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.

[rdb3]

Creationalism is a matter of faith, and even the Catholic church concedes that the Genesis story of Creation should not be taken literally.

All fine and good, but I'm not Catholic. What they say one way or the other holds little value to me.

I'm a Protestant.

What I find funny here is the condescending tone of evolutionists looking down their noses at us. That's a riot.

[Outraged]

Isaiah 40:21-22 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded? He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

Flat earth?

[puppets]

Its an expression to describe Luddites. Your literalism is showing again.

[puppets]

Sometimes the excesses of the religious nuts on this board make me wonder if I'm in the wrong place. I'm a conservative, life-long Republican (voted for Reagan vs. Mondale the year I turned 18) and huge Bush supporter and hate all things Democrat, but the rantings 1) about creation and 2) the venomous hate against gay people really put me off this board. If I posted this I'd probably get banned. I should anyway the hell with it. Some of these people are as loony as the DUmmies at which they like to laugh. The other thing is their intolerance, name-calling, baiting and hateful talk hardly seems very Christian to me.

I applaud you debating them, but you can't win and then they start the hostile, mean-spirited name calling and ad hominem attacks. I go on forums to have fun, not be browbeaten by religious wingnuts. They are as annoying as leftist wingnuts.

[Outraged]

I beg your pardon...I did not know you guys were so new here...Welcome to FreeRepublic, defenders of America, truth, justice and the American way...Just like America's founders, we are a majority Christian. You are welcome into our arms. You are welcome to intellectually scoff at the freedoms you enjoy as a byproduct of our intelligent design philosophy...Hopefully, in time, you will come to understand, believe even, that the model Christians have been adopted into, is the highest form of human evolution. The world has been so affected by Jesus Christ that even time itself is aligned with Christ's birth.

May the Lord lift the scales from your eyes, so your hearts can be filled with the Joy only belief can elicit.

[rdb3]

Sometimes the excesses of the religious nuts...

Religious nuts. Got it.

I go on forums to have fun, not be browbeaten by religious wingnuts.

Religious wingnuts. Got it.

[puppets]

So if I'm Jewish I'm not welcome here?

[Outraged]

So if I'm Jewish I'm not welcome here?

You are certainly welcome here. The Jews have no greater friend than FreeRepublic, especially Evangelical Christians...I would suggest, however, if you reject God, you may in the hereafter only be welcome in the fiery pit.

Puppet, this is not the place to slam Christians, if you are TRULY a Conservative, you are welcome here, but if you want to slam Christians you will find much more agreement over at DemocratUnderground.

[puppets]

I'm not slamming Christians. I'm slamming intolerance and fundamentalists who want to teach Bible in science class. I'm also talking about "Christians" here who routinely spout hate against gay people and openly make fun of AIDS victims and other extremism. And yes, I think advocating teaching of Creationalism in public schools is extreme and wrong. As it is I am not Jewish, but what if I were Muslim or Shintoist? I perceive there is a lot of religious bigotry around here perpetrated by fundamentalist Christians.

[rdb3]

I perceive there is a lot of religious bigotry around here perpetrated by fundamentalist Christians.

It appears that you have Christians in your crosshairs.

[Outraged]

I'm also talking about "Christians" here who routinely spout hate against gay people and openly make fun of AIDS victims and other extremism. And yes, I think advocating teaching of Creationalism in public schools is extreme and wrong. As it is I am not Jewish, but what if I were Muslim or Shintoist? I perceive there is a lot of religious bigotry around here perpetrated by fundamentalist Christians.

Christians are not perfect, but certainly the most generous, forgiving, tolerant and loving...You will find some bad trees, the media love to focus on the thorns of Christianity (yes, they are even here among the hallowed halls of FreeRepublic), but if you look at the forest you will see that we are by far the superior philosophy...America testifies to this fact, socialism offers the evil corollary.

I am beginning to suspect you a troll...I hope I am wrong.

[Outraged]

John 12:37-46

"Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: “Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: “He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn–and I would heal them.” Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.

Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved praise from men more than praise from God.

Then Jesus cried out, “When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness."

[puppets]

Well you start right in with the name calling. Anyone who doesn't believe in religious exremism, the forced teaching of religious beliefs in public schools and who doesn't hate homosexuals is a troll in your book?

Intolerant people like you do more to damage the rep of FR than any democrat troll could do.

[PatrickHenry]

Slept through another 200 or so posts. Placemarker.

[judywillow]

There are four things people try to point out about evolution in these discussions:

1. It's junk science.

2. As junk science goes, it's dangerous junk science. Naziism and communism were based on it.

3. It's totally incompatible with Christianity or any other believable religion.

4. It's part and parcel of certain kinds of agendas, which have nothing to do with conservatism. Granted not all gay people are agenda freaks, but the ones who are love evolutionism.

