Law: Darwin Wins

• Share

Creationism "is not science "

The Arkansas law had a surface plausibility: it merely required that if public schools teach the theories of "evolution science," they must also teach the theories of "creation science." But last week Federal Judge William Overton had little trouble determining that something constitutionally improper was going on under that surface. "The two-model approach of the creationists is simply a contrived dualism," wrote the judge. Creation science "is not science because it depends upon supernatural intervention, which is not guided by natural law." And since it is not science, "the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of [the law] is the advancement of religion."

So saying, in a 38-page, no-nonsense opinion, Judge Overton threw out the "balanced treatment" law and ended the first legal round in the bristling new battle between Fundamentalists on one side and an alliance of scientists, educators, clergy and civil libertarians on the other. Overton dismissed virtually all the week-long testimony that creationists had presented in his Little Rock courtroom last month.

The creationists had sought to show that their "science" was as good as Darwin's. The most impressive scientific witness criticizing Darwinism, Astronomer N.C. Wickramasinghe of University College, Cardiff, Wales, had argued that genetic mutation produces only minor "fine tuning of the evolutionary process." He scoffed at the contention that "monkey genes" or natural selection could explain the appearance of the human race; the odds that "random shuffling" of amino acids would have produced life were, he said, one out of 10 40'000—the equivalent of a tornado blowing through a junkyard and producing a jumbo jet.

But Overton did not think that questions about Darwin's theory strengthened the creationist claim that their theory should be taught as a science. Under the law, for example, schools were directed to provide students with the evidence for the sudden creation of the universe out of nothing. Overton found that concept wholly religious. Perhaps mindful of a poll showing that 76% of the U.S. public favors the teaching of both theories, the judge was careful not to "criticize or discredit any person's testimony based on his or her religious beliefs." But, he noted, no group may use government agencies "to foist its religious beliefs on others."

Creationists were disappointed but undaunted. Many had conceded the outcome in advance, contending that Overton made up his mind before the testimony began. Moral Majority Leader Jerry Falwell charged that Arkansas Attorney General Steve Clark "doomed" his case by snubbing Fundamentalist scientific and legal experts who specialize in this issue. Creationist strategists even coaxed one of Clark's scientific witnesses into leaving town before he was scheduled to testify, rather than join a lost cause.