[Don's Home Page]
Originally Prepared by Don Lance, October 28, 1999
(With an update on December 20, 1999)
In October of 1999, the NSS News (the official publication of the National Speleological Society) contained an article with the masthead "Spelean Soapbox." Although no disclaimer is attached to the article, it is understood by the general readership to be the opinion of a single person and not necessarily a reflection of the NSS as a whole.
The article had the subtitle "Mr. Darwin: We're Not in Kansas Anymore" and was authored by John Tudek. In his article he presented several arguments concerning science, evolution, creationists, the quality of creation science, and the contributions of Christianity in history. In closing, he used his arguments to call for a future policy within the NSS to disregard the work of creationists and creation science, citing inferiority of their work and "political motivations" of creationists.
After reading the article, I and several others were astonished that it was published as it had little to do with caving and more to do with religious intolerance. I wrote a rebuttal to Mr. Tudek's article, which I submitted to the Editor of the NSS News. To effectively counter Mr. Tudek's article, I included supporting information for my points in my article. This made my rebuttal considerably longer than the original article, and this was an editorial concern. Another editorial concern was that I spent a majority of the time in the rebuttal handling Mr. Tudek's claims, which were not caving related. After several collaborations, the Editor and I arrived at a compromise:
This web page fulfills the last condition.
To be fair to Mr. Tudek, I will first present his original article here exactly as it was published. My intention is to let Mr. Tudek speak for himself, after which I will follow with my rebuttal. After my rebuttal will come some comments from the NSS News Editor Dave Bunnell and John Tudek, which appeared in the December 1999 News, and I will then close with some observations.
Quick Links
Writing a column several months in advance does not lend itself to timeliness. It's difficult to be topical when you don't know what the topics will be two, three, maybe even four months in advance. As a result, I tend to shy away from events of the moment and focus on things like institutions, techniques or history. Something extraordinary has to happen for me to put a message in the proverbial bottle, knowing fully that it's contents won't be read until another season passes. Yesterday, August 21th, in the state of Kansas, the extraordinary happened.
I am talking about the decision by Kansas Board of Education to remove the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory from the topics that students need to master if they are to graduate from the Kansas school system.
What does this mean? According to the wire services, it means that while evolution and the 'big bang' can be taught within Kansas schools, it cannot be tested. It also means alternative ideas can be taught. Because of this, Kansas schoolchildren are going to be led to believe that unproven ideas like the 'young earth' idea (which claims the earth is only six to ten thousand years old) and 'creationist evolution' (which posits that an omnipotent deity created all species at the same time at the dawn of creation) are as valid as the extensively tested theories of evolution and cosmology.
The wire services called this "A Victory for Creationist Science." A more accurate assessment was made by the head of Kentucky State University who said that this decision "set science back a hundred years." Personally, I feel that this is the worst thing to happen since the Scopes 'Monkey Trial' in 1925.
But what is Creationist Science? And how did it get to the point where it is able to replace a well-documented phenomenon like evolution in the schoolbooks? Shouldn't the concept of the separation of church and state end the argument once and for all?
Creationism takes the Bible literally. As a movement, it has always been skulking in the shadows behind science. The current version of creation science began as a grass roots movement at the start of the twentieth century. That epoch of its history culminated in the previously mentioned Scopes 'Monkey' Trial. The trial was over a law passed in Tennessee banning the teaching of any theory that "denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." The law was viewed as an obvious violation of civil liberties and the ACLU decided to take it to court. John T. Scopes volunteered to be their test case.
The trial was a media sensation in its day. The verdict came down against John Scopes and he was fined a whopping $100. After the trial, both sides claimed victory. The creationists got to keep the law on the books while science got the word out about evolution. The law, by the way, stayed on the books until 1967.
