This article appeared originally in the December 2008 Skeptical Briefs newsletter and is used by permission of the Skeptical Inquirer.

Following is a concise, authoritative, and warped timeline that more or less accurately presents the history and “facts” behind the development of creationism, creation science, Intelligent Design, and more importantly, scientific illiteracy. For an alternative, but parallel, perspective of the “other theory,” purchase the 27th Edition of Darwin’s final publication, “The Human Evolution Colouring Book.”

Days 1 through 6 In the beginning, God creates night and day, firmaments, heaven, fruit trees, poison ivy, seeds, marijuana, every living creature–including a male and female, beasts, fowl, creepy-crawly things, and killer bees–the concept of multiplication, and then, unfortunately, pulls a groin muscle.

Day 7 through the 16th century Most of Europe buys into the facts about creation as laid out in the Bible. Without the oppressive burden of science and reason, Europeans are quite religious and thankful for the deity’s blessings, such as the murderous Crusades, the Black Death, the Inquisition, witch hunts, and brand-new Christian torture devices, including the rack, thumbscrews, the head crusher, and the saw, to name a few. Toward the end of the 16th century, the first YMCA is built.

16th century to 1858 Although creationists don’t yet exist, they begin getting somewhat nervous because naturalists discover different fossils in different rock strata, suggesting that different animals may have existed in different eras, and that Earth may be older than the biblical contention of 6,000 years, especially after the discovery of a 35,000-year-old fossilized enlarged prostrate.

1859 Charles Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, which he later modifies to increase sales by shortening it to Harry Potter and the Origin of Species. His book suggests that humans evolved through a system of natural selection, which “creationists” immediately attack as laughable and absurd and offer the more reasoned scientific version that humans were made in God’s image from clay, mud, and a rib.

1910 By now, the theory of evolution is widely accepted by most scientists, but there is a clear undercurrent of hostility and opposition from certain religious groups since the best-selling bumper sticker of the year reads “Darwin’s A Dodo!”

1918 A number of anti-Darwinists voice their concern that teaching evolution as a fact in schools will undermine the creation story, overshadow the moral lessons of Christianity, and negatively impact Christian fundamentalist student’s self-esteem.

1922 William Jennings Bryan initiates a campaign to convince state lawmakers to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools and promises students an alternate textbook with plenty of pictures of a naked Eve and Adam cavorting in the Garden of Eden.

1925 After Tennessee passes a law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in state-funded schools, substitute school teacher John Scopes stands trial and is found guilty for teaching Darwin’s theory. After several appeals, the charges are eventually dismissed on the technicality that, while in the jury box, the jurors should not have been allowed to derisively dress in monkey costumes.

For the next half century or so, the anti-evolution proponents prevail and the teaching of evolution practically disappears from public-school texts, with the notable exception of the Fun with Dick and Jane and the Leakeys reader.

1957 When the Soviets launch the first satellite, Sputnik, into outer space, the U.S. government has a cold-war anxiety attack and passes the National Defense Education Act for the purpose of emphasizing science education in public schools, which includes the teaching of evolution and the physics of the Wham-o Frisbee.

1959 The one-hundredth anniversary of Darwin’s famous book “sparks” a renewed interest in evolutionary biology. Readers from all over the country rush to the bookstores to purchase the bestseller ‘Twixt Twelve and Twenty by singer Pat Boone.

1961 Henry Morris and John Whitcomb publish The Genesis Flood, which advocates a literal interpretation of the Bible, meaning the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, a global flood once covered the earth as described in Genesis, and the Noah family is kept awake for 40 days and 40 nights by the relentless and vicious fighting between the Brachiosauruses and Tyrannosaurus Rexes, as well as the nonstop barking of two extremely nervous poodles.

1963 A Christian creation organization, the Creation Research Society, is formed to disprove all scientific theories of evolution, while at the same time use science to prove the Genesis account of creation. The first meeting ends in chaos and arguments when one of the members forgets to bring the necessary scientific equipment for testing their hypothesis: a slide rule, a copy of the Old Testament, a Ouija board, and a Magic 8-Ball.

1968 The U.S. Supreme Court in Epperson vs. Arkansas rules that the 1928 Arkansas law banning the teaching of evolution in public schools is unconstitutional because it’s “…contrary to the mandate of the First, and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and was written on the side of a brown grocery bag.”

1972 Henry Morris forms the Institute for Creation Research to promote research and the teaching of “creation science,” a novel approach that uses the “scientific” method to prove the Genesis account of the Bible by offering scientific answers to questions like: What was God sitting on when he created the universe out of nothing? The ICR is still active today as a leading advocate for creation science and shows its dedication to the Bible by soliciting donations in shekels only.

