Do the alleged "weaknesses" teach creationism?

At the beginning of the 19th Century, high school enrollment was doubling every decade, and high schools taught evolution. Theological Modernism was also on the rise.

Fundamentalism emerged in response:

• [1910–1915] The Fundamentalist movement of American Protestantism arose and distributed millions of pamphlets called ”The Fundamentals,” arguing for Biblical inerrancy. Many pamphlets argued against evolution, beginning the mass marketing of false weaknesses.

In 1957 the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first man-made satellite. Concerned that the Soviet Union would dominate scientific advancement, the U.S. responded by systematically improving science education, including education in evolution.

Creation Science emerged in response:

• [1961] Hydraulic engineer Henry Morris wrote The Genesis Flood arguing that Noah's Flood explains all of geology, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that evolution is impossible. The book's scientific-sounding arguments instituted the movement called Creation Science. The book even has references to scientific literature.

• [1963–1970] Morris helped found the Creation Research Society (CRS) to promote his arguments. In 1970 the CRS published the textbook Biology: The Search for Order in Complexity, but it was too explicitly religious and schools refused to buy it.

• [1972] Morris helped found the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). The ICR conducts anti-evolution workshops around the country, and many are held in churches. Popular workshops include “Back to Genesis” and “Good Science.” The ICR publishes many books arguing against evolution.

• [1974] Morris wrote Scientific Creationism in another attempt to provide a textbook for public schools. It had fewer religious references than the 1970 CRS book, but it still frequently referenced Biblical stories. This book popularized many of today's “weakness” arguments against evolution.

In 1981, McLean v. Arkansas ruled that Creation Science is religion and not science and that it was unconstitutional to teach in public school. The judge found that Creation Science consisted of arguments against evolution that scientists had long since discredited:

The term “intelligent design” was conceived in a book called The Mystery of Life's Origin, by Charles Thaxton and others. The book argued for “Special Creation by a Creator beyond the cosmos.”(2) The utility of the term had not become apparent yet, as Thaxton then became the editor of a Creation Science textbook whose working title was “Biology and Creation.”

In the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court ruled that teaching Creation Science was promoting creationism, making it unconstitutional to teach it in public schools.

Intelligent Design (ID) emerged in response:

• [1987–1989] Prior to the ruling, Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon had been writing a Creation Science textbook called “Biology and Creation,” with Charles Thaxton as its editor. When the ruling declared it unconstitutional to teach Creation Science in public schools, the authors were put in a bind. They decided to rename the book to Of Pandas and People. They also performed a search-and-replace on the text, replacing the words Creator, creation, and creationist with the words agency, intelligent design, and design proponent. One draft even has a substitution error of “cdesign proponentsists.” When the book was published, Intelligent Design was born.

• [1991] Phillip E. Johnson's book Darwin on Trial popularized the Intelligent Design approach. In an effort to make Creation Science look non-religious, ID promotes Creation Science's alleged weaknesses with evolution while also saying that some undetermined being created all of life as we see it today. Because this being might not have been God, ID isn't supposed to be religious. Johnson is a retired UC Berkley law professor.

• [1996] Phillip Johnson organized like-minded people together to promote ID, and the Discovery Institute established the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (now called the Center for Science and Culture) to house them. By 1999 the CRSC had developed a strategic plan called the Wedge Strategy (available online). The strategy declares a mission “to defeat scientific materialism” and “to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” Today the Discovery Institute is the vanguard of the ID movement.

• [1996] In his book Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe coined the term irreducible complexity for the Creation Science argument that complex organs cannot evolve. Unfortunately for most of the examples in the book, scientists had already shown how the organ had evolved. The remaining examples were figured out later, after Behe declared them unsolvable. This book teaches that if you personally can't figure something out, then it isn't possible to figure out.

• [2001] William Dembski coined the term specified complexity in his book No Free Lunch. He argues that non-recurring, non-random events have to have been designed. But even if this were true, we can't know whether an event recurs, so we can't know whether something was designed. This is a version of the 1802 Watchmaker Argument, which says that if something looks designed to someone, it must have been designed.

In 2005, The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in Kitzmiller v. Dover concluded that Intelligent Design is not science and, moreover, that “ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents.” The judge found ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science:

Creationists don't agree on whether the Earth is thousands of years old or billions. Phillip E. Johnson strove to make ID inclusive of all creationists by focusing on attacking evolution and avoiding the age of the Earth. He called ID the “Big Tent” of creationism. Don McLeroy, former Chair of the Texas State Board of Education, explained it this way: “Whether you’re a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it’s all in the tent of Intelligent Design… [W]e're all working together.”