[Right Wing Professor]

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

ID is based on the unproven and probably false conjecture that we can somehow differentiate between 'design' and the result of a natural process (stipulating that 'design' somehow evades being a natural process), simply by examining the results of the process, and without knowing how it occured. Its sole tangible evidence is the apparent observation that there are structures in biology that could not have arisen by evolution because they cannot function except as a whole, and the likelihood that they could have all come together as a whole at once is too low. Needless to say, biologists have been able to drive several large trucks through this specious argument.

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.

Depends on what you mean by 'many'. A very small minority of scientists subscribe to ID; they are in general motivated by religious conviction and not by the evidence; and the likelihood they support ID is directly proportional to their distance from and igorance of biology.

[Right Wing Professor]

What I find funny here is the condescending tone of evolutionists looking down their noses at us. That's a riot.

Probably similar to the feeling I get when someone tells me that evolution is responible for the major evils of the last 100 years; that people who don't believe in their particular God are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong; that people who don't believe in their particular God can't be conservaive, etc.

Sucks, doesn't it?

[lbmorris11]

Well you start right in with the name calling

Weren't you just name calling? Is wingnut a compliment to you?

Intolerant people like you

Well let me tell you about people like you....

Seriously tolerance/intolerance is not good or bad inherently. It depends on what is or isn't being tolerated.

[gobucks]

"What changed at 1600 AD to jump-start science if it wasn't secularism?"

""Manuscripts, Books, and Maps: The Printing Press and a Changing World

Introduction

The history of the book presents us with a complete, observable communications revolution. The historical record is such that we can watch the whole of a vast socio-cultural, political, and economic change happen over a period of some three to five hundred years (depending on whose perspective you prefer). By following the developments in manuscript and print book production, tied to the changes in the technologies used to produce those texts, we can also chart the various changes in social organization, politics and economics from the feudalism of the 7th century, through to the advent and advance of early capitalism in the 15th century.

The implications of the printed word are vast. There are those who argue that Martin Luther and the Protestant revolution could not have taken place if it were not for the printing press. While this is not entirely valid, the press and the already wide distribution of books and other printed matter in Luther's time certainly added to the distribution of his ideas and work. In the shifts in the world from the mid 15th century to the end of the 18th century, it is possible to trace the divergence of science from religion and the opening up of the new world.

In order to understand the effect of printing in the 15th century, you have to go back to the 7th century and see how the book world was organized prior to the advent of printing. Then you can see what changed along with the introduction of printing.

It's easy, reading an author like historian Elizabeth Eisenstein , to think that the printing press was somehow the single most important invention of the Middle Ages, that it and it alone was responsible for the changes of the European Literary, Scientific and Artistic Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation. Her position is close "technological determinism". She isn't completely determinist - she sees the other factors that were at play, but she still privileges the printing press. However, there are other important factors that contributed to the rise of intellectual activity in Europe in the mid-15th century.

For instance, if you look at the argument of Lucien Febvre and Henri Martin in their work, The Coming of the Book, you get a different picture of that same revolution. Febvre and Martin contend that society in Europe changed during the Renaissance because of a secularization of learning that occurred with the growth of the university. They date the important changes from the 13th century.

In their view, print came along and sustained that revolution, with the promotion of vernacular languages and new information. But the early Italian Renaissance was initiated by a social restructuring of learning through the emergence of a university system. ""

Given the Roman Catholics appear to rarely enter these evo threads, I would offer that I'm leaning to the synergy between Luther and the Press. Your argument regarding secularization is missing a tiny piece of information: the total number of people who willing fought and died for their secular beliefs is pretty small ... compared to the protestants who did so. It was after the Protestant Reformation that 'freedom' to pursue truth intrinsically changed in Europe. The seculars have been riding the back of that change ever since.

The seculars and protestants shared a common problem: who owns the rights to the 'truth' evidently also owns the right to torture - and neither liked the system much. The RC church went after both w/ pretty much equal vindictiveness. But, it was protestants in large numbers who spilled the blood necessary to make the room for the secular sciencists to make advances.

Not that you'll never see a scienist grant that ...

And fwiw, I don't think it's a coincidence that the Jews are welcomed here, the USA, in which protestantism gave birth to its first nation. Nor do I think it is a coincidence that it is the Bible thumpers who most support Israel compared to all other faiths. It could be well argued the Jews were the first protestants.

[Right Wing Professor]

There are four things people try to point out about evolution in these discussions: 1. It's junk science.

Ergo, .90% of working scientists do junk science. Gosh, science has been remarkably successful given that so much of it is junk.

2. As junk science goes, it's dangerous junk science. Naziism and communism were based on it.

Hitler was a Christian; in fact, the vast majority of Germans during the Nazi era were Chritian. Nazi-ism was squarely based on long-standing European Christian anti-semitism, dating back to Martin Luther, who preached that Jews should be enslaved and rabbis put to death.

Stalin persecuted Darwinian evolutionists.

It's totally incompatible with Christianity or any other believable religion.

As opposed to the 'unbelievable religions'?

4. It's part and parcel of certain kinds of agendas, which have nothing to do with conservatism. Granted not all gay people are agenda freaks, but the ones who are love evolutionism.

Somebody seems to have an agenda w.r.t. gays here, certainly.