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.

[Thatcherite]

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

If the cap fits, wear it.

I repeat, I am ashamed that my politics might associate you with me in the minds of others.

[Outraged]

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

Why?...To prove what?...To this point it has only been you embarassed by your regurgitation that Hitler and nazism were somehow inspired by Christianity...Foolish and blasphemous...good show!

[Doctor Stochastic]

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

Which is why Huntington's corea isn't particularly selected against, nor is Alzheimer's.

[Alacarte]

From the link you gave:

1 - Most of the greatest scientists of the past 1000 years were Christians and creationists.

2 - To these scientists, Christianity was the driving force behind their discoveries.

3 - The Christian world view gave birth and impetus to modern science.

Response to 1: So... since many scientific discoveries from 200-1000 years ago were made by creationists, then science owes creationism something? Hardly a sound argument. They were all men too, does that mean women owe us something? Every serial killer and rapist from that period was a creationist too, why not brag on that?

The only thing all the scientists (and there were no scientists 500-1000 years ago) had in common was naturalistic methods. Without accepting supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, they were able to persevere and learn how things REALLY worked. Since we've discovered purely natural explanations for so much of the natural world already, without any help from supernatural conclusions, I think that point is sound.

Response to 2: If christianity were their driving force, then scientists would not throw away faith and rely on naturalism to find their answers... The whole point of faith is not to ask questions, and just accept everything as the way god wants it to be.

Response 3: How is this again? Today, the vast majority of top scientists deny the existence of a personal god, yet science is at it's pinnacle, and continues to increase on the same exponential function that it's been on for the last 400 years.

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.

Absolutely false. Perhaps you can learn enough to understand what the experts say, but without formal education, you will NEVER understand well enough to draw your own conclusions. When I graduated from computer science and started my first job, the first thing I learned was that I knew nothing yet. All school had done was give me the foundation so that I could START learning on my own. School provided the theory and technical understanding to teach myself. Only after many years of experience did I feel comfortable with the vast sea of information and methods that I could contribute something based on my educated opinion. If something about computer science were a lie, trust me, us engineers would find it, cause stuff wouldn't work the way it should. Same way genetic engineers or medical researchers would discover serious errors in the current body of evolutionary science. People like this:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/FAE/fae.html

Note that Johns Hopkins is the best medical school in the US.

Creationists here who think you can read a Dembski book or browse a website for 2 days and suddenly understand why evolution is a lie are fools. If you had any inkling of how over your head a complex scientific field like biology is, you wouldn't even think of arguing from a scientific perspective.

Does this mean that you should just believe scientists? Of course not, I don't trust scientists either, they could be politically, or financially motivated. What I DO trust is the scientific method, the systems of peer review and publication that, by your own admission, work. You mention that many hypotheses are proven wrong, but how? It's not priests or pastors or IDers who discover the errors. The errors get fixed because they fail the test of the scientific method, maybe they got by the author for whatever reason, sloppiness or bias, but they likely won't get by his peers.

Trash scientists all you want, it's not their word that counts, it's what the scientific literature says, and it says overwhelmingly that evolution is true.

[Outraged]

The hate spouted here by the purported "Christians" boggles my mind.

Could you give me some examples?...To narrow the field, use me, for I am surely the greatest offender...PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

[Antoninus]

Ah yes, creationists are evil and crafty for trying to get their agenda into schools. Meanwhile, the butt-sex crowd is just "fighting for tolerance" when they try to force their agenda into the schools. Hypocrisy, thy name is NYTimes.

[Antoninus]

The Theory of Evolution contains nothing about creation. Biology works with the life it sees and the history of life in the fossil record.

That's true. But you wouldn't know it by talking to most people who promote evolution as the solution to Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Like it or not, evolution is inextricably entangled with biogenesis. How can one discuss evolution in class without biogenesis entering into the discussion? I was taught, in the 1980s mind you, that life came from a protein soup in the oceans, seasoned with a little lightning. This was taught as scientific FACT along with evolution. I didn't realize that it was a poorly supported theory until much later. And strangely enough, when you point this out to people, they jump down your throat and call you an idiot who doesn't accept evolution. Funny how that works.

[Right Wing Professor]

In examining processes we use Dembski's explanatory filter to determine design.

By all means expound on what Dembski's 'explanatory filter', is and show an example of it being used successfully elsewhere in the mathematical literature.

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.

Dembski claims design can be detected by means of 'complex specified information'. Specified information is information which follws a pattern which we specify right now; not a means by which that information could have arisen. Of course, I disagree that we can possibly specify a pattern that could not have arisen by thermodynamic processes regardless of mechanism, unless formation of that pattern violates the Second Law; and in fact the entropy of life is quite small.

You seem to think that it is impossible to determine if artifacts are natural or man-made?

If they have 'made in Japan' stamped on them, certainly. You have a fossil with 'made by God, 4004 BC' engraved on the inside of the skull?

