The Crafty Attacks on Evolution

The New York Slimes ^ | 23 January 2005 | EDITORIAL

[rdb3]

January 23, 2005

EDITORIAL

The Crafty Attacks on Evolution

ritics of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution become more wily with each passing year. Creationists who believe that God made the world and everything in it pretty much as described in the Bible were frustrated when their efforts to ban the teaching of evolution in the public schools or inject the teaching of creationism were judged unconstitutional by the courts. But over the past decade or more a new generation of critics has emerged with a softer, more roundabout approach that they hope can pass constitutional muster.

One line of attack - on display in Cobb County, Ga., in recent weeks - is to discredit evolution as little more than a theory that is open to question. Another strategy - now playing out in Dover, Pa. - is to make students aware of an alternative theory called "intelligent design," which infers the existence of an intelligent agent without any specific reference to God. These new approaches may seem harmless to a casual observer, but they still constitute an improper effort by religious advocates to impose their own slant on the teaching of evolution.•

The Cobb County fight centers on a sticker that the board inserted into a new biology textbook to placate opponents of evolution. The school board, to its credit, was trying to strengthen the teaching of evolution after years in which it banned study of human origins in the elementary and middle schools and sidelined the topic as an elective in high school, in apparent violation of state curriculum standards. When the new course of study raised hackles among parents and citizens (more than 2,300 signed a petition), the board sought to quiet the controversy by placing a three-sentence sticker in the textbooks:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Although the board clearly thought this was a reasonable compromise, and many readers might think it unexceptional, it is actually an insidious effort to undermine the science curriculum. The first sentence sounds like a warning to parents that the film they are about to watch with their children contains pornography. Evolution is so awful that the reader must be warned that it is discussed inside the textbook. The second sentence makes it sound as though evolution is little more than a hunch, the popular understanding of the word "theory," whereas theories in science are carefully constructed frameworks for understanding a vast array of facts. The National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific organization, has declared evolution "one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have" and says it is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus.

The third sentence, urging that evolution be studied carefully and critically, seems like a fine idea. The only problem is, it singles out evolution as the only subject so shaky it needs critical judgment. Every subject in the curriculum should be studied carefully and critically. Indeed, the interpretations taught in history, economics, sociology, political science, literature and other fields of study are far less grounded in fact and professional consensus than is evolutionary biology.

A more honest sticker would describe evolution as the dominant theory in the field and an extremely fruitful scientific tool. The sad fact is, the school board, in its zeal to be accommodating, swallowed the language of the anti-evolution crowd. Although the sticker makes no mention of religion and the school board as a whole was not trying to advance religion, a federal judge in Georgia ruled that the sticker amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion because it was rooted in long-running religious challenges to evolution. In particular, the sticker's assertion that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" adopted the latest tactical language used by anti-evolutionists to dilute Darwinism, thereby putting the school board on the side of religious critics of evolution. That court decision is being appealed. Supporters of sound science education can only hope that the courts, and school districts, find a way to repel this latest assault on the most well-grounded theory in modern biology.•

In the Pennsylvania case, the school board went further and became the first in the nation to require, albeit somewhat circuitously, that attention be paid in school to "intelligent design." This is the notion that some things in nature, such as the workings of the cell and intricate organs like the eye, are so complex that they could not have developed gradually through the force of Darwinian natural selection acting on genetic variations. Instead, it is argued, they must have been designed by some sort of higher intelligence. Leading expositors of intelligent design accept that the theory of evolution can explain what they consider small changes in a species over time, but they infer a designer's hand at work in what they consider big evolutionary jumps.

The Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania became the first in the country to place intelligent design before its students, albeit mostly one step removed from the classroom. Last week school administrators read a brief statement to ninth-grade biology classes (the teachers refused to do it) asserting that evolution was a theory, not a fact, that it had gaps for which there was no evidence, that intelligent design was a differing explanation of the origin of life, and that a book on intelligent design was available for interested students, who were, of course, encouraged to keep an open mind. That policy, which is being challenged in the courts, suffers from some of the same defects found in the Georgia sticker. It denigrates evolution as a theory, not a fact, and adds weight to that message by having administrators deliver it aloud. •

Districts around the country are pondering whether to inject intelligent design into science classes, and the constitutional problems are underscored by practical issues. There is little enough time to discuss mainstream evolution in most schools; the Dover students get two 90-minute classes devoted to the subject. Before installing intelligent design in the already jam-packed science curriculum, school boards and citizens need to be aware that it is not a recognized field of science. There is no body of research to support its claims nor even a real plan to conduct such research. In 2002, more than a decade after the movement began, a pioneer of intelligent design lamented that the movement had many sympathizers but few research workers, no biology texts and no sustained curriculum to offer educators. Another leading expositor told a Christian magazine last year that the field had no theory of biological design to guide research, just "a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions." If evolution is derided as "only a theory," intelligent design needs to be recognized as "not even a theory" or "not yet a theory." It should not be taught or even described as a scientific alternative to one of the crowning theories of modern science.

That said, in districts where evolution is a burning issue, there ought to be some place in school where the religious and cultural criticisms of evolution can be discussed, perhaps in a comparative religion class or a history or current events course. But school boards need to recognize that neither creationism nor intelligent design is an alternative to Darwinism as a scientific explanation of the evolution of life.

[PatrickHenry]

As long as we have a thread based on an article from the MSM, I'll just link this new article from Time Magazine.
Stealth Attack On Evolution.

I've said this before and I'll repeat it here, because with the attention the MSM is giving this issue, my prophesy is about to come true:

What really bothers me is the fear that the press will soon figure out that they can easily use this creationism stuff to bash the Republican party. When they realize how devastating this tactic will be, you may be certain that at every press conference that every Republican candidate has in the future, the press will ask him his views on evolution vs. creationism. And if the guy says he's a creationist, he'll be ridiculed as an idiot out of the Dark Ages. Creationism has the potential to destroy the Republican party. As I've said before, this issue will hang like an albatross around our necks. And that's why I think these threads are so important.

[Long Cut]

"Creationism has the potential to destroy the Republican party. As I've said before, this issue will hang like an albatross around our necks. And that's why I think these threads are so important."

Without doubt.

The President and the Republicans have their work quite cut out for them, what with the next four years being host to attempts at tort reform, tax reform, Social Security reform, Supreme Court justices, not to mention this pesky little war (which I will once again join in June) that needs won.

In light of the above, it is inconcievable that so many conservatives want to wander out into some sweaty tar pit with NO upside like creationism. Rest assured that such people as Karl Rove and other political heavy hitters wish that it would go away. They know full well its effect.

[balrog666]

Shades of homosexual-obsessed ALS and mindless minions!

[js1138]

...witness the absolutely nonsensical gay-baiting being done by one poster.

You haven't been paying attention. Very few threads go by without someone painting Evilutionists pink. It's a sign that someone has nothing to say, but can't resist saying something.

[norton]

Why the hell are these prople so terrified???

[CAPS turned off due to modesty]

[Dimensio]

The point is, an evolutionist has no rational or logical basis for morality.

From what cesspit of intellectual dishonesty did you derive this twaddle?

[qam1]

What really bothers me is the fear that the press will soon figure out that they can easily use this creationism stuff to bash the Republican party

I'm very surprised (and thankful) they haven't done so already. If I were a Liberal reporter out to get Bush & the Republicans this is exactly what I would be bringing up.

Thankfully, All this attention to this issue is happening now, after we just won. Hopefully it will be long forgotten by 2006 & 2008

[PatrickHenry]

Thankfully, All this attention to this issue is happening now, after we just won. Hopefully it will be long forgotten by 2006 & 2008

It won't be forgotten. The Discovery Institute will keep beating the drums, the idiot dentists' wives who make up most school boards will vote for "balance" and thus will include creationism/ID in science classes, the commie ACLU will litigate (posing as the champions of science), the cases will wind their way up to the Supreme Court, and it will become a hot issue in the confirmation of judges. And the dems will love it, painting us all as a pack of crazed flat-earthers. This is a killer issue. It can destroy us.

