Professor Schmid-Hempel, the biology textbook “Naturwert” (Nature’s Value) in the canton of Bern was again criticised severely in June in spite of revision. What is the reason for the complaint?

The teaching material was published last year and contained sections whose interpretation was hair-raising. For example it presented the doctrine of creation and the theory of evolution as being equally justified, meaning that it awarded the creation doctrine the same status as the scientific explanation of the origin and development of species. In response to protest, the schoolbook publishers in the canton of Bern revised the work. However, the comparison was not properly corrected but was simply deleted and replaced with a section on, inter alia, ethical questions in dealings with living things. So I can understand the criticism of the revised version.

The publishing director of the school textbook publishing house defended the first edition by pointing out that teachers are free to judge for themselves.

If one is lenient and kind, one can regard that comment as a well-intentioned attempt to address the controversy. On closer inspection, however, creation and evolution were actually treated as having equal justification. The teachers’ notes argued strongly that they should present facts which allow an alternative interpretation, namely the history of creation. This defence of the book by the publishing director is really quite naïve.

Was that the publisher’s intention?

It is remarkable that the chapter on “Creation and Evolution” in the first edition of “Naturwert” devoted three quarters of its content to the creation doctrines of various cultures and only a small section to evolution. In my opinion, in a textbook of this kind it is permissible to discuss the creation-evolution comparison at most as a marginal note, but only as an example of the many philosophical implications of the theory of evolution, not as alternatives in terms of content. The passages that were criticised even claimed that evolution is unproven and that the facts also allow other conclusions.

Is this the only teaching material in Switzerland that includes creationist doctrines?

As far as I know it is the only one that contains creationist teaching. The particularly controversial aspect is that the book is distributed by the canton’s own textbook publishing house.

Is there a danger that schools will be infiltrated by creationists?

Yes. It is noticeable that creationists are making active efforts to carry their thinking into schools. The Pro Genesis Association is attempting this through teaching aids, and three EDU (Swiss Federal Democratic Union) cantonal councils in the canton of Zurich used a political venture to try to compel the teaching of the doctrine of creation in Zurich schools alongside evolution and on an equal footing to it. Fortunately the venture was unceremoniously rejected. Advocates of the EDU have close links with the creationists. They have scarcely any influence on institutions of higher education, but are spreading their information all the same.

What danger can creationism cause?

The current situation in Switzerland is not dramatic. The great majority of the population sticks to the facts and scientific knowledge. According to surveys, the standing of the theory of evolution has even increased in Europe in the past 10 years compared to that of creationism. However, the activities of pressure groups have also increased at the same time. In the current climate of “anything goes” and “political correctness”, the main danger is of giving way to the creationists. They are attempting to gain interpretive sovereignty by exerting influence on lower secondary schools, on politicians and on industrial decision-makers.

Who are putting forward these ideas?

There are various sources. They fight sectarian battles among themselves and support different factions. Pro Genesis is the most active. There are also innumerable small Christian organisations, some of them probably established close to free churches and against Darwin’s ideas on principle. Basically these factions are radical in their views on this subject and highly fundamentalist, for example the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Are creationists soul-snatchers?

Creationism flourishes in the climate of the general international and emotional mood. This drives many people to search for meaning, which occasionally ends up in dogmatic fundamentalist thoughts. In Switzerland, 60 percent of the population supports the theory of evolution, one quarter says it is wrong and the rest are undecided. This puts us in the lower European average. Only 40 percent of the USA accepts the theory of evolution, and 40 percent oppose it.

What is the situation among teachers?

Looking around, one has the impression that a few teachers are susceptible to creationist doctrines. Interestingly, chemists and physicists are often receptive to them but almost never biologists from the wider specialist field. There is one case of a well-known chemistry professor from Georgia who was also once a visiting professor at ETH Zurich. He is an outstanding chemist but is a convinced creationist at the same time.

How does that fit together? Clinging to such an abstruse idea while simultaneously conducting science at a high level?

It really is very abstruse, especially in relation to Intelligent Design. This asserts that the designer, a deity, must have intervened in the course of evolution and must have altered something physically, such as proteins. The famous example is the flagellum, a bacterium’s organ of locomotion. ID proponents say that the laws of nature based on the Darwinian theory of evolution cannot explain how something so complex could be formed. They claim that action by a designer would be needed to cause the flagellum proteins to arrange themselves correctly. That is absurd. For example it is entertaining to ask why the designer should intervene to position proteins correctly so the bacterium can use its flagellum properly but doesn’t intervene to make our appendix disappear when it is such a nuisance to us. At this level it is impossible to understand how someone can be a top-flight scientist in his field while being an adherent of creationism and ID.

How do you explain the origination of genetic material?

Everything was really formed progressively from precursors during the course of evolution. It is possible to show how a flagellum can arise from precursors, and the way the immune system evolved – another popular target for attack by creationists – can also be demonstrated. The efficiency and effectiveness of the process of mutations and selection is enormously underestimated. Moreover the process can also be replicated in the laboratory. The same principle holds true for genetic material and the genetic code of DNA, which developed from precursors, e.g. coding using RNA and its precursors.

Where does the idea of Intelligent Design originate from?

It is the latest incarnation of creationism. Intelligent Design is basically the same as creationism, just given a scientific veneer.

How widespread is Intelligent Design in this country?

ID arose in the USA in the late eighties and nineties and floated across to Europe. It is visible nowadays in the Pro Genesis organisation and is also apparent in educational authorities and ministries, e.g. in Thuringia or Poland, where there were also attempts to place the history of creation and evolution on the same footing, in which the doctrine of creation always meant ID. In rare cases it can be traced back to the Young Earth Creationists who believe the earth is 6000 years old. ID adherents are slightly more moderate.

How can it be counteracted?

Creationism is nonsense but an attempt is being made to resuscitate something that was disproved 150 years ago. Eminent scientists such as Cuvier or Charles Lyell were creationists and were convinced that species are immutable and are always created anew. Thus the idea is an old one but was disproved by the explanatory power of Darwin’s theory of evolution. It is absurd that a scientific theory that was disproved so long ago should be revived. No one would have the idea of working with alchemy again. Nowadays one would choose chemistry and nuclear physics. Much would be gained if one could make it clear to people that creationism and ID are ideas that have been disproved, and the same mistakes should not be repeated. One must be vigilant to ensure that these doctrines do not enter classrooms through the back door. This needs politicians who are not scared of taking a stand against them and speaking out clearly when necessary. Otherwise one can only quote Schiller: “Against stupidity even the gods struggle in vain”.

Do teachers and politicians know enough about evolution to be able to recognise creationist trends?

The occupants of the relevant professorial chairs plan to launch a web page soon, to provide information about evolution. It is intended to make scientific information available to teachers and politicians. The aim is to create transparency and to do public relations work. 2009 will also be the Darwin Year. This will give an opportunity to bring the theory of evolution closer to the public.