"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.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The assumption that the Universe was entirely empty before that point is as much a non-sequitur as assuming some supernatural being did it.

Then, categorically, they are both immaculate conceptions...

Thank Aristotle for logic.

[iThinkBig]

"Is it me or is this gibberish?

For those who believe in Intelligent Design, a parting good night thought--you who espouse ID, well here it is. I think this is as valid as any other ID story. Do you disagree? Why?

I will check in the morning to see if anyone can disprove this version in favor of any other."

Look. This is all very simple. I love Greek mythology. Each culture has it's own version of creation and I have read many. However, only the bible provides an accurate rendition of creation provided by an originator (some call God). If you do not believe me, grab the dust of the bible in your household and read the first two chapters of Genesis. It says God first created the heavens, then the earth, then the oceans, then the fish in the oceans, then the birds, then the mammals and then man. The sequence of events directly mirrors scientific understanding of this sequence. Go back and read the two examples of the Japanese and Indian cultures story of creation you put up and tell me if they were in precise sequence as the bible. No? They weren't? That is why many people believe the bible's version of creation. It does not mean we do not believe it science, nor do I personally feel I have to 'fit' ID into scientific text-books. It is religion that aims to fill in all of the blanks, when in reality, the bible itself says that man is being paced as to what learning they are allowed and when it will occur. The bible says that after a rough period of time, man will live forever once again and not taste death. This was written in the last book of the bible. This, we also now know is more then scientifically feasible. the bible does not say we will float around a bunch of clouds as we live forever, it just says that God will spread his tent over mankind.

Here is an example of religion, vs. the actual bible writing, what you referred to me as 'gibberish'. What I meant was that exact bible writings from the author were also mistranslated. For example I never believed from my that the creation was done in six days. Some religious groups say this was physical, yet the hebrew translation of the word years or 'YOM' referred to in Genesis specifically references six spans of time. I already know you have never read the bible cover to cover but I am not demeaning you because of it, I am only suggesting you should read it sometime for yourself before you call it all a bunch of fairy tales.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Salinan Indian creation story, south-central California

I have some very close personal friends who are Salinans and have been to tribal council meetings and many family functions, never heard that story...

Do I know you? Maybe... FReepmail me...

[KMJames]

I've been reading these evolution/creation threads for a long, long time - and simply want to know what predictions we can make in light of evolution.

It seems that we can make no definitive predictions other than that "changes will occur" in allele frequency. We need to define the mechanism for these changes, right? Are we still saying that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution?... cause I have a bit of a problem understanding how it works to bring about speciation.

Can someone help?

[narby]

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.

The fact that life evolves is the basline of biology. Since bio-engineering is one of the fastest growing industries in the US, anyone would be a fool to throw it out based on the 3000 year old writings of goat herders.

[KMJames]

Seriously narby - why is it important for someone to believe in evolution in order to study biology, or do biological research? I simply don't get it. It seems that there are biologists who don't give a rip about evolution or creation - right?

[narby]

science saying that we all came from one female genetic blueprint.

What are you talking about?

Are you confusing mitochondrial DNA studies with evolution in general?

[narby]

One of the biggest problems with Christianity is that there are so many different beliefs that claim to be based on it. Virtually no two Christians believe the same details about the creation stories.

Some are young earth, some old earth (but special creation), some believe science is correct and Genesis fits it fine.

That right there demonstrates to me that Christianity is a joke. They can't even get their stories straight on this one little subject. How can there be a God and Holy Spirit, if the followers of the religion are all over the map?

[narby]

Seriously narby - why is it important for someone to believe in evolution in order to study biology, or do biological research? I simply don't get it. It seems that there are biologists who don't give a rip about evolution or creation - right?

I believe you said something about math being a "real" science. My point is that evolution is as fundimental to biology as math is to engineering.

Not all engineers are good at math, and not all need to be. I'm sure some will tell you that math isn't "important" to their jobs. And likewise some biologists may not accept evolution. But like the engineer that thinks that math isn't important, they're wrong.

I'm sure they can do their work by rote drill someone taught them. But they obviously really don't understand their subject.

[narby]

We need to define the mechanism for these changes, right?

The mechanism is survival rate. But that can mean anything from climate (dought), to hunters that like elephant tusks and elk horns. Also geology, predators, food surpluses, anything that affects survival.