1981 The Louisiana legislature passes the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act,” which requires that if schools are going to teach evolution, they must also teach creation science, and if they are going to teach foreign languages, they must also teach speaking in tongues.

1987 After two lower courts rule against Louisiana’s 1981Creation Act–another attempt to introduce religious doctrine in public schools–the state appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court (Edwards v Aguillard). The majority rule that the Act is unconstitutional, a decision reached by nine judicial coin flips: seven heads and two tails. The two “dissenting” Justices, conservatives Scalia and Rehnquist, write that the ruling is “obviously a sign from Satan.”

1989 A newly published textbook, Of Pandas and People, attacks the theory of evolution and, without mentioning a supernatural god, offers evidence that living forms, as well as the universe, were designed by some intelligent force, or intelligent designer, who also spontaneously wrote, published, and designed Of Pandas and People from landfill waste.

1991 Philip Johnson, considered the “father of Intelligent Design,” publishes Darwin on Trial, in which he exhaustively challenges most of the evidence for evolution by natural selection using classical argument techniques, such as logic, facts, and asking God what he should think.

1993 A revised edition of Of Pandas and People is intelligently redesigned.

1996 Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box is published, in which he sets out to prove that “irreducibly complex” biological systems could not have randomly evolved from simpler and disparate biological parts and therefore must have been “designed” by an undefined intelligent designer or “Lone Arranger.” Behe’s examples of “irreducible complexity” include the perfectly structured human eye, the bacterial flagellum, and the U.S. Tax Code.

1996 Pope John Paul II shocks the Christian world by declaring his belief that the Catholic religion and evolution are compatible; however, he assures his flock that God is responsible for the human soul, which first appears about 550 million years ago in the Cambrian fossil record.

2005 In Kitzmiller v. Dover, a handful of parents, supported by atheist-like organizations, bring a lawsuit in federal court against the Dover Area School District, which is trying to introduce its public-school students to Intelligence Design as a possible alternative theory to evolution. Judge Jones decides in favor of the plaintiffs, writing: “The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory, and I’d like to thank you goddamn atheists for blowing my chances at a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy under the Bush administration!”

2008 A new documentary entitled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in This Movie ridicules the theory of evolution, strongly suggests that evolution inspired the Holocaust, portrays ID advocates as victims of discrimination, and supports the indisputable scientific fact that co-writer and star, Ben Stein, has serious structural problems in his brain’s frontal lobe. Ironically, the movie actually proves why the public needs MORE science in the classroom. It walks away with one Cannes Film Festival award: the Golden Dunce Cap.

—–

Skeptical satirist Paul DesOrmeaux teaches at Rochester Institute of Technology and Monroe Community College and writes humorous articles for a number of well-known skeptical magazines and newsletters. His goal is to introduce skepticism to a broader audience by combining reason and science with humor and satire to expose myths, pseudoscience, fraudulent claims, and general nonsense.

—–

Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is certainly the most dishonest movie I have ever seen, portraying Intelligent Design supporters as political martyrs to Big Science, academia as the equivalent to the USSR, and doing everything it can to link Charles Darwin and evolution directly to the Holocaust. It truly is despicable and intellectually insipid in a way I thought not possible until now. If you want all the gory details about how awful this film is factually, please visit the NCSE’s Expelled Exposed website and Scientific American.

Unfortunately, the movie is almost certainly a success. In the US, most people know absolutely nothing about evolution, or any other form of science for that matter. They probably never heard anything about it in their schooling, from the media, or from the science establishment. If they know anything about it, it is probably something negative (and false) they heard from a creationist. It must also be remembered that most people in the US (and for that matter, around the world) rely on understanding their world through perceptions, feelings, and intuitions, not facts, logic, or evidence.

This film may very well be the only thing that many people ever hear about evolution, and while factually worthless, it is decent propaganda. I thought that the film would be hard to watch because Ben Stein wasn’t likable enough. I was wrong. Stein is human: funny or serious as the situation demands, with his characteristic dead-pan delivery and wit. Although the film sags in the middle when Stein takes his little trip to Hadamar and Dachau, and then on to Down House, it moves at a fairly brisk pace and effectively uses images, editing, and symbolism to get its point across (though Stein and the director are no Michael Moore).

The images used play more to a generally conservative, though not overtly evangelical/conservative, audience: evolutionists are associated with Stalin, communism, the Berlin wall, angry atheists, Planned Parenthood, eugenics, euthanasia, and abortion, while Stein and the ID supporters are juxtaposed with Reagan, American flags, the Washington monument, MLK Jr., the destruction of the Berlin wall, Mom, and apple pie.

