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.

[gobucks]

If you're new to the CrEvo threads, look for posts by Ichneumon and Dimensio, plus Vade Retro and Physicist. They are truly informative, and devastating to their opponents in all cases. I've never seen Ichneumon refuted to any appreciable degree.

Check out PatrickHenry's homepage for the infamous "list o links".

If you're new to the CrEvo threads, take note that the Christians will normally not post stuff like this.

(and the fact you do, Long Cut, says a great deal about just how much confidence you place in these guys words merely standing on their own; soon I'll be seeing billboards on freeways paid for by long cut "Check out PatrickHenry's links!!!".....).

Instead we'll often simply say stuff like:

investigate, scientifically, the origin of "wisdom".

[gobucks]

And that's why I think these threads are so important.

Hallelujah! We agree on one thing: these threads are indeed very important.

[bondserv]

"It was to make so-called Hebrew Scholars look goofy"

They wrote the book, they should know?

Yomn can mean time, but it is predicated by the context of the passage. If there is a question about the context of the passage you should look to other passages which refer to the passage, for illumination.

The inclusion of the terms evening and morning are not the only clarifier's to the taking of yomn in these passages as 24 hour days. Exodus 20, starting in verse 8 is an excellent example of a referring passage that reinforces the 24 hour meaning of yomn of the passages we are discussing in Genesis 1. We also have a group of passages in Genesis 1 that contain a large amount of very specific details, which differentiates it from poetic or allegoristic writing and is more consistent with historical writing.

This is how the Hebrew Scholars use hermeneutics to insure transcription from Hebrew to another language. Although there is controversy regarding these passages, it has mainly come about because modern scholars are trying to reconcile the Bible with science.

[Thatcherite]

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.

When did evolution's proponents do this?

[Thatcherite]

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

Congratulations, you want to change your uninformed belief into informed belief. Many posters here say things like "I used to believe in evolution until I had all the flaws in it shown to me.". They then proceed to demonstrate in their posts that most of them have only the vaguest idea of what the ToE says and how biologists believe it works.

My guess is that most of those who believe evolution do so not because they understand it, but because of some vaguely formed idea that "all those scientists who do lots of cool stuff must be right." Ignorance is not a good platform from which to resist misinformation.

I suggest that you have a look at talk.origins website which contains a huge volume of information about evolution. If nothing else you will find it mentally stimulating. It also contains numerous links to anti-evolution arguments which you should compare with the mainstream view proposed on talk.origins.

It is hard for me not to believe in a God, because it is depressing to think that life has no purpose behind it.

Belief in evolution does not clash with belief in God (as many posters here will tell you), but only with certain strict literal interpretations of holy books like Genesis I that some churches insist on. Unfortunately it is not the job of science to avoid depressing you. ;) But I for one find the universe to be an exciting place, full of wonders, and the more I learn about it the more I marvel. This atheist does not find the universe a depressing place.

So if there is no outside source, that which creates purpose would be the God of its own world.

I don't really buy this. We are all constrained by our innate nature and the laws of physics. Also doing good feels good (I contend for powerful evolutionary reasons to do with societal development amongst our ancestors, groups which co-operated and helped the weak were more successful than groups which adopted "every ape for himself")

Decisions mankind makes now do effect the entire future. This is evolution, but is it random?

This is not evolution in the biological sense of course, which is what the theory of evolution concerns itself with.

[Smartaleck]

Using people you call goofy to support your position. Interesting.

[Outraged]

So, all those thousands of biologists and biology teachers must be living lawless licentious lives (say that three times fast).

I have no idea how they are living, but they are certainly fools if they deny at least the possibility of God; given the lack of empirical or temporal evidence explaining how we evolved or how order came from chaos...The god-denying leap of faith makes the god-fearing leap of faith look like a simple equation with an obvious answer.

You are looking at the tree and ignoring the forest, Jr.

[balrog666]

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.

Echo.

[Junior]

First, there is tonnes* of evidence for how humanity evolved from hominids. Secondly, your claim that evolutionists simply don't want to abide by God's rules is obviously false on its face. If it were true, the jails would be full of evolutionists, and evos would be copulating in the streets. Instead, we find just the opposite.

Indeed, most evolutionists are Christians, and even the handful that are atheists typically follow a philosophy of enlightened self-interest.

*a tonne is a metric ton (~2200 pounds). Since this is bigger than the ton, you know their is a lot more evidence for evolution than you thought.

[Thatcherite]

I have no idea how they are living, but they are certainly fools if they deny at least the possibility of God

Who says that those who teach or support the teaching of evolution deny the possibility of God. I am not aware that anyone on the science side of this debate maintains that, it is purely a fiction of the religious fundamentalists that to believe in evolution is to deny God.

[gobucks]

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?

Meaningless to you, we all agree on that, at least - and at least you are transparent about that.

But, I'm thinking I shouldn't be surprised that your following question is even asked; as if you didn't already know the answer, even though it has been presented on these evo threads dozens of times.

But, I'll pretend you haven't heard it before; and even that you are more 'honest', as you claim, than the creationists who engage you and your fellow en-lightened travelers.

So here's the difference it makes: if I can trace my ancestors all the way back through man, and unbroken, through animals, and unbroken, through little critters .... then all of a sudden, you as an evo fellow have in one nice move, refuted the entire creation story of Adam. There is always a 'creature' that preceded Adam, not dirt.

But, there was no man or critter that was Adam's ancestor, for he was made from dirt. Adam, re-fined dirt, and with him Eve, re-fined Man, introduced sin.

