"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.

[Proud_texan]

Interesting article. I especially appreciated the last paragraph as it has occurred to me "that does not mean that we are dishonest" is at least part of the problem.

For instance there is the issue of global warming. I think it's fair to say that the single point being taught in school is that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases and "your parents are killing the planet and will leave you nothing more than a barren ball of rock".

Obviously that's not the only hypothesis and there are probably some honest scientists that believe it. On the other hand I think it would be inaccurate to say that there are some in the global warming camp that are in fact dishonest and totally agenda driven. It (global warming) has become a political movement.

Perhaps unfair but science was once known entirely for critical thinking. To at least some of the unwashed masses (of which I include myself) science is now seen as often as not as a pure agenda operation and facts be damned. Fair or unfair the whole area of science is tarred, especially when whackjob science is defended as "an open and frank exchange of ideas" or whatever the ivy tower says when a professor or researcher goes off the deep end.

Like Muslims needing to speak out against terrorism science needs to speak out on junk science. Alas it appears that grants, funding and the like preclude that but regardless in my opinion science needs to do that to regain some credibility with the rest of us.

[Fester Chugabrew]

My point is that your rejection of evolution is so profound that you invent criteria in order to exclude it from science.

It is evolutionism that I reject, not evolution. I reject it as science because it is profoundly lacking in the capacity to be directly observed, repeatable, and testable. I reject creationism as science for the same reason. Understand?

[Havoc]

God created light, yes; but, he didn't create the sunlight needed by the plants until later. And as a matter of common sense, plants don't live on moonlight. Since these things can't be rationalized, I'm sure you ARE sick of arguing them.
It leaves you no place to go.. so you beg out. Typical. Next LOL

[betty boop]

Your comment accused biologists of cherry picking only positive evidence while ignoring contrary evidence. Where is the evidence of this cherry picking?

I accuse biologists (some, not all) of selecting evidence to fit presuppositions. Here's MIT's Richard Lewontin for another example:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute….”

Where Dawkins is a methodological naturalist, Lewontin is a metaphysical naturalist. The absolute commitment to materialism is a philosophical commitment which allows him to disregard evidence that does not fit his materialist presuppositions; he has quite frankly declared that materialist explanations are the only ones he will accept. Therefore, this end will govern the types of evidence he is willing to consider.

You wrote: "Are you quite sure that nothing has been discovered about abiogenesis and consciousness? Have abiogenesis and consciousness been studied for the full 140 years?" No, they haven't been studied for the full 140 years. I think what has been discovered about abiogenesis so far is that it cannot be experimentally demonstrated that matter all by itself spontaneously undergoes a phase transition to life. And it seems the only hypothesis regarding consciousness that is being seriously entertained by neo-Darwinists is that it is an epiphenomenon of neural processing in the brain. As far as I know, no neo-Darwinist has ever considered a different model of consciousness. But if you are aware of any such, I'd be pleased if you would make me aware of it.

Thanks for writing, b-sharp.

[betty boop]

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

Ooopppps!!! Sorry I "stepped on your lines" there, Alamo-Girl! LOLOLOL!!! (You did recall it better than I did, though!)

[b_sharp]

"It is evolutionism that I reject, not evolution. I reject it as science because it is profoundly lacking in the capacity to be directly observed, repeatable, and testable. I reject creationism as science for the same reason. Understand?

I guess not. What is the difference between evolutionism and evolution?

[aft_lizard]

Listen I have been battling this fight for 3 F****G days, I have the right to quit on this stupid argument. Call it beg out or whatever late comer.

And read Genisis before you come out sounding foolish on this.

And God said let there be light and there was light and God saw the light and it was good, and God divided the light from Darkness And God called the light DAY and the Darkness NIGHT, so yes.

All of those before he created plants and bugs, so there you go genius. Jesus H are all of you darwinist so ignorant?

LOL indeed.

[b_sharp]

"I accuse biologists (some, not all) of selecting evidence to fit presuppositions.

Your choice of words, principally the word selecting implies a larger evidence space that a subset of evidence is being taken from. Am I simply misreading your intent?

"Here's MIT's Richard Lewontin for another example: " "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute….”

From what larger evidence space is the materialistic evidence taken from?

"Where Dawkins is a methodological naturalist, Lewontin is a metaphysical naturalist. The absolute commitment to materialism is a philosophical commitment which allows him to disregard evidence that does not fit his materialist presuppositions; he has quite frankly declared that materialist explanations are the only ones he will accept. Therefore, this end will govern the types of evidence he is willing to consider.

In a world where only materialistic evidence can be measured, what else can he investigate?

"You wrote: "Are you quite sure that nothing has been discovered about abiogenesis and consciousness? Have abiogenesis and consciousness been studied for the full 140 years?" No, they haven't been studied for the full 140 years. I think what has been discovered about abiogenesis so far is that it cannot be experimentally demonstrated that matter all by itself spontaneously undergoes a phase transition to life.

What has been shown so far by research into abiogenesis is that the number of possible initial conditions is so high that it may be quite a while before we hit on the right solution. Don't be so quick to dismiss difficult research without considering the number of trials necessary to make the attempt statistically significant.

"And it seems the only hypothesis regarding consciousness that is being seriously entertained by neo-Darwinists is that it is an epiphenomenon of neural processing in the brain. As far as I know, no neo-Darwinist has ever considered a different model of consciousness. But if you are aware of any such, I'd be pleased if you would make me aware of it.

