Orb Standard

The "Objectivity" of Creationism and "Intelligent" Design
By Dr. Gerry Lower

May14, 2005 -- According to George W. Bush, "the jury is still out" on the debate between creationism and evolutionary theory. This is convenient for Bush because it ensures the political support of Old Testament religious fundamentalists. In historical fact, however, the jury has been in and the verdict long since read out loud. The debate has been over since the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, when creationism was tested in a court of law. Today, 80 years later, the jury has been called back out by the people of Kansas to see if creationism can be saved by giving it a new name, "intelligent design."

Here is a debate that calls for an "either or" decision, either we teach creationism or we teach evolutionary theory, because either Old Testament religion is wrong or science is wrong. That is the way things went in Galileo's debate with the Roman Pope over the question as to whether the earth or the sun was at the center of the solar system. As it turned out, Galileo was right and nobody knows the name anymore of the Pope who was wrong.

Nevertheless, in a grand show of political correctness, John Calvert, who is leading the Kansas assault on evolutionary theory, said he simply wants all sides of the debate to be taught in America's classrooms. "We're looking for an objective approach that looks at both sides" (Objective approach urged, Kansas City Star, May 8, 2005).

It would be meritorious, indeed, if our schools taught an objective interpretation of human origins, so we must first consider what we mean by the term "objective" knowledge. When used as an adjective to the noun, "knowledge," the following meanings for the term "objective" are readily available (Merriam-Webster Online, www.m-w.com):

objective adj. : undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal";

objective adj. : emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings or interpretation;

From these definitions, it is clear that objective knowledge is that which is empirical (based on observable phenomena) and that which is interpreted without emotion or personal bias. In other words, objective knowledge is that which can be confirmed by observation (by others) and that which can be interpreted such that the larger knowledge acquired is generally true for all people. That is being objective and it is why Jefferson's political philosophy has a global audience.

Evolutionary theory is precisely that, knowledge that is true for all people, excepting Old Testament Roman fundamentalists. It is not true for them because they choose faith in Biblical supernaturalism over belief in human knowledge. It is not true for them because creationism relies entirely on what is traditionally referred to as "subjective" knowledge.

It is impossible for creationists to be objective because their Old Testament world view is thoroughly bound up in their own feelings and faith in a personal, supernatural creator, part and parcel of their self-concept as god-fearing (and potentially self-righteous) defenders of Christian compassion. These feelings (along with fear-mongering and fact-fabricating by the Bush administration) had a good deal more than honest knowledge had in leading conservative America into supporting unprovoked war in Iraq.

In Kansas, creationists are requesting that their feelings be honored in the way we teach our children about science and human origins. They are saying that the path to objectivity is found in covering both sides of the issue. Creationists’ faith that they are right is matched equally by their faith that science is wrong. In other words, creationists believe that teaching a wrong version of human origins alongside an honest version constitutes the best, most objective approach to teaching comprehension. It is, in fact, the most objective approach to teaching confusion.

Creationists, of course, do not want objectivity at all. They want their views to be held by those in political dominion, those who pander to them for support. They want their views to be imposed upon America's classrooms. In doing so, they happily redefine the English language to suit their own needs, and the mainstream press misses it all. Objectively speaking, creationism does not even know what the word "objectivity" means. Objectively speaking, creationism is subjective by definition.

If the results of the Kansas hearings on evolution are not similar to the results of the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 (which made Tennessee the laughing stock of the nation for years and caused god to hasten the departure of his legal counsel, William Jennings Bryan), then thoughtful Americans are in a good deal of trouble, because they are under the dominion of those who, after two millennia, still "know not what they do."

To be sure, the trouble creationism has with the word, "objective," it also has with the word "compassion." Unprovoked war can be abided only in the absence of compassion and comprehension. America's classrooms need to teach our children to be thoughtful and caring. That is all.