[js1138]

From what cesspit of intellectual dishonesty did you derive this twaddle? ,p>From the same cesspools that supply all the tampered Darwin quotes, and the Steven J. Gold is a Marxist diatribes.

[Long Cut]

And rest assured that when the MSM wants a creationist to interview or get a quick quote from, it will be those like judywillow to whom the cameras will turn.

The association with conservatism in general and Republicans in particular will then be cemented...to our detriment.

[PatrickHenry]

And rest assured that when the MSM wants a creationist to interview or get a quick quote from ...

I wish this stuff would stay in church where it belongs. These people will destroy the Republican party. They're giving the dems the rope to hang us with.

[balrog666]

A man can no more be a Christian and believe in evolution than he can be a Christian and believe in naziism.

Another excommunicating, so-called Christian!

Why is there such a neverending supply of you bigots?

[furball4paws]

I guess the heavy hitters have arrived.

I guess I don't need to be here with my nose stuck to every poster's shoe to tell them what they just stepped in.

Have fun, and to quote PH "Everybody be nice"!

[furball4paws]

"Why is there such a neverending supply of you bigots?"

Actually PatrickHenry and I had a discussion about just that earlier today. I'll give you a hint - our Colleges of Education. You seem to be an intelligent guy, so I figure you can fill in the missing links (Oh No, did I say a bad evo thing?).

[js1138]

Why is there such a neverending supply of you bigots?

Don't be so hard on her. Even the president of Harvard knows that women aren't very smart.

;-)

[PatrickHenry]

Even the president of Harvard knows that women aren't very smart.

I think it's ALS after a sex-change operation. He's happy now.

[Junior]

The point is, an evolutionist has no rational or logical basis for morality.

Enlightened self-interest.

[PatrickHenry]

... an evolutionist has no rational or logical basis for morality.

This may be one of the crazier objections to evolution. (But then, are there any sane ones?)

Even without evolution, everyone knows that if we trace our ancestors back far enough we find some bad people. Maybe a criminal here and there, perhaps a wanton woman, a slave or two, that sort of thing. Go back further, and our ancestors were all pagans. Further back, they were barbarians, and before that they were savages, perhaps cannibals. We know this is our ancestry, even if evolution were never dreamed of.

But so what? Does anyone, knowing that, decide to be a savage, or a criminal? Or a pagan? The morality, or lack thereof, of our distant ancestors is meaningless regarding the kind of people we choose to be. So what difference could it make if, hundreds of millions of years ago, our ancestors weren't even human?

[Long Cut]

"These people will destroy the Republican party. They're giving the dems the rope to hang us with."

There's more than just science. The same sort of people can also be found at the forefront of various censorship efforts, seking to ban music acts, TV shows, movies, and the like (for being "anti-Christian"), and generally seeking to impose a particular viewpoint on the rest of us ("You're not a conservative unless you believe what I do!!!"). They cannot and will not abide that single most conservative viewpoint of all...mind your own business.

Some I have seen on this very site advise other conservatives to "go vote Dem" if they didn't agree with everything the fringer wanted, as "we're the ones in charge here". Some think that there are actually votes we can live without!!

One is forced to wonder if they really do care about conservatism or Republicanism at all, or if it is simply a vehicle for them to get their beliefs enacted into law, or taught as fact in schools.

[PatrickHenry]

One is forced to wonder if they really do care about conservatism or Republicanism at all, or if it is simply a vehicle for them to get their beliefs enacted into law, or taught as fact in schools.

They're not really Republicans. Not even Americans, if you define an American as someone who supports the Constitution. They're basically theocrats.

Don't be misled by their slogans about "fairness." Fairness isn't an issue here. If we wanted to go into their churches and demand equal time for evolution, or if we wanted to put stickers on their Sunday school books, then they'd have a gripe. As it is, they have no legitimate complaint. Their religious freedom is intact.

In fairness, I'm not a fan of government schools, but as long as we've got them, we shouldn't trust those unionized government creeps to handle religious instruction. Let them teach science. They're not very good at it (as these threads so clearly demonstrate), but I'd rather have them teaching science than preaching religion.