The War On Fossils Continues

Posted 7 February 2007 by Steve Reuland

As I reported previously, evangelicals, led by Bishop Boniface Adoyo, Chairman of the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, are trying to suppress a fossil display in Kenya's National Museum. (And they're apparently getting aid from unnamed Western groups.) The planned exhibit contains numerous hominid fossils found in that country, including the famous Turkana Boy, a nearly complete Homo erectus skeleton. CNN has recently published an article about the museum exhibit and the evangelicals' attempts to whisk it away to some back room where it can't offend them. Most of the information in the article is old hat, but it's good to see the American media finally picking up on this. There is however one part that's new to me:

[Richard] Leakey fears the ideological spat may provoke an attack on the priceless collection, one largely found during the 1920s by his paleontologist parents, Louis and Mary Leakey, who passed their fossil-hunting traditions on to him. The museum, which attracts around 100,000 visitors a year, is taking no chances. Turkana Boy will be displayed in a private room, with limited access and behind a glass screen with 24-hour closed-circuit TV. Security guards will be at the entrance. "There are issues about the security," said Dr. Emma Mbua, the head of paleontology at the museum. "These fossils are irreplaceable and we wouldn't want anything to happen to them." Insurance coverage could run into millions of dollars, she added.

Way to go creationists. You've successfully driven security and insurance costs through the roof because your nutty followers can't be trusted not to destroy priceless artifacts. (Cross-posted to Sunbeams from Cucumbers.)

49 Comments

Warren · 7 February 2007

Way to go creationists. You've successfully driven security and insurance costs through the roof because your nutty followers can't be trusted not to destroy priceless artifacts.

Well, yeah. These people are basically Philistines. If they respected learning, they damned sure wouldn't be right-wing evangelical filth.

Katie · 7 February 2007

I am still totally perplexed as to what it is these people think those fossils *are*. If they're just apes or just humans, why is it so dangerous for people to see them?

Sometimes I try to imagine what it must be like inside these people's heads, but it hurts.

Raging Bee · 7 February 2007

If the threats continue, to the point where access to the fossils must be restricted, then the wingnut goons will have accomplished their mission.

Christians need to stop coddling, enabling, and excusing such behavior, and remind the wingnuts that such behavior is directly contrary to the teachings of Christ and at least one of the Ten Commandments. Didn't Jesus say "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free?"

This is as good a topic as any for Evolution Sunday. Right, Donald?

Peter · 7 February 2007

Let's really hope that the evangelicals of the world don't get into a position the way the Taliban did in which they can destroy any "idols".

Kristine · 7 February 2007

Why the heck would anyone be revolted by our ancestors? I just do not get it.

Geez, I just can't resist: "Am I my cousin's keeper?"

The Ghost of Paley · 7 February 2007

Well, yeah. These people are basically Philistines. If they respected learning, they damned sure wouldn't be right-wing evangelical filth.
— Warren

You had better get used to it. People assume that the vast majority of creationists worldwide are middle-class white males, because this group currently dominates the political landscape. The truth is that lots of Blacks, Amerindians, and Muslims have no patience with the theory either, and their voices will become louder as the demographics continue to shift in America and Europe. They'll also get to play the race card, as they'll paint evolution as an enabler for both racism and colonialism. Anticreationists will have more difficulty capturing the moral high ground here, especially since many anticreationists also embrace multiculturalism. Who are we to tell other groups where they came from (or so the argument goes)? Better roll up your sleeves, guys.....there's lots of work ahead.

Reality Czech · 7 February 2007

There is probably nothing inside their heads except an affiliation to their own group (tribe, religious sect) and the need to battle competing groups. The competing groups are whoever their leaders say they are. The average Kenyan probably cannot get beyond this, because the average IQ of Kenyans is 72.

ben · 7 February 2007

What's the IQ of the average ignorant racist?

GuyeFaux · 7 February 2007

I really don't understand. Is the bishop saying that displaying bones is offensive? Or that the evidence is contrived? Or that he doesn't agree with the placards next to the bones? What? I can't possibly imagine what beef he thinks he has. In the linked article, the bishop seems to have the usual Creationist hangups about evolution, but what the hell do they have to do with with a bunch of bones in a museum?

Julie Stahlhut · 7 February 2007

...the average IQ of Kenyans is 72.
— Reality Czech

Lose the racist insults. The motivation of Kenyan (or Australian or Dutch or Latin American) fundamentalists is the same as the motivation of their U.S. counterparts. Willful ignorance knows no ethnic boundaries.

