"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.

[js1138]

I guess it's his turn in the barrel. He does seem to enjoy it, though.

[Fester Chugabrew]

So basically, you believe that every single one of these . . . is personally assembled by God Himself.

Basically that is correct. The same goes for those cases where molecules behave with consistency, and the periodic table of elements remains consistent, and the law of gravity behaves with a constancy allowing for the sustenance of life, etc. God not only created all things, visible and invisible, but He also sustains them to this very moment. How He does so is a matter for science to explore, and it has done so for several millennia.

What do you have that better explains the organization and consistency of matter? Whatever it is does not constitute science, but a personal belief, or philosophy, on your part.

[js1138]

I'm sure they can do their work by rote drill someone taught them.

Most people in any technical field are not theorists. It is possible to manipulate lab equipment that someone eles designed, based on someone else's theories, without "believing" the theory, but no biologist is going to contribute to theory without accepting evolution. There are, of course, countless variations on the mechanism of evolution, and "survival of the fittest" is just a cartoon version of natural selection, but the large thoughts are not in play.

[PatrickHenry]

Troll? Or lunatic? I report, you decide.

[PatrickHenry]

I could elaborate, but thread decorum prohibits.

You might be a good candidate for the Darwin Central diplomatic corps.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I don't see how any opinion on the history of the DNA makes any difference to the outcome.

It's the fact that there is a history that matters. Also, one can use the history as an indicator of the future even if not a predictor.

[Doctor Stochastic]

"Eyewitness testimony" is one of the main dogmas of the creationists, sometimes referred to as the "Johnny Cochran Theory" of biology.

[Doctor Stochastic]

But each snowflake has a different isotopic composition.

[stremba]

The theory of evolution is in a nutshell the theory that the variation of allele frequencies in the genomes of organisms varies with time, and that these variations can give rise to new species of organisms. This theory is most certainly testable, especially with modern DNA sequencing technology. We can actually look at organisms' genomes and determine which alleles are present. We can therefore monitor the allele frequencies in a given organism's genome over time and test to see if these frequencies do indeed change with time (they do). We can also look at cases where there are two similar organisms that are members of distinct species. Evolutionary theory would predict that these two organisms should have VERY similar genomes (indeed, they do.) We can and have also produced new species of organisms in lab experiments by the very process of selecting for the appropriate variants of the parent species, thus producing a change in allele frequencies which leads to the new species. Therefore, the theory of evolution is indeed testable, and furthermore stands up well to these tests I have described and many more as well. There are potential observations that could falsify evolution. (Precambrian rabbits, non-DNA based organisms, etc.) What potential observations could possibly falsify ID?

[b_sharp]

"And to think the better part of evolutionism doesn't entail the least bit of direct observation, yet you consider it to be "science." Keep drinking that kool-aid!"

What in the world makes you think 'direct' observation is needed before a field of study can be considered science?

[b_sharp]

"You know more about it than I do. Apparently you take it more seriously, too. I would expect as much from one who subscribes to the evolutionist notions that all life is derived from a common ancestor and matter is able to organize itself apart from an intelligent agent.

I may know more about it than you do because I've had to debunk it a few times. However your acknowledged lack of knowledge about astrology reinforces the inappropriateness of your comparison. If you know nothing about what you are comparing, then your comparison is invalid.

[MEGoody]

Would you be upset if they placed Scientology on an equal footing with ID?

Come on. I would presume you know enough about the two to know you are talking about apples and oranges.

If you DON'T know, then perhaps you should learn something about them.

[b_sharp]

"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.

What is observed in atomic theory, which by the way is part of quantum theory, is the effect of the structure of the atom. There is no direct observation made.

"As such I do consider it to be science. Atomic theory, like the discipline of biology, is uncovering the grand design God placed into His creation and sustains to this very moment. In case you haven't noticed, 4.5 billion years is water over the dam."

Glad you acknowledge the age of the Earth.

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

'Eyewitness testimony' as recorded millenia after the putative fact. 'Eyewitness testimony' that can be and has been shown inaccurate. 'Eyewitness testimony', the origin of which has indeterminate credibility.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

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

'Eyewitness testimony' as recorded millenia after the putative fact. 'Eyewitness testimony' that can be and has been shown inaccurate. 'Eyewitness testimony', the origin of which has indeterminate credibility.
(B-Sharp)


Just like the eyewitness testimony of the Bible. Uncle Fester has no trouble though accepting THAT unquestioningly.
Very telling

[Fester Chugabrew]

What in the world makes you think 'direct' observation is needed before a field of study can be considered science?

Direct observation is simply a way of adding veracity to scientific method and expression. What in the world makes you think ID is less scientific than any other theory if direct observation is left out of the equation? I consider astrology to be scientific insofar as it entails direct observation. Evolutonism does not enjoy as much.

You want to call resonable conjecture over unobserved, unrecorded events "science?" Fine. Then shut your yap when creationism comes along and wants to do the same thing.

[b_sharp]

"Sorry, but do you know that Darwin's first cousin, a famous man in his own right, originated eugenics and Darwin's son was president of the eugenics society? The caution is that people may draw false inferences from true statements"

We should reject evolution based on this? Eugenics has been around a lot longer than Darwinism has been.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I consider astrology to be scientific insofar as it entails direct observation."

For the umpteenth time, what *direct observation* will support or falsify astrology?

Not surprising that you think astrology is scientific.

[KMJames]

Undoubtedly, I agree that knowledge of history can be useful for present and future understanding and direction, HOWEVER, I fail to see how evolution is at all "knowable" since the "mechanism of change" is as great and multifaceted as all of existence itself.

Philosophically it seems that we can only know/understand evolution when we are able to know/understand the universe. Why not just eliminate the redundant evolution powder keg and set about understanding the existing cosmos - that alone should take an eternity - and I think would yield greater benefits to mankind.

[Fester Chugabrew]

There is no direct observation made.

Inasmuch as atomic theory makes use of materials and phenomena presently at hand it is indeed making use of direct observation.

Eyewitness testimony is by no means infallible, but it sure beats none at all. A 4.5 billion year old earth does not enjoy as much, and as such it not a factor in science, but a factor in a philosophy certain folks choose to follow.

Too bad. So sad. Take your philosphy down the hall and preach it.

[general_re]