Creationism has its place, but not in science class

Published on Wednesday 22 March 2006 00:43

REFLECTING on the recent and ongoing furore about creationism, evolution, and intelligent design is a depressing business, for the whole thing has become hideously confused: an untidy tangle of science, philosophy, theology, politics and culture.

Yesterday the Archbishop of Canterbury entered the debate by saying that creationism should not be taught in the classroom, as is reportedly already happening in some city academies and other schools. Interviewed by the Guardian, he is quoted as saying: "I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... it's not a theory alongside other theories.

"It's not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said, 'Well, how am I going to explain all this ... I know: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'.

"I don't think [creationism] should [be taught], actually. And that's different from saying ... from discussing, teaching about what creation means. For that matter, it's not even the same as saying that Darwinism is the only thing that ought to be taught. My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation, rather than enhancing it."

Rowan Williams is a scholar familiar with the development of Christian doctrine and wants to avoid crude reductions to simple formulae, but his quoted words may leave some readers wondering what the doctrine of creation is, if not creationism. Before addressing that, let me explain something of the blast and noise emanating from the US over the issue of evolution and intelligent design.

This is sometimes described as being about the nature of science, and the limits of credible belief, but more than anything it is an aspect of an ongoing culture war between progressive secular liberals and traditional religious conservatives. The former have an agenda for change covering a whole range of educational, moral and social issues, while the latter have an agenda for resistance or restoration in just the same areas. The immediate battleground of these oppositions shifts: sometimes it is marriage and family; sometimes it is education and lifestyles. Below these slippery surfaces, however, lies the solid base of belief about the nature of humankind and its place in the universe.

Recently, it has suited both sides to fight over evolution and creation, but in doing so there has been a confusion, often intentional, of scientific, theological and philosophical ideas. At its crudest, Biblical creationism (BC) is the claim that the universe came into being a few thousand years ago in more or less the form in which we see it now. That is clearly incompatible with more or less universally held scientific beliefs about the age of the universe, the origins of the earth and the development of life upon it. If there is a place for telling children about BC it may be in history or social studies, but not in science.

At its simplest, cosmological naturalism (CN) is the position that the origins of the universe, the world and of all life within it, past and present, are wholly explicable in terms of physical processes, including those of random mutation and natural selection through environmental fitness. This is incompatible not only with BC but with less extravagant religious positions such as that the universe was created and that human beings have a special spiritual nature.

That it has these further implications reveals that CN is more than a scientific claim, it is a philosophical one, since the evidence of the evolution of species, say, is independent of the issue of the origins of the universe or the question whether human beings have non-material aspects. These latter issues of cosmic origin and human nature are not empirical in the usual understanding, but belong to metaphysics. The scientific evidence will not decide between them. By symmetry, therefore CN is not a proper subject for scientific study but might usefully be discussed in philosophy or religious studies.

What then of neo-Darwinianism (ND) on the one hand, and of "intelligent design" (ID) on the other? Well, as the philosopher said, "it depends what you mean by ..."

If ND is the claim that there is an ancient evolutionary history by which species have emerged from one another through processes of variation and natural selection, then it is a scientific hypothesis for which there is overwhelming evidence and it would be irresponsible to teach biology at school without introducing this as a powerful scientific explanation. If, on the other hand, it is code for CN then its claims have transcended science and belong in philosophical discussions. Likewise if ID is a rival hypothesis about the causes of specific biological structures and processes, claiming they show evidence of having been designed, it has some claim to be explored in science but it is unlikely to fare well against the non-design alternative.

If, however, it is code for BC then again it has no place in science and most theologically sophisticated teachers would feel deserved little attention even in a religion class.

Finally, what ought to be the religious believer's attitude to evolutionary theory? "It depends what you mean by ..."; but that said I think a traditional Jew, Christian or Muslim must remain committed to three ideas: 1) that the universe is the product of creation; 2) that the course of the universe is under the providential governance of God; and 3) that human beings are images of God in the respect of having a spiritual (non-material) aspect to their nature. Those three ideas are each incompatible with cosmological naturalism, though not with evolution by natural selection, and in one sense they constitute a very definite kind of creationism - but not the wild kind.

• John Haldane is professor of philosophy at the University of St Andrews