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.

[narby]

Testing.

[shubi]

LOL

[shubi]

In your dreams. ;-)

[shubi]

Funny how creationists use the truth about themselves to try to refute science.

[bondserv]

I am not quite sure why you can't see that my complaint has always been the interpretation of the scientific data. The progress of science is the raw scientific data applied to formulated physical laws. Other than quantum physics, all of the physical laws have been mapped out by the Creationists. Advanced understanding of the one area that is still discoverable, quantum mechanics, has hit a 150 year road block.

To help you jump the chasm that you seem to be trapped by, consider the Constitution of the United States. As the Liberal mind piles on their perspective, the BS that gets floated as "Constitutional" gums up the system. The Scientific community has been held hostage by the Liberal Mind.

What we are witnessing is a revolution in the market place of free ideas. A very conservative concept. The watchwords being, open to discussion and persuasion. Good science always allows the data to lead.

[MississippiMan]

Yup, that's us: WILY. What I find amusing/telling is how freaked out evolutionists are over the possibility of just discussing something else, the possibility of just mentioning that there are holes in the theory that might warrant a discussion. Can you imagine this kind of reaction to simple discussion of any other scientific discipline? The whole thing is laughable and they're so myopic that they don't get it.

Over and out, my wily friend.

MM

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . so you just brush it off as irrelevant.

That's wording it too strongly. It's suckered enough folks to be exceedingly relevant.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Are scientists lying when they present Evolution, or are they just "wrong"?

I don't know. What do you call it when useful idiots do what they do? It's not exactly lying. There is no attachment of mendacity to their motive or self perception. They are certainly wrong, and they are agents for promoting and spreading wrong ideas. Their ideas belong in a Philosophy of Science class.

Science itself, however, can get along just fine without their musings about evolution, just like it can along just fine without musings about creation. Science has gotten along very well for millennia without them, and it will continue to do so.

[Fester Chugabrew]

And creationists call us "arrogant".

When it comes to arrogance your tag line says it all.

[Right Wing Professor]

The only way one can speak of "billions of years" of history is to offer up conjecture.

No, it's a reasonable inference from (among other pieces of data) the abundance of natural isotopes combined with the measured rates of radioactive decay; from the measured size of the universe combined with the velocity of light; and from the rates of other chemcial and nuclear processes combined with the present state of the Universe. Nothing conjectural about it.

[narby]

I'm actually quite proud of my tag line. Arrogant maybe.

Do you realize that God's design has operated non-stop, 24/7/365 for almost 3 billion years?

God's design is almost infinitly adaptable to changing conditions. It handles earthquakes, tsunamis, planetary disasters on a global scale.

Just imagine sitting down and thinking up a design that would operate that well! No human could possibly have done it. Few can even imagine something as grand, as you certianly prove every post.

God, being THE truly Intellegent Designer, certianly designed the greatest invention ever observed. Evolution.

[gobucks]

Science does not study morals.

Agreed. In fact, science doesn't study jack.

Most scientists, otoh, do not study morals .... on purpose. In fact, their political work environments dis-incentivize them to even discuss it out loud.

They DO study that which will lead to fame in peer reviewed journals and anything that will lead to increased gov't grant awards.

They DON'T study anything which could make people so grown up that they might actually become more less reliant on what gov't teachers tell them regarding how to think for themselves.

[Right Wing Professor]

Those who foist the Theory of Evolution upon the science classroom are not to be confused with scientists.

I've been doing scientific research for the last 30 years, and have a degree or two from reputable science departments in institutions even you may have heard of. According to popular usage, therefore, I am a scientist. I also teach the chemical basis of evolution at the introductory college level. Your statement, therefore, is factually false, and is, in fact, the usual devoid-of-substance bluster we've come to expect from you.

[Right Wing Professor]

In fact, science doesn't study jack.

It takes a peculiarly high level of ignorance to send this out on a world-wide web designed by a scientist, using a computer whose components depend on the scientific discoveries of semiconductivity, silicon, cathode rays, electricity.... In fact, I really wonder if your typical Iranian Ayatollah could aspire to this pinnacle of utter separation from reality.

[nasamn777]

Having read through the comments, I would say that few of the critics could tell me what is ID. The same can be said for the authors who are critical of ID. But, who cares about honest reporting and honest science. It is propagated by the lefties and ignorant conservatives who don't know anything about science. Laugh!

The scientific establishment is dominated by lefties who are biased by their naturalism dogma. It is time for a revolution to bring ID into the mainstream. We will overcome the flat-earth Darwinian-naturalists.

[narby]

They DO study that which will lead to fame in peer reviewed journals and anything that will lead to increased gov't grant awards.

Just imagine the fame a scientist would receive if he could prove the existence of God, by proving Intelligent Design.

The Nobel prize would be just the beginning.

Science actually loves controversy. It gives them an excuse to ask for money, to "clear up" whatever is troubling it.

This is why the conspiracy theories that science is covering up ID are so hilarious. A good scientist would give his right arm to be able to prove something as big as discovering "God".

[narby]

It is time for a revolution to bring ID into the mainstream. We will overcome the flat-earth Darwinian-naturalists.

Go right ahead and invent the "God-o-meter" to show His presence. You'll be famous and rich.

Let me know when you get close so I can invest in your patents.

[Fester Chugabrew]

No, it's a reasonable inference . . .

I've used the word "reasonable" in connection with the word "conjecture." As far as I'm concerned, "reasonable inference" and "reasonable conjecture" hold equal weight where objective reality is concerned. Neither of them attain to the level of "fact."

[nasamn777]

Can you tell me the basic idea of ID? Your comments seem to show how much you know about it. Have you read any books on the topic? Probably not -- like most the other critics!

[Fester Chugabrew]

I also teach the chemical basis of evolution at the introductory college level.

So, on occasion you divest yourself of the responsibilities of science and enter into making reasonable inferences about the world around you. Nothing wrong with that. I hope you offer your inferences with a reasonable dose of qualifiers.