"The evolution wars" in Time [Time Magazine's cover story]

National Center for Science Education ^ | 11 August 2005 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

The cover story of the August 15, 2005, issue of Time magazine is Claudia Wallis's "The evolution wars" -- the first cover story on the creationism/evolution controversy in a major national newsweekly in recent memory.

With "When Bush joined the fray last week, the question grew hotter: Is 'intelligent design' a real science? And should it be taught in schools?" as its subhead, the article, in the space of over 3000 words, reviews the current situation in detail. Highlights of the article include:

• A photomontage -- available only in the print edition -- on p. 26 and half of p. 27, with the elderly Darwin at the center, orbited by images of Pepper Hamilton's Eric Rothschild (a lead litigator in Kitzmiller v. Dover) brandishing a copy of Of Pandas and People, students in a biology classroom in Kansas, President Bush, the Cobb County disclaimer, and so forth.

• A comment from Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, on President Bush's remarks on "intelligent design": "It sends a signal to other countries because they're rushing to gain scientific and technological leadership while we're getting distracted with a pseudoscience issue ... If I were China, I'd be happy."

• A map, compiled from data provided by NCSE, showing antievolution proposals considered by state legislatures and boards of education since 2001 and antievolution proposals considered by local schools or panels in 2005. As members of NCSE and regular visitors to its website will have guessed, the map is crowded.

• A pair of definitions from Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine's Biology textbook on the one hand and Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon's Of Pandas and People on the other hand. According to the latter, "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact."

• A brief history of the development of creationist tactics from the Scopes era to the post-Edwards era, under the heading "A subtler assault," which quotes NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott as quipping, "You have to hand it to the creationists. They have evolved."

• A paragraph explaining the significance of state science standards as a new venue for creationists. NCSE's Glenn Branch told Time, "The decision-making bodies involved in approving state science standards tend to be small, not particularly knowledgeable and, above all, elected, so it's a good opportunity for political pressure to be applied."

• A recognition of the disparity between President Bush's seeming endorsement of teaching "intelligent design" and the Discovery Institute's recent distancing of itself from such proposals, with Connie Morris (a conservative Republican on the Kansas state board of education), and Senator Rick Santorum seeming "to be reading from the same script."

• A section in which scientists -- primarily the Oxford zoologist and popular expositor Richard Dawkins, as well as the Harvard mathematician and evolutionary biologist Martin Nowak -- castigate "intelligent design" as resting on misconceptions and mischaracterizations of bology.

• A pithy diagnosis of the "teach the controversy" strategy by David Thomas, the president of New Mexicans for Science and Reason: "The intelligent-design people are trying to mislead people into thinking that the reference to science as an ongoing critical inquiry permits them to teach I.D. crap in the schools."

• A sidebar asking four prominent figures -- the National Human Genome Research Institute's Francis Collins, Harvard's Steven Pinker, the Discovery Institute's Michael Behe, and the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's Albert Mohler -- "Can you believe in God and evolution?"

While Wallis's article is inevitably not as scientifically detailed as, for example, H. Allen Orr's recent article in The New Yorker, or as politically astute as, for example, Chris Mooney's recent article in The American Prospect, overall it accomplishes the important goal of informing the general reader that antievolutionism -- whether it takes the form of creation science, "intelligent design," or calls to "teach the controversy" -- is scientifically unwarranted, pedagogically irresponsible, and constitutionally problematic.

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 290 names. See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

[PatrickHenry]

The List-O-Links. A good place for basic information.
How to argue against a scientific theory.
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

[aft_lizard]

I just dont understand why its so hard for school boards to allow one simple disclaimer to teaching evolution. Some people believe in intelligent design, its not difficult and it doesnt undermine the teaching of the THEORY of evolution.

I myself believe that evolution works well within the constructs of the bible and even intelligent design.

[js1138]

Would you be upset if they placed Scientology on an equal footing with ID? How about Christian Science?

[balch3]

As a faith based theory, Darwinism has no place in the classroom. If they're going to sue to ban prayer, somebody ought to sue to ban evolution.

[PatrickHenry]

May as well add some information about the litatigation history of the issue:

NEW Eight Significant Court Decisions.
The Evolution Controversy. Scopes trial and some Supreme Court cases.
Selman v. Cobb County School District. The Georgia textbook sticker case.
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982). Arkansas statute for "balanced treatment" of "creation-science" & "evolution-science" is unConstitutional. In that decision (found at 529 F. Supp. 1255), the court distinguished between science and creationism, noting:

[T]he essential characteristics of science are:

(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable.

