"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.

[Alamo-Girl]

I agree that both are being as rigorous as they know how to be. However, there is a significant difference which H.H. Pattee addresses as follows:

Consequently, physicists … are concerned when they learn facts of life that their theories do not appear capable of addressing. On the other hand, biologists, when they have the facts, need not worry about physical theories that neither address nor alter their facts. Ernst Mayr (1997) believes this difference is severe enough to separate physical and biological models: ‘Yes, biology is, like physics and chemistry, a science. But biology is not a science like physics and chemistry; it is rather an autonomous science on a par with the equally autonomous physical sciences.'

IMHO, it is important to recognize that difference when evaluating the conclusions drawn by biology v. physics. To me, physics and mathematics are epistemologically pure.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL! And again, you and I are exactly on the same wavelength! I just posted the very Mayr quote you were recalling.

Thank you oh so very much for all of your excellent insights, dear sister in Christ!

Wish I could hang around, but I must go help out on construction again this afternoon. But I'll check back this evening.

[Fester Chugabrew]

If I say I can see atoms because my eyes are really good since I started sniffing glue, should I be believed if I insist protons and neutrons are really made of little turtles rather than quarks?

If you meant "little turtles" in the conventional sense I would not believe you. I happen to have seen those little particles myself, and the turtles are by no means normal. If you said "Higson boson particles," I still wouldn't believe you. But you have no place setting evolutionism on the level of atomic theory.

[VadeRetro]

The ridicule was effective within the group which already thought little of the correspondent - but to the Lurkers following, it came across as mean-spirited and caused many otherwise useful assertions to be cast in a bad light and perhaps even, ignored.

One reason things degenerate as they do in these discussions is that all too soon there is nothing to talk about except what one side or the other refuses to understand, see, or remember. This was certainly true of the poster you mention. Intelligent dialogue is more than firing back your talking points when it's your turn. It involves hearing the other side's points and responding appropriately. Some judiciousness should be visible in selecting points for disagreement. In particular, one should not be willing to grasp at any old straw at all.

The poster you mention was also vilely personal in his attacks and was part of a group which did opposition research on and stalking of certain freepers including you and me.

[aft_lizard]

Well GOD created light before he created anything else so thats the answer to yoiur question, and beyond that I am sick of arguing this,,, next topic.

[PatrickHenry]

In the natural sciences, sensory perceptions (whether direct or augmented by instruments) are primary whereas in physics and math, the theory is primary. Therefore, if there is doubt as to the sensory perception, it is a vital issue to the natural sciences whereas to physics, doubts as to the theory itself would be primary.

I'm jumping into the middle of this one, but permit me to make a few observations. First, evidence of the senses (sometimes enhanced by instruments) is pretty much all we have to go on in scientific work. True, we can sometimes see a mirage. But ultimately it's sensory evidence that reveals the mirage for what it is.

As for physics being primarily about theories, I think that's wrong. The theories are explanations of data -- and the data are derived from sensory evidence. Once created, a theory can be used for deductive work, but ultimately the theory survives or falls based on whether it jibes with the evidence of the objectively observable world. In other words, sensory evidence rules.

Swamis and such are always attempting to cause doubts about sensory evidence. When they're successful, their followers are left with only their faith in the swami. So they take a ride on the comet. Not a successful career path.

[VadeRetro]

I happen to have seen those little particles myself, and the turtles are by no means normal.

Dead blood cells in the aqueous humor of the eyeball.

[VadeRetro]

Out for a bit. Life and all that. (Not much of one, of course.)

[betty boop]

...theories are explanations of data -- and the data are derived from sensory evidence. Once created, a theory can be used for deductive work, but ultimately the theory survives or falls based on whether it jibes with the evidence of the objectively observable world. In other words, sensory evidence rules.

I can agree with you here, PH, but only up to a certain point. FWIW. For one thing, crudely put, it seems to me that physics is more geared to see what it's doing as inviting falsification of theory, where for biology, the main point is to prove, or justify, a theory. Theory and observational data are implicit in both physics and biology. Yet it seems their respective expectations may differ.

Secondly, I think it's worth noting that physics is more "speculative" than biology. For instance, Einstein didn't come up with general relativity by conducting numerous empirical experiments, and them summing up the data to give him a theory. Instead, he received a "gestalt" of an idea in graphical form, and then realized he was challenged to find a language that could represent what he had received. He found that language in Reimannian geometry. The theory then being formalized, next was to subject it to experimental falsification, the result being the predictions of the theory continue to hold up till this day.

In short, there's a lot more "intuition" involved in theorizing in physics than methodological naturalism seems to allow for. JMHO FWIW

Thank you so much for writing, PH!

[b_sharp]

You are welcome. The discussion was getting a bit off track and contained some apparent misunderstandings.

[b_sharp]

"Pace to your two biologists, but I'll stick with Bohr's epistemology. Which in the present case would mean that an indirectly observed phenomenon by one individual would be put to the test of whether other observers are able to "see" the indirectly observed phenomenon under like experimental conditions. "

I'm not sure r norman or John were disputing the need for independent verification, just the over reliance on direct observation. Bohr was in a position that he could not directly observe the atom, but relied solely on indirect observation of the effects of quantum mechanics.

My contention is that quantum mechanics is not the only science that can be confident in using indirect observation.

[b_sharp]

"My point is simply that direct observation, at least from the standpoint of this observer, merits more certitude than indirect. All of a sudden direct observation became suspect. I reckon it is because, for example, macro-evolution and a 4.5-billion year history of planet earth cannot be directly observed.

