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.

[shubi]

The differential in mortality rates without malaria present is not too pertinent to the discussion. The graph of mortality in malarial areas showed a better survival rate among hybrid sickle cell allele genotypes.

This difference, however small, will result in increase presence of the sickle cell allele in the population over time. This is evolution.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Evolution is a fact . . .

Science has not yet substantiated the reasonable notion that the variety of species present in the world today is a result of billions of years of change in allele frequencies. For that reason, evolution attains only to the level of "reasonable notion," or "philosophy." It does not attain to the level of "fact" as you assert. It certainly does not belong in any classroom except those where pontification is one's professional aim, not unlike that of certain politicians.

[shubi]

From the article: This distribution is determined by the occurrence of the sickle cell mutation and its selection by falciparum malaria.


Andrew: "Then why is the Hybrid frequency only 15-25% in a malarial area?"

Only 15-25%?!!!! That is a very high incidence of an otherwise deleterious gene. The article explains that falciparum malaria selects (makes more prevalent) for people that are more immune to malaria. The incidence of malaria is proportional and tandem to the incidence of sickle cell.

If we had rates approaching 25% sickle cell here in America, it would be considered a huge public health crisis.

[shubi]

That is pure nonsense, and I hope you know it.

[Alacarte]

1. It is really valuable. 2. Most 'worldly' folks consider it utter foolishness 3. It is supernaturally gifted to one who seeks it in a repentant manner.

You lost me.

[AndrewC]

Only 15-25%?!!!! That is a very high incidence of an otherwise deleterious gene.

Oh, so now you agree with me. Remember, you are arguing that it is a beneficial gene when compared to the normal allele in the malarial regions. In the malarial regions it is the normal allele that is deleterious.

[nasamn777]

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.

Give the ID crowd time to do it. I predict that over time ID will be developed into a whole new field.

Specified information is information which follows a pattern which we specify right now; not a means by which that information could have arisen.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Maybe you could explain further. Using Dembski's filter we must eliminate known natural process that may explain the origin of the pattern. A probability can be determined using the physics. Most problems would contain both chance and necessity. Using the physics one could develop a probability. For example, if we found a mosaic made out of stones we could use Dembski's method to determine if the object was designed or the result of natural processes. The information would be related to the pattern. We would have to establish that the probability was less than the universal probability bound 1e-150.

[Outraged]

Sad...

Let us look beyond your projection mechanism...Did you vote for GW Bush?

[Outraged]

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.

You have used one of Hitler's speeches to illustrate Hitler's alleged passion for Christianity, when his private documents and communications reflect his contempt for Christianity. Hitler was notorious for using Darwinian/Marxist philosophy -- see "master race." c

Your logic is very simple-minded...According to your logic, the above video proves Clinton was a Christian because he was carrying a Bible and walking with the "Holy-man" Tony Campolo (apostate though he may be)...Hitler and Clinton's actions betray their respective deception, so to accept prima fascia speech's either made would be foolish at best...Lip service does not a Christian make, nor evolution prove.

[Outraged]

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

Tch Tch, and you are a loving Christian?

Yep..."The Truth shall set you free."...alas...{/sigh}

[Outraged]

For that reason, evolution attains only to the level of "reasonable notion," or "philosophy." It does not attain to the level of "fact" as you assert. It certainly does not belong in any classroom except those where pontification is one's professional aim, not unlike that of certain politicians.

You are too generous, the theory of evolution is demonstrably false as a philosophy because it has no practicable use...It is neither validated nor logical, its practitioners are often delusional or genocidal (or both).

[judywillow]

Evolutionists also call it "reasonable" to base their evidence on outright fraud. Ernst Haeckel and his "gill slits" human embryos? Or the fraud of Archaeopteryx - sure, there's scientific evidence for you - just brush on some cement and press a feather in it and declare it a "transitional fossil". The sychophants of Evolution will latch on to that and won't let go even decades after the fraud is made well known. According to them, believing a proven lie is "reasonable".

"Fake but accurate....."

Sounds familiar somehow or other.

[judywillow]

You can't be an evolutionist until you engage in insults, lies and most important of all - hypocrisy. Evolutionists hate Christians, that is why they drag Christians to court.

If asked to phrase that one, I'd say that agenda freaks hate Christians and chiefly for that reason cling to evolution decades after evolution has been disproven.

[shubi]

Andrew, I don't agree with you. You do not understand the underlying principles involved here.

I have done by best to explain it to you. If you were in my class, you would receive an F.

[shubi]

Post some scientific evidence against evolution and I might continue discussion how wrong you are.

[shubi]

Ad hominem does not reach the level of a valid scientific objection.

[shubi]

Post some scientific evidence that "disproves" evolution.

[Did you know that using the word disproves or proof pretty much assures you of not being taken seriously by scientists? It shows a complete ignorance of scientific method.]

[judywillow]

Proofs??

I've posted the thing a bout fruit flies here before and I haven't seen a rational argument proposed against it.

That one to me suffices by itself, being an absolute laboratory test of the entire theory (of evolution), but there're lots of others.

There are animals and animal features which could not plausibly evolve, since they are massively complex and would be useless in anything but the finished stage. The bombardier beetle is one such; baleen is another; wings are another.

Or take snakes for instance. The first step in evolving into snakehood would be being born/mutated as a quadraplegic and, starting from there, you'd have to somehow or other learn how to slither and kill prey in the fifteen minutes you'd have before the first predator which came along ate YOU.

I mean, none of this crap works from a standpoint of simple logic.

[shubi]

We have posted several articles that show speciation.

It is your misunderstanding of evolution that keeps you from realizing the significance that when speciation occurs, it is evolution. You won't see jumps from one Genus (or above). That's just not how it works.

So, instead of misunderstanding, do you have any scientific evidence that refutes evolution? [I expect another ad hominem post about all scientists being homos]

[Reuben Hick]

Ad hominem does not reach the level of a valid scientific objection.

A double standard?

You are projecting again. I accurately call God haters and Christophobes "God haters" and "Christophobes" because they engage in God hating and Christian fearing. That's not an attack against God haters and Christophobes, that is describing motive and an underlying agenda for the current venom towards those who subscribe to intelligent design.

Another way of putting it is: "Examining and drawing conclusions from the evidence." If we were to discuss taxation, or the best ski lodge, it would take a particularly antisocial clod to engage in the routine and apparently required lying, pandering, insults and hate speech typical of the left evolutionists/materialists. Now why is it required for evolutionists/materialists to single out Christians (not Jews, Muslims, secular critics of evolution et al) for all of your frustrations?

Number One, the Bible says that you folks will do exactly that. Number Two, history demonstrates that you folks will do exactly that. Number Three, the balance of posts by the materialists demonstrates that this is an unending pattern of behavior. We can look at your posts, and the variety of self-proclaimed atheistic theologians (there is an oxymoron for you) who feel completely qualified to describe and characterize a religion they know very little about and have every reason to ridicule.

When discussing origins, exactly how is the phrase "Junk Religion" supposed to be informative and constructive in a debate? "Junk Science" is appropriate because it is the type of so-called "science" that is implemented to muddy the waters concerning true origins. Global Warming has more basis in evidence than Oort Clouds, yet materialists say "science has proven it". Oh really? Absent any evidence, we have elevated speculation to fact? That is called "junk science".

So this bravo-sierra about "Ad Hominem does not reach the level of valid scientific objection" is nothing more than a cloud to hide the fact that your ilk's stock in trade is Ad Hominem and junk science. Accusing others of engaging in what you regularly do is called hypocrisy.

Get used to the label, it fits materialists like a glove.