Matters might have stayed that way forever, had not the Soviets launched Sputnik. Instantaneously, science became the most important thing to the government as political leaders suddenly felt that they were about to be left dangerously behind. The word was sent down from the highest levels: Science was to be taught, scientists were to be made, and the latest theories were to be emphasized. Like many times before in our history, it required an external threat to correct an internal flaw. Creationism was pushed under the rug.
But it wasn't through. A new generation of creationists grew up, with new ideas. These new people recognized early on that they weren't going to be able to win the fight in the same way. Science had gained too much momentum and public support. So they devised a two-pronged attack. First, clothe the old ideas in scientific jargon as much as possible to make it look like real science. The second prong is to attack science directly, to look for the chinks in its armor. Creation science uses trivialities to overthrow whole ideas. To use an analogy: because of a scratch on the paint job of one car, they would throw away not only that car, but all cars.
But isn't it still religion, masquerading as science? Shouldn't it be tossed out on the idea of separation of church and state? No, creationists now say. The 'new' creationism is science, just like evolution.
Okay, scientists say. If it's science, let's put it to the test. And they did. Lots of times. And the answer always came up the same. If creationism is science, then it is very poor science. I'm not going to go into details as to the particulars of the debate. There are several authors who have devoted whole books to the argument on both sides. For a concise summary of the main points, I can strongly recommend Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things (currently in paperback and at all major libraries). He puts the argument together in about fifty pages. Most of my fact checking was done against his book, as well as against Carl Sagan's book The Demon Haunted World and scattered magazine articles I have collected over time.
So if that is the case and creationism makes for bad science, then how did it manage to work its way into the textbooks of Kansas schoolchildren? Initially, it didn't. State guidelines for teaching material are written by educators and scientists. The problem came afterwards when the final document had to be reviewed by lay people. Apparently Kansas has had this debate going on for years. But each year it has ended in a 5-5 deadlock and evolution remained on the books. This year, however, somebody changed their mind and tipped the scales. And when that happened, the review board rewrote the state's guidelines. An interesting note to all this is that when the educators and scientists found out what had been done to their document, they almost unanimously demanded that their names be taken off the paper.
The political motivations of the creationists are in direct conflict with the goals of the NSS. Tourist trips aside, this organization is founded on scientific principles; namely the exploration, study, understanding and conservation of the underground. We rely on science to keep this organization afloat, by application of theory to discover new passage or new life underground. (For a thorough discourse on the subject of life underground, especially microbial life, read Michael Ray Taylor's Dark Life.) We rely on decades of accumulated knowledge in groundwater hydrology to determine where well water comes from. We use years of bat studies to determine which caves should be gated and protected (often with the added benefit of having a list of caves to visit and an excuse to go there.) We receive grants and give grants based on, among other things, scientific merit. We cite scientific theory to landowners when we want to ridgewalk on their land, looking for new caves.
But if Creationists have their way, we'll be left without a leg to stand on. Creationism is, in its own way, a desperate attempt to return to the fire and brimstone ways of centuries ago, when the church's word was law and caves were considered the route to Hell (and people who ventured underground, demons) and witch burning and inquisitions were commonplace. We've come a long way in enlightening ourselves since those days, but I don't think we're as far removed from it as we'd like to believe ourselves to be. Creationists want those days back and Kansas is their first step to that goal.
I just finished reading John Tudek’s Spelean Soapbox article in the October issue of the NSS News, and I was astounded that this article was published – it vehemently attacks NSS members who have religious beliefs different from Mr. Tudek. I am accustomed to assaults based on religious intolerance from other sources, but I never expected one in the pages of the NSS News.
Before moving onto the main point of the article (what the NSS should do in respect to creation science) I feel that I must address the misleading information and revisionist history in the article. I apologize for presenting this information here, as people want to hear more about caving! However, Mr. Tudek’s article requires a proper rebuttal as his foundation for the proposed NSS action is flawed. If the NSS is to take a stance on creation science, then it should base a decision on facts and not on subjective information as given in his article.
