Both extremes wrong in evolution debate

St. Paul Pioneer Press ^ | 10/17/03 | Jean Swenson

[Zender500]

Some people think evolution should not be mentioned at all in public schools, while others think any evidence that may contradict evolution should not be allowed.

Both views reflect poor science, and if either side wins, students will lose. Unfortunately, that's just what might happen in Minnesota.

Although many people view Darwinian evolution as a valid explanation, others have begun questioning parts of this theory.

For example, a growing number of prominent biologists are signing on to the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Written in 2001 to encourage open-mindedness within the scientific community, the statement has been supported by Nobel Prize nominee Fritz Schaeffer, Smithsonian Institution molecular biologist Richard Sternberg and Stanley Salthe, author of "Evolutionary Biology."

Minnesota is setting new content standards for K-12 science education. Committees have written a draft of these standards and, along with Education Commissioner Cheri Yecke, are inviting feedback from people like you at public hearings and through e-mail letters. (See The Minnesota Department of Education for information and a copy of the standards.)

I commend the standards committee for its emphasis on knowledge and the scientific method. However, I'm concerned that some citizens and committee members want Darwinian evolution taught as undisputed fact while prohibiting any critical analysis of this and other scientific theories. This is no less biased than those who do not want evolution mentioned at all. History reveals how such suppression of data actually hinders science, while honest inquiry promotes it.

For example, the Earth-centered theory of the solar system proposed by Ptolemy in the first century was upheld as absolute truth for 1,500 years. Unfortunately, the church suppressed the work of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and others who challenged this theory with scientific evidence. Isaac Newton's publication about gravity and the sun-centered theory in 1687 finally overcame this bias and exposed the Earth-centered theory as dogma, not scientific fact.

Faith in God influenced these latter four scientists' pursuit of scientific discovery, so their conflict was not with religion but rather with bias against other theories. Those who would forbid any challenges to Darwinian theory are displaying this same kind of partiality.

Instead of answering these challenges with evidence that supports their theory, some defenders of "evolution-only" are taking another tactic — accusing all critics of trying to bring religion into the classroom. However, critical scientific analysis of Darwinian evolution is not religion, and exploration of all the facts should be encouraged.

Such exploration exemplifies the scientific method, which begins with observation and leads to a hypothesis (an educated guess that tries to explain the observation). This hypothesis is then tested, and if test results contradict the hypothesis, it is discarded or revised. A hypothesis that has been tested and supported by large amounts of data becomes a theory. A theory that withstands rigorous testing by independent scientists over time eventually becomes a scientific law.

All theories and even scientific laws must be tentative. For example, who would have thought Newton's Laws could ever be contradicted? Yet, Einstein and other scientists found that these laws could not explain certain complex problems.

Quantum mechanics became the new guiding principle, though Newton's Laws are sufficiently accurate for most aspects of daily activity.

The scientific method that has been so instrumental in advancing science requires that all scientific theories and even scientific laws at least be open to further testing. We should not be afraid to question and analyze scientific evidence; data that is valid will stand the tests.

We have the opportunity to set responsible and rigorous standards for science education in Minnesota. We should help students practice the scientific method in all areas of science, including the study of evolution — let's not encourage them to violate it.

[carlo3b]

If the "other side" were mentioned, honesty would require the disclaimer that no verifiable evidence supported it.

What about the Gay argument and the absence of science supporting their claims, or is that off limits.. I know the answers to both questions and I don't believe I need to be lectured.

Frankly, I could care less about the Darwin argument, I am just tired of cleaning up the BS my kids have been taught in the public school system. I would just love ONE TIME to shove an absurd totally religious concept up the liberal's ass, assuming there is room!

[Sabertooth]

No, not at all. The article's first sentence says this:

Some people think evolution should not be mentioned at all in public schools, while others think any evidence that may contradict evolution should not be allowed.

No truth in the part I underlined.

No truth?

The underlined comment is so vague that it can't not be true.

