"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.

[Fester Chugabrew]

BTW, 10,000 is just as silly as 6,000.

By my accounts the difference is 4,000 years less "silly." How old are you?

You gladly accept the copied, translated word of scientifically illiterate people from over 2,000 years ago over the overwhelming evidence that exists today for an old earth.

I definitely accept certain texual documents from human history with a greater amount of confidence than pure conjecture based upon physical evidence from the past. What you call "overwhelming evidence" is only so because of your fundamental beliefs about the nature of the universe.

[bondserv]

Painted starlight!

Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

[Right Wing Professor]

They relate events witnessed by the first human

Adam wasn't created until the sixth day. He therefore obviously missed 5/6 of creation.

If I based my entire Weltanschaung on one book, I'd try to be at least a little familar with its contents.

[b_sharp]

"Activities such as observing and comparing genomes seems to be the "stuff of science" and quite worthwhile, but, what on God's green earth (pun intended) does evolution contribute to this study? I don't see why an evolution backdrop is required to do this work. It seems like it's added in to true "scientific method" science just to get a rise out of people. I'm beginning to think it's an unnecessary sideshow to scientific investigation."

Evolution explains why the genomes are different, it also explains the conditions under which those differences are likely to occur. It explains the similarities in the genomes, which organisms are likely to be related.

It helps agriculture decide which plants to combine to improve yields, how to breed animals to reinforce specific traits and which animals to eliminate. Directly, evolution creates changes in organisms that are beneficial to the organisms and to humans that would not have occurred to animal/plant breeders as a goal.

The knowledge that the environment selects and genetic drift happens is important in microbiology and health research.

It gives us an understanding of our role as a selection force.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Adam wasn't created until the sixth day. He therefore obviously missed 5/6 of creation.

Yep. He had to be told about the rest. Word has it he had a reliable Source for that information. Someone Who was there. Who's your source?

[b_sharp]

"In some cases it is reliable, and in some cases it is not. Physical evidence is subject to various interpetations, especially without an eyewitness as to how it was laid down. There are no written records and no eyewitnesses to a 4.5 billion year old earth, so from a scientific standpoint that assertion is SOL. From the standpoint of history and philosophy it's not bad, but still not as good as the biblical texts. "

The age of the earth is determined by counting tree rings, counting varves, counting ice layers, observing super novae, observing the half life of radioactive materials, calculating the ratio of elements and calibrating that ratio through other observable and countable dating methods. The age of the earth is determined by a combination of direct observation, indirect observation, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning and testing. All very scientific.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You are correct that they are tenuous from the standpoint of scientific study, but there is still more credible substance to them than there is to the completely unsubstantiated notion of a 4.5 billion year old earth."

Lies. The only question is are you just not too bright or are you just not very honest?

"The texts speak of an orderly, intelligently designed universe. All indications are that the universe remains on a more or less steady course"

No, they speak of a world that is meddled with by God constantly, one whose *order* can be broken at any time by the whims of said deity.

"You want to put science up against the laws of nature, design, and all the consistencies observed and recorded throughout history?"

So now you show your hand... it's science you hold as the enemy. Finally a glimmer of truth.

"You haven't even begun to explain how order can arise out of chaos apart from an intelligent agent"

You haven't begun to explain why an intelligent agent is necessary to bring about order. The laws of nature can just *be*; scientists are humble enough to know that any further claims cannot be pursued with science. Not arrogant YEC's like you though.

[Right Wing Professor]

Yep. He had to be told about the rest

So when you said "They relate events witnessed by the first humans.", you were mistaken?

Word has it he had a reliable Source for that information. Someone Who was there.

This is a category of evidence popularly known as 'hearsay'.

And even so, Judaeo-Christian tradition has it that it was Moses, not Adam, who wrote Genesis.

You really aren't familiar with the Bible, are you? Sheesh, guy, it's pretty bad when a soi-disant Biblical literalist needs an atheistic ex-Catholic to fill him in on Genesis 101.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The age of the earth is determined by counting tree rings, counting varves, counting ice layers . . .

Wow! I'd like to see a tree with 4.5 billion rings! Ice layers? Was anyone there to make sure they were all laid down at the same rate? I didn't think so. Half-life of radioactive materials? I question both the assumptions behind it and the accuracy of its results. Hardly as dependable as direct obervation and repeated testing in the present day. It seems the word "scientific" is flexible enough for you. Why not let it be flexible for the other side, too?

[Fester Chugabrew]

No, they speak of a world that is meddled with by God constantly, one whose *order* can be broken at any time by the whims of said deity.

When the biblical text speaks of God "resting," I take that to mean there is a certain lack of involvement on His part that will allow the finished creation to run its course just as it was designed to do. IOW, no new matter. Just the laws He created and sustains according to His will.

Whatever "meddling" God might do is only perceived as such by those who deny both His existence and capacities; who are ignorant of both the Scriptures and the power of God. Regardless, I am not here to defend creationism and get it into the science classroom. I am here to argue that evolutionism either be kicked out of the "lab" or shut its mouth when other "less sscientific notions" happen to be spoken there.

So now you show your hand... it's science you hold as the enemy.

No, that is your role. You want to bring science down to the philosophy of evolutionism.

[Fester Chugabrew]

So when you said "They relate events witnessed by the first humans," you were mistaken?

I've been mistaken before, but not in this case.

This is a category of evidence popularly known as 'hearsay'. . . . And even so, Judaeo-Christian tradition has it that it was Moses, not Adam, who wrote Genesis.

