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]

If it happened gradually, you'd never get there since the necessary intermediate steps would be non-viable.

You'll have to run the demonstration of this by me to convince me. It sounds like a variant of the "of what use is half an eye" argument that even creationists have realised just makes them laughing-stock. Perhaps I'll become a creationist if you can demonstrate that the intermediates are non-viable. But "argument from personal astonishment" is rarely effective.

[shubi]

"his implied superiority of wisdom and intellect. If only he had either they'd be really effective."

Ouch, that's gotta hurt! LOL

[judywillow]

Pretty heavy. For those for whom that was a bit too much, Newt Gingrich may have phrased it best in noting that the question of whether a person views his fellow man as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of stochastic processes, simply has to affect human relations.

[Right Wing Professor]

I don't agree with all of Luther's statements about Jews, but the point that all other religions lead to something else besides God is true -- from a Christian perspective. I am sure Luther would be an advocate of evangelism of the Jews and showing Christian love to them. It is unfair to take a few quotes and label that as only what he believed -- especially considering the extent of his writings.

Luther wrote an entire book called 'The Jews and their Lies'. It's available online. It wasn't a few quotes.

I find it significant that you object to my use of Hitler's and Luther's words to show in the first instance that he was clearly a Christian, and in the second case to show that he was clearly a very rabid antisemite. Yet you, on the other hand, apparently hold to a far weaker case that because Hitler and the Nazis invoked some bastardized social Darwinist beliefs, somehow the scientific theory of Evolution, which has nothing at all to do with antisemitism and says very little about race, is responsible for Naziism. One would hope as a scientist you might be able to step outside and display some objectivity; but apparently your belief system trumps your objectivity.

So let me run you through this again.

• Luther was a vicious antrisemite who preached the enslavement of the Jews and the execution of their rabbis (this isn't a debating point, BTW, it's a fact).
• Hitler was baptized and brought up a Catholic, invoked his Christianity in public pronouncements as a reason to persecute the Jews, and throughout his whole life used biblical references.
• The two major religions in Germany in 1933 were Evangelical Lutheranism and Christianity.
• The Nazis did little more than carry out the program that Luther preached. The people who carried it out were mostly Evangelical Lutherans and Catholics.

Yet despite all this evidence, you claim that the enterprise was inspired by an Anglican Clergyman in another country, who (to my knowledge) never said anything anti-semitic in his life, and who came up with a purely scientific theory of the origin of species.

I would have thought that you, of all people, would have gotten the point that you can use guilt-by-association and selective quotations (though with Luther you don't have to select very much; he was a nasty man) to make a far stronger case for the role of Christianity in the Holocaust than for Darwinism. Indeed, some kind of a legitimate case can be made for a role for Christianity, though I wouldn't say it was the main cause. But Nazi-ism, by and large, was a self-contained ideology that used Christian arguments when it suited, and Darwinist arguments when it suited; and alternately claimed itself to be spiritual and scientific and socialist.

Yet the only thing that you seem to have concluded is that when I do it it's somehow wrong, but when you do it it's OK. Remarkable.

[judywillow]

Half an eye is one thing if the owner is not depending on the proto-eye to do something else while it's developing into an eye. Baleen is a lot worse than that. The owner is absolutely depending on his teeth to kill prey animals and fish with while they are turning into baleen, and he can only go two or three days without food.

[gobucks]

We already know he'll dismiss your post as racist christian-identity propaganda; it has to be such in order to fit what he is vested within.

But, I thank you kindly for this reference. I had not heard of it. I had always been aware of the truth of it, but hadn't done much homework.

(btw, I saw N. Pearcy on CSpan. That woman is utterly beyond belief she is so awesome.)

[shubi]

There isn't much difference between a rabid anti-semite and a rabid anti-scienceite. ;-)

[Antoninus]

Read the above link to try to cleanse your mind of creationist propaganda.

My mind is completely open on the subject. There's propaganda (and outright fraud) on both sides. No one's hands are clean. I read the claims of the creationists and the debunkers with equal quantities of salt and then make my own decision. In the case of Paluxy, I think the jury's still out.

[shubi]

"The owner is absolutely depending on his teeth to kill prey animals and fish with while they are turning into baleen, and he can only go two or three days without food."

Hopeless! Don't you understand that as long as teeth can function as teeth they can get prey? And if teeth can strain a few supplemental crill, all the better.

[shubi]

Bwaahaaahaaa

[Thatcherite]

You seem to be thinking of some kind of Lamarkism the way you phrase your example.

You haven't demonstrated that the intermediate forms are unviable. To help you, the intermediate forms don't have to be good for just a couple of days, they have to last a whale's whole life. Now show that they are unviable to convince me.

[gobucks]

gobucks loves ad hominems that are based on his implied superiority of wisdom and intellect. If only he had either they'd be really effective.

You were obviously never spanked as a child either; otherwise snide side remarks you would not do; you'd do them directly.

[Right Wing Professor]

Uh OH! Now you have done it

But I'm wasting my time here. These people are so taken up in their ideology they can't do the elementary human operation of asking 'If I do this to others, what if they do the same thing to me?'. If they tell lies about others it's right. If others tell lies about them it's wrong. The idea that it is lying itself that is wrong doesn't occur to them.

[shubi]

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[Thatcherite]

Yep Shubi, you were right, it did hurt. LOL.

[shubi]

"But I'm wasting my time here. These people are so taken up in their ideology they can't do the elementary human operation of asking 'If I do this to others, what if they do the same thing to me?'. If they tell lies about others it's right. If others tell lies about them it's wrong. The idea that it is lying itself that is wrong doesn't occur to them."

I have a Dr. in ministry, Biblical Counseling specialty. There are certain mental illnesses or personality disorders that promote a need for the perception of control. This causes, in some, a very rigid mental state similar to what you might see as someone approaches senility.

When it is difficult for a self-appointed Christian to apply the Golden Rule, we might look to organic systemic problems to explain that. It could just be an IQ under 90, for that matter. ;-)

[gobucks]

" But I'm wasting my time here."

All our disagreements notwithstanding, I don't agree. You have revealed at least one thing that does indeed set you apart from the leftists you so remarkably sound like: you love the truth, and are offended when someone lies.

A leftist wouldn't caught dead stepping outside the game of 'maybe'.

[shubi]

Just because someone doesn't buy superstitious nonsense is no reason to call them a leftist.

In fact, creationists have more in common with leftists than they care to admit. They spout mindless talking points with an absolute refusal to listen to rational argument.

[gobucks]

If they tell lies about others it's right. If others tell lies about them it's wrong. The idea that it is lying itself that is wrong doesn't occur to them.

No, it is not right to lie. Those folks who do it I don't approve of. I don't even really believe that you are deliberately lying. (Other than the sex stuff I have argued elsewhere, for you are a front line witness to this decadence everyday in your culture in academia and remain .... silent; that is called aiding the enemy via lies of omission).

So, I think you are committed to your version of the truth, but only b/c your horizon of experience, you believe, is fixed at about 12 miles at sea level.

So, lying itself is indeed wrong. I'm wondering how you learned that, and why you believe that too ...

For this Christian can easily state why lying is wrong; but a logician has never been able to defend the statement 'all lying is wrong'.

For though I think you are really out to lunch on almost everything you have written, I'll say this much: you set a great example of what it means to be a black and white defender of the truth. It would be our loss if you really thought you were wasting your time.

[shubi]

If your Mom was dying of cancer, but telling her she would get better would extend her life and give her strength, would you lie to her?