A growing number of commentators have noted that there seems to be a link between creationist apologetics and the various critiques of Darwinism coming from marxist and postmodernist sources. Although these groups appear to have little in common, they advance somewhat similar objections to the technicalities of evolutionary theory. More interestingly, these groups appear to consider that Darwinism leads to a denial of values (by its emphasis on differential fitness and contingency). Furthermore, all groups have a perception of establishment science as a tool for manipulating people. Thus, Lewontin, a marxist geneticist, has drawn an analogy in The doctrine of DNA (Penguin Books, 1993) between religion and some of the trends found in contemporary science. He points out that religion has been used as a tool for social control, where the social institutions and political leaders are perceived to have the approval of God. 

"But this description also fits science and has made it possible for science to replace  religion as the chief legitimating force in modern society..." (p.8). 

Again, these groups collectively advance the objection that "science" has overstepped itself in the way its advocates claim "objectivity" and "value-free" knowledge (at the expense of humility and acknowledgement of fallibility). Lewontin writes: 

"Not only the methods and institutions of science are said to be above ordinary human relations but, of course, the product of science is claimed to be a kind of universal truth. The secrets of nature are unlocked. Once the truth about nature is revealed, one must accept the facts of life. When science  speaks, let no dog bark" (p.8). 

The response of the establishment generally is to minimise the significance of such dissident voices. They are treated as eccentricities when the critics concerned are distinguished scientists, and as irritants when they are not. 

The response of some scientists with a Christian commitment (particularly Theistic Evolutionists) is to acknowledge the validity of some of these criticisms, and to point to a science that is more "humble". This is a science that does not claim to address questions of meaning and purpose, but only of "facts" and "testable knowledge". Science cannot test whether God controls history - so it properly remains silent (they say). Similarly, science cannot test whether man is the product of God's creative activity - so it properly remains silent. This is popularly presented by Theistic Evolutionists as: "science tells us how; theology tells us why". 

But is this emphasis of "humility in science" satisfactory? In my view, the answer to this question is "no". One major problem with it is that there is a complete failure to address the issue of presuppositions in science. We need to ask: "What are the premises of science?" "On what foundation is it built?" Such questions appear to be rarely asked, but they are of crucial importance in this debate. If we adopt the maxim "science tells us how" without recognising that some possible explanations are excluded from consideration at the outset, we may find ourselves seriously compromising the truth. 

Whereas the scientific revolution took place in a theistic culture (where leading scientists found no difficulty harmonising their science and their Christian beliefs), this is not the case today. Faith has been banished to a "private" corner of people's lives, and even though 40% of scientists are said to believe in God, there is little point of contact between these beliefs and their scientific work. The problem now is that science is built on a presupposition that natural causes are responsible for every effect, both now and in the past. Science proceeds by assuming that nature is all there is: this is "naturalism". The thesis that every whole is explained in terms of the sum of its constituent parts is "reductionism". Naturalism and reductionism are the working presuppositions of contemporary science. Thus, there is no place for an intelligent cause of any effect. As far as origins is concerned, the only acceptable causes for modern scientists are natural ones. Building on these presuppositions, "science" has moved irresistibly towards the idea of an unplanned, unsupervised cosmos. It has become associated with the idea that life on earth is entirely the product of contingency. In the United States, the National Association of Biology Teachers has stimulated much debate recently over the extent to which evolution is "unsupervised and impersonal". This is because these key words were incorporated into a position statement proposed by NABT leaders. The following news report is taken from WORLD Magazine, January 24, 1998. 

"The diversity of life on Earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process." So read the platform of the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT), the influential professional society of high school and college science instructors. 

But in a surprising move that has scandalized evolutionists and secularists in the education establishment, the NABT has excised the key words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" from its creed, technically allowing for the possibility that a personal, intelligent creator designed life, albeit through the mechanism of evolution. 

But don't expect evolutionist educators to recant their materialist faith anytime soon. As Phillip Johnson, a leading critic of Darwinism, told WORLD: "I don't think the NABT meant to change its substantive position, which is still that evolution is a completely natural and material process in which God played no role. They merely removed some language that was too explicit in stating their naturalistic philosophy." 

Indeed, Wayne Carley, executive director of the NABT acknowledged as much, saying the change was made because they wanted "to avoid taking a religious position." That is an admission that demonstrates the truth of what Christian critics have been claiming all along: The association's original platform - like Darwinism itself - exceeds purely scientific conclusions, and embraces distinctly religious ideas. 

The NABT decision to change its statement is widely seen as a retreat from the secularist worldview of the "scientific" community. "That perception may cause the Darwinists some worry," Mr. Johnson says, "because they cannot afford to look as if they are losing confidence."

The word "unsupervised" implies that there is no divine oversight or control of the evolutionary process - a direct attack on the theistic evolutionary position, as well as all other theistic perspectives. The word "impersonal" rules out any involvement of a divine person in the evolutionary account of origins. The fact that these words were promoted by the NABT leadership for some time before the change is indicative of how entrenched naturalistic philosophy ("nature is all there is") has become in the academic community. 

Alliances may be planned or accidental. The convergences of thinking mentioned in the opening paragraphs are undoubtedly unplanned. Agreement on particular issues should never be interpreted as a consequence of agreement at a deeper level. Christians, Marxists and Postmodernists have not set out to form an alliance. The different groups would not agree on the NATB statement: for example, the Marxists are entirely happy with the idea that evolution is unsupervised and impersonal. However, collectively, these groups are having some effect on establishment science. Some heated exchanges have taken place in the past few years, particularly between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould (representing establishment science and marxist science respectively). Phillip Johnson and the "Intelligent Design" movement are making inroads into universities in the United States and have a significant media pressure. 

The NATB retreat is essentially an acknowledgement that the naturalistic philosophy underlying their original statement cannot be defended as "science" itself, and that the alliance of voices pointing this out has been, to some effect, effective. 

Theistic evolutionists, among others, did object to the wording. However, because Theistic Evolutionists do not, in general, perceive the naturalistic philosophy underlying contemporary science, their protest was lightweight. Naturalism will not voluntarily limit its interests to "how?" questions: it will make the deduction that the "why?" questions are contentless (as there is no ultimate meaning or purpose in a naturalistic cosmos). To counter naturalism, it is necessary to develop a holistic Christian view of science, or Marxist view of science, or Postmodernist view of science. Insofar as there is this common ground, the strange alliance looks set to continue! 

David J. Tyler (April 1998)

Return to top of page