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]

God, being THE truly Intellegent Designer . . .

Careful there. You're itching for excommunication from the Church of Evolution.

[Fester Chugabrew]

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.

If I could afford it I would very much enjoy studying under you. Alas, however, as a self-taught janitor even my recent raise places me beyond that possibility. Perhaps you use a textbook I could borrow from the library?

[Right Wing Professor]

So, on occasion you divest yourself of the responsibilities of science and enter into making reasonable inferences about the world around you

What do you think science is, other than making reasonable inferences about the world around us?

[Right Wing Professor]

Perhaps you use a textbook I could borrow from the library?

Don't splatter FR with general insults and then expect people who fall into the categories you insult to make nice to you.

[Right Wing Professor]

As far as I'm concerned, "reasonable inference" and "reasonable conjecture" hold equal weight where objective reality is concerned.

Then you're speaking a foreign language. Conjecture and inference are utterly different things. For example, consider the difference between conjecturing OJ might be a killer, and inferring he is a killer.

Wait, you weren't on that jury, were you?

[Alacarte]

"Serious problem" does not look like falsify to me nor even you, as you have just argued that ....

Finding that skeleton would falsisfy many things within evolution including the fossil record, but other things could very well stay intact. I think you greatly underestimate how enormous evolution is. We are talking hundreds of thousands of published papers on the subject!

You still haven't shown how my statement can be twisted into the pretzel you have tried to invent.

Yes I did! When a theory is established, that is NOT the end of the field of study! They don't all pack up and go home, which is what you are implying.
Your logic: "Since there are still discoveries being made in evolution, that means there are things evolution does not explain, therefore it is false." <-- beyond stupid logic!

It is not often that the audience at a scientific meeting gasps in amazement during a talk. But that is what happened recently when researchers revealed that they had deleted huge chunks of the genome of mice without it making any discernable difference to the animals.

Exactly my point! How is this any different from my theory of flight example!!!! There are things within flight that need to be worked out, EXACTLY like this DNA thing. So I say again, is the theory of flight a lie? It does not explain everything about flight... Why is only evolution held up to your scrutiny?

It was assumed that most conserved sequences would consist of genes coding for proteins. But an unexpected finding when the human and mouse genomes were compared was that there are actually more conserved sequences within the deserts of junk DNA, which does not code for proteins.

haha, don't post things like this as if you have ANY idea what it means. Maybe on the surface, but there are so many implications and considerations that you are a fool to try and extrapolate more out of it. There is SO much underneath that we don't understand about this data. What exactly is your background in genetics BTW? hmmm, non-existant? I know how much there is to learn before you have any clue what you are talking about when it comes to a field of sciecne, because I studied one of them. The simple fact that you think you can make conclusion about genetics without having any sort of education on the subject proves you have never studied any science.

BTW, this data you keep copy-n-pasting, where did it come from? The scientific community. So... you trust them enough to copy their data, but not to believe their conclusions? If all these geneticists and molecular biologists are heathen liars, then why are you looking at anyhting they say? Wouldn't ALL their data be tainted by satan?

The scientific community has unequivocally expressed their support of evolution and denounced ID/creationism as pseudoscience. If you think they are all such big liars, then you can't trusdt anything they do, including their coveted "scientific method", so go do your own research and stop steraling theirs!

[narby]

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!

All I need to know about ID I learned at Falls Creek Baptist Assembly at a retreat sometime in the early 70's.

A decon at our church, who was a local College prof during the week days, taught a class looking at Genesis and Evolution. The conclusion was the Genesis did not contradict science. I have no reason to research it further, since without a contradiction between science and the Bible, there is nothing to study.

On the other hand, I note that there are several non-profits that have geared up recently promoting ID using the same techniques the Sierra Club uses to stir up the lefties. Except they took on a new customer base, the religious conservatives, a new untapped market.

I judge these ID groups based on the techniques they use to fool people with the junk science of ID. They seem to want science to "prove" that God exists. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You must believe by faith, not by science.

[gobucks]

In fact, I really wonder if your typical Iranian Ayatollah could aspire to this pinnacle of utter separation from reality."

All I said was 'science' doesn't study "Jack", and I'll add it doesn't study "Jill" either. Science, as well, doesn't study why scientists fail to study Christians, or Christian beliefs, and neither do, shock!, scientists.

Science is not a living breathing thing, though scientists write reverently that 'science' is the fount of hope. Science also doesn't study why scientists frequently compare Christians to Islamists; neither do the scientists themselves. Talking about it thoughtfully is verboten.

But I have given it some thought. Christians (the bible fundie types usually) and Islamists and Nazis appear to share something in common on the surface: a patriarchal organizational approach to family government. Scientists, Communists, Hollywoods elite, NY's publishing elite, MSM, Socialists, and Liberal Democrats, share something in common too: a matriarchal approach to family gov't (that is if Dad actually endures it and sleeps at home)

(Germany is the Fatherland, and Russia is ... anyone? anyone?)

When scientists go home after a long hard day at the lab, they usually have to go home to a woman who is .... in charge.

