Encyclopedia of Evolution.pdf - Online Reading Center

xiv Introduction
The appendix of Encyclopedia of Evolution consists of my summary of On the
Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, which is widely considered to be the foundational
work of evolutionary science, and one of the most important books in
human history, but which is seldom read.
Encyclopedia of Evolution adopts a stance, nearly universal among scientists,
that is critical of creationism and its variations such as intelligent design theory.
Criticism of creationism is not by any means the major purpose of this encyclopedia.
Many scientists believe in God, as indicated in the essay “Can an Evolutionary
Scientist Be Religious?” Conversely, many religious people (including many
Christians) fully accept evolutionary science. Therefore the alarm that scientists feel
at the continued and growing popularity of creationism is not based in a fear of or
antipathy toward belief in God. Rather, the opposition that scientists have to creationism
is largely based on two issues:
• Creationism is an indicator of the low value that many people place on scientific
evidence, and of the partial failure of science education. Scientists and educators
are alarmed when much of the public is more willing to listen to the assertions of
preachers or politicians than to evidence from scientific research. The widespread
public disregard for science evidences itself in many ways besides the popularity
of creationism. People who smoke disregard the facts of human physiology;
people who are skeptical of global warming disregard the facts of chemistry and
geology; people who drive recklessly disregard the laws of physics. It is not just
that many people do not believe in Darwin; they also do not act as if they believe
in Newton.
• Creationism is usually part of a larger package of causes that serve political purposes.
Creationism is a tool sometimes used by politicians to gain support for
their platforms that also include opposition to environmental policies. In my
home state, Oklahoma, the viewpoint of many people can be summarized as follows:
As regards the natural world of forests and prairies, “It’s okay to pour oil
on it, it’s okay to drive your truck over it, it’s okay to bulldoze it, it’s okay to
chop it down and let it erode away, it’s okay to spit on it, so long as you don’t
believe that it evolved.” To believe in a Creator but to trash the creation is a
fatally inconsistent position. The seriousness that I would accord a creationist
viewpoint depends largely on whether that creationist is willing to declare himself
or herself an environmentalist, something most creationists appear unwilling
to do.
Among the many examples of the association of antievolutionism with antienvironmentalism
are these:
• The conservative religious group Focus on the Family promotes an increase in
the exploitation of natural resources, although they do not advocate the destruction
of natural resources or habitats; this group is also one of the main proponents
of intelligent design theory.
• A high-ranking official in the Interior Department proposed, in the same August
2005 document, that the National Park Service remove nearly all restrictions on
off-road vehicle use in national parks and remove nearly every reference to evolution
in Park Service educational signage and publications. The National Park
Service rejected these proposals, but the official who wrote them ranks even
higher than the director of the National Park Service.
It appears that, for many of its proponents, creationism is more a political tool
than a sincere pursuit of scientific truth. Some creationists make outlandish claims,
such as when U.S. Representative and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
(R-TX) claimed that the Columbine High School shootings resulted in part from
the teaching of evolution in public schools. Can he really believe that nobody killed
anybody else before Darwin published his book? (See Darwin, Charles; Origin
Of SpecieS [book]). What else is one to believe but that in such cases creationism
is a political tool? In August 2005 President Bush began using intelligent design
theory as a way of gaining support for his political platform.
When a scientist encounters challenges from creationists, the scientist sees not
just an attack on evolution but on science in general and also sees a truckload of