The writer is a bit sloppy in making her point though, as seen from what follows your snip above...

Both views reflect poor science, and if either side wins, students will lose. Unfortunately, that's just what might happen in Minnesota.

Although many people view Darwinian evolution as a valid explanation, others have begun questioning parts of this theory.

Lets stipulate that she hasn't got a handle on Darwinian vs. neo-Darwinian, etc., and that she may well have some anti-evolution agenda.

Rightly or wrongly, evolution is often oversimplified to students and to the public at large as an undeniable monolith rather than a well-founded scientific theory that, for all its merits, is still a work in progress.

It doesn't matter if the writer hears voices emanating from wall sockets, and it doesn't matter if her agenda is to convince us of monsters in the closet; if she's observing that evolution can be presented in a non-dogmatic fashion that concedes some loose ends, then her observation is correct.

The article goes on to say this:

For example, a growing number of prominent biologists are signing on to the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Written in 2001 to encourage open-mindedness within the scientific community ...

That gives an entirely false impression. The genuine scientists who question evolution are an extremely small number. (When I say "genuine scientists" I'm aware of the 2 or 3 biologists who have been said to be "leaving evolution in droves"; and I intentionally exclude charlatans who, like Duane Gish, are trained primarily in the engineering of sanitation facilities.)

Setting Gish aside, quite appropriately, I think you've ascribed meaning to the statement "we are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life," that isn't warranted.

To harbor skepticism about the sufficiency of random mutation and natural selection as mechanisms for evolution is not synonymous with questioning the totality of evolutionary theory.

Evolution is a theory, and should be tought as such. It explains facts, which is what theories are supposed to do. There are no competing scientific theories, so it's insane to speak of "suppression" of honest inquiry.

Here's the problem, and it think it's where creationists go off the rails...

In government schools secularism his been so hammered by the likes of the ACLU into something between atheism and agnosticism. It's also undeniable that some, though not all, evolutionists are hostile to faith, and lean on their own understandings evolution as bulwarks for their hostility.

When evolution is presented in this context, it takes on significance in the secular vacuum that can be both implicitly and explicitly hostile to faith. This is where the weird syzygy of leaped conclusions by both evolutionary atheists and creationists occurs, in thinking that the pros and cons of evolutionary theory have real bearing on the realities of the human soul and the Creator.

It's not enough to say "it's just science (not saying you did, personally)," in a values-clarifying context where some say that "science is all there is," and in any event, science is all that can be taught.

[PatrickHenry]

I would just love ONE TIME to shove an absurd totally religious concept up the liberal's ass, assuming there is room!

There's plenty of projects you can work on. You've already named a few: global warming, the gay agenda, virtually all of "social science," etc. I share your contempt for these fields. But evolution is a whole different thing. It's genuine science, with no political agenda at all.

[Long Cut]

"I would just love ONE TIME to shove an absurd totally religious concept up the liberal's ass, assuming there is room! "

Well, I can certainly agree with the sentiment! I for one would LOVE to shove all the stats about gun control being a joke, tax cuts improving the economy, and liberty working everywhere it's tried down their throats and make them swallow. However, one feature of the Left is that they will never, never abandon one of their pet positions as long as there are votes and class warfare to be had.

[Sabertooth]

I fail to see where "faith" comes in to play in science.

In the nonscientific, theological extrapolations some make from science.

Rather than viewing science as a valuable tool with certain limitations and unique areas of utility, many folks of every theological understanding (or misunderstanding, for that matter) apply it to areas of legitimate inquiry about reality that are completely extra-scientific.

[PatrickHenry]

In government schools secularism his been so hammered by the likes of the ACLU into something between atheism and agnosticism. It's also undeniable that some, though not all, evolutionists are hostile to faith, and lean on their own understandings evolution as bulwarks for their hostility.

That's true of physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc. But only evolution gets hammered. Why? You know why. Evolution seems to contradict a hyper-literal reading of Genesis. That's no reason to toss it out of the schools. Besides, astronomy, geology, and other sciences also have problems if we try to reconcile them with Genesis. The schools have to decide if they're teaching science or if they're not.

