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.

[shubi]

"For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

For in six periods of time the Lord made...wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day (which we must still be going on or the Lord has departed the building) and the Lord blessed Sunday as if it was the seventh period, but it is really Friday or Saturday if you are a not Christian which is the fifth or sixth period of time being commemorated so we are so confused we don't know what day it is. </sardonic>

[shubi]

Ping

[MortMan]

If you are uncomfortable with contingency and change go to church and let scientists do their work.

If you are uncomfortable with differing viewpoints, or are unwilling/unable to defend your position without condescension, perhaps you should occupy a pew and pray for better debating skills.

[shubi]

The interesting thing is the con men who are leading creationism reject God as well. Everything God created should be honored by Christians. Since evolution is a fact, God must have created it.

Rejecting what God created is rejecting God.

(Hey Andrew! The above is good logic. (Just so you will know))

[shubi]

"I am virtually forced to argue as if I'm "against" the Bible, when that is not true in any way."

I cannot abide going to a church whose minister insists that a wrongheaded literal interpretation of young Earth and animals on a boat must be accepted or I am going to hell.

It is difficult to find an evangelical church that does not believe garbage anymore. It grieves the Spirit to see such silliness become tantamount to Gospel.

[cynicom]

The day that the Slimes and their fellow traveling atheists offer an "overwhelming scientific consensus" as to how matter created itself from nothing, will be a long time in coming.

[shubi]

He defended his position just fine.

Telling people they deserve hell if they find the facts of evolution convincing is the weak and nonsensical argument.

Sometimes it is best to take your own advice, but pray for a science class you can understand.

[shubi]

Did you know that matter out of nothing is not in The Theory of Evolution?

It is origin of species, not origin of life that the Theory explains.

[aculeus]

Creationists by and large are the most dishonest people inhabiting the Right. They are naught but a drag on, and an albatross around, conservatism. No other group, even the HTT's in my opinion, comes close.

Agree completely.

(As if I know what HTT's are.)

[MortMan]

Sometimes it is best to take your own advice, but pray for a science class you can understand.

Quite an assumption, shubi. This is exactly what I was talking about - ad hominem attacks in place of (or accompanying) logic. You have no clue as to my scientific education, training, job, etc. Yet you can conclude because I chided someone you agree with that I am ignorant.

I really feel sorry for you, because you will never be able to convince anyone of much of anything until you get your arrogance in check.

BTW - I agree that pronouncing someone's damnation to hell for a contrary viewpoint is nonsensical and illogical. Just as much as grading someone's IQ based on a couple of sentences that deliberately omitted the core subject, addressing instead the personal attacks embedded amongst otherwise acceptable reasoning.

[cynicom]

My statement has nothing to do with evolution, species or anything else. It is a matter for scientists to ponder, a place to start, a foundation for any scientific "consensus".

[Jay777]

I believe in evolution, but I'd also like a little more education on it. It seems that all animal life is divided into two classes, cold-blooded and warm-blooded. Did the warm-blooded evolve from the cold-blooded? It is hard for me not to believe in a God, because it is depressing to think that life has no purpose behind it. So if there is no outside source, that which creates purpose would be the God of its own world. Decisions mankind makes now do effect the entire future. This is evolution, but is it random?

[JCEccles]

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.

Evolution's proponents created the problem by using the courts to accord a scientific theory the status of secular religion that no one is allowed to question in the public schools. Other subjects may be freely and vigorously debated. Only evolution is singled out for enforced, blind secular worship.

[PatrickHenry]

I believe in evolution, but I'd also like a little more education on it.

Your curiosity is admirable. I don't mean to brush you off, but rather, to direct you to some useful information. This search on ebay, using the term "introduction to biology" produces a number of hits, some seem both helpful and cheap. Changing the search to "introductory biology" produces more hits. Good luck.

[Jay777]

Thanks

[gobucks]

Considering that Genesis wasn't written to be an explanation of how/why of everything, but only as a quick genealogical explanation of the history of people, and you have to wonder how much more detail could have been provided to us about science...if the intention of the author of Genesis were to focus on science.

Yep. But, it's just amazing how much this common sense is uncommon...

[Junior]

Science has been doing a pretty good job of explaining the natural world even without a consensus on how it all started. Otherwise, you and I wouldn't be trading posts on the internet.

[gobucks]

What great advances for mankind has creationism ever made?

I'm glad you asked, keeper of the gen X ping list.

{Btw, before I begin, you do a great job with that ping list. Great articles...}

As a 1963 born gen x'er,
who wasn't 'churched',
who witnessed his parents struggle w/ the 60's
who served in nuclear propulsion divisions in the U.S Navy,
who holds two degrees in the 'hard' sciences,
who has multiple relatives holding PhDs in bio sciences,
who rejected the bible thumper's message as sheer nuttiness,
who accepted the lordship of Christ, May 2001,
I say the advances of this man are as follows:

I no longer am a boy who lies about being a man.

I no longer make excuses when I screw up.

I no longer hop from bedroom to bedroom 'looking' for something.

I no longer blame others, when it is I who owns the blame.

I listen to my wife sing, alot, in our home, instead of her silence.

I listen to my kids, say 'I love you Dad', alot.

I no longer hear my kids yell 'I hate you Dad', ever.

I speak to young women with respect ... for they are my kid's future friends.

I no longer speak to young women with the intent to 'get some'.

I now respect those men who showed me the way.

I no longer snort and scorn at 'authority' figures.

I no longer spend time w/ boys trapped in men's bodies.

I recognize, now, how 'counterfeit' Christians are an excellent signal for Christ.

I no longer see Christian hypocrits as proof that Christ is a myth.

I now give money away to needy people.

I no longer hoard all my money.

I spend some of my free time repairing the homes of poor people.

I spend less time making my home the perfect cul-de-sac house.

I no longer feel rage when my intelligence is 'insulted'.

I expect rage when I challenge those who only live for the praise of men.

I no longer believe Satan is a metaphor.

I no longer believe Jesus was just a man.

I no longer believe 'fun' is just as fun as 'joy'.

I no longer believe scientists who claim the only way to know anything is through the 'scientific method'.

Why all this? Because my Creator made this CreATURE, awake, in May of 2001. And all things, including the events in my own bedroom, are better.

Not perfect. But much, much, better. There is truth in the statement, 'holiness increased leads to increased happines'

All the years hoping that the scientists would help me make things 'better' were wasted. I know a lot, but I know now, I would have better spent many of those years scientifically investigating the cause of 'wisdom'.

What was the cause of wasting all that time? I trusted the words, and advirtised motives, of scientists. I, scientifically, have determined that when it comes to the happiness of men, the words of scientists are not trustworthy, and their real motives never confessed.

It took way too long to figure that out. The short cut would have been a mere investigation of what is 'wisdom'.

And so, in short, I don't trust men, even those men in Christ, the way I trust the message of Christ. These advances, among many others, were made for me by my Creator who made me.

And yes, I know, your question was directed toward me; but I was very glad you asked.

[NJ Neocon]

Only if you consider creationists Christians. I think they are on the fringe, perhaps a Christian-like cult.

I thought that was so as well. Turns out that about 50% of us believe in Creationism.

More is the pity.

On the other hand, if we all believed the earth was flat, that would not make it so.

[gobucks]

ping to this; it was directed to you originally.

(Hmmmmm, the ironies just never stop.....)