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.

[Mark was here]

ID is a money making con by people who prey on the scientifically ignorant.

So if you found a hamburger wrapper, you would say "Look what the atmospheric conditions produced?"

I say life is too complicated to arrive by chance, something like eyeballs focusing light with a lens to different receptors, and these receptors are wired to the brain, all by luck?

Hearing sound waves, by chance?

The chemistry of digesting food, just stumbled upon?

Before I even heard of ID, I was always suspicious of such a highly integrated systems, all developing by chance. It's the monkey at the typewriter thing.

[judywillow]

A scientific theory is not a fact it is a series of propositions that are supported by facts.

If that were the case nobody would be calling evolution a theory at all; all of the facts contradict it.

[marty60]

Well at least the Slimes admitted they think Christians are "INSIDIOUS"

[Smartaleck]

"This, combined with superficial translations of Genesis and purposeful use of these translations to divide the Church have been very effective in propagandizing many Christians."

The Bible is replete with scripture and parables yet how many discern the difference?

Biblical scholars even differ on what the "Word of God" truly is.

Did He actually write the scripture?
Did He work through others and use "man" to write the words for him?
Did He "inspire" others to write his words?

Given that the old and new testaments were written in Hebrew and Greek, later translated to Latin and still later translated to English.....each subject to the interpretation of the writer/interpretor, how can the King James Bible be taken literally?

[OldFriend]

I hate to quote Pat Buchanan in any context but he did have the best line I have ever heard on the subject of evolution.

He turned to the other panelist and said.....if you want to believe your ancestors were monkeys that's alright with me.

[shubi]

Evolution theory does not contain speculation on origin of life. Many people confuse that because of the conmen propaganda and the title of Darwin's book The Origin of SPECIES.

[shubi]

"how can the King James Bible be taken literally?"

Good question.

I have been studying Genesis in the Hebrew for many years.
It does not mean what the creationists say it means.

For instance the word translated day, clearly is an indefinite period of time, as Gen 2:4 confirms. Since the Sun was not created until the fourth day, it is absurd to think the first 3 days were of a fixed 24 hr period.

The only thing on this point that goes the creationists way is the phrase "morning and evening". Since Gen 1 is Hebrew poetry, though poetry, this repetition shows that there is poetic license and a misunderstanding of what causes morning and evening to happen.

[beaver fever]

Scientific theories are not the same as mathematical theories or theories of logic.

They are affirmative but not demonstrable. There is no such thing as a scientific theory that can be contradicted. There are no proofs in science only strong or weak evidence. Facts don't contradict anything. They are just states of affairs, determined only by accident and circumstance.

[Smartaleck]

"Since the Sun was not created until the fourth day, it is absurd to think the first 3 days were of a fixed 24 hr period."

Minor details. LOL

A minister at a church I used to attend was also a Biblical scholar and read from the original language(s). One of the most interesting books he had referenced all the oldest known manuscripts of the Bible.

He too brought up the subject and interpretation of "day" but I don't recall what his comments were other than the word couldn't be interpreted or understood as we know it today.

He was a most interesting in his teachings in that he always tried to set the cultural context of whatever passage was being discussed.

One example I recall pertained to the Last Supper. Imagine if you will, you are a Roman soldier passing by just outside where the Supper is taking place.

You overhear somebody say...."this is my blood...drink it" "this is my body eat it".
What would be your reaction should you overhear such a thing on your way home from church?

Sounds a bit like some cultist satanic ritual? hmmmmmm

[Jim Noble]

I don't do crevo threads.

But note the status the NYT gives "evolution" - a fortress, something concrete and formidable, unmoveable even, capable of being "attacked".

It's an hypothesis. There is data that tends to support it, and data that tends to call it into question.

It's perfect for teaching the scientific method-there's nothing better that middle schoolers and HS students can grasp for the purpose.

But for the NYT, and far, far too many scientists, it has achieved Holy Grail status, so that teaching the data that tends to undermine the hypothesis is a revolutionary act.

It's pathetic.

Back to politics, have fun, y'all.

[shubi]

Your minister is correct. We must try to understand the cultural milleu at the time. We must try to put ourselves in the heads of the writers of the Bible and see what they could know in their age, the limitations of language and unscientific thinking.

[shubi]

You are dead wrong. Evolution is a theory, essentially a fact of science.

Evolution is an observed fact and the Theory of Evolution explains that fact.

For once, the NYT is correct.

[shubi]

I see you haven't learned much from all the links you were given to understand the science behind evolution.

[shubi]

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

[shubi]

"There is no such thing as a scientific theory that can be contradicted. "

One of the main criterion for a system of principles to be elevated to the high status of scientific theory is that they must be able to be falsified.

Find a human skeleton in the same strata as dino bones and you would falsify evolution.

Your statement just doesn't reflect the realities of how science defines theory.

[AmericanChef]

-The first sentence sounds like a warning to parents that the film they are about to watch with their children contains pornography.-

Pronography provided by the NYT, perhaps?

[sauron]

I see no conflict between the Bible and evolution.

In fact, the Bible clearly states that it is the Seas that brought forth the life, and the Earth. (In that actual order, too, btw!)

Doesn't say that God created it directly. Says the ocean and land produced life. Eerie, eh?

Name another religion that describes the creation of the world in the correct order!

Genesis even (correctly!) claims the first thing to be created was LIGHT. Everything followed after, and still in the correct order that our scientists tell us happened: Molten Earth, empty ("without form and void"), then stars (which were not visible due to opaque atmosphere--again, just as science tells us--then plants, then animals, and finally, man.

Would it not make sense, as some religions have it, to CREATE MAN FIRST, and have him an observer, given a special place to assist the gods, as is done in some other religions?

How 'bout havin' Earth rest on the back of a giant turtle? Or suspended from a giant tree? Both, as in some other religions.

The creation accounts of some of these other religions are hilariously funny. That of Geneis mirrors our scientific understanding as it exists today.

Please explain how the author of Genesis could have guessed so correctly on so many matters. Too coincidental, and I am not one for coincidence.

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.

[sauron]

To: Smartaleck I see no conflict between the Bible and evolution.

In fact, the Bible clearly states that it is the Seas that brought forth the life, and the Earth. (In that actual order, too, btw!)

Doesn't say that God created it directly. Says the ocean and land produced life. Eerie, eh?

Name another religion that describes the creation of the world in the correct order!

Genesis even (correctly!) claims the first thing to be created was LIGHT. Everything followed after, and still in the correct order that our scientists tell us happened: Molten Earth, empty ("without form and void"), then stars (which were not visible due to opaque atmosphere--again, just as science tells us--then plants, then animals, and finally, man.

Would it not make sense, as some religions have it, to CREATE MAN FIRST, and have him an observer, given a special place to assist the gods, as is done in some other religions?

How 'bout havin' Earth rest on the back of a giant turtle? Or suspended from a giant tree? Both, as in some other religions.

The creation accounts of some of these other religions are hilariously funny. That of Geneis mirrors our scientific understanding as it exists today. No other religion's creation account even comes close, which immediately "flags" Genesis as distinct from other accounts.

Please explain how the author of Genesis could have guessed so correctly on so many matters. Too coincidental, and I am not one for coincidence.

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. Posted on 01/23/2005 7:20:22 AM PST by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)

[sauron]

Apologies for the double posting.

It did't show up, even after refreshing the list.