EDUCATION ARTICLE

Scientific Authority in the CreationEvolution Debates

Finn R. Pond & Jean L. Pond

Published online: 15 July 2010# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract At the heart of debates among creationists andevolutionists are questions about scientific integrity andrigor. Creationists often justify their rejection of biologicalevolution by claiming that the methodologies and inter-pretations of evolutionary scientists are flawed. A consid-eration of creationists critiques of the scientific data,however, reveals a deficient understanding and appreciationof the nature of the scientific process. It is essential that ourschools educate students about the character of scientificinquiry. Clarifying the nature and limitation of scientificknowledge for our students will equip our students toevaluate evolutionary or creationist arguments critically.Recognizing and teaching both the strengths and limitationsof the scientific process will do much to further the ongoingdialogue between science and religion.

Keywords Evolution . Creation . Scientific method .

Intelligent design .Methodological naturalism

Introduction

Science is a powerful way of knowing about the naturalworld. Technological and engineering successes andadvancements in modern times depend upon the ability ofscientific inquiries to reveal the workings of the naturalworld, of matter and energy, and are therefore evidences ofthis power. Yet people often display an ambivalent attitude

toward sciencepromoting, using, and respecting science,but wanting to control it and calling upon it to reinforcetheir view of reality. This ambivalence is evident especiallywhen scientific findings run counter to religious orphilosophical convictions. A case in point is humanevolution, which challenges some religious views of humanorigins.

Reality, however, is not subject to human decree. It iswhat it is and will remain so despite any desire that itconform to a particular political, ideological, or theologicaldogma. Consequently, we cannot dismiss scientific explan-ations of natural phenomena because we dislike ordisapprove of the universe described. Yet, this is exactlywhat some people attempt. Objections to the theory ofevolution motivate various groups to compete for authorityover the biological sciences in our nations classrooms.Whether hidden in the language of free speech, fairness, thenature of science, or the search for truth, anti-evolutionistshave fought for many years to shape textbook presentationsand public school science curricula to counter establishedscientific understandings.1

The biological community considers the evidence forevolution overwhelming and beyond dispute. Numerousstatements by scientific organizations unequivocally en-dorse the teaching of evolution as a well-documented and

1 See for example the following articles and books which discussthe teaching of evolution in public schools: Bergman (1999),Terry (2004), Jones (2005), Scott (2007), Antolin and Herbers(2001), Forrest and Gross (2005). Discovery Institute (2005b),Scott and Branch (2006), Scott and Matzke (2007), Forrest andGross (2007), Forrest (2007), Discovery Institute (2007), Scott(2009). See also: AntiEvolution.org http://www.antievolution.org/cs/ (AntiEvolution.org tracks activity and issues in the creation-evolution debates).

F. R. Pond (*) : J. L. PondWhitworth University,300 W. Hawthorne Rd.,Spokane, WA 99251, USAe-mail: fpond@whitworth.edu

Evo Edu Outreach (2010) 3:641660DOI 10.1007/s12052-010-0242-0

http://www.antievolution.org/cs/http://www.antievolution.org/cs/

scientifically important theory.2 A recent poll by the PewResearch Center and American Association for the Ad-vancement of Science indicated that 97% of scientists agreethat humans and other organisms evolved over time, and87% of scientists, compared to 32% of the public, specifiedthat evolution occurred by natural processes (The PewResearch Center for the People and the Press 2009).Biologists continue to discuss and debate the mechanisms,patterns, and details of evolution, but the certainty ofevolution is not in question.3 With only negligible dissent,the community declares that descent with modificationas laid out by Darwin (1859) accurately describes thegeneral historical pattern of life on earth. This conclusionis built upon countless observations and thousands ofrigorous studies and experiments from all disciplines inthe biological sciences over a period of 150 years. Now,even more than in 1973, the statement of TheodosiusDobzhansky, the great evolutionary geneticist, is true:Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light ofevolution (Dobzhansky 1973b).