Actually what I got out of your posts was that you dismiss indirect observation as a valid tool of science. My response was meant to inform you of the validity of indirect observation such as the observed decay rate of radioactive isotopes and it's use to determine the age of the earth.

"I mean, if we're going to set the bar so low as to accommodate the philosophy of evolution as "science," then we might as well keep it there for the theology of creationism to enjoy the same title.

You've just verified my conclusion. Your rejection of evolution and the age of the earth is predicated on indirect observation not being a part of science. Btw, the age of the earth is part of geology, not biology.

[b_sharp]

" I find it amusing how evolutionists insist on empircal proof (direct observation) from creationists, but are more than willing to let it slide when their own philosophy is put forth"

What direct observation is demanded of creationists?

[b_sharp]

"For the biologist, if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, just keep looking for evidence that does. "

Would you care to justify this statement?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Actually what I got out of your posts was that you dismiss indirect observation as a valid tool of science.

I did no such thing. Both indirect and direct observation are not "either/or" practices. Both have their place. Both have their limits. Direct, IMO, is more capable of certitude than indirect. Why do you think I dismiss its usefulness altogether? Are you so emotionally attached to evolutionism that your knee jerks into your chin at the suggestion of weakness or philosophy on the part of evolutionism?

You fail to acknowledge the weakness of indirect observation as it applies to evolutionism, but consider creationism to be unscientific when it indulges the same tool. You trump up the weakness of direct observation as it applies to subtantiating evolutionism, but consider creationism to be unscientific when it directly observes design and self-organization in the physical universe and therefrom infers an intelligent designer.

Isn't that just a tad hypocritical?

[betty boop]

Would you care to justify this statement?

Richard Dawkins' constant insistence that (to paraphrase), although we (i.e., evolutionary biology) cannot yet explain thus and so, given enough time, we surely will, sooner or later. Yet when it comes to issues such as the origin of life or consciousness, methodological naturalism, after 140 years or so, still has zero results to report. Assuming the method is up to the job in the first place, how much time is needed?

[betty boop]

Our current understanding of what the laws are is allowed to change if science is ever to get anywhere.... Science can do nothing without that premise and anything unreachable thereby is somehow not part of our world.

I agree with your first statement, VR; but not with the second. If science's technique is premised on "methodological naturalism," then arguably, certain natural objects will be found to be outside its scope altogether. Little things like, e.g., life, consciousness, qualia, any kind of non-corporeal, all universals in principle, etc. Just because methodological materialism cannot access such objects does not necessarily mean that they are "not part of our world."

[js1138]

...biologists are not as concerned when observations do not fit their theories as physicists are. To the physicists, contradictory evidence points to a problem with the theory itself...

Oh, please. How many revisions of the Standard Model have there been in the past 100 years? How many times have we heard that a "particle" is fundamental, only to hear later about evidence of parts. How many revisions of the Periodic Table have there been?

And yet chemistry still works, much of it with the same dreary equations that presuppose electrons and protons.

With all the babble about contradictory evidence in biology, there is exactly zero evidence contradicting common descent.

[b_sharp]

"Richard Dawkins' constant insistence that (to paraphrase), although we (i.e., evolutionary biology) cannot yet explain thus and so, given enough time, we surely will, sooner or later. Yet when it comes to issues such as the origin of life or consciousness, methodological naturalism, after 140 years or so, still has zero results to report. Assuming the method is up to the job in the first place, how much time is needed?

I fail to see how this is a biologist ignoring evidence counter to evolution and looking for verifying evidence. Your comment accused biologists of cherry picking only positive evidence while ignoring contrary evidence. Where is the evidence of this cherry picking? Remember, you made a generalization, so one case won't cut it, you'll have to show that the cherry picking is systemic within biology

How much time did it take to determine quantum physics? Is the study of quantum mechanics complete? Or is there more to discover? I'm sure you can find other examples that have taken quite a while to finish. What is the time limit and who imposes it. Are you quite sure that nothing has been discovered about abiogenesis and consciousness? Have abiogenesis and consciousness been studied for the full 140 years?

[b_sharp]

"I did no such thing. Both indirect and direct observation are not "either/or" practices. Both have their place. Both have their limits. Direct, IMO, is more capable of certitude than indirect. Why do you think I dismiss its usefulness altogether? Are you so emotionally attached to evolutionism that your knee jerks into your chin at the suggestion of weakness or philosophy on the part of evolutionism?

Indirect observation is not exclusive to 'evolutionism', yet you use indirect observation to claim that 'evolutionism' is not science. If the criteria of direct observation was necessary to class a field of study as science, more than just 'evolutionism' would not be science. My point is that your rejection of evolution is so profound that you invent criteria in order to exclude it from science. If you desire to exclude evolution from science you will have to pick some other criteria than direct observation or exclude other disciplines as well.

"You fail to acknowledge the weakness of indirect observation as it applies to evolutionism, but consider creationism to be unscientific when it indulges the same tool.

I do not reject creation science because of some distinction between types of observation. I reject it because it does not restrict itself to the current understanding of physics, but will, if necessary, invent explanations that run counter to modern physics. Just about anything from the mind of W. Brown to explain the flood can be debunked simply by applying physical laws to it. Brown is just the tip of the iceberg. None of this has anything to do with direct/indirect observation.

You trump up the weakness of direct observation as it applies to subtantiating evolutionism, but consider creationism to be unscientific when it directly observes design and self-organization in the physical universe and therefrom infers an intelligent designer.

ID is not science, not because of observation, but because of interpretation without a theory or method of analysis.