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]

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.

I think you are confusing what 'predictions' are. Evolution can make predictions, but without knowing what selection pressures there will be on species. And since evolution takes thousands of years, it is very difficult to predict what those pressures will be. Evolution is driven by adaptation to the environment. Asking evolution to predict the future of life means predicting what the world will be like in thousands of years. Hardly a reasonable request.

Given a closed system it can predict quit well. Such as in computer simulations, I know I did one for work. :) We used it to minimize a function to optimize ballistic trajectories.

It's late here, time for bed, take care.

[Outraged]

There is no empirical (reproducible and testable) proof for abiogenesis or macroevolution. So, the person supporting evolution will typically turn the argument around to microevolution, where some evidence exists. Please be aware that if someone attempts to justify the theory of evolution by showing how microevolution works, they are changing the topic on you and not proving anything.

Clarifying Christianity

Praise the Lord!

[general_re]

Side effects later on are unfortunate but irrelevant. As long as you make it to the age where you can reproduce, it's a win from an evolutionary point of view - conversely, dying before then is a major loss. I've no doubt that mortality rates creep up faster in carriers than in non-carriers later on in life, but the goal is to pass on your genes, which you can't do if you die at the age of 14 months. And once you've done that, your part is played. Evolution is about survival, not long and happy lives.

[balrog666]

ALS in drag, I'm thinking.

I was thinking more of his little female hamster, or parrot, or what-ever-she-was.

[AndrewC]

I've no doubt that mortality rates creep up faster in carriers than in non-carriers later on in life, but the goal is to pass on your genes, which you can't do if you die at the age of 14 months

Yes, but that chart shows a big deficit for the HbSS. It does appear that the benefit for the HbAS goes on beyond 16 months, but it is unclear when that benefit would be lost. In any case reproductive capability should be around 120 months. Fourteen months of benefit compared to possibly 100 months of detriment does not sound like a profitable transaction.

[general_re]

"Detriment" is being defined in terms of something other than basic survival, though. As far as evolutionary pressures are concerned, surviving your childhood uncomfortably anemic is better than being comfortably dead.

It's a total kludge - this is not what we might call an "elegant" solution to the problem of malaria. But it's the sort of solution that evolutionary processes produce - designers, we would hope, might set their sights just a bit higher than settling for such a tradeoff.

[AndrewC]

"Detriment" is being defined in terms of something other than basic survival, though. As far as evolutionary pressures are concerned, surviving your childhood uncomfortably anemic is better than being comfortably dead.

Well, that is a false dichotomy since the alternative to being uncomfortably anemic is not being comfortably dead.

[general_re]

Nature has thoughtfully rolled those dice for you in advance.

[Outraged]

The categorical position of evolutionists is that the evidence of evolution is too overwhelming to be questioned.

And thus you show your total ignorance of the scientific community.

From my perspective, ignorance of ignorance makes one intelligent...At least that is my design...The evolutionists sometimes successfully theorize on the mechanics of matter, but on what designed it, they are abjectly in the dark.

[AndrewC]

Nature has thoughtfully rolled those dice for you in advance.

I'm from Missouri. Show me. (I don't buy tautologies)

[general_re]

What is the alternate explanation we're offered?

[AndrewC]

What is the alternate explanation we're offered?

Population control.

[general_re]

When and where was overpopulation a problem in prehistoric non-malarial regions?

[AndrewC]

When and where was overpopulation a problem in prehistoric non-malarial regions?

You don't see sharks in the Mojave desert.

[Thatcherite]

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...

I was hoping to hear about that too.

We'll probably hear more about it at the same time as bondserv tells us of a modern achievement of creation science; you know, a gadget or effect or mineral find that runs counter to mainstream theory and matches creationist theory.

And at about the same time as bondserv corrects the nonsense on his profile page.

[Thatcherite]

There is good reason why Creation is dominating evolutionary theory. There is good reason why God-rejecting evolutionists are scurrying away from debate.

You live on another planet if you believe either of these things. Or at least you have absolutely nothing to do with science as it is actually practiced. Most scientists are barely aware of the creation/evolution debate other than as an intellectual irrelevance fostered by religious fundamentalists who have no understanding of the scientific process and no understanding of the data.

[Thatcherite]

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?

Since it is the duty of scientists to raise as many hypotheses as possible, in the knowledge that most of them will be false, your question is bizarre, and has no application to the truth or otherwise of the theory of evolution.

[general_re]

So basically, you've got a solution, and now all you need to do is find the problem it solved. And here I thought you didn't like just-so stories ;)

[Outraged]

1 Corinthians 1:19-23

"For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles..."

You stumble in the dark, Thatcherite, along with many who have elevated themselves to "God-like" in their collective intellectual pride, all the while enjoying the fruits of what the religious fundamentalists have created here in America, protecting you from your fellow evolutionist travelers who have and will continue to be the greatest murderers mankind has ever known.

[puppets]

Reading through the answers to this thread makes me think that some people here are as hidebound and dogmatic as leftists like to claim religious Republicans are. Creationalism is a matter of faith, and even the Catholic church concedes that the Genesis story of Creation should not be taken literally. The replies I read here act like evolution theory is some kind of enemy or evil propaganda. The fact is its a very well-researched theory and is probably very close to the facts of the evolution of life on the planet. There's no reason why it can't exist peacefully with the faith-based belief the and intelligent being, perhaps God, put all this in motion. If you guys are still trying to sell the Biblical account of a 7 day Creation above evolution to score some kind of political points, you lost me. I'm a lifelong Republican and big Bush supporter, but comments like these make Republicans and religious people look like clowns and "Flat-Earthers". Here's a sticker you'll want next:

I see nothing wrong or devious about the teaching of evolution. If you think it undermines faith, then the faith wasn't that strong to begin with.