The communication by Miller et al. (Science, 313:765) helpfully points out some of the broader social issues that are entwined with the evolution-creation arguments, especially in the U.S. Unfortunately, a few phrases in the communication may contribute to the problem. As Michael Ruse has documented (2005, Evolution-Creation Struggle, Harvard Univ. Press, 336 pp.), evolutionary science is often misused to attack traditional religious views. To overcome the negative perceptions of evolution among the religious, it is necessary not only to refute the bad science and bad theology of the antievolutionists but also this misuse of science by evolutionists. As a result, it is particularly important to check whether statements about evolution and creation are scientifically justified and whether they are likely to cause unnecessary offense. For example, the statement by Miller et al. that "evolution is nonetheless problematic ... because it implies a more distant or less personal God" suggests that anyone believing in a more proximal or personal God ought to reject evolution. In fact, personal, impersonal, proximate, or distant deities are all compatible with evolution. Similarly, the statement that "the biblical literalist focus of fundamentalism in the United States sees Genesis as a true and accurate account of the creation of human life that supersedes any scientific finding or interpretation" could easily be misinterpreted to mean that alternative views see Genesis as false and inaccurate. However, it is also possible to see Genesis as true and accurate but metaphorical or otherwise not a literalistic scientific account.
Again, Miller et al. provide helpful insights into the issue of accepting evolution. The problem is merely not realizing how some of the statements may sound to a wider and potentially skeptical audience.
E-Letters: ![[Read E-Letter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