Less flippantly, I see nothing in the natural worlds that impels me to believe it could not have been created by natural processes.

Do you think there is no scientific basis for determining intelligent life?What do you think about the SETI projects?

Not as easy as it might seem. You are familiar, of course, with the Turing test?

[superloser]

I sometimes suspect that many atheists impersonate creationists to make Christians look stupid.

There are enough stupid Christians out there who claim to speak for everyone that atheists don't need to help them out. A lot of stuff I see makes me wonder if Christians really do want to make themselves look like idiots, but that usually only comes from the very loud, very vocal Fundamentalist community.

[balrog666]

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.

Holy CRAP! And you think you have an education? Ask for your refund now!

[Right Wing Professor]

To this point it has only been you embarassed by your regurgitation that Hitler and nazism were somehow inspired by Christianity.

You may have missed this first time:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922

It sure seems that he thought he was inspired by it. Of course, Hitler was nothing if not a liar. But it seems to me, if you're going to quote Hitler to claim that Nazi-ism was inspired by the Theory of Evolution, it's legitimate to quote Hitler very passionately claiming he was inspired by Christianity.

[Right Wing Professor]

Holy CRAP!

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Some people seem as completely unfamiliar with history as they are with science.

[Outraged]

It sure seems that he thought he was inspired by it. Of course, Hitler was nothing if not a liar. But it seems to me, if you're going to quote Hitler to claim that Nazi-ism was inspired by the Theory of Evolution, it's legitimate to quote Hitler very passionately claiming he was inspired by Christianity.

Actions speak louder than empty rhetoric, Professor...Extermination of the Jews and eugenicism were byproducts not of Christianity, on the contrary, they are direct intellectual byproducts of Marxism and Darwinism...For every quote you pull, suggesting Hitler was a Christian (which you know was a lie to manipulate) there are 100 others suggesting otherwise.

"I want a powerful, masterly, cruel and fearless youth... There must be nothing weak or tender about them. The freedom and dignity of the wild beast must shine from their eyes... That is how I will root out a thousand years of human domestication."

"It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity," he said in 1933, "because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood." His countrymen would have to choose: "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both."

Indeed, he understood all too well that Christianity, in the long run, was his enemy. "Pure Christianity — the Christianity of the catacombs — is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into fact. It leads simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely wholehearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics."

NationalReview - David Shiflett

Hitler was no Christian, to suggest otherwise only betrays your lack of information, intentional or otherwise.

[balrog666]

Some people seem as completely unfamiliar with history as they are with science.

No matter how many times I see that, it still surprises me. Such "fundamental" ignorance and complacent self-admiration is just astounding. What have these people ever learned? How do such people think at all? And how much worse will their children be?

[Right Wing Professor]

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.

So he was an incompetent genocide-advocate. Oddly enough, though, we have churches, schools and people here in Lincoln Nebraska, lovingly named after him. You'd think they'd be a little embarrassed.

You claimed there was no philosophical support in Christianity for Naziism. I gave you philosophical support from one of the founders of modern Protestantism. The objection that the Germans didn't get right down to butchering Jews, after Luther spewed out his venom, may have been partly because they were butchering fellow Christians for much of the next 200 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.

Luther disagreed.

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.

You haven't ever lived in Germany, have you? It's simply untrue to say Christianity has been replaced; it certainly hadn't in 1933. On the contrary, Catholic and Protestant states still have different holidays based on religious feast-days; the state still collects a 'Church tax' which goes to the church of your choice (and which isn't easy to get out of). When I lived there, in the mid-1980's, you still couldn't buy groceries on Sunday. Even today, 64% of Germans are still officially church members.

Some nice pictures of pro-Nazi Christians here. Sure doesn't look like it was supplanted to me.

[general_re]

Wait, are those bagpipes I hear warming up in the distance? ;)

[Right Wing Professor]

Extermination of the Jews and eugenicism were byproducts not of Christianity, on the contrary, they are direct intellectual byproducts of Marxism and Darwinism..

So you keep asserting. Yet both Martin Luther and Adolf Hitler said they felt it was their duty as Christians. I'm not sure Hitler even understood the theory of evolution except in the most superficial, popular sense; but he was most definitely well versed in Christian doctrine, and he used Christian metaphors his whole life.

For every quote you pull, suggesting Hitler was a Christian (which you know was a lie to manipulate) there are 100 others suggesting otherwise.

Find me one with the passion or force equal to the one I quoted.

[judywillow]

I repeat, I am ashamed that my politics might associate you with me in the minds of others.

Near as I can tell, your "politics" appears to amount to coming over here from DU once in a while to corrupt the board with evolutionism. That isn't much of an "association".

[Antoninus]

Here's one of the Dougherty photos you don't see much anymore from the Paluxy River site.