A new听听shows that nearly half of all Canadians believe that creationism鈥攖he idea that living things on this planet were created by supernatural forces鈥攕hould be taught in schools. More troubling, it seems, is the observation that the fraction of Canadians who think so has gone up in the last year and a half, from 4 in 10 to nearly 5 in 10 now.
Are Canadians pushing for religion to creep into the biology curriculum? Not necessarily. The value of this survey is debatable; what isn鈥檛, however, is the profusion of evidence we have for what came to replace creationism: the theory of evolution.
When science and religion clash
Creationism is not science. When it was rebranded as 鈥渋ntelligent design,鈥� it became a pseudoscience: a system of beliefs that is given the appearance of science, much like how a dachshund in a wiener costume will look like a hot dog if you squint. And it鈥檚 not just scientists saying so.
In the landmark case听Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge John E. Jones III鈥攁 churchgoing conservative appointed by Republican President George W. Bush whom we might assume would be tempted to agree with teachers advocating for creationism in the classroom鈥攔uled in agreement with the scientific consensus on what intelligent design really was. The school district in question, located in Pennsylvania, had changed its biology curriculum to require intelligent design be taught as an alternative to evolution. Eleven parents of students in the district sued.
Judge Jones was adamant that intelligent design was not scientific. It had neither been tested nor researched; it had not produced any peer-reviewed publications; it allowed for things in nature to be caused by a supernatural agent; and its arguments were deeply flawed and had been refuted by actual scientists. It was creationism with a glow-up, where the word 鈥淕od鈥� had simply been replaced with 鈥渁 designer鈥濃�� almost literally. The pro-intelligent-design textbook that was at the heart of the听Kitzmiller v. Dover听迟谤颈补濒,听Of Pandas and People, had gone through multiple versions and it was shown that the word 鈥渃reationism鈥� had been replaced with 鈥渋ntelligent design鈥� over the course of these editions.
Creationism, much like Christianity itself, comes in multiple flavours. At one end of the spectrum are people who believe the Earth is flat, or that our planet is the centre of the universe, or that Earth is a mere 6,000 to 10,000 years old鈥攁s far as science is concerned, our planet is closer to 4,540,000,000 years old or听. These Young-Earth creationists think that the Bible鈥檚 Noah rescued in his ark not species but听办颈苍诲蝉.听This poorly defined word is often heard from these kinds of creationists, who will admit that changes do occur within a kind鈥攁 sort of microevolution, if you will, from a lion to a cat鈥攂ut that one kind cannot evolve into another kind. Dinosaurs evolving into birds? Not so, according to them.
Religious believers have had to wrestle with, on the one hand, the scientific theory of how life on this planet likely came about and evolved and, on the other hand, a holy book that tells a different story鈥攖wo stories, actually, for the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as the Book of Genesis听. Some creationists have decided that the six days of creation were not literal days, while others go further by embracing the idea that their god used evolution to bring about his plan, acting as a spark of life and letting natural selection do the rest. Again, creationism is a spectrum, from religious literalism to acceptance of science with a sprinkling of supernatural beliefs.
The opposition to the theory of evolution is not really scientific in nature. As biologist and paleontologist Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History soberly put it in the foreword to anthropologist Eugenie Scott鈥檚 scholarly book on the matter,听, it has nothing to do with stupidity or ignorance. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not,鈥� he wrote, 鈥渢hat creationists don鈥檛 understand evolution: it鈥檚 that they don鈥檛 like it. Indeed, they revile it.鈥� Evolution scrapes against religion, and the religiously minded must decide what to do with the contradiction. Some try to make room for both, while others double down with bad logic.
One of the central arguments of creationism is irreducible complexity. Creationists have used the example of a mousetrap. They have argued that a mousetrap is made up of five parts; that a mousetrap with fewer than five parts cannot function as such; and that this proves that it was designed by an intelligent being. Its complexity, they think, cannot be reduced. It could not have evolved from a simpler form. Likewise, the flagellum of a bacterium鈥攁 sort of tail that some bacteria can use to propel themselves or to feel their environment鈥攊s made up of so many parts, it had to have been designed. 鈥淲hat good is half a wing?鈥� they ask. Parts are useless on their own unless they are crafted into this complex machine, which implies intelligence, because why would these parts naturally arise if they serve no other purpose?听
The thing is, they听诲辞听serve a purpose. Complexity in nature often comes about through the recycling of parts that fulfilled other functions. Nature, it has often been said, is a tinkerer, not an engineer: it borrows, squeezes in, and makes do. And in the case of bacteria, nature has again and again听, something an efficient designer would be unlikely to do. Looking at individual components of these flagella, biologists have noticed they have a lot in common with bits and pieces used elsewhere in the bacterial cell.
Funnily enough, the mousetrap analogy itself was proven to be flawed, as simpler and simpler mousetraps听肠补苍听indeed be conjured up. As Professor John H. McDonald put it in his article laying out his听, 鈥渢he fact that one person can鈥檛 imagine something doesn鈥檛 mean it is impossible.鈥�
By comparison, evolution is elegant. It is easy to understand and does not require the intervention of a wasteful deity who has apparently littered the ground with extinct species. It is also borne out by stacks of evidence from multiple fields of study, such as geology, anatomy, and genetics.
