Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Crafty Attacks on Evolution
The New York Slimes ^ | 23 January 2005 | EDITORIAL

Posted on 01/23/2005 1:11:01 AM PST by rdb3

January 23, 2005
EDITORIAL

The Crafty Attacks on Evolution

Critics 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evolution; faithincreation; faithinevolution; religionwars; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 741-756 next last
To: gobucks
Given the Roman Catholics appear to rarely enter these evo threads...

Ahem. I'm on just about every one of these threads and I'm Catholic. And science and research took off with the translation of Roman and Greek manuscripts that had been preserved by the Moslems in the intervening centuries -- in other words, it was a rejection of Biblical doctrine that led to science as we know it.

521 posted on 01/25/2005 4:26:01 AM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

Deters and mitigates are about the same thing.

The survival of the population is advanced by enough percentage points to allow what would normally be considered a disadvantage to an advantage.


522 posted on 01/25/2005 4:32:35 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Hey, I said 'rarely'. In the sense they come right out and defend creationists and id'ers.

In many other regards, RC folks here in Freeper land are my pals (esp. on the abortion threads...)


523 posted on 01/25/2005 4:32:57 AM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

"Hitler was a Christian".

This is a flat out lie, or a fantastic degree of ignorance. Cite one reference where Hitler spoke about Jesus Christ favorably.


524 posted on 01/25/2005 4:34:39 AM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

You can question evolution in school. You just will fail biology class if you do, because evolution is a fact.

Although the establishment clause is being misapplied general and specifically in the case of the stickers, you still don't have any right to teach your particular religious cult in science classes, whether physics or biology.


525 posted on 01/25/2005 4:38:08 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
The printing press was one part of it but there were a few others, the two that come to mind immediately being firearms and ships. The big change was Genghis Khan opening up the silk road again after it had been closed for centuries, Europeans getting a taste of trade with the orient, and then Tamerlane shutting the trade routes back down 150 years later.

The Europeans at that point started sailing around Africa to get to the orient and once they started doing that, they needed the beginnings of modern math and physics. Designing a wooden ship to go out on the ocean and survive is not simple.

Also up to the age of Tamerlane, Europeans had been at a military disadvantage wrt Asia for about a thousand years. Firearms changed that and, with firearms, came requirements for machine skills and dealing with steel which were beyond anything which had gone before.

All of the people doing those things were thoroughly Christian by the way. Charles Darwin and the idea of our living world just sort of happening were still centuries in the future.

526 posted on 01/25/2005 4:38:18 AM PST by judywillow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

He did overstate it, but malaria provides more negative pressure on reaching breeding age than sickle cell.

Biology doesn't care about people reaching into old age, just giving them the best opportunity to reproduce and raise young.

This results in sickle cell being more prevalent in malarial areas than clear areas. It is why blacks have more sickle cell than other races, even when out of danger for hundreds of years.


527 posted on 01/25/2005 4:43:35 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Creationists don't have any scientific theories, just a bunch of sophistries.


528 posted on 01/25/2005 4:46:03 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

The inability to understand the example of sickle cell anemia demonstrates your point.


529 posted on 01/25/2005 4:47:13 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Hitler was a Christian;

That's really, really wrong. I've posted this around here once or twice but you seem to have missed it.

The most major philosophical basis of naziism was evolution and Hitler acknowledged it and people writing about him at the time wrote about it. Sir Arthur Keith (Evolution and Ethics) said it best, in a famous treatise which examines the question of whether or not evolution can be fitted into any sort of a system of ethics or religion:

Chapter 3

The Behavior of Germany Considered from an Evolutionary Point of View in 1942

VISITORS TO GERMANY IN 1934 FOUND AN emotional storm sweeping through masses of the people, particularly the more educated. The movement had much in common with a religious revival. The preacher in this case was Adolf Hitler; his doctrine was, and is, tribalism; he had stirred in the emotional depths of the German people those long-dormant tribal feelings which find release and relief in mutual service; men and women who had been leading selfish lives or were drifting aimlessly were given a new purpose in life: service to their country the Third Reich. It is worth noting that Hitler uses a double designation for his tribal doctrine National Socialism: Socialism standing for the good side of the tribal spirit (that which works within the Reich); aud Nationalism for the ethically vicious part, which dominates policy at and outside the German frontiers.

The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. He has brought into

10.

modern life the tribal and evolutionary mentality of prehistoric times. Hitler has confronted the statesmen of the world with an evolutionary problem of an unprecedented magnitude. What is the world to do with a united aggressive tribe numbering eighty millions!

