"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.

[narby]

Lets make it simple then remove Darwin from all classrooms. Simple and clear. Nom favoritism, no ID over Wicca, no Darwin over ID. No argument.

We could throw out math too.

[Fester Chugabrew]

But even people like Behe accept the fact that evolution happened. It was accepted for decades, if not centuries before Darwin.

I do not know where Behe stands on evolution; what manner and degree of change he accepts and over what period of time. Regardless, I am not bound to Behe's words, I am not bound to yours, and I am not bound to the words of "tens of thousands of physicists who accept the mainstream determination of the age of the earth." If you want to bind yourself to any of the above that is fine with me.

It was accepted for decades, if not centuries before Darwin.

If the biblical texts are any indication, evolutionism has been an alternative point of view for several millennia. I am not as concerned about how old it is or how many people believe it as I am about whether it constututes "science" and "scientific method."

You have Bill Clinton's ability to compartmentalize.

WTF? I share human nature with Bill Clinton, to be sure. I also have the capacity to compartmentalize. What's your point? Or is this a "guilt by association" argument?

[Fester Chugabrew]

The post would read smoother with the elimination of the definite article at the head than with the addition of a comma somewhere in the midst. Otherwise, if I were indulging "stream of consciousness" I would have regaled you over the presence of Willie Turmoils in the garden of fresh compost undergoing unnatural decomposition in the name of physical phenomena as yet not fully understood by those who are most inclined to consider these things on Saturday evenings and Tuesday mornings if such conserations might fall within the alotted time.

But that is not what I did. If you want me to state things more plainly and with a comma or two, then I shall. Just let me know, kid.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You refuse to consider that God may have made the universe exactly the way that science has described it via evolution etc.

Actually this is not at all a possibility I "refuse to consider." I just don't think it rises to the level of science, just like creationism and evolutionism. You dig?

You've also avoided the point I made of your faith in a 6000 year old earth, and the vast regions of science you've therefore thrown out.

Well, it's not like evolutionism has ever forthrightly acknowledged its axioms, either. Be that as it may, I will address our point forthrighty.

Just because I declare myself to be a "young earth creationist" does not mean I subscribe to the idea of a 6,000 year old earth. I do NOT subscribe to a 4.5 billion year old earth and I do NOT have to discard respectable scientific practices to do so. Neither do I feel inclined to believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth just because a gaggle of folks who rely upon their own reason and senses as the ultimate source of truth say so.

I hope you are not under the illusion that what we are discussing here is science, but the opposite is apparent.

[VadeRetro]

Will be my turn next.

Good luck! If it's bothering you enough that you know you need it done, it's worth it.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Oh, like the ID supporters who are trying to cram their non-science into school science classrooms?

No. Don't be like them. Actually it's too late. You and your buddies have already injected a philosophy into science, and now you get all bent out of shape when another philosophy comes along to have its say at the microphone. Both of you need to let science do what it does, and quietly espouse your viewpoint under a label other than science.

[narby]

I hope you are not under the illusion that what we are discussing here is science, but the opposite is apparent.

Well fester, since you've decided that you are the final arbiter of what is, and what is not science, then it's obvious that you can believe any silly thing you wish, and still claim the mantle of "science".

Have fun in your own little fantasy world fester.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Well fester, since you've decided that you are the final arbiter of what is, and what is not science . . .

At least you know where I stand. But my stance obviously does not make me the "final arbiter" for anyone else. Where do you stand? Do you consider reasonable conjecture over unrecorded (i.e. written down in human language), unobserved history to be science? If so, please explain how creationism is to be disqualified as "science?"

Thanks.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . there is absolutely no evidence that personality traits are concurrent with the perceived likeness of a configuration of stars as interpreted by a bunch of ignorant savages (non-christian - non Hebrew) a couple thousand years ago.

"Absolutely no evidence."

Isn't that a rather absolute claim to make for someone who has not investigated whether any evidence really exists? Or have you already investigated all aspects of astrology and found this to be the case? My gut feeling is that you've made this assertion via gut feeling, and not scientific, let alone personally extensive, research.

BTW, I would have used the words "related to" as opposed to "concurrent with," but that's just me.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . a bunch of ignorant savages . . .

Not very charitable of you to make such ascriptions to those who have gone before us. Our forefathers were not a "bunch of ignorant savages" any more than you are one.

[b_sharp]

"Although to may mean to be sarcastic, you are correct, although it is weak science. Stronger than evolutionism, to be sure, but still weak science."

I realize you really, really, don't like evolution, but comparing the study of evolution to astrology is a bit over the top.

[aft_lizard]

math serves a purpose in life, knwing whether or not we evolved from a ape does not serve any purpose other than to fill classroom time. remove darwinism now.

[general_re]

I realize you really, really, don't like evolution...

Hafta understand it before you can truthfully say you don't like it. There is a virulent opposition to, well...something, though.

[b_sharp]

"It is also far older than any organized religion. Faith does trump materialistic science, after all."

I see you have finally accepted the truth, my son. It appears that the moon is in your 5th house and you shall reap the luck of the chosen.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . comparing the study of evolution to astrology is a bit over the top.

On the face of it the two appear disparate, but in essence they are not much different. I am willing to grant both a place in the realm of ideas. "Evolution" is a big word. There is a dab or two of truth to it. That's about all, unless one is devoted to a philosophy science does not typically operate with. In that case, evolution is the one and only answer.

[RightWingAtheist]

I was interested until I got until the part where it called an American Prospect article "politically astute". Blech. I wonder if the author read John Derbyshire's article in National Review way back in February; it's by far the best denunciation of ID I've read outside of the scientific press.

[aft_lizard]

Personal attack? You attacked me by taking and seperating a sentence from there entire argument.

OK lets play your game then.

Ahh, the personal attack>>>>>

What personal attack.

the kick in the shins before running away.>>>

I never touched you.


You just >>>>

I just what?


See how ignmorant that is. And that is essentially what you did.


Good day.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Hafta understand it before you can truthfully say you don't like it.

How much do I have to "understand" death before I can truthfully say I don't like it? While I may harbor a dislike for evolutionism, it is not due to any lack of reasonability on its part. Its inability to recognize and acknowledge its assumptions while setting itself up as solely worthy of a scientific label is what bothers me.

I don't like ideas that proclaim themselves as truthful when they are incapable of expressing the basis upon which they are formed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that evolutionism fails the test of credibility in view of blindness to its own biases.

[js1138]

Not very charitable of him, is it?

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Will be my turn next."

Saw this and checked back into the thread a little. Whatever awaits you in regard to physical matters, my hope and prayer is that it is only the best for you. Yes.