More than just a theory
听The theory of evolution is not a mere hypothesis or a guess; it is a firm and coherent model, backed by observable data, that makes predictions we can test in the real world and that has survived over 160 years of scrutiny on the part of scientists. Charles Darwin was not the first to think of it, but in his book听On the Origin of Species听published in 1859, he fleshed out the idea and brought convincing evidence to support it. Religion had had such a hold over biology that when Darwin shared his theory with a friend, he remarked it was听.听
Under evolution, life forms did not materialize 鈥渁s is鈥� on Earth in a sweeping act of supernatural creation; rather, they branched out over time from the tree of life. Darwin knew that members of a species display different traits鈥攐bservable things like having wings, being a certain colour, or benefitting from fur鈥攁nd the field of genetics subsequently explained how these visible traits arise: they are encoded in our genes, discrete units of DNA that offer our cells the recipe to make specific proteins. These genes mutate randomly, meaning that the 鈥渞ecipe鈥� gets changed because of, for example, copying mistakes or exposure to ultraviolet light.
Some of these mutations are harmful to the individual who has them; others are neither harmful nor beneficial; but some are advantageous听because of the environment this individual happens to be in.听If you鈥檙e a light brown mouse living in the desert, you will escape predation better than your peers that are black. This will give you more time to copulate and pass on the mutated gene that gives you your camouflage. Natural selection is thus the main engine of evolution, granting a reproductive advantage to fitter members of a species. Those lucky enough to be a better fit for their environment pass on their genes, moving the species in a particular direction and, sometimes, becoming entirely new species altogether. They branch out.
The evidence for this model being true is almost limitless at this point. When we dig up fossils, they are always arranged in the order that makes evolutionary sense: from ancient deposits to more recent ones, we see primitive fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, in that order, and never mingled haphazardly. We have also uncovered multiple transitional fossils that show intermediate species, like听Tiktaalik roseae听which links fish and amphibians, and听Archaeopteryx lithographica听which links reptiles and birds. DNA is a powerful evidentiary source as well. DNA is conserved between species, and the closer two species are on the evolutionary tree, the more DNA they share between themselves. This is why our human DNA is听听to that of a chimpanzee. We don鈥檛 just look alike; we have a common ape ancestor. We are two tributaries of an already very small stream.
Evolution is also visible in real time, with colonies of bacteria acquiring antibiotic resistance, and weeds developing resistance to an herbicide due to random mutations that make them more fit to survive their new environment. And the tinkering process of evolution leaves behind scars. The Middle East blind mole-rat lives entirely underground and yet, underneath its facial skin, we can see听, no longer able to see. Why? Because it descended from rodents that did have a fully functioning visual system. Meanwhile, the urethra of a human male goes through the prostate, which makes urination painful when the prostate enlarges, and a gap between a human female鈥檚 ovary and Fallopian tube means some eggs end up implanting in the abdomen, endangering both fetus and mother. These mistakes don鈥檛 align with an omniscient designer, but they are expected when nature recycles and imperfectly tinkers on its way to 鈥済ood enough.鈥�
To 鈥渢each the controversy鈥� (as it was branded) between evolution and creationism in a science classroom is akin to championing astrology in the middle of an astronomy class.
So, why are half of all Canadians apparently for it?
Calling into question the question
A poll鈥檚 usefulness lives and dies in the phrasing of its questions. This latest Canadian survey鈥檚 question on teaching creationism in schools was听: 鈥淒o you think creationism鈥攖he belief that the universe and life originated from specific acts of divine creation鈥攕hould be听part of the school curriculum听in your province?鈥� (emphasis mine).
I would answer 鈥測es:鈥� I think it should be taught because many people believe it and we should teach why it is wrong. As Dr. Eugenie Scott herself put it in an email to me, there is a difference between teaching something and advocating for it. The question here is ambiguous. People saying 鈥測es鈥� may not mean for creationism to be taught instead of evolution or as a viable scientific alternative to it. Indeed, there is a gap between respondents鈥� belief in creationism and their desire to see it taught in school: while nearly half want it taught, only 23% (less than a quarter) on that same survey said that God probably or definitely created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Dr. Scott referred me to Glenn Branch, the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, who has kept a close eye on how people are asked about evolution and creationism over the years. This current survey question begs questions of its own: in which class and at which level would creationism be taught? are people saying 鈥測es鈥� because they are open-minded and care about fairness? how much do they really know about either theory?
Branch tells me that acceptance of human evolution tends to be higher in Canada than in the United States, 77% versus 64%, respectively, according to a听. Are we now back-tracking in Canada? The latest survey may have reported an uptick in people saying they want to see creationism as part of school curricula, but it could just be a random blip in the data. We鈥檒l have to see if this increase is maintained a year from now.听
It is something to keep an eye on, because creationism should absolutely not be advocated for in a science classroom. This goes beyond freedom of religious belief. Going back to the foreword of听Evolution vs. Creationism, Niles Eldrege put his finger squarely on the issue when answering the question of why we should care. 鈥淚t is because creationism transcends religious belief and is openly and aggressively political that we need to sit up and pay attention.鈥�
To quote Carl Sagan, science is a candle in the dark. We must not snuff it out. Because if we do, we will stop seeing the world for what it is and let our imagination run wild as we sit in the ensuing darkness.
Take-home message:
- Creationism is the religious belief that all life on Earth was created by a supernatural being, while intelligent design is an attempt at rebranding creationism as a viable science
- We have observed an overabundance of evidence for the theory of evolution, a coherent model which states that life forms change through random mutations in their DNA and some of them give them a survival advantage in their environment
- A recent poll apparently shows that half of all Canadians are in favour of creationism being part of the school curriculum, although the question is vague enough that it begs more questions