The ID supporters are given ample time to present their vague and ill-documented claims, while the evolutionists get scant screen time and, for the most part, look bad (not necessarily their fault, probably due to editing). All of this makes for a compelling, if somewhat heavy-handed and overwrought, film. Most people who do not know anything about evolution or ID will probably be swayed by it. To believe otherwise is wishful thinking. Contrary to the opinion of many prominent science bloggers, it is a really big deal for a documentary to be shown in thousands of theaters in the US (most documentaries will only be shown in a handful). It is a big deal for a documentary to take in $3 million dollars in its first weekend (most never take in hundreds of thousands). It is a big deal for a documentary to be supported by millions of dollars of PR and expensive TV and print advertising (most documentaries get none).

People can argue over whether Expelled will ever make enough money to cover its costs (I think it will through DVD sales), but it will influence a lot of people, and no debunking website (not matter how factually correct) will reach as many people. The only thing that would be effective would be another film to counter it, like Randy Olsen’s Flock of Dodos. But that isn’t likely in the cards. This is a bad day for the public understanding of science. Really bad.

——

David Harding is the vice-president of CNY Skeptics.

Originally published April 2008.

This letter was featured in the Kansas City Star newspaper on November 9, 2005.

To the Editor:

Tuesday was a sad day for Kansas.

Yes, there is controversy surrounding evolution, but only among nonscientists. Those who reject evolution present no arguments scientists haven’t heard (and adequately countered) again and again, and have no special knowledge that scientists have overlooked.

Organic evolution is so well established that to allow room for doubt is to misrepresent science. Evolution is supported by a rich and well dated fossil record, by population biology, comparative anatomy, cell biology, biochemistry, genetics, artificial breeding, and by observations of how bacteria and viruses respond (over time) to antibiotics. Computer algorithms invoking simple, Darwinian rules are being used to solve a wide range of previously intractable problems, and important biochemical molecules (including RNA and DNA) have been modified (“improved”) in astonishing ways in test-tube experiments using Darwinian principles. Any one of these mutually corroborating approaches could stand by itself as strong evidence for evolution; together, they are indistinguishable from proof.

Nonscientists have no business meddling in the content of science classes. “Intelligent design” is not science, and should not be represented as such.

Congratulations to those members of the Board who voted sanely.

——

Bryce Hand, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of geology at Syracuse University.

Interview with Eugenie Scott

By Bill Busher

Originally published April 2006

[This interview has also appeared in the Syracuse Post-Standard and on CSICOP's Intelligent Design Watch web site.]

Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education , Inc., spoke on March 30, 2006, at Onondaga Community College’s Whitney Building. Scott’s lecture on evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design was presented by the Technology Alliance of Central New York (TACNY), and sponsored by a grant from National Grid. NCSE, based in Oakland, California, is a not for profit membership organization of scientists, teachers, and others that works to improve the teaching of evolution and of science as a way of knowing. It opposes the advocacy of “scientific” creationism and other religiously-based views in science classes. She has held elective offices in the American Anthropological Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Scott is the current president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

Bill Busher: One criticism coming from the creationist side is that evolution is “only a theory.” How is a theory looked on, from a scientist’s perspective?

Eugenie Scott: From the scientific perspective, a theory is an explanation. Theories are the goal of science. In the general public, a theory is a guess or a hunch or something that is not important, so there is a huge difference between how we use the term in science, and how we use the term in the general public. In the general public, ‘fact’ is very very important; in science, theories explain facts. So, theories trump facts and laws.

BB: Is there a point at which a theory becomes fact?

ES: No, theories explain facts. Facts are observations, and observations are a dime a dozen in science. We collect observations, but what is important is to use those observations to generate theories, which explain the facts and explain the other aspects of nature. Theories don’t become facts, theories explain facts.

BB: Even something as simple as say, the theory of gravity, which everyone assumes is a fact?

ES: What happens is that unsupported objects fall. That is not gravity. To explain why this pen didn’t fly around the room, when I stopped supporting it and why it fell, we use the theory of gravitation. The theory of gravitation is the mass of the pen and the mass of the table attract each other. That’s the theory – that’s an explanation. The observation, or fact, was that an unsupported object fell. So, gravitation is not a fact, gravitation is a theoretical explanation.

BB: With that definition of theory, would creationism qualify as a theory?

ES: In the simplest definition of theory, yes, because creationism is an inferential explanation for natural phenomena. The creationists would look at the diversity of living things and say “God created them as specially created kinds. ” And, theories don’t have to be correct. Lamarckism is an incorrect theory of heredity, but it’s still a scientific theory.

BB: Do you think that there is a place for creationism intelligent design in school?

