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.

[Alacarte]

Yes, the NAS has been critical of ID,

Not just the NAS, pretty much every major science institution denounces ID, I have a list of links to statements on evolution/ID on my profile page that covers a substantial portion of the scientific community.

but I think more for political reasons than scientific ones.

ID is not science... There is no body of research, it makes no predictions, and it is not falsifiable, it could not be further from science. It is nothing but philosophy.

Proponents of ID use mainline scientific work and don't have a problem with it, given that they believe the evidence is on their side.

Oftentimes their scientific judgment is blinded by their advocacy of naturalism,...

I assume you mean this meaning of naturalism: "In Philosophy. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws." You realize that without naturalism, there is no science... Naturalism is the difference between philosophy before the enlightenment and science today. Naturalism is what makes science objective, as soon as you start accepting unnatural explanations for natural phenomena, science becomes a consensus of opinion. Magic will never be an acceptable explanation for anything in the natural world.

Also, you can face the wrath of the scientific establishment if you advocate ID.

I don't buy this argument. ID is ridiculed by the scientific community because it is not science, it is not even close. It is classic philosophy.

Let's face it, ID does nothing but attack evolution, agreed? ID has no scientific data of it's own that hasn't been taken from evolutionary science. So let's say miracles happen, and IDers proved evolution is false. How on earth does that prove design? Wouldn't the death of evolution just mean the same thing the death of ANY theory would mean, that there is another, natural explanation? Of course it would, ID is nothing but a clever attack on evolution. IDers know they have no science to back their claims of design, so they make a straw man in that if evolution can be proven wrong, ID must be true.

This link is to the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design.

I do appreciate the links.

[shubi]

Do you have any actual points in your diatribe?

As a fellow Christian, I admonish you about your crude language and your hateful attitude.

There is no substance to your attacks on evolution. You have not shown any understanding of science whatsoever.

"Biology will survive, however, as long as there is life."
Then you say this!! I wonder if you understand that biology is the study of life. You seem to think that this is somehow profound?

Just give us one scientific argument against evolution, just one!

[AndrewC]

There are legends that this might be found in Outer Mongolia. Have a nice trip.

No need to do that. As I have pointed out, there are skeletons in the genome aplenty.

[curiosity]

They oft go hand-in-hand...The expositors of one tend to advocate tuther.

Nonsense. Just because a few moral relativists advocate evolution does not prove evolution leads to moral relatavism. There are plenty of good Christians who accept evolution.

[WildTurkey]

The age of science began when the Church started accepting that the earth was not the center of the universe ...

[AndrewC]

Have you ever taken a course in biology?

Yes, and unlike you, I understood it, but, typically, my professor was a leftist. He went to Cuba to help communists harvest sugar cane.

[balrog666]

1 - Life is too complex to explain naturally, therefore, it must have been designed. Not sure if you realize it, but this is called philosophy... 100%, nothing scientific here, no matter whether evolution is true or not.

If I may, please allow to repharase this article of ID faith:

Waaaaaaaaahh! I can't understand science so I don't want it to be true!

Waaaaaah! I believe in ID/IOT's

[shubi]

"No need to do that. As I have pointed out, there are skeletons in the genome aplenty."

Oh puleeze! Give us some actual data of these "skeletons in the genome". Give us something, anything at all that makes any scientific sense, not some misconstrued unrelated article from a junior high science magazine.

[narby]

First you said "a few hundred years ago." Now you say "several hundred years ago." Why not say "several billion years ago" and cover all the bases save a few hundred thousand? Your dialogue evolves faster than a virus ...

Fester Fester Fester. Is that just some kind of Freudian slip, or what? You'd best watch your tongue.

[shubi]

I taught biology at the college level, so I doubt your claim that you understand biology better than I.

You can prove your knowledge by explaining what an allele is and how it works.

And as a bonus question, tell us what composes the white cliffs of Dover and why this is important in our understanding the significance to fossilization.

A two or three page paper should be sufficient. All of us who really understand biology will give you a grade and we will average it.

[shubi]

Hmmm maybe Fester is just a troll, impersonating a creationist to make them seem ignorant. I sometimes suspect that many atheists impersonate creationists to make Christians look stupid.

[gobucks]

Evolution is a fact;

Micro, mmmmm, ok.

Macro, mmmmm, not a chance.

[muleskinner]

I would suggest that you read through each...

Well, I read thru the "Doesn't The Fossil Evidence Support Naturalistic Evolution?

I was stuned by the massive amount of information and evidence presented demolishing the fossil record and making paleontologists run for the tall grass - six (6) paragraphs consisting of three (3) sentences each.

Tell me this site is a joke. I'm beggin' ya.

[AndrewC]

Oh puleeze! Give us some actual data of these "skeletons in the genome".

Nature(a creationist rag)

Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice

MARCELO A. NÓBREGA*, YIWEN ZHU*, INGRID PLAJZER-FRICK, VEENA AFZAL & EDWARD M. RUBIN

DOE Joint Genome Institute Walnut Creek, California 94598, USA, and Genomics Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley, California 94720, USA
* These authors contributed equally to this work


Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to E.M.R. (emrubin@lbl.gov).



The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.

[rdb3]

But ain't it fun to watch them self-destruct when faced with a competing thought?

That's very true. In more ways than one, additionally.

[AndrewC]

You can prove your knowledge by explaining what an allele is and how it works.

You persist in failure to apprehend that I won't play your silly game. If you taught college level biology, I suspect all of your students utilize your teaching to identify that the threads caught on the end of the roto-rooter are plant life.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The age of science began when the Church started accepting that the earth was not the center of the universe ...

That's one way of looking at it. Myopic, to be sure, but a story you can tell for ages to come. Make the best of it.

[Alacarte]

Megabase deletions of gene des erts result in viable mice

How can you post this stuff and claim it supports your uneducated conclusions, when the people who went to school for years and devote their life to produce this data completely disagree with you! Is that not the height of intellectual dishonesty?

[balrog666]

I sometimes suspect that many atheists impersonate creationists to make Christians look stupid.

And they do it soooooo well you would almost think they were (gasp) real (incredibly ignorant) Christians!

[shubi]

Micro and macro are the same process. The only difference is the science defined concept of Species, which in sexual reproducing organisms is defined as a mother and daughter population that can't or doesn't interbreed.

When enough micro allele changes accumulate to produce a new species it is macro.

Don't let the creationist con men define scientific terms for you. They are not scientists and only want your money to build new mansions and drive Rolls Royces.