Nevertheless, polls continue to show widespread distrustof evolutionary science among the American public (Milleret al. 2006; Berkman et al. 2008; Newport 2009; Keeter andHorowitz 2009). Acceptance of evolution correlates withlevels of education (21% for individuals with a high schooleducation or less, 55% for college graduates, and 74% forindividuals with postgraduate degrees; Newport 2009).Such data suggest that critical reasoning skills, exposureto evolutionary theory, or deeper understanding of thenature of scientific inquiry and scientific evidence might befactors in transforming peoples thinking about evolution.This cannot be the sole explanation for the low rate ofacceptance of evolution in the U.S., however, since a 2006survey revealed that the U.S. ranked second among 33countries in scientific literacy (Miller 2006) yet in anotherstudy ranked second lowest among 32 countries in thepercentage of persons accepting evolution (Miller et al.2006). Only Turkey (which had a scientific literacy rate of

2% compared to 28% in the USA) had a lower acceptanceof evolution.

Much of the literature of the creationevolution debatesfocuses on the details and interpretation of scientific data,but we suggest that the deeper issues of the debates concernthe nature and practice of science. We contend that a poorunderstanding of the scientific enterprise fuels to a largedegree the opposition to evolution that is prevalent in thiscountry. Misconceptions about science fall roughly into twotypes: (1) misunderstandings about the basic nature ofscientific knowledge (i.e., epistemology; how do we knowsomething in a scientific sense?) and (2) misunderstandingsabout the scientific process (how do we do science?).

Previous work considers the scientific validity ofcreationists arguments and asks whether creation scienceand intelligent design (ID) movements are legitimatescience (Ruse 1982; Kitcher 1983; Dembski 1998c; Pennock1999; Massimo 2002; Kitcher 2006). At the heart of thisliterature is the demarcation or boundary problem. That is,what distinguishes science from non-science? Many authorsargue that creationist and intelligent design arguments fail tomeet commonly accepted criteria of science, invoking non-naturalistic explanations and failing to develop testable orfalsifiable hypotheses. The contrasts between the methodol-ogy and rigor of evolutionary science and various forms ofcreationist science clearly reveal why creationism has noplace within the scientific community (see, for example,Young and Strode 2009).

We look at the scientific legitimacy of creationist andintelligent design arguments from a different perspective.Rather than focus on creationisms failure as a scientificendeavor (its poor scientific reasoning, misrepresentation ofevolutionary arguments, and lack of testable predictions),we consider how creationists arguments promote miscon-ceptions about the process and practice of science. As notedabove, others have expressed concerns about public mis-conceptions regarding the nature of science and evolutionin particular. Attention, however, has not focused on themanner in which creationism and intelligent design perpet-uate such misconceptions. This becomes especially impor-tant because debates about teaching evolution in publicschools often take place in a context of poor scientificliteracy. Students are ill equipped to engage critically indiscussions about evolutionary theory and creationism,unless they understand the nature of scientific inquiry.Furthermore, without the ability to recognize scientificallyvalid arguments and evaluate appropriate evidence, studentsare prey to pseudoscientific rhetoric.

What constitutes scientific literacy is open to debate, butdefinitions generally center on levels of scientific knowl-edge, understanding of scientific processing and reasoning,and ability to understand scientific issues and effectivelyutilize technology (see for example National Academy of

3 Perusal of the scientific literature reveals lively and ongoingscientific debates in evolutionary science. See also Eliott Soberscollection of articles addressing conceptual issues in the theory andpractice of evolutionary biology, now in an updated and revised thirdedition (Sober 2007).

2 Sager. Voices for evolution, 3rd ed., National Center for ScienceEducation; Included are statements from the following nationalscientific organizations: American Anthropological Association,American Association for the Advancement of Science, AmericanAssociation of Physical Anthropologists, American AstronomicalSociety, American Chemical Society, American Geological Institute,American Geophysical Union, American Institute of BiologicalSciences, American Physical Society, American Psychological Asso-ciation, American Society of Biological Chemists, American Societyof Parasitologists, National Academy of Sciences, Society for theStudy of Evolution, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; 2009.

642 Evo Edu Outreach (2010) 3:641660

Sciences 1996; Miller 2006; Hazen and Trefil 2009a). Eventhough the U.S. ranks higher than most countries inscientific literacy, the level is still lowonly 28% (Miller2006). T