"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.

[Gumlegs]

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

You mean Adam? None whatever.

[cookcounty]

"Intelligent Design reveals its weakness by the rundundancy of Intelligent Design. As opposed to what unintelligent design or dumb design? The fact that it needs this qualifier demonstrates its failure as a scientific theory.

Bull-oney. Evolutionists can hardly write a paragraph without speaking of "design" and in "intentional" terms. In today's science parlance, the term "design" in no way implies intelligence. The term "intelligent Design" is used to distinguish from the evolutionists' virtually unanimous belief in "accidental design."

[LogicWings]

evil is not a physical state, and frankly I dont understand why you brought it up.

You said "everything" so I was just clarifying.

But to answer you question, yes god created evil,as well as good

Then He is responsible for "evil" end of discussion. Not everything He created is good and, therefore, He is not worthy of worship. Unless you are trying to argue that "evil" is "good" which means that words mean nothing.

see he gave us freewill and with freewill we are able to deicde what to call what and when to do it.

Actually this is impossible. He knew my name before I was born and knew all my choices before I was born. I could not act in a manner that contradicted His foreknowledge so He decided long before I was born whether I would be evil, which you admit He created, or whether I would be saved. There is no free will there.

can we say we all evolved from an single cell organism?

Actually the concept of "strange attractors" says that if the conditions were right there were probably billions of cells all came into being at roughly the same time. Just like when the conditions are right there are 100 tornadoes in a given area, if the conditions were right for life billions of cells could have spontaneously sprang into being.

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.

This is called False Analogy. The comparison of evolution to the Universe's "Birth" are 2 completely separate subjects. You want the harder one solved first before you will accept the closer, easier one valid. To use an Analogy properly, this would be like insisting a doctor perform brain surgery before doctors had learned how to set broken bones.

[js1138]

Aren't you aware of the First Law of IDiocy? If science can't explain something, Got did it. Or perhaps space aliens.

[cookcounty]

"This is another one of the nincompoop assertions. What aspect of evolution, is "faith based?"

We could start with the abiogenesis crap in the high school textbooks under the heading Evolution: Origin of Life.

Yes, I know you will object that "how life came to be" is not "Darwinism," but the fact is, the heavyweights in Science Education curriculae in this country unanimously disagree with you. So unless you have a mind to write the first intelligent Biology text, go argue with them.

[WhiteKnight]

As a theory it has to stand on its own. So, what is that theory?

More importantly: What is the "Theory of Evolution"? Been here awhile and still haven't seen a ToE, that stands the test of the Scientific Method. Evolution is bad science.

IMHO, WhiteKnight

[LogicWings]

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

I answer this in a later post. But this doesn't answer my question. Evolution doesn't say this.

[Cell9]

aft_lizard, the world needs more people like yourself. Don't ever change ;)

[PatrickHenry]

Maybe I am completely wrong and need to toss some of my books away.

Not a problem that can't be fixed. Please read some of this material:

The scientific method. Wikipedia article. Exhaustive discussion.
What's a Scientific Theory? Encyclopedia article.
The Theory of Evolution. Excellent introductory encyclopedia article.
The Pocket Darwin. Very good, easily readable summary.
Is Evolution Science? It certainly is. Here's why.

[aft_lizard]

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?....



Then were is the evidence that all creatures are evolved from the same one that flopped itself on a beach a few billion years back.

Have you ever watched a ape evolve into a neanderthal? Yet it is said they are evolved from them. So you would rather assume that over billions of years all things on this planet evolved from one creature.With unproven, anectdotal evidence.

Well I am done posting for now. Like I said I have no qualms against evolution.

But if people dont want a blurb for ID, then remove evolution altogether and make it an elective in college when the kids are an adult and can choose for themselves what they wish to learn.

[Coyoteman]

More importantly: What is the "Theory of Evolution"? Been here awhile and still haven't seen a ToE, that stands the test of the Scientific Method. Evolution is bad science.

This will come as a surprise to a lot of scientists!

