Evolution and the Myth of Creationism

Since being involved in a number of evolutionary debates over the past few weeks, I decided to pull out Evolution and the Myth of Creationism by Tim M. Berra and give it a thorough and open-minded reading. This is one of those books I skimmed through when it was assigned (I believe it was for my mini-semester upper division evolution cram-class) but I didn't have time enough to really sink my teeth into.

The subtitle, "A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate", is a good way of describing the book. It's a fairly short book, only 198 pages, including a couple very nice appendixes and gives plenty of detail needed for Berra's argument:

This book has three related purposes. First, it is an attempt to explain evolution to people who are genuinely confused by the claims of creationists, who try to present fundamentalist Christian beliefs as science. Second, it sees to provide useful ammunition to the high school biology teacher or school board member who finds himself or herself under attack by creationists. Third, it should be a useful supplemental text for introductory college-level classes in biology, zoology, botany, or anthropology. These three purposes can all be served by answering the following question: What should an educated person know about the theory of evolution?

Berra does a good job in all three areas. If you can get past the author's obvious distaste for anyone who finds creationism--in any form whatsoever--even mildly acceptable, any reader should come away with the beginnings of an answer to his question.

It's when Berra gets to his third chapter, The Explanatory Power of Evolution, that his argument begins to loose steam. Because Berra dismisses "creationism" or anything that doesn't quite fit his worldview, he misses those points of commonality where just maybe Intelligent Design or creationism at large isn't as lacking as he assumes. For example, the Peppered Moth and the case of English air pollution. What Berra fails to note is that Intelligent Design and other creation models would make the same prediction as evolution concerning the return of a larger number of light colored moths when the environment lightens up due to a reduction in soot.

It's the assumptive power of evolution that bothers me, more than a simple recitation of biological facts. The presumption that only evolution can explain the evidence also gets a little annoying. While Berra does a good job refuting some of the silly arguments that can be heard on TBN's Creation in the 21st Century, both Dr. Baugh and Dr. Berra parade out philosophic arguments masquerading as science. In Berra's case, he assumes that, because small changes can be seen, large changes can be explained because of those small changes. It's a very logical deduction. Unfortunately, it's a bit of a hasty conclusion that explains everything.

That's not to say that I dispute the basic facts of "evolution", read biology: there were some pretty strange creatures running around (Archaeopteryx to Australopithecus) and there are some pretty amazing biological adaptations (Sickle Cell Anemia and its relationship with Malaria, for example). I'm also pretty sure the earth is more than 6,000 years old. These are the facts that should be taught in school. "Education," Berra says, "does not exist to confirm people's superstitions, and children do not learn to think when the are fed only dogma" (p. 139). While I heartily agree, I find it odd that the author does not see the dogmatics in his own writings.