Why Does It Matter? 383organisms. From this he showed that you could trace the ancestry of various creationist bills
and documents as they copied each other, then were modified (evolved) into different strains
of creationist bills. Almost all versions of creationist laws are copycats of one another, all
modified and evolving through time to avoid the problems of the separation of church and
state and trying to hide their religious motivations deeper and deeper. But the religious roots
of any creationist law or policy are easy to trace.
Why not let them have “equal time” or “teach the controversy,” as some (including
former president George W. Bush) advocate? Our culture is fond of equal time and fair-
ness, so this sounds OK to lots of people. But science is not about popularity contests
but about what scientists have discovered about the real world. There is no time or valid
reason to teach outdated and discredited ideas from the past like astrology, the flat earth,
the geocentric universe, or creationism. In addition, if we allowed them equal time, we
would open the door of public school science classes to any or all religious beliefs that
wanted equal time. For example, there are a significant number of extreme creationists
(including an entire Flat Earth Society) who point out that the Bible teaches that the earth
is flat and believe that all those NASA photos of the earth from space are hoaxes. Should
they be allowed equal time in science classes too? Their beliefs are just as sincerely held
as those of the more polished and scientific-sounding ID creationists, yet they still fail the
fundamental test of science.
The conclusions of the creationists are determined in advance and not subject to testing
and falsification, so no matter how much they call it “creation science,” it is not science. If we
allow creation science, do we also flat-earthers to teach their ridiculous ideas? Do we allow
astrology instead of astronomy, or parapsychology and phrenology (reading bumps on the
head) instead of psychology, or replace chemistry with alchemy, or physics with magic? (See
fig. 16.1.) All of these nonscientific and pseudoscientific notions are believed by at least some
of American society, but that doesn’t entitle them to equal time in a science classroom.
Science teaching in this country is difficult enough with the incredible crowding of the
curriculum and the time lost to standardized testing. Students have short attention spans
and are distracted by video games and television, so most science teachers barely have time
to cover the basics, let alone take time to discuss an unscientific religious belief just because
some noisy minority wants it.
- The attack on evolution is really an attack on all of science.
If they could, creationists would abolish the teaching of many fields of science—not just evo-
lutionary biology but also geology, paleontology, astronomy, anthropology, and any other
field that does not conform to a literal reading of Genesis. More importantly, their attempts
to introduce supernaturalism and unscientific ideas to science classes undermine the very
foundations on which science is based. This is not just an intellectual issue either. If we
reverted to flood geology, we would never find any oil, and our economy would be in a
shambles. If we followed creationist astronomy, none of our space program (and the benefits
it provides) would be possible. - Creationists are threatening, harassing, and intimidating our public schools, universi-
ties, and museums.
The creationists are not content just to preach to their followers. They insist on forcing their
views on everyone else, even though it is unconstitutional to do so in public schools and