Anti-creationists: do they fear an overthrow of Darwin in the U.S.?
This year, as has been happening every year for several decades, various U.S. states are introducing legislation encouraging public-school students to examine scientific evidence against Darwinism. And again, anti-creationist lobby groups, such as the National Center for Science Education,1 are pushing the panic button, claiming that such efforts aim to introduce Christianity into government-run schools.
This year, however, the anti-creationists seem to be pushing the button harder, saying that such bills “are multiplying out of control”.2 Perhaps that is because more states now seem to be involved. Bills are pending or currently passed in Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida, while more are sprouting in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Michigan, Missouri, and South Carolina. As usual, one tactic the anti-creationists are using is to label such efforts as “creationist” and therefore “religion”, even though the bills only propose teaching more science evidence.
The main creationist organizations, including CMI, think that it is more profitable to educate individuals about the issue than as organisations themselves to lobby governments.3 Then when enough individuals understand, they can do the lobbying … as may be happening. To teach merely the scientific evidence against evolution is only a tiny sliver of what creation science teaches. But the Darwinists have made it clear that they cannot tolerate even that sliver. I think they know that once students begin considering scientific evidence, Darwinists have lost the war, because they know (at least the leaders know) that they have no real evidence on their side.
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement, started by University of California Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson4, is undoubtedly providing much of the impetus for the new legislation. By paring the issues down to only one—did it require intelligence to design living things?—ID has made it much more difficult for evolutionists to avoid discussing the evidence. But because the Darwinists “control the microphone” (Professor Johnson’s phrase for media dominance), they can still get away with what Phillip Johnson called “cheap lawyer tricks”, such as attacking the man (by labeling him “creationist” for example) rather than discussing the ideas.5
Because polls consistently show the percentage of anti-creationists in the U.S. is small, it seems clear that their dominance is unstable, maintained only by keeping the majority in ignorance.6 However, the majority may be allowing themselves to be misled, thinking the issue is unimportant to them personally. Perhaps every time an evolutionist lobby group shrilly attacks people who oppose them, a few more of the majority may wonder, “What’s all the fuss about? Maybe the issue is important after all. Maybe the Darwinists should be confined to churches of their own, and not permitted to run the schools.”
So I applaud the anti-Darwin legislators and the efforts of the ID movement. The panicky reaction of the Darwinists makes me somewhat hopeful.7 Who knows whether there might even be an overthrow of evolution in the coming years? In the meantime, we need to “occupy” (Luke 19:13 KJV)—i.e. keep busy with the work of the Kingdom. The more people are informed with the truth, the fewer will swallow the Darwinian lie that has seen so much “falling away”.
- NCSE web news article, “Antievolution legislation in New Mexico”, February 3, 2009, online at. Return to text.
- Anonymous blog, “More stealth creationist bills in five more states as the DI [Discovery Institute] mask falls”. Return to text.
- See Linking and Feeding and The Teaching of Creation in Schools. Return to text.
- See The Berkeley Boat Rocker. Return to text.
- For some more such cheap tricks, see Games that scoffers play. Return to text.
- See Is evolution compatible with religion and free will? Return to text.
- Bhattcharjeee, Y., New Texas standards question evolution, fossil record, Science 284 :25, 3 April 2009, reports a major victory by creationists and ID supporters on the Texas state school board on March 27, 2009. It was only one day after anti-creationists thought they had won there. The decision could affect biology textbooks not only in Texas but also throughout the U.S. Return to text.