"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.

[aft_lizard]

Who says it will be on an equal footing? No it wouldnt be, consider you might have a week of study on darwinism and a 5 minute blurb on Intelligent Design, so no incomparable.

[aft_lizard]

I consider science to be founded mostly on rules and fact, and the assumptions based on logic rather than good guesses. Having said that and as a lover both of Science and God, not equally of course I see room in the classroom to mention a competing ideology to Darwinism, an ideology that has been around a few thousand years longer, embraced by 2/3's of the worlds inhabitants. 5 minutes of classroom time to say " Darwinism isnt the only theory, there is also the Theory of Intelligent design", isnt that much of a compromise.

[shuckmaster]

No it wouldnt be, consider you might have a week of study on darwinism and a 5 minute blurb on Intelligent Design, so no incomparable.

Would you agree that all religious sermons should begin with a scientist giving a 5 minute blurb on Darwinism? If not, then please keep your superstitions out of science class.

[PatrickHenry]

5 minutes of classroom time to say "Darwinism isnt the only theory, there is also the Theory of Intelligent design", isnt that much of a compromise.

There are at least three problems with that: (1) Government schools shouldn't be teaching religious doctrines; (2) By comparing fact-based science with some unverifiable alternative, some parents will complain that the teacher is giving an unfair presentation of religion; and (3) evolution is a scientific theory, the alternatives like ID/creationism are not.

The scientific method. Wikipedia article. Exhaustive discussion.
But it's "JUST a THEORY" . You really must read this.
Ichneumon on the Scientific Method. It's post 401 and it's excellent.
What's a Scientific Theory? Encyclopedia article.

[js1138]

I see room in the classroom to mention a competing ideology to Darwinism...

Five minutes wouldn't be that much time, but to call it science would be a lie.

[aft_lizard]

Lets go back to the beginning then, before everything and the the big bang or whatever. What was there before? How could nothing evolve into something?

Of course this leads into the rebuttal asking, if we all evolved from nothing yet something came, GOD the Intelligent designer must have came from something, so where did this something come from? Which could lead to god himself evolved from something or the nothing, its a massive headache.

So I am saying GOD came or evolved first and everything followed. What was 7 days to GOD may as well been 7 billion years to us. So everything evolved from Gods design. Even the Bible recognizes that giants once walked the Earth and that Man evolved or came last in his design of this planet. I dont know where I am going with it because my head hurts after explaining to a billion people today about the natural and people history of the Phoenix Area. So I will get back to this later.

[aft_lizard]

The difference being that Churchs are private not public institutions, unlike schools, no I wont keep my "superstitions" out of your class, considering that my "superstition" is also a legitimate scientific theory also.

And you cant disprove the scientific theory part of it.

[Coyoteman]

there is also the Theory of Intelligent design

From post #17: 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.

Given the caution in post #17, please state clearly what the "theory" of intelligent design is. Please include any necessary assumptions as well.

This has been done for the theory of evolution by thousands of scientists and for 150 or so years. No amount of condemnation of evolution will serve to validate the "theory" of intelligent design. As a theory it has to stand on its own. So, what is that theory?

[LogicWings]

Lets go back to the beginning then, before everything and the the big bang or whatever. What was there before? How could nothing evolve into something?

The fact that we don't know what went BANG! doesn't have any bearing upon anything, period. The assumption that the Universe was entirely empty before that point is as much a non-sequitur as assuming some supernatural being did it. At this point we simply have no evidence, so no conclusions can be drawn.

So I am saying GOD came or evolved first and everything followed. What was 7 days to GOD may as well been 7 billion years to us. So everything evolved from Gods design.

This includes evil. So is evil part of His design too?

[aft_lizard]

1. Intelligent design IS NOT simply a religious doctrine as you would so dismiss it as.

2. How about this for fact based science.

Every culture across human history has independently came up with its own ID theory. With thousands of pages of writing, thousands if not more, instances of communication between deity and man. Why wont science simply investigate this rather than dismiss it whole heartedly?

3. How can you say ID is not a scientific throey, I mean how much more into science does it need to be to be considered scientific theory? My god created the heavens an the earth(astronomy, geology) the trees and grass(botany) well you get my point. Its deeply rooted and connected to science.

Well I guess my views of science and what it does is completely screwed. I thought science was to investigate and explain, create ideas and attempt to prove or disprove. Maybe I am completely wrong and need to toss some of my books away.

[LogicWings]

And you cant disprove the scientific theory part of it.

You have it backwards. You cannot prove there is a scientific part to it. The Burden of Proof is upon you to give evidence for your assertion, not upon others to disprove it since that would be a Proving the Negative fallacy.

my "superstition" is also a legitimate scientific theory also.

Precisely the point, ID is NOT a legitimate scientific theory since it has absolutely no evidence to support it.

[Tribune7]

What creation story would you want taught in our public schools?

[Coyoteman]

What creation story would you want taught in our public schools?

Thats an easy one. My favorite!

The Creation of Men and Women

When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was chief of the animals. He saw that the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but he grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. "It is impossible," he said, "that he should be left alone; he must have a mate." So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.

The man opened his eyes and stared at the woman. "What does this mean?" he asked. "I thought I was alone!" Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied he man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together.

Salinan Indian creation story, south-central California

[oldfarmer]

Every culture across human history has independently came up with its own ID theory.

Primitive cultures create stories to explain the unexplainable. As knowledge increases, however, and reason overcomes superstition, these old stories are abandoned.

[aft_lizard]

evil is not a physical state, and frankly I dont understand why you brought it up. But to answer you question, yes god created evil,as well as good and whatever we as human beings decided what is what, see he gave us freewill and with freewill we are able to deicde what to call what and when to do it.

And for the first part of your question, then if the universe origins cannot be proven or disproven, with new theories popping up every few years can we say we all evolved from an single cell organism? There are billions of species on earth, and only one universe it sits in, yet for some odd reason we can kind of sort of geez, create a theory on how we evolved here yet cannot explain the universes birth.

[LogicWings]

Every culture across human history has independently came up with its own ID theory.

That human beings tend to anthropormophize everything is proof of nothing actually existing. More cultures believed that rocks and trees and waterfalls and everything else we beings with spirits. That this same idea was projected upon the Universe as a whole is no proof of anything.

With thousands of pages of writing, thousands if not more, instances of communication between deity and man.

Because there is no evidence that these people were communicating with anything but themselves. That is why Mohammed is so significant. Was he talking to Him too? Then why aren't you Muslim?

[Tribune7]

Fair enough. I'd prefer another. Let's put it to a vote.

[Drew68]

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

And the Indian and Chinese kids will love it too! They'll be the ones coming over here for the science jobs that the American kids are to stupid to compete in.

Thanks ID proponents! Just when we thought American kids couldn't get dumbed-down any further, you fine folks show up.

[cookcounty]

ID should not be in the classroom. Our kids should be as ignorant and unquestioning as possible.

[aft_lizard]

and what physical evidence is there that we evolved from one single creature?