[js1138]

As some of the anti-evolution posters have pointed out, science operates on a set of assumptions. The most fundamental of these assumptions is that a natural cause can be found for any given phenomen. When you abandon this assumption, you open the board for every possible hypothesis.

You may not trust me on this, but I will tell you anyway, Religious critics of science will be better off if science maintains a strictly materialistic bias.

Without the assumption of materialism, the definition of science will be opened to every New Age horror imaginable, and they will all be required in public schools. Better the enemy you know...

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[balrog666]

Would you be upset if they placed Scientology on an equal footing with ID? How about Christian Science?

Where are you Coyoteman?

[forsnax5]

Now looking forward to classes on the creation and care of magical beasts in High School. And potions. And divination. Perhaps even defense against the dark arts!

And all the kids raised on Harry Potter will love it...

[general_re]

INTREP

Not a "YEC INTREP"? Do I detect a change in the wind? ;)

[Coyoteman]

Would you be upset if they placed Scientology on an equal footing with ID? How about Christian Science?

Where are you Coyoteman?

The Saturday Night Fights? OK, here is a good one.

Japanese Creation Story

Long ago all the elements were mixed together with one germ of life. This germ began to mix things around and around until the heavier part sank and the lighter part rose. A muddy sea that covered the entire earth was created. From this ocean grew a green shoot. It grew and grew until it reached the clouds and there it was tranformed into a god. Soon this god grew lonely and it began to create other gods. The last two gods it made, Izanagi anf Izanami, were the most remarkable.

One day as they were walking along they looked down on the ocean and wondered what was beneath it. Izanagi thrust his staff into the waters and as he pulled it back up some clumps of mud fell back into the sea. They began to harden and grow until they became the islands of Japan.

The two descended to these islands and began to explore, each going in different directions. They created all kinds of plants. When they met again they decided to marry and have children to inhabit the land. The first child Izanami bore was a girl of radiant beauty. The gods decided she was too beautiful to live in Japan, so they put her up in the sky and she became the sun. Their second daughter, Tsuki-yami, became the moon and their third and unruly son, Sosano-wo, was sentenced to the sea, where he creates storms.

Later, their first child, Amaterasu, bore a son who became the emperor of Japan and all the emperors since then have claimed descent from him.

[LiteKeeper]

Do I detect a change in the wind? ;)

Not in the least - just lazy today

[Coyoteman]

I just dont understand why its so hard for school boards to allow one simple disclaimer to teaching evolution. Some people believe in intelligent design, its not difficult and it doesnt undermine the teaching of the THEORY of evolution.

Rather than preface teaching the theory of evolution with a disclaimer that "this theory is a theory" it might be easier to each kids that all scientific output is theory. Gravity, electrons, etc. is all theory. A thorough grounding in the scientific method should serve to fix this "theory" complaint.

Hey, maybe that's something the ID folks maybe could learn too!

(Nah, its been tried.)

[PatrickHenry]

But it's "JUST a THEORY" . Some folks around here really need to read this.

[LogicWings]

The premise of ID is based upon a negative assumption, that some structures are too complex to have been created by natural means. Stated as a premise this would be:

Natural processes could not have created certain structures in the Universe and in living beings because these structures are too complex.

This is the very thing that cannot be proven or verified. You can't prove that something didn't happen. You can only verify that something did happen. Intelligent Design reveals its weakness by the rundundancy of Intelligent Design. As opposed to what unintelligent design or dumb design? The fact that it needs this qualifier demonstrates its failure as a scientific theory.

This is an Assertion Without Proof where the premise, that certain structures are "best explained" by the very "intelligence" they are supposed to prove is a text book case in circular thinking.

[Gumlegs]

Given the way the human body works, I have no trouble whatever believing in "unintelligent design."

[LogicWings]

As a faith based theory, Darwinism has no place in the classroom.

This is another one of the nincompoop assertions. What aspect of evolution, is "faith based?"

[shuckmaster]

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact."

Did the intelligent agency evolve or did it abruptly appear with it's distinctive features already intact? How can people be gullible enough to fall for such a crock?