[Sabertooth]

But only evolution gets hammered. Why? You know why. Evolution seems to contradict a hyper-literal reading of Genesis.

And certain partisans, a minority on both sides, take their cues from that.

Both minorities want to draw pet theological or scientific conclusions about that seeming contradiction between evolutionary theory and literal Genesis, and both are cagey and disingenuous about doing so.

Besides, astronomy, geology, and other sciences also have problems if we try to reconcile them with Genesis. The schools have to decide if they're teaching science or if they're not.

The schools have to decide a lot more than that. Science is for science class.

The reason the other sciences don't have the same conflicts is because they don't speak to human origins, and therefore don't carry baggage with them that has necessary implications on the nature of human souls, as biology and evolution do.

You can't teach evolution in a distorted secular vacuum, and maintain that the debate is solely about science.

It's not just the curriculum, it's the context.

[PatrickHenry]

Both minorities want to draw pet theological or scientific conclusions about that seeming contradiction between evolutionary theory and literal Genesis, and both are cagey and disingenuous about doing so.

I've been doing this for a while now, and the only theological conclusion I've ever seen that flows directly from an understanding of the theory of evolution is that a hyper-literal reading of scripture, mostly Genesis, is going to be contradicted by the observable facts. Similarly, geology (the age and shape of the earth) and astronomy (the solar system). No one is cagy about it.

As I said, they're either teaching science or they're not. That's the deal. Most churches can handle these issues quite easily, by assuming -- correctly in my opinion -- that some parts of scripture are intended to be metaphorical. They thus preserve their faith intact, with without trying to shut down the entire enterprise of science. A couple of denominations can't seem to do this.

[Qwinn]

In the Scopes Monkey Trials, evolutionists argued for the right to teach their version of events, a right which they indeed should have.

Now, the oppressed are the tyrants, and ONLY evolution may be taught.

Every reason I've seen given for why evolution should be taught and creationism not is just the mirror-image of the arguments creationists used to deny evolutionists the right for their case to be heard. "We can't let evolution be taught because it contradicts the Word of God!" "We can't let Creationism be taught because it contradicts the Principles of Science!"

BOTH cases should be able to be heard. Anything else is an infringement of free speech and an establishment of religion (atheism being an article of Faith just as much as any fundamentalist). That is the point of the article, and I couldn't agree with it more.

And I say this as an agnostic who believes the Earth is over 4 billion years old and who believes evolutionary theory as currently stated is probably at least partly correct, but who doesn't believe that it has established -anything- so airtight as to deny all other possibilities a hearing.

But if Creationism isn't a real science, why should it be taught? I think the fact that billions upon untold billions of human beings have and still do believe in Creationism is just as valid a qualifier to make Creationism a legitimate subject of study.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

"As I said, they're either teaching science or they're not. That's the deal."

I didn't sign that deal. I believe they could teach both.

You concede that most major religions allow for a non-literalist interpretation. I agree. So since they are being "sane" by your apparent definition, shouldn't at least -they- be able to squeeze a word in edgewise that they believe that some of the holes in evolutionary theory are filled by intelligent design? IMHO, yeah, they should be able to state that. But nope. They can't. I think that's wrong.

Qwinn

[whattajoke]

...I think you've ascribed meaning to the statement "we are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life," that isn't warranted.

To harbor skepticism about the sufficiency of random mutation and natural selection as mechanisms for evolution is not synonymous with questioning the totality of evolutionary theory.

I can't argue with you on this, in the context of intelligent FR discourse. (And, quite frankly, I'm a bit hesitant to disagree with someone who uses the word, "syzygy" in internet forums). BUT, surely you must see the underlying intent of Ms. Swenson's article.