A series of court cases forced anti-evolutionists to live with evolution in public schools. In the 1968 case of Epperson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to prevent evolution from being taught in public schools. The 1981 case of McLean v. Arkansas ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach Creation Science in public schools. Then in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court ruled that teaching Creation Science was promoting creationism, again ruling it unconstitutional to teach Creation Science in public schools.

Evolution could be taught but not Creation Science. As we've seen, it has long been a strategy of creationism to allege “weaknesses” with evolution, but the mission was to teach creationism instead of evolution. Now anti-evolutionists needed a new strategy.

“Strengths and weaknesses“ emerged:

• [1980] A 1980 New York Times article called “Evangelical Colleges Reborn” interviewed Homer A. Kent, Jr., then president of Grace College, Indiana. Here is an excerpt:
  
  ”The litmus test of evangelical teaching has been the attitude toward evolution. Fundamentalists waged war over the issue, rejecting Darwin's theory because it conflicted with the strictly literal Biblical account. 'Our science department deals with its strengths and weaknesses,' Dr. Kent says. 'The theory of evolution and the Biblical explanation of creation get a more well-rounded discussion than a state university would give…'”(4) (Emphasis added)

• [1987] The Institute for Creation Research issued the following response to the Supreme Court ruling:
  
  ”[S]chool boards and teachers should be strongly encouraged at least to stress the scientific evidences and arguments against evolution in their classes (not just arguments against some proposed evolutionary mechanism, but against evolution per se), even if they don't wish to recognize these as evidences and arguments for creation (not necessarily as arguments for a particular date of creation, but for creation per se).”(5)

• [1996] Stephen C. Meyer is Vice President of the Discovery Institute, the leading Intelligent Design advocacy organization. He is also an "expert" advisor to the Texas State Board of Education. In a 1996 Washington Times opinion editorial, he promoted teaching “strengths and weaknesses”:
  
  ”Indeed, students should not only know the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian theory, they should know about alternative theories, whether materialistic, evolutionary or otherwise. Most importantly, they should know that many scientists do not accept the Darwinian idea that life arose as the result of strictly mindless processes - that many scientists see powerful evidence of intelligent design.”(6) (Emphasis added)

Here anti-evolutionists are calling for alleged weaknesses with evolution to be taught whenever evolution is taught. But so far they are also explicitly calling for creationism to be taught.

The state of Texas may have invented the approach of calling for just the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution to be taught without explicitly calling for teaching creationism. The approach appears to have been popularized with the publication of Jonathan Wells' book, Icons of Evolution. By the time Intelligent Design (ID) ended up in court in 2005 as Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the Discovery Institute had already stopped calling for teaching ID in schools. When the Dover judge ruled that ID was creationism and not science and so could not be taught in public schools, he simply sealed the latest anti-evolutionist strategy.

Just “strengths and weaknesses” emerged:

• [1989] From 1980–1989, Texas had required that evolution be taught as “only one of several explanations of the origin of mankind.”(7) An attorney general ruled that this was improper, and in 1989 evolution was introduced into the curriculum. As a compromise with creationists on the board, students were also required to “examin[e] alternate scientific evidence and ideas to test, modify, verify or refute scientific theories” (Process Skill 6.3). This was the “strengths and weaknesses” approach, if not the actual words.

• [1994] Texas established new curriculum standards called Texas Essential Knowledge Skills (TEKS). The old 1989 standards were rewritten for the “Science III” course as follows: “the student analyzes, reviews, and critiques hypotheses and theories as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information…” (emphasis added). This would later migrate to what is now called Science TEKS 3(A), where it remains. The TEKS teachers and scientists have recommended for 2009 have removed this langauge.

• [2000] Jonathan Wells' book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? transformed the “strengths and weaknesses” strategy. Previously, books alleged weaknesses with evolution at the same time that they promoted some form of creationism, such as Creation Science or Intelligent Design. Wells' book was novel: it just alleged weaknesses with evolution. The book mainly rehashed old Creation Science allegations. Wells made his motivation clear in a Unification Church talk:
  
  ”Father's [Reverend Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.”