From your point of view it may be hearsay. I understand the biblical texts to be authored by the Creator, and thus hold them in higher regard than you. Are you really so simple as to believe that "writing" is the only means of creating and communicating a message? Do you really think the biblical texts came into being only at the moment Moses wrote them?

[Right Wing Professor]

I've been mistaken before, but not in this case

So the creation was witnessed by the first humans?

Do you really think the biblical texts came into being only at the moment Moses wrote them?

I don't think Moses wrote them. I think it's likely they were simiply an oral tradition that was finally written down sometime around 0 A.D.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Whatever "meddling" God might do is only perceived as such by those who deny both His existence and capacities; who are ignorant of both the Scriptures and the power of God."

In other words, yet again, you have no argument. At least there is a certain moronic consistency in your posts.

[Fester Chugabrew]

So the creation was witnessed by the first humans?

I don't believe I said as much. I said the biblical texts relate things that were witnessed by the first humans. Your lack of comprehension when it comes to details may bespeak a further lack of comprehension regarding reality.

I don't think Moses wrote them. I think it's likely they were simply an oral tradition that was finally written down sometime around 0 A.D.

Fortunately neither science nor religion rely upon what you think. The former has specific methods of observation, testing, and repeatability in real time that help to establish more certain aspects of the physical world. The latter has a well-respected text authored by the Creator Himself. Both work together well. It is apparent that neither has much bearing upon what "you think."

[Right Wing Professor]

I don't believe I said as much. I said the biblical texts relate things that were witnessed by the first humans. Your lack of comprehension when it comes to details may bespeak a further lack of comprehension regarding reality.

So, now we've establishwed that the 'first humans' did not witness creation, what did they witness that is germane to the present argument? And given that not even Biblical literalists believe that the first humans recorded what they saw, how is this germane to what Moses is alleged to have written down several thousand years later?

Fortunately neither science nor religion rely upon what you think. The former has specific methods of observation, testing, and repeatability in real time that help to establish more certain aspects of the physical world. The latter has a well-respected text authored by the Creator Himself. Both work together well. It is apparent that neither has much bearing upon what "you think."

Actually, what I think is what's thought by a large majority of real biblical scholars, most of whom don't seem to take seriously the claim that the Bible was written by "the Creator Himself".

Maybe he should have signed the m/s, and put it somewhere it wouldn't get lost?

[b_sharp]

"Wow! I'd like to see a tree with 4.5 billion rings!

I believe the figure is about 10,000 years. These are used to calibrate and verify carbon dating.

Ice layers? Was anyone there to make sure they were all laid down at the same rate?

The different layers were not laid down at the same rate, and in fact they don't need to be. Each layer or group of layers show distinctive markings that occur on a yearly basis.

"I didn't think so. Half-life of radioactive materials? I question both the assumptions behind it and the accuracy of its results.

The half life of some elements can be measured directly, the half life of other elements can be calculated and unless you can show that the decay rate has significantly changed over the last thousands of years, those calculations can be taken as quite accurate. The problem you have in rejecting radio-metrics is the number of other measuring methods such as varves which correspond very closely to radiometric dates and go back some hundreds of thousands of years, and other dating methods such as the distance to stars that can be measured through geometry, parallax to be specific, and calculated distances to supernovae.

"Hardly as dependable as direct obervation and repeated testing in the present day.

Some dating methods are directly observable(according to your definition), others are calibrated from those that are observable. Unless you are willing to terribly abuse some physical constants, your persistence in rejecting the ~4.5 billion year age of the earth is self delusional.

"It seems the word "scientific" is flexible enough for you. Why not let it be flexible for the other side, too?

My definition of what constitutes science sounds to be a fair bit more accurate than does yours.

[HKMk23]

The most fundamental of these assumptions is that a natural cause can be found for any given phenomen.

Here, let me fix that for you:
The most fundamental of these assumptions is that a natural cause can be found for any given phenomen.

Please adequately defend the assertion that all causailty must necessarily be limited to the realm of the material.

[b_sharp]

"Fortunately neither science nor religion rely upon what you think.

True.

"The former has specific methods of observation, testing, and repeatability in real time that help to establish more certain aspects of the physical world.

As defined by the scientists that actually do the research. That research does not rely on what you believe science 'is supposed to be'.

"The latter has a well-respected

Irrelevant to its veracity.

"text authored by the Creator Himself.

Conjecture. Many claim to hear the voice of God, some I would bet actually write those words down, yet they would be hard pressed to show any evidence that they actually spoke to God. The Pentateuch shows signs of a multitude of authors, each of them putting their 'spin' on the tales. Even if those words did come from some God, they would be filtered through the highly fallible minds of the human authors.

Besides, were you there? Did you witness the conversation between God and Moses (or other authors)? If you didn't, and you don't have independent corroborating documents/witnesses to the conversation, then according to your definition you can not take the God-influence as gospel.

" Both work together well. It is apparent that neither has much bearing upon what "you think."

Nor what you think. Apply your standards equally.

[js1138]

Name something that exists that is not material. Please omit such constructs as ideas, unless you can demonstrate their existence in the absense of a physical agent that embodies them.

[b_sharp]

"Please adequately defend the assertion that all causailty must necessarily be limited to the realm of the material."

It is not a question of desire but ability. How do you go about developing a theory if you cannot test and falsify the constituent hypotheses? What kind of predictions can be made and tested if supernatural causes are accepted?

These difficulties preclude the inclusion of the supernatural in scientific (or any critical) investigation.