Mr. Tudek clearly opposes the Kansas Board decision. As he pointed out, the Board’s decision is to permit alternative theories (in addition to evolution) to be taught in a classroom. Is this a bad thing? It is if you want to believe the theory of evolution to be true and prefer it to other alternatives, as Mr. Tudek does.
Upon close examination, however, one notices the parallels between the Scopes trial and the Kansas Board decision. The Scopes trial decided that alternative theories could be presented in the classroom, as did the Kansas Board decision. Yet Mr. Tudek judges the Kansas Board decision as wrong, solely because it is his preferred theory of evolution that is being challenged this time instead of creationism.
Despite Mr. Tudek’s claims, science has not proven evolution to be true – in fact, years of research by reputable scientists (creationist and non-creationist) have raised serious problems at the heart of evolution and the Big Bang. More scientific research will not solve the problems, for every serious scientist acknowledges that even science has its limitations. Science proceeds by utilizing demonstrated truths and observed facts, and therefore it is severely lacking when it is applied in determining origins of unique events that occurred long ago. Science makes for a poor religion. As even admitted by evolutionist and Nobel Prize winner Dr. Robert Millikan, “The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove.”
Mr. Tudek claims that creationists have “recreated themselves” as scientists and are clothing speculations to make it appear as “real science.” He also claims that these creation scientists are using “trivialities to overthrow whole ideas.”
These are incredibly specious arguments, and can be refuted by anyone wishing to fully research them. Creation scientists are not dummies – many have done quality research for decades, have published numerous notable scientific articles and books, and some have won Nobel Prizes. One does not win a Nobel Prize for “junk science.” For example, Sir John Eccles is one of the foremost brain scientists of this century and he won a Nobel Prize in Physiology / Medicine. He wrote, “We are constrained to attribute uniqueness of the psyche or soul to a supernatural spiritual creation… We submit that no other explanation is tenable.” In addition, works like Cosmos, Bios, Theos, written by 60 leading scientists (including 24 Nobel Prize winners), also argue that only the existence of God can explain the complexity and order of life. And during a review of the Theory of Abrupt Appearance in J.P. Moreland’s (ed.) The Creation Hypothesis, evolutionist Dr. Arthur N. Shapiro assured the evolutionary community that “if you are smug enough to think ‘theistic science’ is an oxymoron, you won’t” after reading the work.
Nor are the problems with evolution and the Big Bang “trivial.” For starters, the absence of large numbers of transitional forms between species in the fossil record, the inability of natural selection and beneficial mutations to effectively demonstrate the mechanism of evolution between species, and the outright large-scale violations of the second law of thermodynamics are not “trivial” problems, which even evolutionary scientists admit. These and a multitude of other problems strike at the very center of evolution and the Big Bang. Many evolutionary scientists have resorted to questionable science and logical fallacies like “begging the question” in attempts to get around the problems. It’s no wonder many scientists have decided to abandon evolution and the Big Bang and to look seriously at alternatives.
The history of science has many examples in which a majority of scientists were convinced of the validity of a particular theory and yet were wrong. Dr. Arthur C. Custance, who holds a Ph.D. in anthropology, is a member of several prestigious scientific organizations. He argues that history is repeating itself again in the assumption by scientists that evolution is true. He writes: “So basic are these erroneous [evolutionary] assumptions that the whole theory is now largely maintained in spite of rather than because of the evidence… It has become in the strictess sense irrational. Information or concepts which challenge the theory are almost never given a fair hearing… If evolutionary theory was strictly scientific, it should have been abandoned long ago.”
The late Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, a creation scientist whose academic career spanned over 40 years, held three doctorates in fields of science. He published more than 100 scientific papers and over 40 books that were published in 17 languages. He wrote that since evolution could not be supported by experimental evidence, then “the whole theory can scarcely be considered to be a scientific one… NeoDarwinism must be considered to be a philosophy rather than a science, for science is concerned solely with experimentally testable evidence.”