We must not lose sight of the purpose of our visit to Germany; it was to see how far modern evolutionary practice can provide us with a scientific basis for ethical or moral behavior. As a source of information concerning Hitler's evolutionary and ethical doctrines I have before me Mein Kampf, extracts from The Times covering German affairs during the last twenty years, and the monthly journal R.F.C. (Racio Political Foreign Correspondenee), published by the German Bureau for Human Betterment and Eugenics and circulated by that bureau for the enlightenment of anthropologists living abroad. In the number of that journal for July 1937, there appears in English the text of a speech given by the German Fuhrer on January 30, 1937, in reply to a statement made by Mr. Anthony Eden that "the German race theory" stood in the way of a common discussion of European problems. Hitler maintained his theory would have an opposite effect; "it will bring about a real understanding for the first time." "It is not for men," said the Fuhrer, "to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation." I may remark incidentally that in this passage, as in many others, the German Fuhrer, like Bishop Barnes and many of our more intellectual clergy, regards evolution as God's mode of creation. God having created races, it is therefore "the noblest and most sacred duty for each racial species of mankind to preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it." Here we have expounded the perfectly sound doctrine of evolutionary isolation; even as an ethical doctrine it should not be condemned. No German must be guilty of the "greatest racial sin" that of bringing the fruits of hybridity into the world. The reproductive "genes" which circulate within the frontiers of Germany must be kept uncontaminated, so that they may work out the racial destiny of the German people without impediment. Hitler is also a eugenist. Germans who suffer from

11.

hereditable imperfections of mind or of body must be rendered infertile, so that "the strong may not be plagued by the weak." Sir Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, taught a somewhat similar evolutionary doctrine namely, that if our nation was to prosper we must give encouragement to the strong rather than to the weak; a saving which may be justified by evolution, but not by ethics as recognized and practiced by civilized peoples. The liberties of German women are to be sacrificed; they must devote their activities to their households, especially to the sacred duty of raising succeeding generations. The birth rate was stimulated by bounties and subsidies so that the German tribe might grow in numbers and in strength. In all these matters the Nazi doctrine is evolutionist.

Hitler has sought on every occasion and in every way to heighten the national consciousness of the German people or, what is the same thing, to make them racially conscious; to give them unity of spirit and unity of purpose. Neighborly approaches of adjacent nations are and were repelled; the German people were deliberately isolated. Cosmopolitanism, liberality of opinion, affectation of foreign manners and dress were unsparingly condemned. The old tribal bonds (love of the Fatherland, feeling of mutual kinship), the bonds of "soil and blood," became "the main plank in the National Social program." "Germany was for the Germans" was another plank. Foreign policy was "good or bad according to its beneficial or harmful effects on the German folk now or hereafter." "Charity and humility are only for home consumption" a statement in which Hitler gives an exact expression of the law which limits sympathy to its tribe. "Humanitarianism is an evil . . . a creeping poison." "The most cruel methods are humane if they give a speedy victory" is Hitler's echo of a maxim attributed to Moltke. Such are the ways of evolution when applied to human affairs.

I have said nothing about the methods employed by the Nazi leaders to secure tribal unity in Germany methods of brutal compulsion, bloody force, and the concentration camp. Such methods cannot be brought within even a Machiavellian system of ethics, and yet may be justified by their evolutionary result.

12.

Even in that result we may harbor a doubt: can unity obtained by such methods be relied on to endure?

There are other aspects of Nazi policy which raise points which may be legitimate subjects of ethical debate. In recent years British men of science have debated this ethical problem: an important discovery having been made a new poison gas, for example is it not the duty of the discoverer to suppress it if there is a possibility of its being used for an evil purpose? My personal conviction is that science is concerned wholly with truth, not with ethics. A man of science is responsible for the accuracy of his observations and of his inferences, not for the results which may follow therefrom. Under no circumstances should the truth be suppressed; yet suppression and distortion of the truth is a deliberate part of Nazi policy. Every anthropologist in Germany, be he German or Jew, was and is silenced in Nazi Germany unless the Hitlerian racial doctrine is accepted without any reservation whatsoever. Authors, artists, preachers, and editors are undone if they stray beyond the limits of the National Socialist tether. Individual liberty of thought and of its expression is completely suppressed. An effective tribal unity is thus attained at the expense of truth. And yet has not the Church in past times persecuted science just in this Hitlerian way? There was a time, and not so long ago, when it was dangerous for a biologist to harbor a thought that clashed in any way with the Mosaic theory of creation.

