No human activity is totally independent of the culture in which it is practised. All human beings are part of a culture and are consciously and unconsciously influenced by it.

It can be argued, however, that some activities are less culture-dependent than others. One such is surely science, which is open to development from scientists of different backgrounds, but which depends on certain well established principles and methods.

Of course, scientists make mistakes: they are only human. A few rogue individuals may even falsify results. But the really extraordinary thing about science is that in the longer term it is largely self-correcting. Results have to be presented in such a way that they can be checked by any competent colleague or rival.

How Science is Done

To simplify what is often a complex process, let’s suppose that:
1. A scientist makes some observations which require explanation.
2. S/he, or someone else, comes up with an hypothesis to explain the observations. A useful hypothesis should make predictions that can then be tested against further observations.
3. If the hypothesis looks promising, other scientists will join in the testing.
4. In time, either the hypothesis will be thrown out or its predictions will be confirmed.
5. An hypothesis that has produced many successful predictions and has not been refuted by scientific evidence may contribute to a theory, an overarching explanation that has been well substantiated.

A theory may draw on a group of hypotheses, perhaps from a range of different disciplines. In everyday speech the word “theory” often means little more than a “guess”. A scientific theory, however, is a well supported explanation for a large number of observations. An example is Quantum Theory, an astonishingly successful explanation for the behaviour of the physical world at subatomic levels that underlies the development of electronics and other technologies. But no theory, however successful, can be claimed to be “true” with 100 per cent certainty. All remain open to refutation, but such refutation must be supported by evidence and not by a hunch on the part of someone who dislikes the theory.

Threats to Science

Scientific development brings such obvious benefits that it might seem perverse to claim that science is under threat. Nevertheless, in some fields it is. An obvious one that most of us are familiar with is the question of climate change. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that humanity and the other species with which we share our planet are threatened with a global rise in average temperatures and that the cause of at least most of the change is human activity. The acknowledgement of the problem and its causes threatens some powerful interests, which in turn apply political pressure to suppress both the evidence and the co-operation necessary to find solutions. Vested interests use behind-the-scenes influence, perhaps by finding one or two scientists who do not accept the consensus, then presenting their isolated opinions as having equal weight with those of the thousands of scientists who support the consensus.

Creationism and Evolution

Science is also under threat in the biological and geological sciences and related areas, where scientific theories come into conflict with certain interpretations of religious teaching. This section of International Humanist News deals briefly with some challenges to the very well established Theory of Evolution by the advocates of creationism.

Every culture has had its own creation myth, usually attributing the origins of our world, or our own existence, to some anthropomorphic idea of a god or gods. These are essentially pre-scientific explanations. The whole intent of science has been to cast light on the workings of the world. This is an ongoing process, with much remaining to be discovered and, no doubt, with many scientific reputations to be made by the dismantling of accepted ideas. But hypotheses based on a particular creation myth are not going to be fruitful unless they can make testable predictions that advance the course of scientific knowledge.

Unfortunately, we are now seeing a strong push by creationists to replace the teaching of the scientific Theory of Evolution in schools with the non-scientific, religious theories of creationism or so-called “intelligent design”.

Creationism and “Intelligent Design”

A few hundred years ago, everyone was some sort of creationist, since no scientific explanations existed for many aspects of the natural world. It seemed obvious to most people that the sun and the planets moved in a complicated way around a fixed earth that was the centre of the universe. Great opposition was expressed to the mathematically simpler heliocentric model. The stars other than the sun were still believed to be embedded in a sphere which revolved around the solar system, and it was not understood that the sun was also a star, but much nearer to us than all the others. It took a long time before this was understood, and once understood, took even longer for it to be accepted because it conflicted with long-established religious belief. It took longer still to accept that the Milky Way was a galaxy, still longer yet that it was one of hundreds of billions of galaxies. Most of us still find it difficult to comprehend the vast scale of the universe in time and space.

Just as the geocentric universe once seemed obvious, so did the immutability of species, as well as the special and privileged status of our own species. For many thinkers the complexity of the living world was proof of divine design. This argument was well expressed by William Paley in his book Natural Theology, where he argued that just as we would infer the existence of a designer from the complexity and purpose of a watch that we happened to find by chance, so, much more should we do so from our observation of the natural world. Paley’s argument is still popular with creationists of our day.

When some thirty years later Charles Darwin launched his carefully researched book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, there were naturally many who found his hypothesis difficult to accept. The idea that species were not fixed for all time by intelligent design but were mutable was not totally new, but certainly conflicted with popular views. In a surprisingly short time, educated opinion moved towards Darwin’s proposal as gradually more and more evidence accumulated. Darwin himself had painstakingly gathered a great deal of evidence before publication, and more came from diverse fields of science. As well as the build-up of biological and palaeontological evidence, increased understanding of the great age of the earth and the universe helped to give credence to the theory. Throughout the twentieth century, huge amounts of evidence hardly dreamt of by Darwin helped to make the Theory of Evolution one of the most securely founded scientific theories of all time, and not just in pure science. Much progress in medicine has been founded on an understanding of the role of evolution.

But Christians who interpreted their holy book, the Bible, as a factual account were unable to reconcile evolutionary theory with their beliefs. Anything that contradicted their interpretation of the Bible had to be false, and huge amounts of effort and money have been expended in an attempt to stop the teaching of evolution in schools. This effort has been centred in the USA and for more than 80 years attempts have been made in US courts to ban or undermine such teaching and substitute the teaching of creationism. The USA is, however, unusual in having a constitutional ban on state support of religion, and the courts have usually recognised creationism to be a religious doctrine rather than a scientific theory, even when it is wrapped in the mantle of “intelligent design”. The article by Rene Rosechild deals with this fight in the courts.

The Continuing struggle

Unfortunately, creationists have succeeded in gaining a foothold in a number of other countries, such as Italy, Britain, Poland and Australia, to name a few. Where no constitutional protection prevents this, we risk severe damage to scientific education. Since science plays an increasingly important role in the modern world, ordinary citizens of democracies as well as scientific specialists need an efficient grounding in scientific ideas.

Materials produced by Christian creationists have also been taken up and adopted by Muslim creationists. And yet the Muslim world, worried and resentful about its comparative backwardness in science and technology, has an enormous need of scientific understanding. The article by Taner Edis deals with Muslim creationism.

The article by Simon Coleman-Smith gives an introduction to the knotty problem of arguing with creationists.

Finally, within Europe, the battle against creationism is being fought in various arenas, including the European Parliament and the Council of Europe. We therefore give a short account of these battles.