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.

[Outraged]

I beg your pardon...I evidently misunderstood your intent.

[judywillow]

That's WAY better than what I'd view as normal for you guys:

Obviously, somewhere, somehow, somebody or something at least thought about the possibility of having something with teeth strain for krill. I still don't see a possibility of that "evolving" into baleen or of an animal any larger than a seal living that way since there is a sort of a square/cube problem inherent in the process so that a larger animal would not be able to take in sufficient amounts of krill in such a manner.

Whales on the other hand had already gotten much larger before baleen whales first appeared and there is no evidence of any whale ever using teeth to strain for krill or plankton, at least to my knowledge.

Baleen of course do not look like teeth at all:

Again, predatory whales kill large fish and mammals with their teeth and eat them. A whale whose teeth started to look the least bit like baleen would be lost as to what to do next. All his instincts would be worthless.

What the evidence indicates is that the changes which produced baleen and the teeth of the crabeater seal alike were engineering changes and modifications in prehistoric times, and that whatever or whoever was making such changes has since found other avocations and is no longer doing so.

[neutrality]

Some embryos of the baleen whales begin to develop teeth. As with body hair, the teeth disappear before birth. Since there is no use for teeth in the womb, only inheritance from a common ancestor makes any sense; there is no reason for the intelligent designer or special creator to provide embryonic whales with teeth

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

[shubi]

Q: Mollusks, brachiopods and vertebrates have the
best fossil record because they have nice hard parts.
Some other groups (arthropods, sponges, etc.) also
have hard parts, but they are not as hard, nor are
they as easy to identify in pieces, so the record for
those can be expected to be less complete.

A: Typical scientist hedging. They know how weak their proof is compared to the literal King James Version
which says that God created each kind individually.

[judywillow]

Some embryos of the baleen whales begin to develop teeth. As with body hair, the teeth disappear before birth.

I'll agree that indicates a common ancestor; the question is as to method. To me the whole thing looks like an engineering change back in prehistory.

[shubi]

Why would God engineer giving an embryo teeth that are not needed? That is assumes God is a moron. I don't like that assumption.

[Right Wing Professor]

That's WAY better than what I'd view as normal for you guys

Let me tell you what an intellectually honest person would have replied

"In order to try to refute the hypothesis that baleen evolved from teeth, I tried to spread scorn on the idea that the teeth of a carnivorous animal could be used to strain for krill. So I issued a challenge for anyone to identify a living animal that does that. Unfortunately, my ignorance of zoology was such that I was unaware of the existence of the crabeater seal, which, in fact strains for krill with its teeth. I was caught red-handed. How embarrassing! I will now re-evaluate my entire attitude."

[general_re]

Be sure to ping me if you EVER see a post like that, but you'll understand if I don't wait by the phone, so to speak, for that ping ;)

[Right Wing Professor]

Evolution theory is of its father, Satan...Who do you worship?

You're darn right, Outraged. Even among us evil ones, AndrewC is considered a particularly devout evo. He spends most of his spare time out dynamiting anomalous fossils of humans with dinosaurs on leashes, hacking into the human genome database to erase obviously designed sequences, even climbing in the Himalayas to scrub off the high-water marks from the Noachian flood. I don't know where he gets his energy, but even to me, it seems a little, well, sinister.

(Sorry, Andrew, but that was just too much fun to pass up!)

[Outraged]

Why would God engineer giving an embryo teeth that are not needed? That is assumes God is a moron. I don't like that assumption.

1 John 2:18-21

Warning Against Antichrists

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist–he denies the Father and the Son."

[js1138]

Why would God engineer giving an embryo teeth that are not needed?

You will be called the Antichrist for that one.

[Outraged]

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

then...

shubi: "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."

I am not going about calling people "THE anti-Christ", I am merely suggesting they may be anti------Christ...There is a difference and shubi has proven himself to be so.

[AndrewC]

(Sorry, Andrew, but that was just too much fun to pass up!)

I'm glad I could provide some entertainment for you. ;^)

Now back to Paluxy to turn those human footprints into something reptilian.

[shubi]

Thanks for the non-sequiter.

Belief in creationism is nonsalvational.

[shubi]

"I am not going about calling people "THE anti-Christ", I am merely suggesting they may be anti------Christ...There is a difference and shubi has proven himself to be so."

Bwaaahaaahaaaa You owe me a new keyboard.

[balrog666]

I'll agree that indicates a common ancestor; the question is as to method. To me the whole thing looks like an engineering change back in prehistory.

So you've become a Raelian since you were here last?