[KMJames]

Thanks for the reply, narby.

I'm a new poster to this thread and wasn't the one to mention math or engineering and such. But, just the same - it is NO DOUBT possible for someone to study and make important contributions to the biological sciences - and not give a rip about evolution or creation - yes?

In these instances, one may have a very mature understanding of their chosen field of study - they just might not understand this evo/crevo thing because it really doesn't affect their lab research or field work or whatever.

I just don't think evolution is all that necessary for the advancement of the sciences.

[KMJames]

Your answer is well-explained, and along the lines of my understanding. Because of all the factors that make up this "mechanism of change" it seems that predictability is not currently possible. Just predicting that change will occur doesn't seem useful for anything, IMHO.

[narby]

I just don't think evolution is all that necessary for the advancement of the sciences.

The leading edge of biological research revolves around DNA. We now know that DNA is loaded with relics of past evolution and other "fossil" remnants from millions of years ago. We also use lab directed "evolution" in that research. The only real difference is the scientist picks the survival conditions rather than the natural environment.

Anyone who doesn't undstand that these things came from evolution is like a computer hardware engineer that doesn't understand what electrons do. They may be able to do their current job. But they are limited to how far they're able to progress because of their lack of understanding.

[KMJames]

I'm really not about beating one drum (or whatever the cliche is) and I do appreciate your responses, BUT, couldn't great, great discoveries be made in DNA research with no regard to whether certain structures or features are relics or fossils from millions of years ago.

The DNA researcher conducting "natural selection" in the lab is simply adjusting variables - that's what experimentation is - I don't see how any opinion on the history of the DNA makes any difference to the outcome. Any predictions of the outcome of the experiments based on evolution seem impossible, in light of the aforementioned multiple factors of the "mechanism of change".

It seems that very definite predictions can be made based simply on understanding the NATURE of what is there right now.

[KMJames]

Well, thanks for the brief discussion - it's late and I am outta here. G'night.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"IMO, atomic theory has far more veracity than evolutionsm, simply due to the fact that it works with ongoing phenomena upon which it is able to operate with further observation and testing."

That would make it EXACTLY like evolution.

"The farthest back written records of history go - our only hope for eyewitness testimony - is several millenia."

Eyewitness testimony, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, is NOT a very reliable method to do science.

" I know where conjecture belongs and I know its limits. Evoltuionism, like a bull in a china shop, knows neither."

Why do you bother on these threads Fester? You never learn a damn thing here, and make no effort to try.

[Fester Chugabrew]

That would make it EXACTLY like evolution.

Only in a narrow sense, on narrow terms, upon which any reasonable being would agree. The notion of an amoeba-to-man biological history is hardly as certain as atomic theory. The notion of matter organizing itself apart from intelligent design is a philosophical one.

Eyewitness testimony, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, is NOT a very reliable method to do science.

It's better than nothing, which is what the philosophy of evolution has in attempting to support a 4.5 billion year old earth via eyewitness testimony and records written in human language. Interpreting a static record hardly qualifies as eyewitness testimony.

Why do you bother on these threads Fester?

It might be because 150 years of Darwinism masquerading as science merits a response other than silence. It might be because I find the subject interesting. It might be so I can learn the tenacity with which the philosophy of evolutionism clings to its place in the science classroom though it does not deserve a place there. It might be all of the above and more.

[general_re]

The notion of matter organizing itself apart from intelligent design is a philosophical one.

So basically, you believe that every single one of these...

...is personally assembled by God Himself. Or maybe that he delegates a little angel to oversee construction, I guess.

Matter "organiz[es] itself apart from intelligent design" every minute of every hour of every day, Chester. But you don't want to see that, and claim that the very idea is somehow a declaration of faith.

[js1138]

The definitive verdict on astrology:

Wise men defining stupidity?

I think if I wanted to know the stupidist things, I would bring stupid people together and ask them what they believe. I could elaborate, but thread decorum prohibits.

[js1138]

The only real difference is the scientist picks the survival conditions rather than the natural environment.

It's the same with the breeding of domestic plants and animals. Darwin based much of his theory on the observation of variation in domestic varieties. That is the origin of the term "natural" as opposed to artifical selection.

Based on the observed rates of variation, Darwin did a pretty good job of estimating the age of the earth -- better than the physicists of his time.