The Ghost of Paley · 7 February 2007

Sorry, guys, not falling for the bait. My statements are blunt but very reasonable. People assume that the only threat to evolutionary biology is "redneck Christians" (aka "evangelical filth"). It's simply not true -- I've talked to several inner-city teachers and I know that procreationist beliefs cross racial and religious lines. In fact, my experience is that blacks and other racial minorities tend to be more suspicious of the theory than whites. Here's a NOVA survey from 1991. Partly this is because the theory has been -- and is -- misused by racists to support their agenda. As far as Muslims are concerned, check out cross-national surveys and see where Turkey and Iran fit in relation to Europe, Japan, and even the U.S., which is considered an outlier in evolution acceptance. I believe that a search of this very site will open your eyes. You are the ones who link rejection of evolution with a low IQ, not me. Many creationists are very intelligent, if a little ignorant about biology.

And yes, cultural issues play a big role in this. Many racial minorities are suspicious of "white" culture, and they perceive much of science as "white". Calling me names won't change that unpleasant truth.

The Ghost of Paley · 7 February 2007

Lose the racist insults. The motivation of Kenyan (or Australian or Dutch or Latin American) fundamentalists is the same as the motivation of their U.S. counterparts. Willful ignorance knows no ethnic boundaries.
— Julie Stahlhut

I think "Reality Czech" was poking fun of the strawman he constructed out of my views. The comment was not meant as an expression of his beliefs.

Sir_Toejam · 7 February 2007

procreationist beliefs

uh, didn't we learn those in sex ed? It's always better to learn about sex in the classroom, rather than on the street there, gawp. or has the stork "theory" made a resurgence we need to be aware of?

GuyeFaux · 7 February 2007

It's simply not true ---- I've talked to several inner-city teachers and I know that procreationist beliefs cross racial and religious lines

Yep. People of all races and religions procreate. Except for those anti-procreationist Shakers.

The Ghost of Paley · 7 February 2007

Surveys indicate that teenagers worldwide embrace procreationist beliefs. :)

The Ghost of Paley · 7 February 2007

One more note -- if memory serves, Iran beat the US in evolution acceptance. That's something at least....

Sir_Toejam · 7 February 2007

Surveys indicate that teenagers worldwide embrace procreationist beliefs. :)

yay! I'm very glad to see you didn't take that bait, either. ;)

Bill Gascoyne · 7 February 2007

... procreationist beliefs ...

If ever a word needed a hyphen...

Bill Gascoyne · 7 February 2007

Small correction, BTW: the article you cite is from Associated Press, not CNN.

Rusty Catheter · 8 February 2007

I seem to remember that just before being arrested over some tax thing, Hovind was about to head to Africa (can't remember the article, sorry). Any chance he may have been intending to add his voice to the hide the fossils campaign?

Rustopher.

joe · 8 February 2007

As a Christian and as a Kenyan I feel that the whole evolution vs. creationism debate is a complete waste of time .For hundred of years Kenyans have worshipped and believed in the one true God and studied Evolution. Some of the people involved in the evolution discoveries in Kenya, infact a majority of them are bible believing Christians. Evolution in Kenya is taught in schools from as early as elementary school .I even remember trips to the national museum to see "Lucy". Christian religious education-CRE is also a compulsory subject in elementary school just like science .Meaning that Evolution is also taught as a compulsory subject.

As a Kenyan I have never had an issue with the Evolution theory! It's just a theory .My only worry today is the importation of "western values" to Kenya that have nothing to do with Christianity .Faith in God is exactly that! Faith, it can not be hammered into someone .It is a gift from God. A good Christian church should not have an issue with evolution theory. If sound teaching of Christianity is taught the people will know were the truth lies .You can never hide the truth .Church leaders should stop being influenced by American evangelicals who want to Americanize Christianity.(Creation vs. Evolution is an American debate not a Christian debate) Faith can not be gained by locking up scientific theories in back rooms. If your faith in God is so fragile that it can not stand the challenge of an old theory then maybe you need to be reading the bible more and fighting the theory less. it is activities that call for artifacts to be stored /hidden that give Evolutionist a voice .Christian have nothing to fear .We have lived with evolution's 'evidence' but Kenyans have always known that God created the world including Adam.

