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.

[Smartaleck]

"A man can no more be a Christian and believe in evolution than he can be a Christian and believe in naziism."

Precisely the same types of comparison the Democrats do, to their detriment.

[Smartaleck]

"The point is, an evolutionist has no rational or logical basis for morality."

The biology of a broken toe has no basis for morality either. What's your point?

[shubi]

There are far more non-scientists that are homosexual than scientists. Those in art, english literature, sociology,
building fake museums etc. are more prone to being light in the loafers than any scientist.

Those who repeatedly post ad hominen attacks that have no relationship to the debate are also prone to be homosexual.

[Alacarte]

The point is, an evolutionist has no rational or logical basis for morality.

No, the point is that morality and the cold facts of how the natural universe works are completely unrelated.

Just out of curiosity, is it ok for me to believe in germ theory? Or does that make me a baby killer?

[shubi]

Logic doesn't trump data, anyway.

Evolution is a fact.

[Alacarte]

Please, show how my logic performs as you state.


Because you were suggesting that since there are still mechanisms within evolution that need to be resolved, the entire theory is debunked. So I was pointing out that all theories undergo the same constant modifications and improvements, that is how science works. Your DNA mouse/man thing is just pointing at one of those holes (assuming your example happened). Why not point out the same thing from other theories?

[AndrewC]

Because you were suggesting that since there are still mechanisms within evolution that need to be resolved, the entire theory is debunked.

Au contraire, I was pointing out that "Find a human skeleton in the same strata as dino bones and you would falsify evolution." was a false statement. I demonstrated that by giving an example in the real world. And my example is true.

[AndrewC]

Logic doesn't trump data, anyway.

Tell that to Nicole Simpson.

[qam1]

Funny thing, I used to view evolutionary biology as totally worthless but it's possible I could be wrong. I've read at least one report recently of a guy claiming that a degree in evolutionary biology prepared him fairly well for a career in the packaging and shipping business:

Tell that to the guys who use the TOE to come up with a new Flu vaccine every year or new antiboitics or Pesticides thus saving thousands to millions of lives.

What great advances for mankind has creationism ever made?

If it were up to you guys, we wouldn't even have lightning rods on houses.

[shubi]

That was illogic trumping data.

[judywillow]

Funny thing, I used to view evolutionary biology as totally worthless but it's possible I could be wrong. I've read at least one report recently of a guy claiming that a degree in evolutionary biology prepared him fairly well for a career in the packaging and shipping business:

Tell that to the guys who use the TOE to come up with a new Flu vaccine every year or new antiboitics or Pesticides thus saving thousands to millions of lives.

Nobody ever USED the theory of evolution for anything, other perhaps than trying to rationalize failed lifestyles to themselves or to formulate "isms".

But the really big question for evolutionists is this:

With GreenBay out of the playoffs, i.e. without being able to root for the Packers, who're you backing to win the superbowl this year?

[The SISU kid]

Hey Long Cut, over here, More "Fun with the Fundies"

8^)

[general_re]

Considering how obsessively you're posting about gays, I can only guess that you're enormously disappointed that there's not a team named the Rug Munchers.

[qam1]

Nobody ever USED the theory of evolution for anything, other perhaps than trying to rationalize failed lifestyles to themselves or to formulate "isms".

Yeah sure, Chemist and Biologist are the dregs of society. I am sure the parents of the guys who came up with this years flu vaccine are really disappointed in them.

But here is where you were suppose to list the benefits of studying creationism. I take it by your lack of response you can't think of any.

But the really big question for evolutionists is this: With GreenBay out of the playoffs, i.e. without being able to root for the Packers, who're you backing to win the superbowl this year?

I can see I can scratch off humor as something creationist learn.

[Alacarte]

Au contraire, I was pointing out that "Find a human skeleton in the same strata as dino bones and you would falsify evolution." was a false statement. I demonstrated that by giving an example in the real world. And my example is true.

It is not false at all. A human skeleton found beside a dinosaur would be a serious problem for evolution. What was your argument? That DNA thing? Post a link to it then, a link to REAL science website, if you're going to persist.

Just because a problem arises in genetics that we don't understand just means that... well, we don't understand it yet! It happens in every theory, not just evolution. THough there are some major problems, like fossils being way out of place, like a man beside a dinosaur, that would falsify evolution.

[Junior]

How's about this one?

[js1138]

We essentially found a similar situation when some "junk" DNA of humans and mice were identical(humans, mice, and the common ancestor lie in the same strata). There is no reason for that situation to have occurred according to Darwin's theory.

Odd, I don't recall Darwin commenting on the mechanisms of DNA replication, nor on the probabilities of accurate replication in the absense of obvious selection.

I'm kind of curious about what ID says about this. Since replication errors occur, and this fact is not in dispute, how does ID explain long sequences replicated without error.

It would seem to me that there are several possibilities: the sequence has a yet unknown function that is being selected; the sequence is at the extreme end of a bell curve distribution of preserved sequences; it's a miracle.

I'm curious. Is there a nice curve published somewhere of preserved sequence lengths?

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 220 names. See list's description at my homepage. FReepmail to be added/dropped.

[Long Cut]

Oh, I've spent quite a while lurking on and occaisionally posting to these threads. It would seem that the discourse on this one is a bit below par...witness the absolutely nonsensical gay-baiting being done by one poster.

Time was, ADULTS posted to these threads.

Now, we get an unending parade of the SAME people from previous threads who, having had everything from the definition of the word "theory" to vast quantities of evidence shown to them, nonetheless begin each thread with the same arguments which have been previously debunked.

Not to mention the single-post bombtossers.

Creationists by and large are the most dishonest people inhabiting the Right. They are naught but a drag on, and an albatross around, conservatism. No other group, even the HTT's in my opinion, comes close.

If you're new to the CrEvo threads, look for posts by Ichneumon and Dimensio, plus Vade Retro and Physicist. They are truly informative, and devastating to their opponents in all cases. I've never seen Ichneumon refuted to any appreciable degree.

Check out PatrickHenry's homepage for the infamous "list o links".

[PatrickHenry]

Check out PatrickHenry's homepage for the infamous "list o links".

Thanks for the plug. A few years ago, I actually posted the list in new threads. But it became repetitive, and so I quit. Now it resides -- and grows almost every week -- at my homepage. If I were to post the thing it would fill about seven screens, so that's out of the question. But the links are grouped by subject, as well as I can do it, so it's not too difficult to navigate.