As these scientists have pointed out, evolution and the Big Bang are actually philosophical speculations masquerading as science, ironically the very charge levied at creation science! It should be apparent that how a scientist views the world has a tremendous bearing on how he/she interprets data and presents results. A scientist who prefers to hold onto a cherished belief will always be sure to interpret data as not to contradict the belief. Admittedly, creation scientists prefer to interpret data in this manner while using sound scientific methods – however the point here is that evolutionary scientists are not free from this kind of bias either. In reality, “real science" and Christian beliefs like Creation are not contradictory at all; conflicts arise when a naturalistic scientist’s worldview guides his interpretation of the data and these clash with a creation scientist's worldview and interpretation. Therefore, the conflict is actually between the worldviews used in the interpretation of data -- not between a worldview and hard scientific facts.
Mr. Tudek and I do agree on one point: the NSS News is not the place for this debate as numerous books effectively cover the subject. However, Mr. Tudek’s referenced sources follow his same worldview and therefore contain subjective information to support this worldview. To offset the imbalance, there are a number of books and reference materials available that cover the problems of evolution and the Big Bang, and also illustrate the high quality of creation science. I recommend books such as Ankerberg & Weldon's Darwin’s Leap of Faith: Exposing the False Religion of Evolution or Paul Johnson's Darwin on Trial, or you can focus on a specific field of science with books such as Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe (who is not a creationist, I might add). These books don’t summarize the issues; they jump in feet-first and provide lengthy, detailed examinations of the problems. You can also find out more information through the Creation Research Society on the Internet at http://www.creationresearch.org.
There are other errors in Mr. Tudek’s article, but I will just focus on one more as it serves only to propagate misinformation. Mr. Tudek claims that creationists are motivated to “return to the fire and brimstone ways of centuries ago” and when “witch burning and inquisitions were commonplace.” He also says that “we have come a long way in enlightening ourselves since those days.”
Such anti-Christian convictions no doubt sway Mr. Tudek’s evaluation of information. It should be noted that while a few misguided people within Christianity have certainly caused dark periods in history such as the Salem witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition, such a picture purposely ignores the overwhelming bulk of positive history. Positive contributions made by Christianity through the centuries are too numerous to mention here, but a few have been universities, literacy and education for everyone, capitalism, representative government, civil liberties, benevolence and charity, and yes, even the birth of modern science itself. Christianity has not "always been skulking in the shadows behind science" -- great intellectual men of faith (such as Johannes Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur and Michael Faraday) defined it.
In light of his comments involving creationist history, it would only be fair to also ask what contributions evolution has made to history. Although evolution has only been around for 140 years, its “evolutionary ethics” have been instrumental in the bondage and slaughter of millions of people. Karl Marx wrote that Darwin’s The Origin of Species “contains the basis in natural history for our views” and also wanted to dedicate a portion of his Das Kapital to Darwin. As a necessity, the former Soviet Union used evolution as a key indoctrination tool in schools to support Marxism. In addition, Nazi Germany depended on evolutionary theory in their arguments for “superior” races and “subhuman” ones. Historian John Koster writes that Darwin was “the ‘scientist’ who directly inspired Nietzsche’s superman theory and the Nazi corollary that some people were subhuman… The term neo-Darwinism was openly used to describe Nazi racial theories. The expression ‘natural selection,’ as applied to human beings, turns up at the Wannsee Conference as the prime document of the Holocaust…” Yes, Mr. Tudek, evolution has really “enlightened” us in the short time it has been here.
Think about it -- would you rather live in a country with a Christian presence or one based entirely on atheistic evolution? Don't be so quick to make a snap decision. From the historical record so far, I choose the former without hesitation! After considering the facts, I don't think there would be many people who would choose the latter alternative. As Ravi Zacharias has observed, "In hard terms, the morality that atheism teaches, implies or espouses is unlivable."
