The Religion of Evolutionary Humansim and the Public Schools
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
The present paper will discuss some basic considerations in
formulating a Biblical creation model for experimental psychology.
As a first step, it will be useful to examine in a somewhat oversimplified
way the current state of experimental psychology as it operates
under the general evolution model. At the heart of the evolutionary
viewpoint is the assumption that the universe, including its psychological
life forms, is the result of a strictly materialistic process
involving vast amounts of time and random changes. If one assumes
the validity of this "time plus chance" explanation,
it becomes very difficult to believe that present natural phenomena
are as complex as they might superficially appear. To put it another
way, the evolutionist is logically inclined to assume that underlying
the apparent complexity of the universe there must be a very basic
simplicity. Thus from the evolutionists' perspective, if scientists
are going to explain the thoughts and actions of psychological
organisms, they must search for simple, economical explanations
of the apparently complex behaviors in which they engage. This
leads them to adopt an approach to scientific investigation and
explanation which is called "reductionism."1
The psychologist attempts to explain the very complex things people
do ¾ such as speaking, problem solving, remembering, and
so forth ¾ in terms of relatively simple mechanisms.
In contemporary experimental psychology, dominated almost exclusively
by the evolutionary model, one can identify two broad reductionist
camps. In one camp may be called biological reductionists, those
who attempt to explain the activity of intelligent creatures in
terms of genetic make-up, hormone balances, brain cell activity,
and more complex instincts and brain functioning patterns. These
psychologists believe that the seemingly infinite complexity and
variety of intelligent activity observed in nature can be reductionistically
explained in terms of relatively more simple and yet still highly
complex biological mechanisms.
Opposed to the biological reductionist camp are those in the
environmental reductionist camp. Environmental reductionists are
also evolutionary in orientation, but they feel uncomfortable
with the level of biological complexity posited by the biological
reductionists. They prefer a still simpler biological component
with more weight given to environmental factors in explaining
the complex activities of people and animals. Emphasis is given
to such factors as stimulus/stimulus, stimulus/response, and response/reward
histories, along with more abstract environmental dimensions such
as education, cultural background, and so forth.
A simple analogy will illustrate the difference between these
two views. Suppose that a group of scientists was called in to
examine some mysterious and advanced model of airplane that had
landed in their country for unknown reasons. As the scientists
comb over the aircraft, they develop two opposing concepts as
to how it is flown. Some scientists focus on the cockpit with
its complex instruments and control stick and come to the conclusion
that it is flown manually. But other scientists become intrigued
with a complicated computer located in the interior of the craft,
and as a result become convinced that the plane is flown by means
of an "automatic pilot." The ensuing argument between
the "manual control" and "automatic pilot"
proponents is somewhat analogous to the nature vs. nurture argument
in psychology. The "manual control" view illustrates
the environmental camp, and the "automatic pilot" view
illustrates the biological camp. In this analogy the manual controls
represent the relatively simple biological component posited by
the environmental reductionist. Thus, the plane must be directed
by outside environmental forces (i.e., the pilot) if it is to
fly successfully. The "automatic pilot" on the other
hand represents the more complex biological component posited
by the biological reductionist. To a much greater degree the plane
with an automatic pilot is guided on the basis of internal forces
and relatively independent of outside environmental ones.
A Creationist Model
In contrast to the above views it is possible to formulate a
creation or design model for experimental psychology. An event
which took place in connection with the recent Mars landing program
provides an excellent illustration for such a model. First of
all, no one supposes that the two Viking spacecrafts evolved.
We all know that a great deal of energy and intelligence went
into their design and construction. When they reached Mars, an
interesting thing happened to one of them. A switch malfunctioned,
and an important mechanical arm could not be moved. The project
scientists, however, did not throw up their hands in despair as
one might expect. Rather, they began studying the problem and
eventually succeeded in bypassing the faulty switch, thus allowing
the arm to work properly. Now one might say to himself, "How
can this be possible? If a house light switch is faulty it must
be replaced. One could not bypass it from the next room, let alone
from millions of miles away in space." The answer is simple.
The Houston scientists were able to bypass the faulty switch because
highly intelligent designers had planned for these and many other
contingencies in advance. In other words, the spacecraft was not
simply designed to operate on the surface of Mars. It was designed
to include a wide range of alternative modes of operation in the
event of mechanical failure. It was, in effect, overdesigned.