Has the Darwinist approach not resulted in at least some initial understanding? As long as the neural processing model bears fruit, our knowledge is expanded. Hardly a reason to abandon it. If there are other models and avenues of research into consciousness that are increasing knowledge then that can only be a good thing, yes? It will give us the opportunity to examine and compare the results before determining which has more value.

[Fester Chugabrew]

In a world where only materialistic evidence can be measured . . .

Why bother to measure IQ? Or is that also akin to astrology?

[Fester Chugabrew]

What direct observation is demanded of creationists?

Answer your own question. What in the way of direct observation would convince you beyond any shadow of a doubt that an Almighty Creator made the universe and sustains it to this very moment?

[Havoc]

Yes, God did create light initially. That you are correct about. It, however, doesn't say that he created the sun until later. And the sun is the operational divider of day and night for us in the practical sense. The sun is also that from which the plants draw light and thusly life. Whether God invented light before making the sun is irrelevant to the argument at hand. The problem you have to overcome is the absence of sunlight and insects both. You made a tragic leap at one and missed, the other still awaits. No sunlight = plants die. No bugs = plants cant procreate and the life ends. Anyway you cut it, the system is irreducibly complex and fails without the working parts.
Once God created time, he had to respond to time in a limited sense to intervene before what he'd thusfar accomplished fell to ruin. Working with time, God created plants, then within a few days created sunlight to nourish them and bugs to help them reproduce. Any longer than that would require an unstated further miracle or God reworking to make up for a mistake in "timing". The order of the items created tells us that God knew what he was doing in setting up the dependancies initially. The dependancies setup preclude any notion of days meaning millions of years.
Logic won't allow it.

Now, you can say "God can do what he wants" and offer that strawman argument. God, indeed can do what he wants. But, God doesn't lie and has already told us what he did. From a
scientific standpoint, Occum must be invoked to shave off the nonsense. The only reason this "millions of years" gap theory crap comes up is because science tried disproving
God by extension and as a result, wimps of so-called Christians who couldn't stand on the word of their God decided to compromise God's word just as Eve and Adam did.
They still haven't learned from the example of Eden even to the extent of believing God on how it was created.

Plants living on sunlight can't wait millions of years for sunlight, spanky. Nor can they wait millions of years for bugs to pollinate them.

[js1138]

What in the way of direct observation would convince you beyond any shadow of a doubt that an Almighty Creator made the universe and sustains it to this very moment?

I don't actually doubt that. I just doubt your understanding of the creator.

[aft_lizard]

Explain to me where it says god created the sun seperately from light? And after he created all things living?

And who is to say primordial plant life was wholly dependent on insects as you would suppose? Or that Insects where wholly dependent upon plant life?

I also know there is evidence of aquatic and subterranean plants that exist without photsynthesis or contact with insects.

[Fester Chugabrew]

How about answering the question instead of offering up conjecture?

[aft_lizard]

Also I failed to mention that only a handful of plants rely upon bugs for propogation, mostly flowers. The rest of the plant world depends upon seasonal changes, winds and proper soil conditions.

Unless you are suggesting, trees, grasses and others can only grow with the help of bugs.

[betty boop]

Your choice of words, principally the word selecting implies a larger evidence space that a subset of evidence is being taken from.

The selecting is being done from a reduced evidence space. Indeed, a larger evidence space is available. The point is, evidence that does not fit the initial presupposition or the result the experimenter is trying to achieve will not be considered as relevant.

The entire conceivable evidence space includes things that, as Steven Pinker acknowledges (given the criteria of materialist science to which he subscribes) appear to be "uncaused events.” Into this category goes such things as "free, sentient, rational, equivalent agents whose behavior is uncaused." Only what accords with the materialist presupposition can be admitted.

Thus man, for instance, if he is to be considered at all, must be regarded as wholly determined by the physical laws; there is no such thing as autonomy, free will, mind, psyche, qualia, etc., etc., for they are not material things (though the materialist presupposition allows you to reduce them to epiphenomena of physical, force-field driven processes).

There's a whole lot of evidence that man and living organisms generally are not wholly determined by the physical laws; but it seems Pinker doesn't care to see it: It doesn't fit his "model." He stops at the above "appear to be" -- no investigation into the matter of whether the appearance is in fact the actual reality is undertaken by him.

You wrote: "In a world where only materialistic evidence can be measured, what else can he investigate?" Nothing but what fits the materialist measurement model. Which seems to leave out huge sectors of reality. Which is my main point.

Now if this script goes as usual, perhaps next you will tell me that immaterial things are not problems for science. To which I might reply, well okay if you say so: They're not problems for science. But whether they are or not, the problems are still there, and they are very real in that they are a part of nature itself. Does science want to leave them to the philosophers and the theologians?

I keep harking back to Einstein. I'll do that one more time: IMHO, it's a good thing that Einstein was not a materialist. If he had been, possibly we'd never have heard of relativity theory.... Clearly, his rare and sublime creative genius was not constrained by the model of "materialist measurement."

Thanks for writing, b-sharp.

[js1138]

I think meeting George Burns in the supermarket would do.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

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.

Indeed. I strongly agree! That would make the debate much better for everyone - especially the Lurkers!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your views!

My response would be the same as betty boop's at post 589. Physics is always looking at the theory. If the theory is good, the data will establish it over time. OTOH, if the data contradicts, then it is time to revisit the theory itself. In any case, the theory must stand on its own merit subject to falsification.

The standard model is already being spoken of in past tense or as subordinate to supersymmetry for that very reason - and both are being captured by geometric physics (extra dimensionality).

[Alamo-Girl]

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."

Indeed. So very true. Well said.