When Joe Minnesota reads this article over his canadian bacon and eggs, while gearing up for UM's big clash with Michigan State, he's going to read that and say, "Hey honey, evolution is bunk. It says here that scientists no longer believe in it. Praise be." And THIS is why this article is terrible. I do see it was an OpEd piece, which does offer a bit of comfort to me, but still...

As PatrickHenry pointed out, there is no such movement away from evolution... there is an ongoing study into what the mechanisms that drive evolution are, to be sure. But Minnesotans and FReepers can rest assured, there is certainly not "a growing number of prominent biologists are signing on to the [evolution is dead petition]." Total garbage.

Furthermore, as CobaltBlue's sleuthing discovered, her OpEd piece is almost verbatim from the Seattle based Discovery Institute dungheap of press releases. It's a shame this woman is a teacher.

[PatrickHenry]

You concede that most major religions allow for a non-literalist interpretation. I agree. So since they are being "sane" by your apparent definition, shouldn't at least -they- be able to squeeze a word in edgewise that they believe that some of the holes in evolutionary theory are filled by intelligent design? IMHO, yeah, they should be able to state that. But nope. They can't. I think that's wrong.

You could plug the gaps of any science with the "theory" that angels are doing the stuff we haven't yet figured out. Would that be wrong? "Wrong" is a loaded word. However you answer that, the "angel theory" wouldn't be a scientific concept, so it should be reserved for a religious setting.

[whattajoke]

You keep asserting that the debate over Creation/evolution is somehow a choice between two. This couldn't be further from the truth.

Opening up science to the realm of the supernatural goes far beyond the idea of Christian creationism. Once it is determined that ID/Creationism can be taught side by side with science, every Mohammad, Ling, Bao, Running Bear, Krishnu, and Oologonquit worth his salt will be quick to make sure his creation myth is given equal time!

And I can't imagine for one second that that is the intent of this idiotic "Creationism in public schools" media assault.

[Sabertooth]

the only theological conclusion I've ever seen that flows directly from an understanding of the theory of evolution is that a hyper-literal reading of scripture, mostly Genesis, is going to be contradicted by the observable facts. Similarly, geology (the age and shape of the earth) and astronomy (the solar system). No one is cagy about it.

Sure they are.

Some religious folks look at the conflict and conclude Creationism, while some non-religious folks look at the same conflict and conclude atheism.

Each finds solace, unsurprisingly, in their respective comfort zones, while claiming that they are interested in "just the facts" and only "looking for the truth."

It's my general observation that theologians make bad scientists and scientists make bad theologians. There are exceptions, sure, but all humans are prone to seeking confirmations of their assumptions and presumptions, even scientists. None are immune.

Before there are any howls of protest from the scientific side about their method, we need to understand that while application of the scientific method is an effort to aproach certain areas of inquiry in ways that are atypical of human nature, the method itself doesn't enable scientists with the capacity to escape human nature.

Scientists who think otherwise are fallen into hubris, which is, of course, only human.

[Rocky]

"Data will resolve this issue for scientists."

How naive. Just as the article says, there are people on both sides who will not listen. On BOTH sides. And some of them on the scientific side use their positions of authority at universities and in professional societies to squelch any opposing views. Data is not the issue.

[Qwinn]

"Once it is determined that ID/Creationism can be taught side by side with science, every Mohammad, Ling, Bao, Running Bear, Krishnu, and Oologonquit worth his salt will be quick to make sure his creation myth is given equal time!"

Oh, bull. This is indistinguishable from a Creationist pre-Scopes saying "Once it is determined that evolution can be taught side by side with God, every crackpot scientist worth his salt will be quick to make sure that his Godless theories are given equal time!"

Schools aren't required to teach every last issue that is under dispute (even just within the scientific world) in evolutionary theory. Likewise, schools can teach various theories about the existence of extraterrestrial life, but aren't required to make their students wear tin foil hats and teach every last crackpot theory about abductions and so forth.

