Oxford shouting about his God Delusion.

Switching back out of character, hopefully you see where I am going with this. It is dishonest to claim that as believers in evolution we are somehow following a more ‘rational’ path which leads us to unquestioningly challenge authority in a way the pusillanimous creationists fail to do. Most of us who are not scientists but ascribe to evolution do so more on the basis of faith than fact. Sure, the facts fit the faith pretty well – but if I was a creationist, wouldn’t I say the same in support of the opposite conclusion?

There are many reasons why I think it is worth keeping these things in mind – and just so you are sure I’m not pushing some post-modernist relativist line that all beliefs are equal. They are not. But being aware of what is in play here matters. Firstly, and quite simply, because it is not very nice to be rude to people (well, sometimes it is but those are special cases) and there is something especially obnoxious in being rude to people assuming them to be unenlightened fools poorly comparing to one’s enlightened self, when upon reflection that claim holds up less well than one would like. Secondly, and more importantly, it is dangerous in the extreme to treat creationists as foolish bumpkins for political reasons (as well as the fact that if they are right then we evolutionists are all headed south). This is because treating people like fools tends to make them feel, well, a little upset. And few people were ever convinced through being upset.

The danger of our scientists, public intellectuals and even proud every-day believers in evolution like myself scornfully deriding the foolish creationists – or for that matter, being perceived as scornfully deriding supposedly foolish creationists – is that this is not endearing behaviour. A far more tactful strategy, and one more likely to succeed (if having evolutionary theory proudly recognised as the only game in town is the goal) is to take the time to come down from the soap box and really make sustained efforts to explain why evolution hits and creationism misses. For sure, this will be difficult when it brings in issues like faith, belief and the meaning of life. And I appreciate that, for example, Richard Dawkins tries hard to explain and argue his case on intellectual grounds. But until he sheds the popular perception of being an aloof intellectual bully, no matter how good his arguments are few creationist will be listening until they feel that he respects them as equals.

Tackling creationism properly means taking head-on arguments such as the claim that evolution is not 100% proved, so there is still an element of faith involved, and that this faith is no different to belief in God. It is no good simply to mock or dismiss such reasoning – it must carefully be explained that although there may be some faith involved in both evolution and creationism, the kind of faith is not the same, and the explanatory weight of each is significantly different. We must resist the urge to reply to the remark that ‘evolution is just a theory’ by responding curtly with the words ‘yes, but theories are generally better than stories so what’s your bloody point?’.

This is because stories matter. America stands as the warning example of a failed approach to the presentation of the public face of evolutionary science. Self-assured that the mighty authority of science would trump the stories of the Bible, the intellectual left of America simply assumed that creationism would never get a foothold, would never seriously compete with the great scientific theory of evolution. They were wrong, as the numerous creationist biology teachers in high schools across America will testify to. To avoid the same thing happening here it is no good to rest on laurels and lecture the public as to the wisdom of science, then expect that public to accept such wisdom upon faith alone. When it comes to matters of faith, many people would rather plumb for a God who created them specially and keeps them in His plan, than for a complex and difficult-to-get-your-head-around theory about how we are all really monkeys or lemurs or slugs or something. 

So be kind to creationists this Christmas. You may find it's not only a better way to behave, it's also a better strategy to pursue.