Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
the fact that it is enfolded within a narrative form that presumes neither of
these positions always enables it to defy its own logic.
e volutionism anD c Reationism
My second proposition suggests a more complicated understanding of the
relationship between evolutionary science and creationism. Since religion-
ists are more attuned than others to the language patterns of religion, they
are also more likely to sense the shroud of evolutionism that hovers around
public treatments of evolutionary science. If we add to this the fact that sci-
entific actors are not particularly vigilant in distinguishing evolutionary sci-
ence from evolutionism, we should not be surprised to find that religionists
will endeavor to throw out the science with the scientism. . In consequence,
public efforts to promote evolutionary science tend to have the opposite of
their intended effect: rather than assuaging the suspicions of religionists,
they tend to encourage them.
Anyone who has listened to the messages of biblical creationists will
have also heard the charge that “evolution is a religion too.” I disagree with
this claim simply because I wish to take scientists at their word when they
insist that evolutionary claims are subject to the rigors of scientific scrutiny.
But principle and practice are different things. The halo of religiosity (evolu-
tion reaching toward evolutionism) that creationists detect in evolutionary
discourses is certainly there, and so long as scientists persist in sustaining
its presence, the general public will never come around to what evolutionary
biology teaches. I realize that there are other factors, hermeneutical ones pri-
marily, that give rise to such skepticism. So long as a significant percentage
of American religionists believe that the inspiration or inerrancy of Scrip-
ture depends on it being both scientifically and theologically precise, evolu-
tion will remain untenable. But this lies outside the control of scientists.
What they can control is how evolutionary science is presented, but they
seem to make only half-hearted and sometimes insincere efforts to respect
their own professional limits.
This is certainly bad for scientists, but it is also bad for the rest of us
when confusion about the nature of science results in ill-considered public
policies. This was apparent in the most famous anti-evolutionary backlash
in American history, the popular movement to banish evolution from public
education that culminated in the Scopes trial of 1925. The principle archi-
tect of this movement and the anti-evolution laws it inspired, the three-time
Democratic nominee for president, William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925),
Search WWH ::




Custom Search