The concept of "overdesign" or "contingency
design" could be useful in formulating a viable scientific
creation model for experimental psychology. If the "mechanical"
body a person lives in were designed by an infinitely intelligent
creator, scientists might expect to find evidence of overlapping
and redundant systems similar to those in the Mars vehicle. This
would allow alternate modes of operation in the event of the failure
of one or more key psychological or biological systems.
There are convincing data from experimental psychology as well
as everyday experience pointing directly and powerfully to just
such a conclusion. Psychological organisms, including man, demonstrate
a remarkable combination of extremely efficient and economical
organization on the one hand, and incredible potential for functional
flexibility on the other. Biological reductionists have tended
to appreciate only the first of these characteristics while environmental
reductionists have tended to recognize only the latter.
Current Situation in Psychology
Returning to the description of the current state of psychology,
the reader may recall the analogy of the scientists examining
the aircraft. One group believes the plane is flown manually (environmental
control) and the other that it is flown by automatic pilot (biological
control). Of course the fact is that the plane has both capabilities,
so in a sense both groups are right in their positive claims and
wrong in their opposition to the opponent's position. Now what
happens as these two groups battle with each other? Each side
makes dramatic claims which the opponent denies. The "automatic
pilot" group provides evidence that the plane can be safely
and accurately flown even with the pilot blindfolded. The "manual
operation" group, on the other hand, puts on an impressive
demonstration of acrobatic flying using the manual controls. Both
sides are embarrassed and puzzled at accomplishments by the opponents.
In a sense, this is the state of affairs in psychology today.
Two of the most prominent examples are the following. Contrary
to the expectations of environmentalists, the biological reductionists
point to accumulating evidence that human beings grow almost automatically
into their language ability. With minimal training and apparently
haphazard learning conditions, they are able to master the language
with remarkable ease and regularity. On the other hand, contrary
to the expectations of biological reductionists, the environmentalists
continue to demonstrate and uncover evidence for the incredible
capacity and flexibility organisms have for learning. They are
fond of demonstrating that supposedly fixed biological sequences
of behavior acquisition can be altered or reversed by certain
training procedures. The teaching of reading to preschool age
children is one dramatic example.
But the flaw in modern psychology goes deeper than simply two
opposing sides having part of the truth and not realizing the
opponent's share of it. The fact is that both sides, being wedded
to the evolutionary model, fail to do justice to even those areas
where they happen to be ¾ in a sense ¾ correct. The
level of complexity and richness of design (i.e., overdesign)
goes far beyond current evolutionary/reductionist theories. The
result is, as a colleague recently put it, that practice is constantly
outstripping theory. Nonpsychologists are constantly doing things
that the experts say are impossible. The only reason they even
try to do them is either because they are unaware of expert opinion
or for some reason choose to ignore it.
Examples from the Environmentalist Camp
Perhaps the most dramatic recent environmental example concerns
a young student at De Paul University. This illustration was recently
reported in the National Press by Ronald Kotulak of the Chicago
Tribune.2 In 1953, in order to save a youngster's life
from the effects of a severe brain malfunction, surgeons removed
the entire left half (or hemisphere) of his brain. Biologically
oriented experts, viewing this case in the light of a considerable
body of sound scientific evidence that the crucial brain centers
for speech and language functions are located in the left hemisphere,
predicted that young man would never be able to speak or use language
in a normal manner. But as Kotulak reports, "Ever since the
operation (the young man) has been dumbfounding the medical profession.
Doctors who examine him shake their heads in disbelief."
By the age of nine his intellectual capacity was measured in the
dull-normal range. By the age of 21, his verbal IQ scores had
risen to the bright-normal range. Finally, tests at age 26 showed
him to be scoring in the superior range for verbal intelligence.
Again to quote Kotulak, "Everything science knows about the
brain says it's impossible for (this young man) to be doing as
well as he is. Pages of medical textbooks will have to be ripped
out and rewritten."
