Weekend Review

May 21, 2005

Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant

As the Religious Right tries to ban the teaching of evolution in
Kansas, Richard Dawkins speaks up for scientific logic

Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it:
"Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It
is ignorance that drives them on." Science mines ignorance. Mystery -
that which we don't yet know; that which we don't yet understand - is
the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery
and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a
very different reason: it gives them something to do.

Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science.
It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science
turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for
political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science
itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or "intelligent
design theory" (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists
are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID,
by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is
creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.

It isn't even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a
rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." You will find this
sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists.
They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound
his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the
eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an
almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my
Climbing Mount Improbable is called "The fortyfold Path to
Enlightenment" in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult
to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around
the animal kingdom.

The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely
quoted as saying that organisms "appear to have been carefully and
artfully designed". Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to
explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about
by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied
emphasis on "appear to", leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious
audience - in Kansas, for instance - wants to hear.

The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific
agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist
authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the
splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the
most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and
it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon
in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: "If it
could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Creationists
mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. "Bet
you can't tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel
frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?" If the scientist fails to give
an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn:
"Right, then, the alternative theory; 'intelligent design' wins by

Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory
B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the
scientist's rejoicing in uncertainty. Today's scientist in America
dare not say: "Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog's
ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I'll have to go to the
university library and take a look." No, the moment a scientist said
something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in
a creationist pamphlet: "Weasel frog could only have been designed by

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with
the words: "It is as though the fossils were planted there without
any evolutionary history." Again, this was a rhetorical overture,
intended to whet the reader's appetite for the explanation.
Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context.
Creationists adore "gaps" in the fossil record.

Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or
less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are
not, and these are the famous "gaps". Michael Shermer has wittily
pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a "gap",
the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet
again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a
postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was
no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.

The creationists' fondness for "gaps" in the fossil record is a
metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by
default, are filled by God. You don't know how the nerve impulse
works? Good! You don't understand how memories are laid down in the
brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process?
Wonderful! Please don't go to work on the problem, just give up, and
appeal to God. Dear scientist, don't work on your mysteries. Bring us
your mysteries for we can use them. Don't squander precious ignorance
by researching it away. Ignorance is God's gift to Kansas.

Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public
Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is
The Ancestor's Tale