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]

So you dismiss the life sciences as philosophy?

Not for the most part. Only when they indulge in the Philosophy of Evolution. If you press the life sciences about the certainties of past history they will balk, as they should, because they do not know for sure. And if you press them for predictions about how life will develop they will balk again, because they do not know for sure. Good science does not indulge in conjecture over billions of years. It doesn't need that. It doesn't need The Book of Genesis either.

[shubi]

Sickle cell in the hybrid individual deters malarial infection. Dominate homozygous individuals have no immunity to malaria and are at risk. Recessive homozygous individuals miscarry or die at birth.

[Alacarte]

None of the disciplines you mentioned excelled due to Darwinism.

You think germ theory and antibiotics has nothing to do with evolutionary science?

The Philosophy of Evolution is a mental construct that attempts to ascribe scientific merit to itself.

The scientific community says otherwise. Your word against theirs, and the scientific literature's word. Wonder who knows what their talking about...

[AndrewC]

Sickle cell in the hybrid individual deters malarial infection.

Bull!!! You can't even play a biologist well. It mitigates the infection, it does not deter it. The sickling effect is suspected to have ill effects on the infectious entity.

[LiteKeeper]

You have missed the point that is being made. The point is that the only discipline in schools that can't not be questioned, by law, is evolution. You can question theories of economics, history, philosophy, psychology. But you cannot question evolution. There are serious questions about evolution - but they can't be asked. Transitional fossils that are missing, irreducible complexity of organisms, peppered moths, Haeckels embryos, etc.

The issue is the willingness to stand up to critics - and the fact that it is forbidden by law. If I am allowed to teach a subject, and the courts say that noone can question what I teach, that amounts to license to indoctrinate, not teach. Leave creation out of the discussion - that is not the issue.

Do you suspect that there just might be an hypothesis, raised by evolutionists, that have turned out to be untrue? How would you know if you can't ask questions and criticize?

[general_re]

From an evolutionary standpoint, better for a fraction of the population to be seriously anemic than for the whole population to be dead of malaria. But you know this.

[Outraged]

First, there is tonnes* of evidence for how humanity evolved from hominids...(*a tonne is a metric ton (~2200 pounds). Since this is bigger than the ton, you know their is a lot more evidence for evolution than you thought.)

Sure, and there are tonnes* of metric refuse at the local garbage dump, demonstrating absolutely nothing but a mind boggling amount of crap (perfect environment for maggots and toxins to fester)...There is no missing link or current evidence of ongoing evolution, as missing links would be evolving on a continuous and overlapping basis.

All things are similar on an atomic level, which does not suggest we "evolved" from atoms, on the contrary; something orchestrated (brought from chaos to order - the probability of random events resulting in man existing on earth being beyond reason) the chaos of energy and space into what we refer to as "matter."

[narby]

Matter has never been observed apart from both intelligence and design.

Since the universe is made up of matter, what you're saying is that God made the universe.

What's that got to do with Evolution? And where is the evidence for intellegence in the Andromeda Galaxy, except that you believe it must be so?

[Alacarte]

If you press the life sciences about the certainties of past history they will balk, as they should, because they do not know for sure.

I think the explanatory power of evolution for how life evolved is utterly incredible and detailed. The relationships between different species, and why they adapted the way they have...

And if you press them for predictions about how life will develop they will balk again,

What are you basing this on? Were you recently given floor time at a biology conference?

Good science does not indulge in conjecture over billions of years.

So those aren't stars in the sky? Regardless, it's you against the scientific community.

[AndrewC]

From an evolutionary standpoint, better for a fraction of the population to be seriously anemic than for the whole population to be dead of malaria. But you know this.

And you know that malaria is not 100% fatal to non-carriers.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You think germ theory and antibiotics has nothing to do with evolutionary science?

There is no such thing a "evolutionary science." Germ theory and antibiotics have progressed in spite of the Philosophy of Evolution, and they will continue to do so.

The scientific community says otherwise.

The scientific community can say what it wants about itself. As soon as it starts spouting off as if it KNOWS what happened billions of years ago it has stepped outside the limits of science and ventured into the realm of wishful thinking, i.e. the Philosophy of Evolution.

[general_re]

Carrying isn't a guarantee of survival either, but your odds are greatly improved:

"Protective effects of the sickle cell gene against malaria morbidity and mortality."

[Fester Chugabrew]

I think the explanatory power of evolution for how life evolved is utterly incredible and detailed.

Incredible? I'll say! Detailed? Oh yeah. How about "Infallible?" How about "Not worthy of questioning?" Go ahead. Take science further than it's willing to go on it's own.

[Fester Chugabrew]

What are you basing this on?

Just a little discourse with your fellow evo's who, when asked what the Theory of Evolution can predict about the future state of man based upon our current knowledge of "billions of years of history," suddenly, well . . . BALKED.

[Alacarte]

The point is that the only discipline in schools that can't not be questioned, by law, is evolution.

I don't think this is true. You'll have to provide some references.

There are serious questions about evolution - but they can't be asked. Transitional fossils that are missing, irreducible complexity of organisms, peppered moths, Haeckels embryos, etc.

You cannot take things from creationist websites and expect to pass them off as scientific arguments. The scientific community has no problem with any of these classical creationist arguments against evolution. They are not science. I know you took ALL those things from a creationist website. Go try to find them on a real science website, then we can talk about them. I can save you some time... they don't exist on real science websites because they aren't true.

and the fact that it is forbidden by law.

If this is true then I agree it is wrong, but I think you've been very misled by a dishonest creationist website. Evolution is not treated any differently than any other scientific theory.

Do you suspect that there just might be an hypothesis, raised by evolutionists, that have turned out to be untrue? How would you know if you can't ask questions and criticize?

I'm sure there are thousands of hypotheses posited by evolutionary scientists that turned out to be wrong, same thing as in every field, what's your point?

[narby]

There is no such thing a "evolutionary science."

You're just delusional, Fester.

[Outraged]

“There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.” -- Michael Behe "Darwin's Black Box," (1996) pg. 185

[narby]

Just a little discourse with your fellow evo's who, when asked what the Theory of Evolution can predict about the future state of man based upon our current knowledge of "billions of years of history," suddenly, well . . . BALKED.

Hey Fester, you're not the biologist. If the biologist guys say that Evolution isn't predictive, who are you to claim otherwise?

That makes about as much sense as trying to build a God-o-meter. But you ID guys say you can "prove God with science", so a God-o-meter must be possible.

[AndrewC]

Carrying isn't a guarantee of survival either, but your odds are greatly improved:

Improved between the ages of 2 months to 16 months. But look at the HbSS and that goes on from here to eternity.

[185JHP]

BTTT