Another dramatic case is that of a young mongoloid child named
Nigel Hunt. When Nigel was only two-weeks-old his parents were
told by experts that no matter how much love and care they gave
him he would always be an idiot. Nothing they could do would alter
that fact. Fortunately for Nigel, his parents refused to believe
the experts. With great patience, the boy's mother worked with
her growing child. Making a game out of it, she spelled out words
phonetically as soon as he could talk. Her devotion was rewarded,
for by the time Nigel started to school his parents were told
that, "no child in his primary school could read better."
As Nigel grew older his astounding accomplishments continued.
He taught himself to type using his father's typewriter, and then
at age 17, became the first mongoloid to write a book, an autobiography
entitled, The World of Nigel Hunt.3 Cases
such as these highlight an exciting potential for a creation oriented
science of psychology.
Examples from the Biological Camp
While the above cases speak to what can be accomplished through
experience and training, the following examples show the capacity
of animals and humans to attain mature functioning with minimal
learning requirements. Examples illustrating this biological preparedness
are not difficult to find. Bird migration is one dramatic and
well-known instance. A more recently documented illustration can
be found in the work of psychologist, Gene Sackett.4
He experimented with infant monkeys and found evidence that they
have an innate ability to recognize (in terms of visual preference)
their own species as well as react appropriately to certain social
cues. For instance, two- to four-month-old monkeys that had never
seen another monkey nevertheless showed signs of fear when exposed
to pictures of an angry and threatening adult monkey. Similar
evidence for human babies has been shown by Frantz5
and Ball.6
One famous researcher in this area, T.G.R. Bower, has reported
the results of some fascinating and excellent laboratory research
on the development of visual perception in six-to eight-week-old
babies.7 Many of Bower's results are startling to any
reductionist view of man. To quote Bower regarding the results
from one of his experiments, "This finding seems very important,
since it is a blow not only against the idea (common to nativists
and empiricists) that perception of simple variables is in some
way developmentally earlier than perception of complex variables."7
Conclusion
What Bower has stated is a specialized version of the basic
preconception underlying virtually all of modern science, including
psychology. It is the evolutionary, reductionistic assumption
that simple things precede and are more basic than complex things.
Against this idea is the Biblical assertion, "in the beginning
God…" A creationist psychology need not abandon the
search for underlying mechanisms as method, but only the belief
that reductionism is the route to basic truth. The discovery
of efficient and economical underlying mechanisms can greatly
enhance man's understanding and control over nature, and the search
for such mechanisms would continue to be an integral part of science.
But additionally, a creationist science could infuse a new optimism
that the creation contains numerous built-in but as yet undiscovered
potentialities for dealing with man's most troublesome problems.
Psychologists might come to realize a whole new range of possibilities
in terms of service to their fellow man and reduction of human
suffering. The possibilities in the area of mental retardation
and brain damage are particularly exciting. How many more children
like Nigel Hunt or the boy with severe brain damage might be blessed?
What possibilities might be uncovered if experimental psychologists
were taught to suspect the presence of and search for designed,
backup capability. What excitement and adventure to begin to discover
and appreciate the Creator's marvelous "overdesign."
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
defines reductionism as "a procedure or theory that
reduces complex data or phenomena to simple terms." (Emphasis
added) No criticism of reductionism as a procedure is intended.
2 The Wichita Eagle, November 8, 1976.
3 Hunt, N., The World of Nigel Hunt, New York:
Garrett, 1967.
4 Sackett, Gene P., "Monkeys Reared in Isolation
with Pictures as Visual Input: Evidence for an Innate Releasing
Mechanism," Science, 1966, Vol. 154, pp. 1468-1473.
5 Frantz, R.L., "The Origin of Form Perception,"
Scientific American, 1961, Vol. 204, pp. 66-72.
6 Ball, W., and Tronick, E., "Infant Responses
to Impending Collision: Optical and Real." Science,
1971, Vol. 171, pp. 818-820.
7 Bower, T.G.R., "The Visual World of Infants."
Scientific American, 1965, Vol. 215, pp. 80-92.
*Dr. Morris is Founder and President Emeritus
of ICR.
This article was originally published September, 1977. "The Religion of Evolutionary Humansim and the Public Schools", Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/133/ (accessed October 15, 2008).
Want to use this article? View our Ethical Use Policy. To receive more articles from ICR, signup for a free subscription to our online and print publications.