As a skeptic, the grassroots movement that espouses creation ‘science’ has what I believe are many flaws, probably equal to the gaps in evolutionary theory that creationists see. Chet Raymo, in his eloquent and subtle Skeptics and True Believers, explains both of these views. The two poles he describes fit well into the two niches of the creation and evolution debate, and I agree that it comes down to this: “It is not so much a matter of evidence as attitudes toward evidence. The astrologer and the scientist have different criteria for the truth—one anecdotal and personal, the other empirical and institutional” (87). One believes what they read is true, the other questions everything, “[t]there are people who prefer that things remain the same; there are people who like change” (137). I would argue, though, that instead of categorizing these two groups as “reactionaries and progressives” you could call them the creationists and the evolutionists (or perhaps scientists is a better, more all-encompassing term). These two views are characterized well in the two-model approach to the world espoused by this grassroots movement.
This approach sees things in only black and white, leaving out any possibility of an intermediate explanation. Creationists must discredit Charles Darwin, because when they do so it will prove special creation was the answer all along. But, they’re forgetting that there are fellow Christians that believe in theistic evolution, or that there are many other creation myths that could also be the answer. The academic freedom ID proponents are so fond of demanding would include these intermediate believes as well as the two extremes, and it would still include evolution. This argument is a categorical error; just because they believe it, doesn’t make it true. If you don’t believe in gravity, you don’t fall off the earth.
This mistake also plays out in the media representation of this debate. When reporters search for balanced treatment in stories concerning evolution, they alternately portray ID or creation ‘science,’ forgetting, or maybe not knowing, that the two are not scientifically equal. The politicization of this debate makes this sort of equal treatment unique to this subject, however, because you rarely see alternatives given when the report discusses quantum theory, astronomy, or thermodynamics. Raymo makes a valid point when he mentions that scientists are often inept at communicating their craft, at making clear why their research is important, or more specifically portraying it as important to humans and what we value. Humans want to know what science will be doing for them, despite the conflict this creates with their belief systems: “we warmly embrace the technological and medical fruits of science, but often hold religious beliefs that stand in flat-out contradiction to the scientific way of knowing” (7). Perhaps scientists, educators and the media need to focus on this way of knowing and give it the fair treatment that it so deserves rather than endlessly addressing the two extremes.
This may not happen though, as conflict is one of the best story-telling techniques, so comparing evolution and creationism, pitting Raymo’s Skeptics against his True Believers, makes for great copy. I would certainly agree when it comes to the books Summer for the Gods (Edward Larson, Basic Books, 1997) and Monkey Girl (Edward Humes, Ecco Books, 2007). This is an epic battle and portrayals of the players create ensuing conflict—it’s a writer’s dream, imaginations couldn’t come up with fodder this good. The nature of the two arguments, though, makes this an unending battle. Its like one is in fact imagination, the other truth; one has eons of believe on its side and the other centuries of empirical evidence. They argue apples and oranges, tom-ae-to/tom-ah-to, anthropocentric views versus natural phenomena. Most scientists (and most creationists too, I assume) don’t see how the two sides can reconcile, though Raymo has constructed a strong argument: “[n]one of the miracles I have been offered in my religious training were as impressively revealing of God’s power as the facts I was learning in science” (20). It should be the duty of scientists and the media (science writers, particularly) to convey these revealing facts, to foster understanding, to unearth this middle ground between the two approaches.
Raymo compares quantum physics to magic, miracles. I would have to disagree; nature is so much more extraordinary than any magic I have ever seen, and the explanations behind her phenomena so much more fantastic than any secrets magicians hide behind their capes. So, for me at least, a way of knowing the world is more incredible than any of the mere beliefs I have tried to understand, because “everything wonderful need not be true” (137). Even if it’s not true it can still be wonderful, you don’t have to disprove truth to convince someone of wonder.