The bible is very clear that to the world our faith is foolishness .But none the less it is the truth .We can not and should not hide fossils. Our faith can withstand and indeed it has withstood any challenge thrown against it .Let Creationists and Evolutionist fight it out in America. We know what is true .God created everything .We don't need to argue about it

GuyeFaux · 8 February 2007

If ever there needed to be a demonstration that strong Christian faith and acceptance of evolution can co-exist, joe has presented it. Hey, I don't even object to the phrase "just a theory" used in that context.

David B. Benson · 8 February 2007

joe --- Thank you!

fnxtr · 8 February 2007

Looks like denial more than co-existence to me:

it is activities that call for artifacts to be stored /hidden that give Evolutionist a voice .Christian have nothing to fear .We have lived with evolution's 'evidence' but Kenyans have always known that God created the world including Adam.

But it's certainly better than demanding the proof be removed.

Sir_Toejam · 8 February 2007

Faith in God is exactly that! Faith, it can not be hammered into someone

k.e. · 8 February 2007

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 8, 2007 7:43 PM (e) Faith in God is exactly that! Faith, it can not be hammered into someone

if your classes in the subject of religion were all compulsory, how would you know? In fact, I'd bet that Ken Ham and the creationist organizations in the US would differ with you greatly on whether faith can be hammered into someone. Interesting isn't it? It's better to teach? or promulgate? 'faith' in the full light of conflicting evidence for that faiths creation myth...absolutely...don't draw attention to the flaws of the myth (wake up the mushrooms) and start an inconvenient conversation.

Popper's Ghost · 9 February 2007

If ever there needed to be a demonstration that strong Christian faith and acceptance of evolution can co-exist, joe has presented it.

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

Raging Bee · 9 February 2007

joe: Are the Evangelicals campaigning to get evolution out of Kenya's school science classes, or to change the Kenyan curriculum any other way?

PS: Speaking for myself, at least, those anti-science wingnuts are an embarrassment to my country. We're better than that, whether or not we admit it.

GuyeFaux · 9 February 2007

I gave Joe the benefit of doubt. In particular, I interpreted this favorably:

We have lived with evolution's 'evidence' but Kenyans have always known that God created the world including Adam.

I.e. the evidence cannot be denied, and that the conflict is an American import.

joe · 9 February 2007

Ranging bee certainly not !What you are seeing here is a group of African evangelicals doing all they can to please their American backers .I am a born again Christian and I grew up in Kenya .The bishop in the story isn't even a leading member of the Kenyan church. He is just speaking out for himself in order to get funding from American creationist. Majority of Kenyans have never heard of this bishop nor do they care for his arguments.

The Kenyan education system has now grey areas .Science is a compulsory subject and Religious education is also a compulsory subject after 8th grade you have a choice on what subjects to take. You can opt for both, one or something else instead both .So the issue of forcing viewpoints is eliminated.

The issue here is not a religious issue but rather a curriculum issue associated with the American educational system. And that's why I said that this debate is an American debate .You hardly ever see conflicts between science and religion in other parts of the world .America astonishingly seems to have that problem .why! Having lived here for 5 years I am yet to understand.

Take the big bang theory. As a Christian I believe in the big bang theory! God said let there be .... And there was (in the process of nothing becoming something there was a bang lol)

time · 9 February 2007

To put it simple what part of the word THEORY dont people understand i agree with joe

Sir_Toejam · 9 February 2007

We have lived with evolution's 'evidence' but Kenyans have always known that God created the world including Adam.

guyefeaux: typically, when someone puts 'quotes' around a word, it is either to call attention to an unusual usage of that word, or to imply sarcasm. regardless of whether this person "sees" conflict or not, when 'evidence' is written in quotes followed by "god created the world", that normally gives one who has experience with US creationists pause to consider what the words he is writing really mean. I think I could arguably say that Ken Ham could say the exact same words (in the same way) and be completely truthful.

GuyeFaux · 9 February 2007

Some of the doubt in "benefit of the doubt" comes from joe's English (no offense joe), so I'm not sure what he meant by using quotes. Another important semantic ambiguity in his post is the use of the term "compulsory".

His second post (and you can confirm this, joe) seems to imply that he doesn't have an opinion concerning evolution one way or the other, but if he had, it would not shake his faith. And, hopefully, the converse.

Also, that it's a mistake of certain types of religious education that it should conflict with science.

