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.

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.

Ha! We Bible believers are sneaky, aren't we?

Real men don't whine.

So the New York Times crowd thinks the Creationists are sneaking something past them.

Could be.

Lots of things get slipped by the NYT by many people every day.

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,

Figures that they want to avoid the truth of the Bible with their self-admitted 'theories.'

That's still the wrong warning. The one they need would look more like this:

Warning: Parents and students should understand that the motives of the people pushing evolutionism in public schools are somewhat questionable:

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.

Pornography? Who on this sweet earth would make such an insidious connection?

(Better yet, why on earth would the NY Times even wish to introduce such a connection?)

Talk about planting false notions!! Certainly not all the folks on this Ga. School Evolution thread who have the movie Dr. Strangelove memorized!

JFK, I figured that you were struggling about what you are supposed to be thinking about today - we insidious creatures don't think very well as I'm told, but hey!, we need to stick together. Thus, my thoughtful, sensitive, compassionate ping - don't let it spoil your breakfast!

Hmmmmm. I have a deep suspicion regarding what websites these NY Slimes editorial writers visit to get their ideas.

Classic myopic projectionism, emblematic of the power of secular humanism to collapse on itself with its symptomatic hypocrisy..."Silly fascists, moral relativity is for genocidal maniacs." {/Trix wabbit}

You are my new favorite Freeper.

Funny thing, I used to view evolutionary biology as totally worthless but it's possible I could be wrong. I've read at least one report recently of a guy claiming that a degree in evolutionary biology prepared him fairly well for a career in the packaging and shipping business:

Of all the sentences in this editorial that drip with disingenuousness, this tops them all. This statement ranks up there with Bill Clinton saying "Nobody said it was supposed to go on forever" about affirmative action. I cannot believe that people who equate the Dover sticker with a warning about pornography are serious about endorsing any public school forum that might possibly result in a victory of religious rhetoric over secular curricula.

I don't have any references to prove it, but I would be willing to bet that the Times opposed laws that would allow a minute of silence at the beginning of the school day in lieu of mandatory classroom prayer on the notion that voluntary private prayers in class could lead to discrimination against those children who did not use the time to pray.

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. -New York Times editorial

First, here is my understanding of the truth.

There is an underlying physical reality in which first there was no life, then there was life, and different plants and animals, including humans, appeared. Clearly something was happening. The known facts are compelling, but it is a complex field. And there is a deep problem with objectifying humanity.

The reputation of scientific consensus, like the MainStream Media, is in crisis and getting worse. Both institutions have work to do to reestablish credibility.

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.

Indeed. In fact, the interpretations of how gravity works over distance are "less grounded in fact and professional consensus than is evolutionary biology". (Gravity is mediated by the postulated, but undiscovered, graviton.)

If we're talking about the very origin of life itself, that first set of one-celled critters in the sea, then yes, there is still some mystery.

But if we're talking about how those critters went on to grow shells, fins, feet and finances, then sorry, folks: case closed.

First the IDers say there is no religion in their ideas and want it taught in science class. Then you say there is "Biblical truth" in their ideas.

The truth is, ID is nothing more than a new title for "creation science", a heresy of misinterpretation of the Bible with absolutely no science in it.

ID has no place in science class. Those of you that advocate its value are hurting science education and turning intelligent people away from Christ.

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

The Theory of Evolution contains nothing about creation. Biology works with the life it sees and the history of life in the fossil record.

There is no conflict between the Bible and science. The Bible is not a science text and science can't explore the spiritual.

"There is no conflict between the Bible and science."

Some are able to grasp both notions at the same time and be quite comfortable in their understanding of both. Others struggle...it has to be one or the other and the notions are mutually exclusive?

The creationists clever strawman, putting creation in evolution leads many who have been undereducated about biology and science to believe there is a contradiction.

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.

It also has made many educated people think (wrongly) that Christianity is a religion of the stupid.

Which begs the question, why all the whinning about the "theory" of evolution?

It begs no such thing from me. I'm not whining at all about evolution.

Real men don't whine.

A scientific theory is not a fact it is a series of propositions that are supported by facts. Facts are states of affairs, observable events. They are contingent not absolute. There are no scientific 'laws' only theories that have come to be widely accepted or not.

Creationism is absolute in it's insistance on a 'designer' who is God with an alias. It isn't science it is theology pretending to be science.

Evolution is not a failed theory it's an incomplete theory but all scientific theories are incomplete because they are constantly changing according to new theories and observations.

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

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

January 23, 2005

The Crafty Attacks on Evolution