(3 of 5)
Another New York-based biology textbook editor reports that book salesmen have urged him to delete pictures of some fossils entirely to appease creationists. "The truth is that the most magnificent pattern in biology is evolution," says he, but we don't spell it out for the students. We talk about 'change' a lot, but we try not to say the word 'evolution' very much. So we have a chapter on birds, and one on amphibians. But we don't say how they are connected." Observes Frank Spica, a biology teacher in Evanston, Ill.: "If you ask me, I think the creationists have won. They've not passed any legislation, but they've got the text books changed."
Their success is due in part to a new tactic. After the Scopes trial, creationists sought equal time for the Bible. But in 1975, a Tennessee law requiring text book discussion of Genesis was struck down by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as an un constitutional violation of the separation between church and state. Changing their approach, the creationists began promoting "scientific creationism," trying to challenge evolution on scientific grounds. Proponents say scientific creationism is suitable for public school use because it does not mention the Bible. "This isn't an effort to introduce religion into the school," says Georgia State Representative Tommy Smith, who for two years running has sponsored a creationist bill in the legislature, "but I do feel all available scientific data should be presented." The question, though, is, do creationists have scientific data? The basic tenets of scientific creationism closely parallel Genesis: the earth is roughly 10,000 years old (prevailing estimates are that its age is about 4.6 billion years); the planets, stars and all living things were literally created in six days by a "Designer"; the different species of plants and animals were created, they did not evolve from any other species; a great flood was the chief force that shaped the face of the earth, in the process drowning the creatures now found as fossils.
The creationist movement boasts a number of adherents who have been trained in science. Significantly, few are biologists. Creationists have done almost no original research. In launching their attacks on evolution they tend to pick over data accumulated by science. Among their most frequent points:
> Because various dating methods used by geologists, astronomers and paleontologists occasionally produce results that disagree, the whole system of dating the past is unreliable. Radioactive dating, they note, is based on the present rate of radioactive decay, but how do we know that the rate has always been the same?
The fact is, though, that carbon 14 dating, for example, has been verified against historical records going back to ancient Egypt and the known ages of 2,000-year-old trees. Other radioactive methods have been used to date earlier epochs, like the age of the earth, and in a variety of trials they have produced a consistent pattern. The creationist argument is a bit like claiming that because some trains are canceled or run way off schedule, the basic timetable is totally inaccurate.