But like I said, if there was ambiguity I interpreted it favorably. Hence my post for which my reading comprehension was questioned ought to have included that important caveat.

fnxtr · 9 February 2007

(Safire)

GF: quite possible. There are even EFL's out there who use quotation marks when they mean italics. These are the same people who use "as" when they mean "because", or "should" instead of "if" (e.g. "Should you have any questions...")

(/Safire)

Sir_Toejam · 9 February 2007

His second post (and you can confirm this, joe) seems to imply that he doesn't have an opinion concerning evolution one way or the other, but if he had, it would not shake his faith. And, hopefully, the converse.

a good ability to compartmentalize can do wonders. Can we say it is anything more than that in Joe's case? Hmm, this might get a little weird, so bear with me. Most of this would be far better stated by someone with a serious background in logic and philosophy (and psychology, for that matter), rather than just zoology. Moreover, to simplify, I'm going to mostly stick to xianity, mostly because that appears to be where most of the conflicts arise to begin with. I'm not even going to go into psychological defense mechanisms, otherwise it will likely seem even more of a ramble than it already will be. I'm glad to see the argument made that science should not shake one's faith, but couldn't the same argument be made by all those over on Uncommon Dissent? I guess it comes down to how one defines the purview of one's faith. I wouldn't expect Joe to expound at that level, as I'm sure most would consider that quite a personal issue. However, it's quite clear that YEC's consider the purview of their faith to be the observation of reality itself, and that such observation must be filtered through the lens of their definition of faith. A YEC uses an artificialy constructed "lens" in order to resolve conflicts between competing worldviews that they are no longer able (or willing) to compartmentalize. They look at the KJV as being the source and much of the definition of their faith, and as such, anything in it is logically considered when judging the purview and scope of how to apply that faith. hence, evolution and "millions of yearisms" (taken straight from a YEC named Dave Hawkins over at ATBC) can easily be understood to conflict with their definition of faith, considering that the primary source of that faith is the written word in the KJV. If one does not accept that the purview of their faith must cover observation of reality, then one can easily compartmentalize without conflict. IOW, if one does NOT consider the source of their faith to be a written book, then conflict is far lessened, and compartmentalization can easily be maintained. I think a theistic evolutionist (the weak version) has come to this conclusion, for example. They would not see the purview of their faith as covering observation of reality, nor would they consider the source of their faith to be in the written word. Or, they reject conflicts based on the written word as parable or analogy. Thus, there is no conlict to be resolved, no reason to challenge their compartmentalizations internally, and no reason to construct artificial means to resolve those conflicts. Alternatively, I also think there are a large proportion of people (likely the vast majority) who have, consciously or not, chosen simply to not explore any potential conflicts; who have simply mentally refused to examine the boundaries constructed in their own minds. You can find people like this every day, who will say one thing, and then another, that logically might be considered diametrically opposed, but simply are not recognized in such a way by the person who said them. Moreover, they simply refuse to see any reason for even bothering with it. It simply is not important enough to them to see a reason to explore the issue, and they are perfectly happy not to bother. lastly, there are those who have either never been taught any form of religious faith, or whose source for religious ideology, and thus the purview and scope of "faith" (if the term even applies) are simply not in conflict with much of anything to begin with. so where does Joe stand in this? Is he like a theistic evolutionist who has deliberately thought the issues through, and has simply removed the element of conflict through their definition of the source and purview of their faith? Or is he someone who simply has not bothered to consider whether logical conflict exists, and is more than happy not to bother (and wonders why anyone else does as well). I still cannot determine which, based on the words written, but I lean towards the latter. As such, yes, that is a "legitimate" approach, and one adopted likely by the vast majority of people out there, but what does it mean, really, when we argue against the position taken by a YEC? So, a question for Joe: Is it your specific education in xianity and evolution that allows you to have no conflicts, or is it simply that you have chosen not to even bother analyzing whether conflict exists, because it simply isn't important to do so? As a more specific question; when you took classes in xianity, for example, how was were the genesis stories addressed: parable or literal word?

GuyeFaux · 9 February 2007

I don't know how it fits in your scheme (and you question to Joe), but what about people who simultaneous, without compartmentalization, believe that a) the Bible is literally true, and b) scientists know what they're talking about?

I think one way to do this is to realize that human beings are fallible. Therefore, if there's a perceived conflict between a) and b), we must realize that our interpretation of the data might be wrong, including our interpretation of the Bible.

So for instance, in joe's example of the big bang, it is his interpretation of the Bible which turned out to have been wrong, so he changed it (while preserving the possibility that the scientists are wrong about the big bang).

Sir_Toejam · 9 February 2007

believe that a) the Bible is literally true, and b) scientists know what they're talking about?

fits into the third category, as there are inherent conflicts that are being ignored. One thing I do credit creationists with is that they at least have recognized those two statements as logically inconsistent. Of course, I suppose that depends on which Bible you are reffering to. If it's the KJV, then yeah, those two statements are logically inconsistent. OTOH, Carol is constantly expounding that if you just translate the original writings in a different way, then they no longer conflict; which is certainly one way to remove conflict. However, it doesn't address the issue of the inconsistency between your first and second points when we use the KJV as an example.

joe · 9 February 2007

A lot has been said about my comments from my English (which by the way is the queen's english-colour as opposed to color) to what I really mean. Therefore, to answer a few questions, I hope this helps (pardon my English)

1.My religious classes in elementary school consisted on only one text-The Bible( a required text for every Kenyan student)though for learning purposes the teacher was allowed some interpretation of text most of the teaching was taught as written in the bible .For extra classes I attended Sunday school like millions of other children.

2. Evolution was taught as a scientific theory and not a fact (I don't think even in the scientific community today there is a dispute that evolution is still a theory)

So to answer your question after years of studying the bible and studying the scientific evidence (unlike some who are yet to see the real thing) I made a personal decision. The evidence of my own personal experience with God was enough for me to know that God created the universe and everything with in it (that includes turkana boy) as for the big bang theory I was joking! INCIDENTALY I AM YET TO MEET A SCIENTIST WHO WAS THERE TO HEAR THE BANG .People lets not over analyze I think my English is clear on what I meant . my" " did imply sarcasm and by compulsory I think Kenyan English or any other English have the same meaning for the word required; mandatory; obligatory:

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities---his eternal power and divine nature---have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Incidentally you are all welcome to visit my blog

Sir_Toejam · 9 February 2007

I hope that makes it clearer to those who were thinking of Joe along the lines of "theistic evolutionist".

Sir_Toejam · 9 February 2007

...Joe is what I would view the first generation of students to sound like if the DI had their way and modified education in the US to be just like Joe describes it in Kenya.

Is it any wonder he sees no conflict now?

GuyeFaux · 9 February 2007

Ah. No more doubt and thus no more benefit.

Popper's Ghost · 10 February 2007

, but if he had, it would not shake his faith

Uh, yes, that was the whole point of his first post.

Popper's Ghost · 10 February 2007

To put it simple what part of the word THEORY dont people understand

You've been told before what part you and joe don't understand, but here it is again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory and again: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html and again: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

ben · 10 February 2007

INCIDENTALY I AM YET TO MEET A SCIENTIST WHO WAS THERE TO HEAR THE BANG

I HAVE YET TO MEET A CHRISTIAN WHO WAS THERE TO SEE CREATION Your point?

joe · 10 February 2007

I HAVE YET TO MEET A CHRISTIAN WHO WAS THERE TO SEE CREATION

Your point?
Comment #160385-that is exactly my point !thats why its called faith -incidentally Hebrews 11:1 talking about faith says

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.
3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible"

So you see i believe by faith. give a choice between a theory and faith .i have faith .We can go on and on about this and get no where !but i think we should be exposed to both sides so that we can make an informed choice dont you think!what i would say to anyone who doesnmt believe in God is have an open mind allow yourself to entertain the possibility and i can garantee He will show himself to you

joe · 10 February 2007

I HAVE YET TO MEET A CHRISTIAN WHO WAS THERE TO SEE CREATION

Your point?
Comment #160385-that is exactly my point !thats why its called faith -incidentally Hebrews 11:1 talking about faith says

Sir_Toejam · 10 February 2007

.We can go on and on about this and get no where !

with you, you mean. I'm keeping your expose of the Kenyan educational system as a great example of exactly how things should NOT be done, and what would happen if the Discovery Institute had it's way with how education is conducted here in the US. thanks, Joe. good luck to ya.

Richard Simons · 10 February 2007

Joe,

You are using the word 'theory' in its normal, everyday English, which is quite different from its meaning in science. A scientific theory is a coherent explanation that fits with all known observations and which enables predictions to be made. It can, therefore, be falsifiable in that it could be used to make a prediction that is later found out to be wrong. It most certainly is not just a guess.