ES: Because creationism intelligent design are inherently religious ideas, they have no place in the science classroom. I’m not sure that intelligent design is especially appropriate for a comparative religion class at the K-12 level, because it’s such a minimalist position. It makes so few actual claims, and they’re based on probability theory, molecular biology and information theory and things that you just don’t get into in the high school level. Certainly, I would say creationisms (plural) could be taught in a comparative sense, in a comparative religion class, but I’m not sure that because of the nature of intelligent design that it would ever be terribly successful in high school. But of course, the content of intelligent design is “evidence against evolution” – that’s all they’re really saying, and so why clutter up the student’s knowledge with misinformation?

BB: Doesn’t the complexity of evolution, involving biology, chemistry, earth sciences and so on, put at a distinct disadvantage proponents of evolution in debates?

ES: If I’m going to be discussing this issue publicly, generally speaking, it’s going to be ‘either or.’ I’m either talking about science, and then so are they, in which case I can criticize either the phylogeny of creation science or I can criticize the molecular biology of intelligent design. They will talk about peppered moths as inadequate science, or whatever. Or, we’ll talk about theological issues or possibly philosophy of science. In that case, we are sort of arguing on an equal playing field so to speak. In fact, what the creation science people and the ID people are extraordinarily concerned about, is that when they are in public debates that they’re not talking about religion. That said, it’s still the case that the audience that hears these exchanges and is evaluating the statements on both sides, probably is thinking in terms of religion, even when they are hearing the science. And so I think what you want to do is be very clear when you’re discussing creation and evolution; that you separate out your opponents religious views from the scientific claims, and let the audience know that you are criticizing the scientific views of your opponent, and allowing him freedom of religion. But. bad science cannot be excused because of somebody’s religious views.

BB: Have you heard any rationale from those who do participate in the structured debates, as to why they would do it?

ES: Well, there are fewer and fewer people doing this. What few people I’ve run into in the last three or four years who’ve gotten suckered into these debates did it out of ignorance. There are a couple of people around, like Michael Ruse and Ken Miller, who do take on the formal debate kind of thing from time to time, although I think even Ken has now kind of ‘hung up’ his debate shoes, so to speak, and he’s not really interested. I don’t quite understand why Mike Ruse keeps going out on the hustings. It pays well, I guess.

BB: The Kansas board of education is famous for having a zig-zag pattern when it comes to evolution and creationism, each time the makeup of the board changes. With that in mind, what do you see on the horizon for New York State?

ES: I have to plead ignorance on that; I’m not sure of the makeup of the school board.

BB: There is a bill pending that…

ES: That’s in the legislature, though.

BB: What do you think is the potential impact of the recent court decision in Philadelphia?

ES: It is definitely going to throw sand in the gears of the intelligent design movement, in the sense that school districts that are contemplating teaching ID, are going to be told by their legal retainers, “don’t do this, because it’s going to cost you a lot of money to go to court and lose.” It’s not going to stop the effort completely, but what it will do, is to encourage this sort of third wave of creationism, which is the “evidence against evolution” approach. Although the judge in Kitzmiller [vs. Dover] did address the gap/problems in evolution part of the policy, which is of course, the avatar of the “evidence” against evolution school, he spent a lot more time in the decision pounding intelligent design. I think the anti-evolutionists are going to try the “evidence against evolution” approach with a different fact base than the Dover case did. Obviously, what they have to do is come up with a smarter school board, that isn’t going to be making as many religious references as the Dover board did. And then, they may have a better chance of passing through the courts. The “evidence against evolution” approach has been struck down by the courts if the judge accepts the history of this issue, and shows the ultimate religious purpose for proposing these policies. But, you get a judge who doesn’t like the ‘purpose’ argument, which is one of the arguments used to interpret the establishment clause, then it’s going to be a whole more difficult to fight against the “evidence against evolution” school.

BB: We hear a lot about children in this country falling behind their counterparts in other countries. How does this controversy play into the overall educational picture?

ES: Certainly, if the United States is going to maintain its technological superiority, we have to have good science education. We don’t have as good science education as we’d like; it’s very patchy. Some schools do a wonderful job; others do a terrible job; many do a mediocre job. The systematic avoidance of the teaching of evolution is a real ‘canary in the coal mine’ for indicating the politicization of education. If we are choosing our science based on political considerations, we are under and miseducating our students. We will not maintain that international technological and scientific superiority.

BB: In a society where a large portion of the population believe in things like psychics, homeopathy, touch therapy, astrology, creationism and intelligent design, what do you see as our best hope?

ES: I’m a believer in education. I think we need to do a much better job helping science teachers understand the nature of science, understand how to think critically, and help them devise ways of passing this on to the student body more effectively than they are today (at obviously an age-appropriate level). So much of the acceptance of these paranormal and crackpot ideas really rests upon the inability to think critically about the data that are presented to support them.

——

Bill Busher is a past president of TACNY, and current editor of their monthly publication, The Technologist.