Now to Mr. Tudek’s main point on which all his erroneous information was based: how should the NSS respond to creation science? According to him, the creationists “are in direct conflict with the goals of the NSS.” He argues that the NSS was founded on scientific principles – an interesting assertion since it had its origin as a Sunday school class. (Source for this information: Dr. Bill Halliday [NSS#812] in Depths of the Earth.) Also, he argues that a creationist cannot contribute positively to “the exploration, study, understanding and conservation of the underground.”
For the record, I am a Christian who believes in the Creation as reported in the Bible. I have also been an NSS member for over a decade, and I hold an advanced degree in a scientific discipline. Obviously I don’t share Mr. Tudek’s assertion that there’s a conflict between the goals of the NSS and creationists, and I know that I am not alone. In my years as an NSS member, I would think that I have made positive contributions in all the areas that he mentioned.
What should be the position of the NSS in light of creation science? Clearly the NSS should not practice religious discrimination since evolution is a philosophy and not a scientifically proven fact. The NSS should be open to consider viable scientific alternatives. An appeal to the scientific aspect of the NSS does not exclude creation science. Creation science is of high quality and I would expect the NSS to be open-minded when it comes to publishing articles based on creation science. While I do not agree with the claims made by evolutionary scientists, they too should be permitted to publish their work. This is the only way to correctly respect the diverse beliefs of members within the NSS.
In the December 1999 issue of the NSS News, my reduced rebuttal was published with the URL to this page. It also included an Editor's Note from Editor Dave Bunnell and also a follow-up comment from John Tudek. I present both of their comments here:
The "Soapbox" column, as the name implies, is geared to anecdote and opinion. It is clearly not meant to be a science column. Anyone writing an article for the News, other than an NSS officer, is expressing their own opinions and beliefs, and not official positions of the NSS. As editor, I would feel obligated to reject articles on topics that are clearly in violation of NSS policies (e.g., "how to buy and sell speleothems"), and those that have nothing to do with caving. Anyone, including John Tudek, is welcome to express their views about what directions they think the NSS should take or what should concern us as cavers.
Something strange happened after the October "Spelean Soapbox" came out. I actually got back reader mail. More surprisingly still, some of it was very negative. It seems that some of the people who read my article seemed to take it as an attack on their personal beliefs. Let me categorically state that that was never my intent. Personally, I put great faith in the teachings of the world's great religions. They can be a profound source of strength and comfort throughout our lives. I also feel that religion can co-exist with science on an even level, without one overwhelming the other. For every one person who believes in creationism and the young earth theory, there is at least one who believes in evolution and the Big Bang theory. The "Spelean Soapbox" is no place to have a long debate over this topic. I did want to make my fellow cavers aware of such a movement. Thanks for listening.
In order to keep the focus on caving in the NSS News, I have decided to publish my closing response here and not seek to have these published in the News.
In the past two months, I have received several letters from people who have read both John's article and mine. A majority of letters have expressed a favorable opinion of my article, and an unfavorable opinion of John's letter. Please note, however, that this is not a scientific poll -- this is just a tally of letters sent to me, and may not represent a representative cross section of NSS members.
Of Dave Bunnell's comments in his Editor's Note, I make only a single observation: he makes no apology for the published form of John's letter. Therefore, he has no problem with the way it is written, or the allegations it contains, for publishing in the NSS News. I can assume that, given the same article again, he would print it as it appears today. And I wonder if such an article would be reprinted if it substituted "women" or "Afro-Americans" in place of "Creationists" in the article -- especially in the last two paragraphs. See what I mean? Is a different set of non-discriminating standards being used for Creationists? I leave you to your opinion in this.
Likewise in John's followup comments, no apology is presented. In addition, there are many things amiss.
John states he was "surprised" that he got "negative" mail from his original article, and that some people "seemed to take it as an attack on their personal beliefs." He also states that this was never his intent. I find these are really incredible statements.
Why? Let's quickly review the two articles. John expressed his viewpoint in his original article that:
Science is superior to Creationism (John stated that Creationism has always been "skulking in the shadows behind science," and that everyone is more "enlightened" today by science.)
