Evolution and Religion: A New Title for Science, Evolution, and Creationism
Science, Evolution, and Creationism is a seventy-page booklet by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. No specific authors for the booklet are named, but the booklet includes an introduction signed by Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences; Harvy V. Fineberg, president of the Institute of Medicine; and Francisco J. Ayala, “committee chair” (xiii). The back cover of the book explains that the National Academies exists as a source for “independent, objective advice on issues that affect people’s lives worldwide.”
After a study of the contents and layout of the booklet, one can conclude that a more appropriate title for the booklet would be Evolution and Religion. The preface to the booklet says, “As Science, Evolution, and Creationism makes clear, the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future” (xiii). To win the religious to science’s side would be important because science would gain a greater number of supporters. Less time could be spent arguing and more time could be devoted to discovery. The argument I want to make is that is trying to persuade religious readers to accept evolution rather than creationism, and so it needs a title that is more reflective of its intention.
To include “science” in the title is irrelevant because science is a set foundation for the booklet rather than one of the points of argument. Since evolution is a part of science, including science in the title is redundant. There are other areas of science besides evolution, and the booklet does not explain them in depth. It also tends to use the term “science” when it more specifically means “evolution”, such as in some of the statements by religious leaders who use the term “evolution” when the heading on the page says “science” (13). To be clearer to the reader, the title could include the main point of the argument, which is evolution’s compatibility and religion.
Including evolution in the title is more than appropriate. The booklet does not attempt to show the pros and cons of both evolution and creationism. It is an argument for evolution. For the most part the book relates only evolution to science. The layout of the booklet strongly suggests that the reader needs to be informed about evolution, and this could be because the authors suppose a religious reader may already accept creationism. The book contains a significantly larger amount of information about evolution than about creationism. It has two chapters on evolution and one on creationism. The first chapter, “Evolution and the Nature of Science,” is made up of sixteen pages, with eight photographs, one diagram, and two charts. The second chapter, “The Evidence for Biological Evolution”, consists of twenty pages with fifteen photographs, three diagrams, and three charts. Of evolution, the booklet has over a dozen examples, including the amphibious fossil known as Tiktaalik (1-3), agriculture (6), infectious diseases (5), the solar system, geology, chemical “building blocks” (21), molecular evidence (24), the consistency of the fossil record (38-39), hominids (33-35), homologous structures (25-26), drosophilid flies (26-27, 29), and the concept of whales, dolphins, and porpoises having evolved from land mammals (32). It even goes so far as to include industry as an example of evolution (9), though one may argue that industry is merely a human construct. The booklet discusses not just evolution in general but devotes at least sixteen pages to human evolution. This would be beneficial for those who believe in evolution but discard human evolution as being a part of it. The booklet also uses what I like to call “opinion words” in discussing aspects of evolution, such as “fascinating” (32), “remarkable” (1, 18, 34), and “exciting” (38). This indicates that the authors want evolution to appeal to the reader. From all of this, we can conclude that the term “evolution” in the title is relevant and does not need to be removed from it.
Including the term “creationism” in the title of the booklet is unnecessary. The booklet makes no argument for creationism. Instead, it makes an argument against it. Rather than inform the reader of all options, the booklet seems to steer the reader away from creationist perspectives. The chapter on creationism is actually about what creationism is, what it entails, descriptions of creationism and its types, and why the authors believe it is detrimental to the advancement of science (43). The book defines a creationist as “someone who rejects natural scientific explanations of the known universe in favor of special creation by a supernatural entity” and states that “creationism in its various forms is not the same thing as belief in God” (37) and includes examples of this by explaining at least three types of creationists and how their beliefs are not conducive to scientific evidence. It seems to be warning the reader not to claim to be a creationist by telling them what creationism is and is not. If creationism is to be included in the title, the definition of creationism needs to be in the first paragraph of the book’s introduction along with evolutionism. The booklet also devotes far less material to creationism than it does to evolution. In contrast to the first two chapters, the last chapter, “Creationist Perspectives,” contains ten pages, three photographs, one diagram, and no charts. One reason the booklet doesn’t talk about creationism much is there is little to no scientific evidence for creationism (39). For the above reasons, the title of the booklet does not need to include the term “creationism”.
The title was right not to include intelligent design. The booklet does not use intelligent design (or supernatural causation) as an option to link evolution to religion. The booklet denounces intelligent design as a form of creationism by calling it “intelligent design creationism” (37) and its supporters “creationists” (40). So instead of using intelligent design to link evolution to religious belief, the booklet suggests that the reader who values religion could accept evolution.
The word religion should be added to the title of the booklet. The authors devote at least ten pages to religion, and the references cited in the book may appeal to a religious reader. The booklet quotes religious leaders and scientists “who see no conflict between their faith and science” (13-15), more than it includes excerpts from court cases (44-45). The booklet also defines evolutionists as belonging to three positions of belief: scientism, theism, and deism, the latter two of these groups being made up of those who believe in a deity or supernatural power that governs the universe (15). It feels like part of what the book does is to make the religious reader feel less guilty about accepting evolutionism because the booklet uses sentences like “scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder of the universe and life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution” (12) that suggest that the religious reader who accepts evolution is not alone in his or her beliefs, and includes statements issued by specific religious leaders and groups who accept evolution, including the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, Pope John Paul II (13), and an excerpt from “The Clergy Letter Project” signed by over ten thousand Christian clergy members (14). Also, since the booklet’s aim seems to be to prevent the reader from “needlessly placing [science and religion] in opposition” (xiii, 47), the title should reflect this. Including the word “religion” in the title would show more of what the booklet aims to achieve.
In short, to retitle the booklet would make it clearer as well as more appealing to the religious reader. With that in mind, you can decide whether or not to read the book. And I hope you enjoy it if you do.
The above was written for the course Imagining Science, taught by Dr. Gary Williams at the University of Idaho in the Fall of 2008.