• [2003] The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) held hearings in preparation for adopting new science textbooks. Because the TEKS included “strengths and weaknesses” language, many concerned citizens attended the hearings to prevent the SBOE from using this as an excuse to teach Intelligent Design, where the alleged weaknesses are found. During the hearings, SBOE members repeatedly defended the need to teach “strengths and weaknesses.” For example, SBOE member Terri Leo said, ”[B]ooks reviewed to this day, in my opinion, do not include scientific weaknesses to the biologic theory of evolution.” Future SBOE member Barbara Cargill testified, ”There is no doubt in my mind that both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution must be presented in science textbooks.” (See the July and September transcripts–PDFs). Fortunately, the anti-evolutionists did not this time have enough votes to change the textbooks.

• [2005] Stephen C. Meyer is Vice President of the Discovery Institute, the leading Intelligent Design advocacy organization. He is also an "expert" advisor to the Texas State Board of Education. In a radio interview, Meyer explained the position of the Discovery Institute:
  
  ”We think that intelligent design should be something that people can talk about, but we’re not asking that it be mandated. […] Again, our policy is teach the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinism, and permit teachers to talk about other theories, including intelligent design.” (Emphasis added.)

• [2007] Stephen C. Meyer, Ralph Seelke, and other associates of the Discovery Institute, published Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism. It was the first ever textbook to allege weaknesses with evolution without also directly calling for creationism to be taught. It's styled in “strengths and weaknesses” format, alternating its claims of evolution's “strengths” with its claims of evolutions “weaknesses.” Virtually all—and perhaps all—of the alleged weaknesses can be found in the historical Creation Science and Intelligent Design literature. None are found in scientific literature.

• [2008–2009] In 2008 the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) began the process of revising the science curriculum TEKS. Of the 15 SBOE members, there are now seven committed anti-evolutionists. There are also swing voters who may not be sure how to vote. Citizens are concerned that if TEKS 3(A) is not removed, anti-evolutionists may get the upper hand the next time Texas evaluates textbooks. Several of the anti-evolutionist SBOE members have already stated that they want the “strengths and weaknesses” taught. For example, Don McLeroy, former Chair of the SBOE, said ”I look at evolution as still a hypothesis with weaknesses.” McLeroy believes the Earth is only thousands of years old and has lectured on Intelligent Design.(8,9) (Read about the SBOE members.)

Anti-evolutionists have long called for the “academic freedom” to teach creationism. With the emergence of the “just 'strengths and weaknesses'” approach, calling for “academic freedom” suddenly seems especially clever. Anyone who argues against teaching the alleged weaknesses can easily be made to look like they are against “academic freedom.” Nevermind that the weaknesses are purely a fabrication of creationism and actually teach students to think unscientifically.

Academic freedom without academic integrity is the freedom to teach students what ever you want, without consequences, including the freedom to proselytize.

”Academic freedom“ had emerged by 1975:

• [1975] Henry Morris wrote an article for the Institute for Creation Research titled, ”Resolution for Equitable Treatment of both Creation and Evolution.” In this paper Morris calls for the “academic freedom” to teach Creation Science in public schools. Creationism had not yet hit on the “just 'strengths and weaknesses' strategy. The National Center for Science Education has been defending against creationism's call for “academic freedom” since at least 1980.

• [2001] The Santorum Amendment popularized a strategy of mandating “academic freedom” by law. This non-binding amendment to the “No Child Left Behind” law asked that, “Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist.” Phillip E. Johnson of the Discovery Institute helped write the amendment. Johnson is credited with popularizing Intelligent Design.

• [2004–2009] Since the Santorum Amendment, there have been—and continue to be—many attempts to legislate “academic freedom” in the form of Academic Freedom bills. Bills have been continually introduced in Alabama since 2004. They have also been introduced in Oklahoma, Maryland, Florida, Missouri, Michigan, South Carolina, and Louisiana. Only one bill has yet survived to become law, and that was the ”Louisiana Science Education Act.” However, new “academic freedom” bills are being introduced in several states in 2009. These bills are based on draft language provided by the Discovery Institute.
  
  These “academic freedom” bills are design to allow teachers to teach whatever they want in science class, providing them with legal protection for doing so. The bills typically emphasize topics that are politically controversial, regardless of whether they are scientifically controversial. For example, the Louisiana says that it applies to “the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning,” among other “scientific theories.” (Human cloning is an ethical issue, not a “scientific theory.”)

The call for “academic freedom” has become a two-fold strategy. It is a strategy for making people uncomfortable with arguing against teaching creationism's “strengths and weaknesses,” and it is a strategy for providing legal protection to those who do teach creationism's “strengths and weaknesses.”