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.

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.

ANOTHER doctor on FreeRepublic! Thank God for all these authority figures!! We'd be in big trouble but for you guys helpfully pointing out our underlying mental illnesses. Hey, I'm game .... what 'certain mental illness' do I need to look up which describes the cause of my 'rigid' mentat state?

I didn't have an any idea I had such a need for 'perception for control' as you describe, good doctor. Your degree is from, lemme guess, the Unitarian Universalist University?

But, I'm unafraid ... let's see your links which describe the illnesses to which you so boldly and with degreed authority refer to ....

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?

If you mean I was aware of the cancer, but she wasn't? This implies I have a time machine and I have proof she'd live longer by lying? Well, if I had the time machine, I suppose I would be tempted to enjoy having her around longer, by indulging in a lie of omission about the cancer she has...

but then I'd be playing the role of God, wouldn't I?

What a second here ...

Lots of good stuff here. Are you just teasing, or do you have something specific, heh heh, in mind.

You are a doctor, you claim. You evidently like to heal people given what you claim are your credentials. Ok, so far so good.

But then, we see you sarcastically state 'how nice of you' about a post where my MOTHER is going to live longer only if I lie to her?

Wow. I'm astonished. The professors which taught you how to counsel folks (biblically even!) must have been very bright. Did you learn this particular 'mother has cancer' technique from them? I can just imagine the extent of your success rate.

You know, where success is defined by the fact your clients don't need your help anymore.

But maybe you are one of those types that give the counseling profession such a bad name; where keeping your clients coming back week-after-week-after-week is good for your ....., dare I say it, cash flow?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I liked that post Shubi .... it is a good one, when it is kept in mind.

As for running a homeless shelter, let me say thanks. We need people to do this effectively - at best, I could handle only about an hour a day at such a place.

Let me also say this: a golfer with a bad slice doesn't do much to improve it if he spends all his time at the practice range surrrounded by .... slicers. Who knows how you schedule your day, but one thing is quite obvious in my experience: one's dreams at night stitch together the previous's days experiences.

I'm not into personal attacks fwiw. But I'm quite convinced that a whole lot of folks fail to engage on any of these issues because of fear.

"Creationists spout their nonsense, because some false prophet has misinterpreted the Bible and convinced them they will go to hell if they believe scientific fact."

Some creationists spout nonsense, I agree. But not all of them. And we'll avoid going down the road of what is a 'scientific fact' for now. I have to clean my garage ... it is a mess. Very disorganized.

I'm not into personal attacks fwiw. But I'm quite convinced that a whole lot of folks fail to engage on any of these issues because of fear.

I would say this is particularly true of many of the creationists who post here. The fear that evolution might be true and that any denial of it, no matter how invalid, buttresses their faith comes shining through in their posts.

FWIW, the cod-psychiatrist in me says it is their fear of death. Their religion shields them from having to confront the reality of death, so any perceived attack on their religion is taken extremely personally.

I run a homeless ministry. So you can stop the personal attacks.

Evolutionism pretty much led to communism and naziism and WW-II and when all that shit was over in 45, hundreds of millions of people were homeless on account of it.

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.

Well said...Bravo!

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;

What reason do you have to believe I remain silent?

If you want a non-theistic reason why lying is (generally) wrong, try Kant's first categorical imperative

Kant said that any maxim is ethical only if it can be made into a universal law. So, if you adopt the maxim "I lie when to do so will further my argument"; if everybody did that, then nobody would trust anybody's argument, and arguments themselves would become useless. This would render the maxim contradictory, since if no argument is useful, lying to further one is useless.

Did you know that I am a Christian minister that runs a homeless ministry in the inner city?

Really reverend?...then...

Creationists spout their nonsense, because some false prophet has misinterpreted the Bible and convinced them they will go to hell if they believe scientific fact.

With Christian ministers like you, you wonder why people hate Christianity...."Get behind me Satan!"...Shubi, I would highly recommend you desist from calling yourself a minister when you are passionately preoccupied with diminishing Christ...You better do some more research on evolution, you better be really really sure evolution proves the nonexistence of God, because at your rate you are going to fry in eternal torment with a guy named Satan and a roommate named Robert Byrd

.I'll take that in the spirit (I think) it's offered. Thanks.

You're not mis-reading the, heh heh, spirit (I love it when I see you use metaphors like that! The underlying assumptions of shared symbol translation systems, in this case at least, ... it is just beautiful.).

Anyway, You're welcome.

(BTW, as a frame of reference for shared systems of symbol translation, you might be interested in this link, given your perchance for safaries of the mind: The Body Snatchers of the Collective Unconscious .

And yes, it is definitely fringe leftist stuff of course; it needs an abstract and an editor, big time, but it is one of the few places where an author in a global kind of way seeks to address the whole issue of symbol translation.

In an indirect way, it touches effectively upon the forces behind what is fueling the fight between creationists and scientists imho.)

Why don't you post a picture of a carnivore with a carnivore's teeth which you think could use those carnivore teeth to strain for krill. Even a little bit...

You'll pardon me Shubi, but this is just too good to pass up.

Whale Sharks are not a threat to people. They have about 300 tiny, hooked teeth in both jaws. A Whale Shark feeds by filtering small crustaceans, squids and fishes from the water using filtering screens on the gills. This species feeds by swimming with its huge mouth open, however it can also feed by hanging vertically in the water and opening its mouth to let water rush in.

I guess that since judywillow's premise - that carnivores could not filter krill with their teeth - has been refuted, she will now be admitting that whales could have, in fact, have evolved from toothed ancestors.

And then Ariel Sharon will be given the 'Palestinian Man of the Year 'award.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

January 23, 2005

The Crafty Attacks on Evolution

And then Ariel Sharon will be given the 'Palestinian Man of the Year 'award.