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]

I taught biology at the college level . . .

And therein lies part of the problem with education today. Not enough care to check into credentials. Those comic book diplomas are at least good for some amusement.

[Right Wing Professor]

Not enough care to check into credentials.

Feel free to post yours.

[narby]

How did elementary school boards ever let this philosophy get so entrenched?

Notice how Fester believes that it's the job of "elementary school boards" to decide what is genuine science and what is not. Just leaving out whatever role that research institutions and universities have to play.

I think you're right about Festers employment. He's got his attention at the elementary school level, where these anti-science freaks think they can propagandize little kids to think like them. And the employees have little knowledge of science themselves and are liable to pressure from uneducated parents.

Kind of a "Creationist Youth" program designed to change the world into a superior model of their design.

It's good to change the world for the better. I just wish they would stop lying about science in their efforts.

[shubi]

Science does not study morals.

Religion does.

That is why creation science/ID is not science.

[shubi]

No matter how often you tell them they have nothing to fear from evolution, because it does not contain any speculation on creation, they just keep on doing what they do so well. lol

[shubi]

That is a personal attack. Cut it out.

[narby]

Science does not study morals. Religion does. That is why creation science/ID is not science.

Game. Set. Match.

[judywillow]

Just standard college biology. Nonetheless I have friends who've taught biology at the university level and they all all view evolution as a sort of a joke. What I tell them is that it might BE a joke when viewed as science, but that's not what it's intended for. It's intended as a mechanism for rationalizing failed lifestyles.

[shubi]

Waiting for you both to tell us how many biology courses you have had, what level they were and the type (or kind if you prefer) of class.

[shubi]

What Bible college do your friends attend?

[shubi]

Yeah, but they will keep parroting AIG type (or kind if you prefer) nonsense.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Feel free to post yours.

I am a self-taught janitor who wonders what kind of credentials it takes to know the difference between "fact" and "conjecture?"

[shubi]

LOL credentials are not as important as a firm grasp on reality.

Separating true facts from facts you have been told are true is the trick. Anything you learned from AIG, ICR or Discovery Institute are twisted "facts" of a type (or kind if you prefer) that con men use to dupe people into giving them money.

[judywillow]

Cambridge University, amongst others.

[shubi]

Are you the janitor at the new AIG museum?

If so, ask for a raise.

[shubi]

You are trying to tell me that you know a science instructor or professor of biology that goes to Cambridge University in England that does not view evolution as a fact and the basis of all biology?

Yeah, sure.

[narby]

I have friends who've taught biology at the university level and they all all view evolution as a sort of a joke. What I tell them is that it might BE a joke when viewed as science, but that's not what it's intended for. It's intended as a mechanism for rationalizing failed lifestyles.

Most college biology departments don't have very many profs. So how many profs at how many universities exactly have you had this conversation with? (and let me know where they teach, so I can warn my kids not to attend at such a backward institution).

As for the lifestyle point, shubi's already cleaned your clock. Science does not study lifestyles, religion does. Therefore ID is religion, not science, and has no place whatever in public schools.

[Right Wing Professor]

I am a self-taught janitor who wonders what kind of credentials it takes to know the difference between "fact" and "conjecture?"

Yet you disparage the credentials of others. That would make you a rather hypocritical self-taught janitor, no?

[Right Wing Professor]

Nonetheless I have friends who've taught biology at the university level and they all all view evolution as a sort of a joke.

I think you're lying. I work with university biologists, day in, day out, and I've never met one who regarded evolution as a joke.

[narby]

Fester: I am a self-taught janitor who wonders what kind of credentials it takes to know the difference between "fact" and "conjecture?"

Well, that proves it.

I really thought these guys were at least honest in their opposition to Evolution. That they were wrong, but really believed in their heart that they were doing God's work. But apparently they have no problem lying straight to your face.

I thought Dimensio was a bit over the top on occasion calling them liars. But maybe he's right.