Actually, about the only folks with a "Theory of Evolution" problem are religious-based. Try a google search or two. The "Theory of Evolution" is not a problem with 99% of biology, geology or hard anthropology practitioners.

Do I need to post another alternative creation story for your amusement and edification?

[ran15]

Man alive, the left is going to beat us to death with this issue. They clearly are grabbing a hold of it and playing it up now, as you predicted.

[PatrickHenry]

Do I need to post another alternative creation story for your amusement and edification?

Tell us the one about the one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Something must be afoot. The story must have legs. Now is the time for evolutionism to make a mighty case for itself and explain why it should be substituted for the standard practice of science to make direct observations and test them in the real world. Now is the time for evolutionism to explain to the world why its model is better than the one of intelligent design under which science has taken place ever since it began.

[Coyoteman]

Do I need to post another alternative creation story for your amusement and edification?

Tell us the one about the one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater.

Sorry, not in my repertoir. Try the old music lyric pages. But, for your listening pleasure:

Norse Creation Story

In the beginning there was the void. And the void was called Ginnungagap. What does Ginnungagap mean? Yawning gap, beginning gap, gap with magical potential, mighty gap; these are a few of the educated guesses. Along with the void existed Niflheim the land of fog and ice in the north and Muspelheim the land of fire in the south. There seems to be a bit of confusion as to whether or not these existed after Ginnungagap or along side of it from the beginning.

In Niflheim was a spring called Hvergelmir from which the Elivagar (eleven rivers - Svol, Gunnthra, Fiorm, Fimbulthul, Slidr, Hrid, Sylg, Ylg, Vid, Leiptr, and Gioll) flowed. The Elivargar froze layer upon layer until it filled in the northerly portion of the gap. Concurrently the southern portion was being filled by sparks and molten material from Muspelheim.

The mix of fire and ice caused part of the Elivagar to melt forming the figures Ymir the primeval giant and the cow Audhumla. The cow's milk was Ymir's food. While Ymir slept his under arm sweat begat two frost giants, one male one female, while his two legs begat another male.

While Ymir was busy procreating Audhumla was busy eating. Her nourishment came from licking the salty ice. Her incessant licking formed the god Buri. He had a son named Bor who was the father of Odin, Vili, and Ve.

For some reason the sons of Bor decided to kill poor Ymir. His blood caused a flood which killed all of the frost giants except for two, Bergelmir and his wife, who escaped the deluge in their boat.

Odin, Vili, and Ve put Ymir's corpse into the middle of ginnungagap and created the earth and sky from it. They also created the stars, sun, and moon from sparks coming out of Muspelheim.

Finally, the brothers happened upon two logs lying on the beach and created the first two humans Ask [Ash] and Embla [vine?] from them.

[PatrickHenry]

Man alive, the left is going to beat us to death with this issue. They clearly are grabbing a hold of it and playing it up now, as you predicted.

It wasn't very difficult to predict. The left was drowning in a putrid sea of idiocy, and then the conservatives (some of them) go and toss them a life preserver. Of course they'd grab at it.

[Gumlegs]

Most of us don't have to worry; we aren't purple. Although I have no idea what the subtraction of a gall bladder does to one's hue.

[WhiteKnight]

Do I need to post another alternative creation story for your amusement and edification?

I didn't find it particularly amusing and so far you have not stated anything that would edify.

What I would prefer is an answer to what should be an easy question; What is the "Theory of Evolution"? For someone as knowlegable as you, this should be easy. Unless of course you are not up to the task?

WhiteKnight

[JimSEA]

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

Every culture has, in some point in the past -- usually neolithic but occasionally later, had a period of religion calling for human sacrifice. This is followed usually by a loving and compassionate God or religious tradition. This is clearly worthy of both scientific and ethical examination.

The incompatibility between ID and science is the acceptance by science that the same rules of chemistry, physics and biology that hold today, also existed in every past period. If this is accepted, ID did not occur.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I have a few springs of Yggdrasil in my yard as relics of this.