No aspect of Hitler's policy proclaims the antagonism between evolution and ethics so forcibly as his treatment of the Jewish people in Germany. So strong are the feelings roused that it is difficult for even science to approach the issues so raised with an unclouded judgment. Ethically the Hitlerian treatment of the Jews stands condemned out of hand. Hitler is cruel, but I do not think that his policy can be explained by attributing it to a mere satisfaction of a lust, or to a search for a scapegoat on which Germany can wreak her wrath for the ills which followed her defeat of 1918. The Church in Spain subjected the Jews to the cruelty of the Inquisition, but no one ever sought to explain the Church's behavior by suggesting that she had a

13.

lust for cruelty which had to be satisfied. The Church adopted the Inquisition as a policy; it was a means of securing unity of mind in her flock. Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions. When the Huguenots fled to Germany they mingled their "genes" with those of their host and disappeared as an entity. The Jews are made of other stuff: for two thousand years, living amid European communities, they have maintained their identity; it is an article of their creed, as it is of Hitler's, to breed true. They, too, practice an evolutionary doctrine. Is it possible for two peoples living within the same frontiers, dwelling side by side, to work out harmoniously their separate evolutionary destinies? Apparently Hitler believes this to be impossible; we in Britain and in America believe it to be not only possible, but also profitable.

It must not be thought that in seeking to explain Hitler's actions I am seeking to justify them. The opposite is the case. I have made this brief survey of public policy in modern Germany with a definite object: to show that Dr. Waddington is in error when he seeks to place ethics on a scientific basis by a knowledge of evolutionary tendencies and practice.

Chapter 4

Human Life: Its Purpose or Ultimate End

IN THE COURSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION concerning man's morality and the part it has played and is playing in his evolution, I found it necessary to provide space for slips which were labeled "Life: Its Ultimate and Proximate Purposes." Only those who have devoted some special attention to this matter are aware of the multitude of reasons given for the appearance of man on earth. Here I shall touch on only a few of them; to deal with all would require a big book. The reader may exclaim: Why deal with any of them! What has ultimate purpose got to do with ethics and evolution! Let a man with a clearer head and a nimbler pen than mine reply. He is Edward Carpenter, who wrote Civilization: Its Cause and Cure (1889).

14.

It is from the sixteenth edition (1923) I am to quote, p. 249:

If we have decided what the final purpose or Life of Man is, then we may say that what is good for that purpose is finally "good" and what is bad for that purpose is finally "evil."

If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then, although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on "that which tends to promote the ultimate course of evolution." If we do so, then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics; for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature's method of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes "that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue to do so." Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed. Clearly the form of evolution which Dr. Waddington has in mind is not that which has hitherto prevailed; what he has in mind is a man made system of evolution. In brief, instead of seeking ethical guidance from evolution, he now proposes to impose a system of ethics on evolution and so bring humanity ultimately to a safe and final anchorage in a Christian haven.

530 posted on 01/25/2005 4:47:16 AM PST by judywillow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: general_re

This graph shows that a small difference in survival percentage pressures large differences in allele frequences.


531 posted on 01/25/2005 4:49:40 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: Outraged

Yes, the ignorant creationists who have no science or fact to back up their views are more wise than any Christian who accepts reality and the fact of evolution as more convincing that superstitious nonsense.

Keep thinking that so my kids will retain the better jobs, while your kids are the chauffers and the maids for them.


532 posted on 01/25/2005 4:52:21 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

We are not looking down our noses at you, we are holding your ignorance of science in utter contempt. We are wondering why you want to promote a cult that turns seekers away from Christ. We are wondering why you want to hurt our country and prevent it from being the haven for faith and modern scientific investigation it used to be.


533 posted on 01/25/2005 4:55:01 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: puppets

Ping


534 posted on 01/25/2005 4:56:40 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: Outraged

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

Same to you bub.

The two you just attacked don't have scales on their eyes. Their eyes are just glazed over from creationist nonsense.


535 posted on 01/25/2005 4:58:50 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: Outraged

No one is convinced that creationists are Christians.

They don't act like Christians, they hurt people instead of help them, and they attack things that make our country great, harming the education of children and turning people from Christ.


536 posted on 01/25/2005 5:00:43 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

I am a Christian and he has not problem with me.

That is why we all wonder if fundamentalists claims to be Christian are just whistling past the grave yard attempts to convince themselves heresy is Christianity.


537 posted on 01/25/2005 5:02:45 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: Outraged

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


538 posted on 01/25/2005 5:03:37 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: Outraged

Jesus is not nonsense.

I resent the implication that believing nonsense brings us closer to God.


539 posted on 01/25/2005 5:04:36 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: puppets

They also damage the evangelism they pupport to be engaged in.


540 posted on 01/25/2005 5:05:42 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 741-756 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson