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.

[judywillow]

If you continue to spout this hatred, I am going to compile your hatred and send it to the Moderators to have you banned.

It IS possible to run out of ideas without being so obvious about it...

[Right Wing Professor]

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

See post 559.

Since, if you were an honorable man, you'd now admit you were wrong, I'll accept your apology.

[judywillow]

Yeah, right. He was a baptized Catholic, he asked for and drew support from Christians, he made statements that he was doing God's work; and the Holocaust he brought about was just the last in a long series of mass extermination attempts against the Jews conducted by European Christians, starting in the Middle Ages, continuing with the Spanish Inquisition, Martin Luther's tirades the Jews, the pogroms of central and Eastern Europe, etc.

Occasional bad blood is one thing, mass murder campaigns are something else. I'm not aware of any real extermination campaigns against Jews in Europe prior to Hitler and history does not support the idea of anything like that. Again Jews were all moving INTO Germany and Poland after Tamerlane and the big Jewish prayer at the time was "May all Jews speak German this time next year!"

I mean who the hell goes to that much trouble to migrate into some place where they plan on being exterminated?

Other than that, it's far from clear that Ukrainian pogroms were discriminatory regarding Jews. They used to talk about getting rid of both the 'yid' AND the 'yak' (polyack), and Poles were catholics then as now.

I mean, basically, it's not obvious to me that Jews ever got treated that much worse than anybody else in Europe. They sure as hell never got treated any worse than the Irish.

Basically, Christianity does not provide any sort of a philosophical basis for genocidal extermination campaigns. Evolutionism does.

[Right Wing Professor]

Basically, Christianity does not provide any sort of a philosophical basis for genocidal extermination campaigns. Evolutionism does.

You mean, nothing like this:

I brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule-- if my counsel does not please your, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all hristians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us.... .With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my conscience.

---Martin Luther, the Jews and their Lies, 1543

Lest anyone think I'm down on Protestants, the Spanish Inquisition and the pogroms were each responsible for the genocidal extermination of thousands of Jews.

[Thatcherite]

If there was any kind of sensible point in your post, sadly it passed me by. My fault probably. I never knew that the Founding Fathers worked closely with Behe and Dembski, but now I stand corrected.

[js1138]

It IS possible to run out of ideas without being so obvious about it...

LOL. When do you start not being so obvious?

[js1138]

I mean, basically, it's not obvious to me that Jews ever got treated that much worse than anybody else in Europe. They sure as hell never got treated any worse than the Irish.

LOL. You would do well in Saudi Arabia.

[Thatcherite]

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.

Ability to rant noted.

Complete inability to frame any kind of sensible argument about whether ToE is true or not noted.

[Thatcherite]

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.

There are four things people try to point out about JudyWillow's beliefs in these discussions:

1. It's junk religion.

2. As junk religion goes, it's dangerous junk religion. Hatred of scientists, atheists, and gays, are based on it. Left unchecked it will ultimately destroy all the freedoms that America has stood for.

3. It is totally incompatible with reason.

4. It's part and parcel of certain kinds of hatefulness, which have nothing to do with conservatism. Granted not all who share JudyWillow's beliefs are hate freaks, but the ones who are hate almost everyone who doesn't share their bigotted worldview.

I feel shame that my politics cause people to associate me with hate-freaks like JudyWillow.

[Outraged]

We are not looking down our noses at you, we are holding your ignorance of science in utter contempt.

With a sentence as self-contradictory as the above, it is becoming clearer the mind that validates evolution...A dog chasing angrily its own tail comes to mind.

I am beginning to think that evolutionism actually reverses, or at least stunts, the evolution of humanity.

[Outraged]

The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge. - Mein Kampf, ibid.

The above quote illustrates two things: 1) Hitler's anti-Semitism WAS based on racial "knowledge" and 2) socialists/evolutionists tend toward evil/lies.

[Alacarte]

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.

Thanks for the post gobucks, it was interesting. I haven't thought much about the things the reformation beginning the revolution huh... something to think about.

No matter the means, in the end you seem to agree that recent progress is a direct result of secularism, that is, scientific freedom from religion. In the text you posted it even said: "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." This is strongly implying what I said, that this divergence is responsible for modern science.

Do you agree?

[bondserv]

I'm reaaaally curious to hear you expound on this...

You asked me to expound. :-)

You probably have experienced a great professor. The reason they are great is because they completely understand their subject and can convey it to their students by bridging topic specific language to concepts the students understand. Real life experience will demonstrate to you how much of an exception these people are. I understand the fact that vocabulary plays a big part in categorizing various scientific mechanisms and formula. But the good scientists don't purposefully hide behind the language.

You overlook the fact that "elite" scientists will formulate a model which is frequently incorrect. Like a Meteorologist who gets the forecast completely wrong, the nature of science is that the theories are often proven to be wrong. Science in the area of Evolution is an imperfect science.

You guys have the tendency to disregard anything that disagrees with your idea of truth. You fail to continue reading the potentially valuable information because you chalk it off as Creationoid. When a scientist that was formerly accepted as credible begins shifting their perspective toward Design theory, they are immediately labeled a quack. This method of investigation is typical of the left. "I have already made up my mind, don't confuse me with any new information or a different view. Anyone showing a hint of ID colors has discredited themselves."

Conservatives are willing to wade through the hogwash to get to some meat (In science, by its very method, this is the rule as opposed to the exception). Because conservatives -- and our Founding Fathers -- have the innate belief that, free from oppressive brainwashing, our brains actually function well.

Consider also the fact that highly specialized scientists are like a Fire Marshall. They lose site of a balanced perspective on their subject because they are to close to it. For scientists in the past, this was not the case. A Fire Marshall will demand that schools keep all of the doors closed, because it has been shown that closed doors are the single most effective safety feature regarding fires. So on the infinitesimal chance that a fire will occur, children are forced to sit in stale closed door classrooms across the country.

This overspecialization creates islands of knowledge that don't overlap, which creates a vacuum of overall scientific understanding. Like lawyers who have created a vocabulary to protect the application of law, scientists have created topic specific vocabulary that some use to protect their genre.

I am convinced, through personal experience, that scientists that really understand their subject, have no problem relating very complex ideas in plain English, transcribing topic specific vocabulary to relateable verbiage (I understand that interdepartmental use of specific language can save time when relating information between experts). A person who desires a more in-depth understanding of scientific topics can learn the vocabulary, sans the interpretations, in a short period of time.

Link

[Outraged]

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

My join date versus yours suggest the troll sits at your desk...Welcome to FreeRepublic...Now straighten your act or you won't last long.

[judywillow]

---Martin Luther, the Jews and their Lies, 1543

Lest anyone think I'm down on Protestants, the Spanish Inquisition and the pogroms were each responsible for the genocidal extermination of thousands of Jews.

Genocide by definition means an attempt to kill ALL of them. I just do not see that in Germany until Hitler. I mean, Germans are totally competent people, inventive, industrius and all that and, if Martin Luther had convinced them to esterminate Jews, it would not have taken them 500 years.

The basic reality is that Luther, despite any personal failings he might have had, taught Germans and others as well to read and learn what Christ himself had said instead of relying upon the interpretations of the catholic priesthood and, once the people started doing that, then so long as Christianity prevailed in those lands there would be no fear of genocide since nothing Christ himself ever said could be interpreted that way.

It was only after Christianity had been essentially replaced with one of the great isms based upon the theory of evolution that any of these darker demons in the German psyche would ever be acted upon.

Aside from that, the story of the twentieth century involves two such great isms and not just one. The communists outdid the nazis in sheer numbers of victims and the other really big "holocaust" of the twentieth century was the commie holocaust against Christian Russia and the Ukraine and the artificial famines and, for whatever it's worth, an awful lot of the commie officials involved in such affairs were Jews and everybody in Europe knew about that, and the backlash from all that was added to any animosity towards Jews which might have been leftover from Martin Luther. In other words, Jews caught a sort of a double whammie from Charles Darwin in the twentieth century.

[puppets]

He accused me of the same thing because he couldn't answer my debating points. Above you'll see where the creationalists threaten to "compile your hate and send it to a Mod and get you banned". Shades of the Inquisition, huh? ;)

The hate spouted here by the purported "Christians" boggles my mind. They put down other religions, damn strict bible literalists to hell and advocate teaching matters of faith as fact in public classrooms. When you disagree they call you a troll and threaten to have you banned. So much for friendly discussion and debate on an internet forum. Some of the people here are getting as rabid, intolerant and out of touch with reality as DU and just as ridiculous.

[judywillow]

I feel shame that my politics cause people to associate me with hate-freaks like JudyWillow.

And you're calling ME a hate monger??????

[nasamn777]

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 occurred.

Well, actually your statement is incorrect. In examining processes we use Dembski's explanatory filter to determine design. In determining design, we are concerned about knowing the possible explanations for a pattern. This is part of the "side information" that Dr. Dembski talks about.

You seem to think that it is impossible to determine if artifacts are natural or man-made? Do you think there is no scientific basis for determining intelligent life? What do you think about the SETI projects?

[Right Wing Professor]

You should google Christian Social Movement in Austria before you embarrass yourself further.

[Thatcherite]

Ability to type meaningless irrelevant guff noted.

Complete failure to expound on your bizarre contention that quantum theory has not advanced for the last 150 years noted.

Continuing failure to name a single achievement of modern creation science noted.

Further repetition of fallacious "great dead scientists who were creationists" argument noted.

Continuing failure to correct errors on your profile page noted.