Scientific theories only exist for things that are fairly well understood (there are arguments that string theory does not really merit being called a theory) and the theory of evolution is one of the most robust. So 'just a theory' is a completely inappropriate expression to use.

Chris Booth · 19 February 2007

I am so tired of the dishonesties of the anti-evolution people. All sane people who can behave as "adults" know at a deep level that if your position has to be supported by one or more of the following: outright lies, deliberate misinformation, willful ignorance of the field you opine on, distortion of the others' arguments, and--above all--reliance on rhetorical/logical fallacies, your position is false. Whether in a relationship with a significant other, a conversation with the tax collector, or dealing with the universe outside ourselves, we know this to be true. To then take the next step and DO the lying is first and above all to lie to ourselves. It is unclean. If your position is not false, you don't need to lie, distort, or hide your head in the sand for fear of truth. If your position is truth, you don't need to fear your children being taught something else.

It is the position of every church and every religion in the world that: "Give them to me by the age of five and they are mine forever" whether stated or unstated, whether denied or winked at aside. Science is a part of education, and no aspect of science--or even reason--are taught systematically before school, which begins at six years of age or so. Prayer didn't level Hiroshima, but application of physical theory did.

Oh! This then brings us to the endless dishonesty about "theory". Things fall. Gravitation is a scientific theory. Heliocentrism is a scientific theory. Your GPS works. If the theory of gravity and the theory of heliocentrism were not facts, your GPS would not work. Neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of heliocentrism is more or less factual than the theory of evolution; your GPS works, and DNA analysis can identify guilty criminals from the rest of the population. The proof of the pudding in science is not only that a hypothesis be built on current knowledge and theory but that it stand in the light of later knowledge and theory...and that it can then stand as a sound structure on which following hypothesis, theory, and observation can itself stand and be found sound. Where string theory is faltering right now is not in the realm of wonderfully bridging current branches of theory and knowledge, but in the realm of offering a firm foundation for progressing onward. This is part of what is meant when it is said that science is self-correcting. The most ardent opponent of string theory will jump to string theory if it allows for further progression in a way that no other system can; likewise, string theory chairs will sit very empty if it is found groundless as a basis for new study. [Personally, I find the spaghetti-oh variant to answer quite saucily....]

If you want to deny evolution as a fact, you must first lie to yourself (or willfully keep yourself ignorant--but ego allows that, endlessly, doesn't it?) and then lie to others, once the lies to yourself are accepted by yourself as giving yourself carte blanche to go on. Evolution would have been rejected by science a long time ago if it didn't provide a base for further science. ALSO: That science has to stand in the light of other sciences. Your GPS might seem to you only to work as a factor of heliocentrism or of Newtonian mechanics or whatever, but it also requires relativity, electromagnetism, and mathematical descriptions of three-dimensional space to work, along with an endless string of other things. Chemical theory without quantum mechanics would collapse, as would paleontology, biology, and modern medicine without evolution. Science leads to further science as a card placed on other cards will build a house of cards. But if one card in the the pile is not viable, that section will collapse, and will require a thorough rebuilding. If that rebuilding is correct, another floor will be constructed thereon. That other floor is all around us in evolutionary theory; evolution has informed endless revolution in biology, medicine, genetics, paleontology, archaeology, zoology, etc., etc., etc. And within those, endless branches: epidemiology without evolution would be a uselessly backward field. If evolution were false, there would be no antibiotics; that there are drug-resistant bacteria is proof that ignorance of evolution is not only dishonest, but that it kills...and kills others, who are innocent, and who probably never would have signed on for such martyrdom. [It is rather like the willful stupidity of the drunk driver: Not only did the woman driving on the other side of the road not go to the party or wish to die, neither did her children wish to be motherless, her husband a widower, her parents less a dear child. But the drunk driver, should he survive...well, an excuse, a rationalization, and he'll be on his way, fat and happy in the sweetness of logical fallacy.]

A person who wanted simultaneously to deny evolution and be honest, would have to eschew a lot more that is interconnected to the endless success of evolution than the evolution nay-sayers want their bleating flocks to know about: such a person would not want paternity tests, DNA evidence in rape and murder trials, gene therapy for a wide range of inheritable disorders, and on and on.

Be like the Shakers, or be honest.