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.

[Fester Chugabrew]

There is a distinction between so-called and called.

I'm afraid that kind of distinction is lost on certain scientific types.

[shubi]

"My statement has nothing to do with evolution, species or anything else."

Oh, your statement didn't have anything to do with anything.

Profound.

[gobucks]

'Nowhere, because you are the only one obsessed with the connection."

Wrong. I am one of the few Christians to speak as overtly about the underlying concerns. Most of the others here are far too polite.

that said, it looks like at least we have one admission from a ToE person .... morals are not a concern for us and will not become one during our great and noble fight to protect a noble theory....

(Hey, at least we were relatively polite to each other. did you see just how mad the others got at Me? I think it was because I made Sterling Hayden look really baaaaaaad....)

[Fester Chugabrew]

A newspaper that cannot even get its own stories right now wants to present the Theory of Evolution as unassailable truth. LOL!

[Junior]

I'll just let those words speak for themselves...

A faith unquestioned is no faith at all. I'm continually surprised (and I know I shouldn't be) the number of so-called Christians who just accept all the teachings of whatever church they belong to without every questioning any of the tenets.

For instance, I always thought it ridiculous that an omniscient, omnipotent diety requires the adoration of humanity. Or that that same diety requires sacrifices to be mollified. What does God need with either? And I'll never accept "God just wants it that way," either.

[shubi]

http://www.biology-online.org/

Here is a good link to start learning biology and its free!!!

[Thatcherite]

that said, it looks like at least we have one admission from a ToE person .... morals are not a concern for us and will not become one during our great and noble fight to protect a noble theory....

You have twisted my words outrageously to score a pathetic debating point, which is a form of lying. And you know it.

[MortMan]

Yes - I used a rephrase of the same arrogant line from the post I originally replied to.

I'm afraid I may have been "picking a fight" in that I did not reply to both sides when they started to lash out in personal attacks rather than debating the merits of the evidence. For that - mea culpa. My interest is in raising the level of debate closer to where it stood some time ago, when I originally joined.

Oh - and insulting my intelligence is most certainly an ad hominem attack.

At any rate, I wish peace and informed debate to you.

[Thatcherite]

Most of the others (christians) here are far too polite.

LOL, its the way gobucks tells them that has me in stitches.

[shubi]

I don't think that stat is true. I think there is a distinction between those of us who believe that God created everything and the nonsense that ICR, AIG and the Discovery Inst. puts out. I would imagine no more than 15% really believe that garbage.

[bondserv]

The Theory of Evolution does not belong in science classes. It belongs in Culture and Philosophy of Science classes. A teaching made up mostly of reasonable conjecture and wishful thinking (with a fair share of BS thrown in) cannot do the job of teaching how things work. Leave that to science. (Bared repeating)

You're delusional.

Only for adherents to your world-view. Open-mindedness is only existant in the world-view that is socially and fiscally conservative. I gaurentee you that if you polled the evo's 90% would be considered socially liberal. When relitavism creeps into ones life, it closes the mind. (If the socially conservative's weren't open-minded believers in persuasion there would have been riots in this country over abortion).

[shubi]

Genesis 1 is Hebrew thought poetry. The first few verses are repeated in Gen 2:4 as synthetic parallelism. Then, you have the synthetic parallelism repetition of the enumerated indefinite periods of time.

There is also the parallelism of repeating evening/morning in each section.

Since Gen 1 is poetry and not as you seem to think a historical narrative, it is open to much wider interpretation. Seek an interpretation that is not internally inconsistent such that days are 24 hrs before there is a Sun.

[NJ Neocon]

I would love to see stats that support that claim. I want to believe it.

[shubi]

gobucks: "Second, the sheer number of statements supporting ToE regardless, and beating back the efforts of Christians, is quite large."

Thus demonstrating the clear opinion that creationists are the only Christians.

I am a Christian and a damn good one. ;-)

I don't think the Lord requires me to believe nonsense.

[bondserv]

There are a mountain full of Hebrew Scholars who disagree with this assessment.

[shubi]

Apparently, survival of the fittest doesn't work in all cases. :-)

[Thatcherite]

Only for adherents to your world-view. Open-mindedness is only existant in the world-view that is socially and fiscally conservative. I gaurentee you that if you polled the evo's 90% would be considered socially liberal. When relitavism creeps into ones life, it closes the mind. (If the socially conservative's weren't open-minded believers in persuasion there would have been riots in this country over abortion).

The ad-hominem, "most evos are liberal" is always a good failsafe for FR creatos. Why don't you throw in "immoral free-love advocates" like gobucks or "homosexuals" like JudyWillow. That would make your argument three times as strong.

BTW, you haven't yet altered the bunkum on your profile page that plainly hasn't been examined with a shred of critical thought (and certainly not examined by anyone with basic geology or soil mechanics skills)? I see you haven't yet corrected the geological cross-sections to show the angular unconformities in the Grand Canyon. And you haven't removed the nonsensical and ignorant comparison between a rapidly formed small canyon in new volcanic ash at Mt St Helens and the 1000ft sheer cliffs in incredibly strong sedimentary deposits in the Grand Canyon (they'd have to be strong when it was formed, or you wouldn't get a sheer cliff of that size). Any reason why you haven't removed it yet? You really shouldn't leave errors like that on your profile page, because that is lying once the error has been pointed out to you. What will God think?

BTW, when are you going to come up with an achievement or accomplishment of modern creation science that runs counter to mainstream science. Something like a new effect or gadget or significant mineral find will do. You tell us that creation scientists are being joined in droves from the mainstream, and that they have all the advantages of not clinging to mainstream error. Where are their achievements? You've had quite a while to think of one now.

[narby]

So, if ToE priests succeed in their efforts, Christ becomes just a nice jewish man of the Essenics group

If you can't believe your faith if Evolution is true, then you have a problem.

This is yet another problem with Christians picking this fight with science. What happens when science actually convinces faithful people that it actually has the evidence, and the faith does not? People will be driven from God by the evidence of Evolution.

The cure is for faithful people to not assemble such a stumbling block by insisting that Genesis and Evolution are incompatible. If you interpret Genesis correctly, your problem is solved.

Science will not go away. You are the one that must make peace with it.

[shubi]

Evolution is a fact and the Theory of Evolution explains that fact. All Biology rests on the fact of evolution and studies how it works so that the Theory of Evolution will be more complete.

Also remember, that biology doesn't care one whit who created life.

[shubi]

Biology is not the study of morals.