If there is a fight in the kitchen, who usually wins? Her, usually, because somehow, she as a full and equal partner is just more trustworthy on a day to day basis. But in a Christian home, who has the final say so? Him, usually, because somehow, he is just more suited for this role on a day to day basis.

Utter seperation from reality ... HA!! Who wins the fight in the end near the cul-de-sac where you live? That answer determines whether or not you mutter 'islamo freak' when you see him. And of course, this has just nothing to do with evolution and how it is taught to kids. Riiiiiiight....

[nasamn777]

Can you tell me the idea behind ID? I doubt it? How about Right Wing Prof?

The scientific community has unequivocally expressed their support of evolution and denounced ID/creationism as pseudoscience.

There are many within the scientific community who support ID. Many educators like to treat ID as a pariah, but I find those actually in science more open minded about the subject. Many biologists are against it -- but then again they most always don't design anything! Laugh.

[narby]

Careful there. You're itching for excommunication from the Church of Evolution.

I thought I made some pretty good points about the wonders of God's design of Evolution. But you don't even care to discuss my arguments or reasonably point out contentions. You merely want to poke fun.

Well, what else can I expect from a janitor?

[gobucks]

"A good scientist would give his right arm to be able to prove something as big as discovering "God"."

A 'good' scientist? Is there such a man or woman out there? I don't think so. I think there are many many people who practice GREAT scientific research. I think there are great hollywood actors too, like Sterling Hayden. He really IS a great actor. He was a pretty bad man. Scientists don't really prove anything anyway. They just illuminate what is already here more effectively.

It is when they try to illuminate what is NOT here, like fossils which bridge gaps in the evolutionary record, like the working intermediate mechanisms for the development of the system that allows blood to clot when an organism is injured....

That is when scientists enter the Faith room, but still keep jumping up and down and pointing their fingers and yell 'it is science still!! you have to believe this!!"

[Alacarte]

Can you tell me the idea behind ID? I doubt it?

ID says: "Since at this current point in time, we do not completely understand everything, it must have been designed by an *ahem* higher power *ahem*." ID is not science, and no matter how many scientifically illiterate people say it is, does not chnage that fact. There is no huge conspiracy to keep ID out of science. There is one simple explanation why it is rejected, it's not science! Without evolution, there is no modern biology. Take away the parts of ID (which is basically nothing) that directly attack evolution, and you have NOTHING left! How can it be an alternative to evolution, when it has no data, and makes no predictions!

There are many within the scientific community who support ID

They may have personal beliefs about it, but they do not support it from a scientific basis. I can't find one major science institution that does not openly support evolution. If there was ANY debate on the subject, they would not be so assertive about it.

Many educators like to treat ID as a pariah, but I find those actually in science more open minded about the subject. Many biologists are against it -- but then again they most always don't design anything! Laugh.

Really? Can you give some examples? Somehow I doubt you know many scientists. BTW, NO scientists design anything, that's what engineers do.

[narby]

ID actually is a very good trick to teach creationism. So good that the Discovery Institute wrote about it in their "wedge" document several years ago. Their goal being to corrupt science into teaching about God.

I'm only amazed that science hasn't yet fully counter attacked by going after apparent contradictions in the Bible. The Noah flood story is especially ripe for scientists to find "holes", like ID claims to have found in Evolution.

IDers are kicking at a rattle snake, and it's rattling. It just hasn't struck back yet. It's just too bad that the real victims will be the believers that will reject their faith in the process of the fight.

It's too bad about this whole mess. There are so many more constructive things that Christians could occupy themselves with than attempting to destroy science.

[narby]

That is when scientists enter the Faith room, but still keep jumping up and down and pointing their fingers and yell 'it is science still!! you have to believe this!!"

Projecting, maybe?

[evangmlw]

This must be one of your distant relatives.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I thought I made some pretty good points about the wonders of God's design of Evolution.

You did. In fact, I would not be surprised if you were second or third in line to be God. Pray real hard and maybe at least He'll follow your advice about evolution.

[Alacarte]

Other than quantum physics, all of the physical laws have been mapped out by the Creationists.

I'm reaaaally curious to hear you expound on this...

[nasamn777]

All I need to know about ID I learned at Falls Creek Baptist Assembly at a retreat sometime in the early 70's.

...
I have no reason to research it further, since without a contradiction between science and the Bible, there is nothing to study.

Boy, you are sure open minded! I have a simple question. How can you critique ID if you know nothing about it? How do you know if it is scientific or not? Laugh!

[narby]

I thought my "God-o-meter" idea was pretty good. I mean, if you guys want science to confirm "God", then certianly science should be able to build it.

Just think, you could ask someone a morality question and then turn on the God-o-meter and it would say whether God liked their answer.

You could point it at a Southern Baptist and then a Hassidic Jew and it would say which one was a member of the chosen people.

You might point it at the newspaper story of the Tsunami and find out why God did that.

The ideas are just endless.

Now all you IDers have to do is invent the thing. Science confirms God, you know, so there must be some way to measure Him.

[Fester Chugabrew]

How did you get my picture? I did not authorize you to post it, and I am no relation to Smartaleck that I care to admit. But I've got the chicks, baby!