WINNING THE BATTLES BUT LOSING THE WAR? "ANTI-CREATIONISTS" VERSUS "ANTI-EVOLUTIONISTS" IN THE ARENA OF PUBLIC OPINION

At the root of the controversy surrounding the anti-evolution debate is the very terminology used to define it. Terms like "creationism," "creation science," and "intelligent design" are, at first glance, intended to indicate an overlap between the separate but not necessarily conflicting philosophies of science and theology. However, I contend that these and other similar terms proposed and used by the anti-evolutionists, whether intended or not, provoke an emotional response in individuals who might otherwise not be so quick to discount evolution. When members of the scientific community "attack creationist arguments," the public perception is not that we are attacking a flawed philosophical position that rejects, ignores, or otherwise misrepresents large amounts of scientific data, but rather are attacking the very idea of a deity as the creator of all things. The result is an incorrect perception that the core of the debate involves atheism versus theism (a theological contest), when in reality it involves evolution versus anti-evolution (a scientific contest). In America, where 80% of the population identifies itself as belonging to an organized religion, this is a dangerous misconception to promote. Belief in a higher creative power and acceptance of the well-substantiated ideas of evolution and an old Earth are compatible; for example, the Vatican's (Catholics represent 24% of the US population) acceptance of evolution has been eloquently stated by Pope John Paul II, and more recently (Jan. 2006) the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has praised the ruling against intelligent design in science classrooms in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. In reality, the number of adherents to religious viewpoints that actually condemn evolution as contrary to their faith is small, possibly less than 5% of the US population. The remainder may be misinformed and reacting subconsciously to a perceived attack on their faith. By allowing the anti-evolutionists to choose the terminology of the debate, pro-evolutionists may have become unwitting pawns and caused public favor to swing toward the anti-evolutionists' stance. I call on the scientific community to stop using terminology which may provoke a negative response from the public and instead address this pseudoscientific position as it is: "anti-evolution."