Creationism was an "internal flaw" in our past that was required to be "pushed under the rug" in favor of science
Scientists who believe in Creation are untrustworthy, and are using questionable science to push a political motivation (Their work is to be dismissed as non-credible, and they are not to be believed.)
You can find out more facts about Creationists in books like Why People Believe Weird Things (What's the implication for Creationists here?)
Creationists present a direct conflict to the goals of the NSS (So the NSS had better have a policy to take care of Creationists.)
In John's words, "Creationism is, in its own way, a desperate attempt to return to the fire and brimstone ways of centuries ago, when the church's word was law and... witch burning and inquisitions were commonplace. We've come a long way in enlightening ourselves since those days..." (Therefore, this is what everyone has to look forward to if Creationists have any voice in the NSS.)
Then John states in his followup comments that he is surprised that he would get negative mail from these statements, and that people somehow got the mistaken impression that he was attacking their personal beliefs. Does that seem reasonable? 'Nuff said for this.
John also states that he puts "great faith in the teachings of the world's great religions." As before, this statement is in direct conflict to his assertions in his original article. I do not see how anyone could put great faith in the teachings of the world's religions while at the same time believing them to be based on untruth. Such teachings surely do not derive from evolution, whose chief rule is "survival of the fittest." Charity, love for enemies, and similar teachings are in direct conflict to the implications of evolution, because all we have in evolution is an explainable naturalistic world and nothing supernatural. Morality has no foundation, and can't exist separated from its source. Moreover, John originally stated that such Creationist teachings are in direct conflict with the goals of the NSS. If such great faith in placed on religious teachings like those of the Creationists, then why do they pose a serious threat to the NSS?
John also stated, "I also feel that religion can co-exist with science on an even level, without one overwhelming the other." Again, this is in direct conflict to the belief he stated in his original article, that Creationism has always been "skulking in the shadows behind science." Also, if religion can co-exist with science on an even level, then John should take no issue with the Kansas Board decision at all as it gives equal time to both viewpoints -- as long as one does not overwhelm the other, correct? Yet we know that John feels differently about the Kansas decision.
One last comment about John's followup. John closed by stating that he wanted to make NSS cavers aware of the Creationist "movement." I would have to say the article was more than just presenting information about a "movement.". It presented a one-sided unfavorable view of the "movement," and it called for a future NSS policy of gagging Creationists and their work in favor of his own beliefs.
In closing, perhaps the most disturbing observation I have noted from this whole incident is how much it parallels past history. We have been down this road before. John originally mentioned a couple of bad occurrences in Christian history (the Salem witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition) and noted that they occurred when "the church's word was law." Indeed they did. Misguided people, in direct opposition to the very message they claimed to uphold, became enamored with power and had little tolerance for any other interpretation (even from those within Christianity itself). Eventually they abused their power to push their interpretation onto everyone and to hold onto their power. Those misguided people were ultimately not interested in truth. In seeking to hold onto their power, they resorted to extreme methods (public black-balling, burning of books, imprisonment, torture, etc.) to quiet those with different views.
It appears that we stand once again at this threshold, and that few realize it. We have the evolutionary community who believes "their word is law," and they have little tolerance for anyone with a different interpretation, scientific or otherwise. They are "enlightened" (so called) but their actions show that they are not actually interested in truth. They are not interested in hearing any evidence that contradicts their beliefs, and insist that only their viewpoint be taught in schools. Someone who really has the truth does not fear debates or open discussion... to prohibit this is to outlaw intellectual freedom. But instead, despite the building overwhelming evidence that their evolutionary viewpoint cannot be supported, they ignore it and seek to discredit, quiet or restrain by any means necessary the opposing Creationist viewpoint and evidence. Where will it end? I hope that we have learned from history and do not follow the same chain of events.
Comments? Email me at
info@TheLances.org Complaints? Send them to
/dev/nul