There is something in this world we call "modern science."  It isn’t terribly modern anymore since it is something like four hundred years old.  Nevertheless, that is young compared to the number of years in which humanity has indulged in mythology or art or trade or agriculture or any of myriads of different human activities.  Modern science is an intellectual baby in comparison.

And it’s our baby. It’s the particular enthusiasm of science fiction.  The word is in the
very name of our field and science fiction is inconceivable without science.

The science fiction writer doesn’t have to immerse himself in science when engaging in his profession; he doesn’t even have to mention it very much.  Nor does he have to approve of every aspect of the social consequences of science or, for that matter, of any of them.  He can be savagely satirical about science and depict a future in which the Earth is badly damaged or utterly destroyed through the agency of science.

What he cannot do, however, is to pretend that science is erroneous in basis, that scientific conclusions are worthless, that the scientific method is invalid.  If he does, his writings become fantasy.

And is there anyone who casts doubt upon the validity of science?  Perhaps the usefulness or desirability of science may be in dispute, but surely not its validity.

Not so.  There exists in the world a species of thinkers (if I may use that particular noun in this connection) who call themselves "scientific creationists" and who insist on accepting the literal words of the Bible.

For tactical reasons, they don’t mention the Bible in their official statements since that would make their teachings religious in nature and keep it out of the schools.

Nevertheless, they believe that the Earth is, at most, only ten thousand years old.  They deny the validity of evolutionary doctrine and insist that the various species of living things were separately brought into existence by a "Creator."  They are careful not to name the "Creator" but does anyone suppose they mean Brahma, Zeus, or Marduk?

They have no evidence for these claims but rely for their arguments on the denial of the validity of scientific findings they don’t like and on the distortion of those scientific findings they think offer them some faint hope of support.

Covering themselves with the tattered and dirty rags of denial and distortion and calling it "science," they then proceed to attack real scientists.  They set up something they call "secular humanism" and define it as a religion.  They claim that the concept of evolution is a "religious dogma" of secular humanism.

Note the peculiarity of this.  We have a group of religious fundamentalists who can find no worse label for the people they denounce than "religion."

What do they hope to gain by this bit of semantic upside-downism: scientists as "religious" and themselves as "scientific"?

First, they arrogate to themselves pretensions to logic and reason they do not possess.  Second, they make evolution (or, by similar mislabeling, anything else they decide they don’t like) into something far worse than scientific error; they make it into a religious heresy.

How convenient!

A scientific error must be established as erroneous in the marketplace of science, through the laborious task of competing observations and experiments, through debate and discussion, even through arguments and polemics.

A religious heresy, on the other hand, can be summarily put down by the full power of the state and church, and I need not tell you of the kinds of methods used in the past to enforce orthodoxy in the name of an all-merciful God.

Am l going too far?  Am I exaggerating?

Right now, the "scientific creationists" are moving heaven and earth to get various state legislature to pass laws requiring their doctrines to be taught in classes whenever evolution is taught. They are calling in the power of the state right now to decide, by legislation, what is scientifically correct.  And one state, Arkansas, has already passed such legislation.

Does it matter that in one rural state, or possibly a few more, a handful of legislators, terrified of losing their jobs, are willing to enforce ignorance on the children of the land?  It matters not only in itself, but in the precedent it sets.  Could not the same legislators also insist that "scientific storkism" be taught as one theory of childbirth, and that "scientific Santaclausism" be taught as one theory of gift giving?  Why not?  The level of science would be no lower.

Or perhaps you think that schools ought, after all, to teach all varieties of theories concerning makers in dispute?  That this is only being open-minded and fair?  Don’t you think then that all creation myths ought to be taught -- including those believed by hundreds of millions of Hindus, Buddhists, and animists?

Do you think that ‘‘scientific creationists" are only after a fair shake?  That all they want is an equal hearing?

Can you imagine any of these Bible-wavers consenting to teach evolutionary doctrine in their churches in the name of an equal hearing?  --Never!

So where’s the fairness?

In the churches, they threaten the kids with eternal damnation in the roasting fires of hell if they believe anything but what they are there taught.  In the homes, adults, already brainwashed, reinforce it, and so do almost all aspects of society.

The schools are the only place where evolution is as much as mentioned and even there, vigilante groups of "scientific creationists" in many parts of the nation terrify the teachers into mentioning evolution only in a whisper, or not at all.

What "scientific creationists" want is the destruction of modern science and if they win, destruction is what will follow.  You cannot have any rational geology or astronomy if the Earth is viewed as only ten thousand years old; you cannot have any rational biology if evolution is squashed as heresy.

Nor can you suppose that children who are kept from science in grade school and high school will see the light in college.  Even if colleges remain intellectually free, children who reach college age without having been introduced to the scientific way of thought will by then never truly learn it.  They will have been intellectually ruined.

And what do you think will happen to the United States if it becomes scientifically illiterate in a scientific age, while other nations maintain scientific expertise?  --Guess!

Do you think that faith in God will save us from decline and destruction? The "scientific creationists" don’t think so, for one and all of them believe in a strong and overwhelming national defense.  Martin Luther thought God to be a mighty fortress, but to the "scientific creationists," it takes God plus a mighty fortress to be a mighty fortress.

But why am I bothering you with all this in an essay in a science fiction magazine?

Well, can you recall any science fiction stories that don’t assume a Universe billions of years old; that don’t take evolution for granted; that don’t suppose scientific findings to be essentially correct; that don’t extrapolate further scientific findings that make some sort of sense in the basic structure of the Universe as we believe it to be?

Do you suppose that "scientific creationists" would be willing to allow such arrant sources of heresy as science fiction magazines to remain untouched?  And even if they do, do you suppose that science fiction can survive if school children are taught, one and all, that the only legitimate source of truth ruts in the literal words of the Bible and that any speculation beyond that will douse them in the undying flames?

Theodore Sturgeon once said that science fiction was the last bastion of free speech.  His view was that when people as stupid as censors (and who else but stupid people would be willing to be censors?) are driven into finally detecting heresy in something as outré as science fiction, they will by then have detected it everywhere else.

So when the legions of ignorance begin putting pressure on a science fiction magazine because its editorial director believes in evolution -- watch out!

AFTERWORD: Since this essay was written (and even before) I have attacked the fools and knaves of creationism with all my might in many different places, including in the pages of the New York Times Magazine.  As a result I have become the president of the American Humanist Association.  I won’t deny that in accepting the position I had a twinge or two as to the effect it might have on Asimov’s, but, after all, I am scarcely going to betray my views for the sake of placating fools who, in any case, won’t be placated.  And, as it happens, the magazine doesn’t seem to have suffered.