Christ was, and is, the solution for sin - as long as we believe it. But, in its effect, no sin can possibly ever be introduced if the Orthodox ToE, as propagandized, is absoutely correct. For by definition, Adam and Eve can not be the 'first' ancestors of all mankind.

ToE folks work just as hard to make sure it's believable as fact, not theory. To them people are never born 'bad'. To an evolutionist some people are born, and made bad and do bad things. Sort of like Shelly's animated man, who was made, and started out good, by the good scientist. But the world mistreated him, and thus victimized him into his monsterdom. (And Frankenstein and his monster discussed Jesus how often? And the book is accurately made into a movie how often?)

So, if ToE priests succeed in their efforts, Christ becomes just a nice jewish man of the Essenics group, and he was unlucky enough to be credited w/ founding a horrible world wide cult.

PH, you and your fellow travelers are agents engaged in the active destruction of the purpose of Christ, as taught to Christians. You all, at best, don't care to recognize this. You and your fellow agents, at best, merely ignore this charge.

But, here, you and your fellow are agents are very consistent in one thing: completely avoiding discussions of why good, decent, morals are needed regarding sexual behavior among people.

In fairness, not all of us are as kind as we ought to be. But, many of you chortle, and quote the movie Dr. Strangelove at length, and report that the movie is required viewing in order for anyone to be properly accultured in America!

If you so dearly cared, as indicated by the statements by many of you earlier in this thread, about the success of the agenda of Bush, esp the judges, the very, very last thing you all would do is goad and ridicule the Christians who were essential to his re-election.

Ideally, you'd all figure out that what you must address are the moral issues which concern bible thumpers. And it would be manifestly evident to you that they be addressed every bit as effectively and scientifically as the issues associated w/ preserving the validity of what ToE discusses.

But that doesn't happen - your conclusions about why it shouldn't happen are not open to re-evaluation; and you call us bible thumpers bigoted!? The fight to boost ToE is exclusive, and claims your energies exclusively. And then you, seem to anyway, struggle in attempting to understand why we are so animated.

From a reasonable point of view, it appears that this observation can lead to conclusions about whether or not this entire conflict is 'random'.

I wonder .... but, from my perspective, the wonderment is over.

[narby]

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.

That's just so dishonest. If you are a religious person, I'm amazed that you have the dishonesty to say such a thing.

The creationists over at the Discovery Institute have been attempting to take over science curriculum for religious reasons for decades. In resisting the attempted takeover of science by religion, some people have gone to court. Yes, some of these people are themselves professional athiests, but in this case I'm glad they're doing this. They don't know it, but they're actually helping stop the rapid slide of some Christian denominations into ignorance. And at the same time chasing some faithful people away who are educated in the subject.

Every time religion has taken on science in the last 300 years, it's lost badly and embarassed itself. There's no reason to think it will turn out any different this time.

There's no reason to take such a litteral interpretation of Genesis so as to disallow Evolution.

[PatrickHenry]

The fight to boost ToE is exclusive, and claims your energies exclusively.

Not exclusively. Don't forget all that wild, uninhibited sex which Darwin has empowered me to pursue. Oook, oook!

[gobucks]

"You must have been listening to the rational parts of a gobucks post."

Hey There! You are still reading!!! Man oh man, talk about a surplus!

By the way, you might want to check #171, if you have a few more cells to spare...

[narby]

There is always a 'creature' that preceded Adam, not dirt.

The Bible doesn't say HOW God created man from dust. Nor how long it took Him to do it. Nor how many steps in the process. The Bible is not a science textbook, and informing you of such details would have taken up more than the whole document.

Interpret the "dust" in Gen 2 as the primordial "goop" described by science after God allowed the rain to begin, and you have zero discrepancy between Genesis and science.

How come you're so wound up about turning this issue into a fight? Is this your profession? You get some donations from people for doing this?

Aren't there some constructive things, rather than destructive, you could be doing with your life?

[Thatcherite]

Not exclusively. Don't forget all that wild, uninhibited sex which Darwin has empowered me to pursue. Oook, oook!

You fool! It is christianity that empowers you to pursue wild uninhibited sex (particularly with altar-boys if you are male, I believe). Haven't you been listening?

[gobucks]

" 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."

Other than ensuring he never investigates where 'wisdom' comes from, I suspect he's young and is not a parent.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

These'll help.

[Thatcherite]

But, here, you and your fellow are agents are very consistent in one thing: completely avoiding discussions of why good, decent, morals are needed regarding sexual behavior among people.

False, I have discussed this very issue with you, and I was under the impression that you found my position on the matter acceptable. (unless perhaps you haven't elevated me to the status of a PatrickHenry fellow agent; doh! How can I live down the slur.)

[narby]

You fool! It is christianity that empowers you to pursue wild uninhibited sex (particularly with altar-boys if you are male, I believe). Haven't you been listening?

That's more true than I think you would believe.

My ex-wife married a guy who turned out to be a child molester. Got caught red "handed" by a cop who busted down the front door and found an 8 year old child between his legs.

My very Christian, Southern Baptist ex-wife ended up defending him. As did her parents, (her father was a church music director) and also his Southern Baptist pastor. All of them took the effort to write letters to the judge asking to release him because, quote "it was the kids fault, because the parents of that kid watched bad movies and the kid offered herself to him" unquote.

I actually suspect the guy was into child porn. One of the last times I saw him before this, he was building a small building behind his house that he said was to start "a small printing business".

I have never been able to discover how much of this my ex-wife knew about.

In general, I support Christianity. But Christians are not angels, and when they make accusations about Evolution supporters as somehow being evil people it just makes me cringe.