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]

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!

My faith tells me that there are no conflicts between science and God. It tells me that science cannot prove God, nor can it disprove God. I must believe by faith alone.

Since my faith tells me there are zero interactions between the realm of science and God, then what is there to discuss?

You have your interpretation of Genesis and creation. And I have mine.

[Fester Chugabrew]

There are so many more constructive things that Christians could occupy themselves with than attempting to destroy science.

Now, now. Christians have done as much to advance science as any other faith or lack thereof. That ain't gonna stop just because God doesn't act the way you want Him to.

[narby]

Christians have done as much to advance science as any other faith or lack thereof. That ain't gonna stop just because God doesn't act the way you want Him to.

Actually, you're right. Over the centuries Christians have done quite a bit to advance science.

But that was before a minority of Christian denominations decided that it was a part of their dogma to attack science and force it to do it's will. This is a new thing, and I don't think the results will be pretty, no matter who wins.

The rational study of the universe has brought us many advances, and yes, some bad stuff. But attempting to knock the legs out from under biology and the scientific method is a bad thing. As is the attempted establishment that religion is a valid component of "science".

I think science will win this one. But Christianity will take serious casualties in the form of believers rejecting their faith. I'm just amazed that stubborn people do not see the malestrom they are cruising into and are pressing ahead.

[gobucks]

'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."

I think a God o Meter is a great idea. But at my church, we never have scientists bold enough to call up the pastor and say "we would like to perform some surveys"....

[nasamn777]

Here is a link that gives answers to frequently asked questions:

http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm

I would suggest that you read through each for a better understanding of design. Notice that the recent advances have occurred from the 80's to the present. Have you ever heard of Dembski's explanatory filter?

[shubi]

There is a little truth in what you say.

But evolution is a fact.

[shubi]

Dembski is a charlatan.

[narby]

I think a God o Meter is a great idea. But at my church, we never have scientists bold enough to call up the pastor and say "we would like to perform some surveys"....

Be bold, invent one. Just think of the great things it will do.

Maybe you have a recalcitrant teenager, and you can ask the God-o-meter to tell her whether she should wear that tank top tonight.

Perhaps the church is trying to decide whether to build a new building. The God-o-meter could tell them.

Just think of all the wonderful things you could do with it!

I have no idea how it would work. Maybe there's an electromagnetic aura around people who believe what you believe. Certianly a gausian based device would work.

Perhaps there a chemical presence. You could build a spectrometer and test Christians against, say, those evil Evolutionists, and detect a difference.

Maybe God can be photographed. Yes, that it! You can test all the visible wavelengths and detect Him. That will work!

Come on, be a scientist, invent the God-o-meter!

[shubi]

"But Christianity will take serious casualties in the form of believers rejecting their faith. I'm just amazed that stubborn people do not see the malestrom they are cruising into and are pressing ahead."

In some respects this is more a battle for Christians than it is an attack against science. The creationist types think that they are theological correct and the Christians that don't follow their foolishness are going to hell, anyway.

Science really doesn't care what they say, since truth is truth and the principles of selection and the other mechanisms promote new discoveries every day. It is just surprising how much effect the peer pressure of the cult has on otherwise intelligent people. Of course, 50% of the population has an IQ of 100 or less.

[shubi]

Fester-That ain't gonna stop just because God doesn't act the way you want Him to.

Fester thinks God acts the way he wants Him to! LOL

"How can you critique ID if you know nothing about it?"

That's right. ID is "poof God did it". So there is nothing to know about ID at all.

[Alacarte]

I would suggest that you read through each for a better understanding of design.

I will actually, since no one here has ever been able to actually tell us anything about ID, all they ever do is attack evolution. I'm curious to see if there is any real sciecne in it anywhere that does not just steal from evolution.

I did read a little, and I came across this interesting quote: "Similarly, in a recent issue of the biology journal Cell, Bruce Alberts, a leading cell biologist and president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote:"

So... the NAS is a respected science institution when you want a quote... but not when they make public statements? Like this...
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/conclusion.html

Have you ever heard of Dembski's explanatory filter?

No, but let me guess... it's NOTHING without stuff that it stole from evolutionary science. I'll read up on it and get back to you.

BTW, why is ALL the research on ID done by the same three people? Who I can't help but notice, have never actually published a scientific paper.

[shubi]

What data is there for creation science/ID?

All of us arguing against the superstitious nonsense of creationism here are conservative. Your data fails at the outset. Do you have any more?

(sound of crickets chirping)

[shubi]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Link to what science finds wrong with Noah's fable.

[shubi]

"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."

Please describe the holes you have found in the Theory of Evolution.

The reason creation science/ID doesn't have any "holes" in it is because it is one big HOLE to begin with. It is difficult to find holes in a void.

[torchthemummy]

"What a crock. There are plenty of scientists who have produced works supporting creationism. Here's one of my favorites: DARWIN'S BLACK BOX"

Just ordered a copy - looking forward to reading it.

[gobucks]

Come on, be a scientist, invent the God-o-meter!

Actually, I laughed hard at this whole post. Can you imagine? It would be just awesome....

But then, that made me think.... why can't we invent one? And the answer hit me.

We, the believers, are the God-o-meters. Take for example a FREEPER who shall not be named that really insulted me a bit ago. It was really bad, comparing me to a certain group of people who like to murder female relatives if they get out of line.

It is the reactions of people that are the revelation of the meter within. Most people get angry when something is said or happens that puts them at a disadvantage. But what about the person who forgives the murderer in the court room on the day of the guilty verdict? Is that 'victim' registering something an unexpected reading?

We, as much as our relationship to Jesus makes room for, are indeed God o Meters in the flesh. (I doubt that is what you hoped to see in response, but your post inspired it...) ;)

[shubi]

Science has only existed for a few hundred years, really. Before that it was not really fully developed, based more on superstitious nonsense like flat earth and other Biblical or philosophical musings like phlogiston.

As a Christian, this is really getting embarrassing. It is like the Screwtape letters where he goes to church and decides he really doesn't want to be like any of the people there.

[shubi]

Ping

[shubi]

You know I am really getting tired of creationists using the arguments against ID, against science. ID is absurd nonsense.

[shubi]

spell check is our friend