Creationism was the only theory taught in schools for 200 years prior to the Scopes Monkey trial, and there were no problems. Now you claim it would be excrutiatingly problematic to do so - and I claim that the only reason it would be so is because those intent on suppressing them would make sure it WAS so.

Qwinn

[PatrickHenry]

Some religious folks look at the conflict and conclude Creationism, while some non-religious folks look at the same conflict and conclude atheism.

Yes, you have "all or nothing" people out there. Some of them look at the conflict and decide that all of science is wrong, therefore Creationism (which is about as un-scientific as it ever gets). This is foolish attitude, in my opinion. Others look at the conflict and conclude that if some scriptural passages are metaphorical, the entire bible is hogwash. This too is a foolish attitude (again, in my opinion).

Most of us can deal with the conflict in the way that I said earlier, and the problem vanishes. There will always be the extremes, at both ends of the spectrum. Such is life.

[Long Cut]

Except that large numbers of people simply cannot live with the idea that their existance is the result of a long history of random chance. It literally rocks their world to consider that they might NOT be created by some higher power, for some higher purpose.

Such people will resist ALL evidence, as the crevo threads show in graphic detail.

[whattajoke]

Wrong.

"This is indistinguishable from a Creationist pre-Scopes saying "Once it is determined that evolution can be taught side by side with God, every crackpot scientist worth his salt will be quick to make sure that his Godless theories are given equal time!"

If said scientist's theory is shown to be a crackpot one, then said scientist's theory would not come near a classroom. Case closed.

However, when the push to get supernatural creation myths is accepted, there's no way of stopping other, older, more established religious creation myths from muscling their way in. (Buddhism, Native American myths, etc). It's impossible to "prove" them wrong, and "offensive" to exclude them. Furthermore, there would also be no way of shutting out the truly kooky creation myths, because Lord knows how easy it is to establish a recognized religion these days, and who's to say one is "better" than the other, in the context of unvarifiable mythologies. The Garden of Eden story with talking snakes and forbidden fruits is surely no less difficult to swallow than the Hindu myth as mentioned by Balrog666 earlier.

So let's keep science science, and theology, theology. Problem solved.

[Buggman]

I fail to see where "faith" comes in to play in science. The scientist either has evidence and repeatable results or he does not. If he does not, the method demands that the theory or conclusion be rejected, or altered.

There are no "repeatable results" when it comes to evolution, any more than there are with archaeology. The study of life's origins, whether you look at it from a creation or naturalistic POV, is a historical science, not something that can be repeated in the lab. There's a big difference in the methodology between the two: Physical science lends itself to experimentation, where historical science depends on an interpretation of an ever-increasing body of evidence that cannot be reproduced in the lab. Disagree? Then I propose that you create life and let it evolve into an entire world of different species . . . in the lab.

Of course, then all you'll be doing is proving that it takes an intellegence to create life, but that's the Catch-22. ;^)

If the "other side" were mentioned, honesty would require the disclaimer that no verifiable evidence supported it.

Certainly there is. There's an entire body of data that supports the theory that life does not spontaneously appear from inorganic material, which is what purely naturalistic evolution requires. We've discovered that the so-called "simple" cell isn't, and that it requires millions of very carefully balanced parts and interactions to function, which could not have arised by common chance. Irreducible complexity. We have a derth of transitional forms in the fossil records, when according to evolution we should have almost nothing but transitional forms--that is, we see stable species going along virtually unchanged for millions of years, not slow changes over time.

And we have an increasing number of biologists acknowledging those facts. Evolutionists are being disingenous when they paint the struggle as being between naturalistic evolution and Biblical young-earth creationism. There is a vast amount of middle ground, from those who posit a creative intellegence who was only responsible for abiogenesis to those who see a need for a mechanic other than natural selection to explain the abundance of different lifeforms and the missing transitions in the fossil record, all of which are represented in the growing ID movement.

The question is, do we tell our children about this ongoing debate honestly, or do we try to lock them into one viewpoint or another by allowing only one to be taught in schools and elimiating the conflicting data? I vote for honesty.