"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]

You make a number of good points. It should be noted, however, that a good many scientists do speak out against the politicization of science and against junk science in general. Unfortunately, what they have to say is not terribly sensational, and it's sensation that sells. Or it doesn't fit the storyline that the reporter has already worked out, so it's downplayed or not reported at all.

The website Junkscience.com is a useful corrective. Michael Fumento is an excellent science writer who spends a lot of time debunking an amazing amount of nonsense, and his webite, www.fumento.com, is outstanding. (He posts his hatemail, which is always good for a laugh).

Regarding the past, the junk was always out there, it's just that the nonsense has been forgotten for the most part. If you're really interested, I can Freepmail you a reading list.

[Gumlegs]

What you need is the cyber version of "White-Out," so you can ignore long stretches of material that are irrelevant to your interests.

Ah, yes. The only good thing about Gore3000's posts was that he/she/it posted in blue, making them easy to skip.

[aft_lizard]

My understanding of what you just wrote was Jesus took the punishment of sins upon himself so that we may not be punished wholly by man for breaking Gods word against us but rather individually by God himself. So in essence you are attempting to say that because sin has been removed from the judgement of man, we can break the levitical laws.

Is it not still a sin?

It seems to me that the NT still doesnt say break the levitical laws, but rather it isnt upon anyman to judge another man, thats between him and God.

So please tell me once again, when did you become God so that you may judge me?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Do you watch all 900 channels of TV? Do you visit porn sites?

I don't need technology to block out material I might find useless or offensive. It's easy enough to avoid on my own. I reckon if you're capable of watching 900 channels at once and desirous of indulging porn sites you may be interested in some kind of "wonder filter" to assist in making judgments on your behalf.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . I'm attempting to impress upon him the irony inherent in his stance.

Isn't it rather ironic that you cannot propose conditions under which you would be scientifically convinced that an intelligent designer created the universe and sustains it to this very moment? If the idea is so crazy and unscientific, surely you can suggest ways in which that potential reality could, or should, be revealed to an observer. Or is it simply a subject you would rather reject out of hand as unworthy of consideration?

If you designed a machine and then took it into your hands to run it, how much, and in what manner, would you want to make yourself known to the machine? Have you ever talked to a car or lawn mower? Try building one out of scratch and running it. See if you do not have a few words to speak to that scientifically inanimate object. Or would you expect that object to hear you?

It so happens that you and I are not cars or lawn mowers. Is what makes us different beyond the realm of science to address? You may think so. I do not. Nor do I expect the Creator to intrude Himself to the point of absurdity in an effort somehow to "prove" to science that machines do not make themslves.

The bleating is persistent enough: "God is above science, not scientifically accessible, and therefore not allowed scientific consideration." Why? Because His existence is not falsifiable? Guess what. The notion of a 4.5 billion year old earth and common descent isn't falsifiable either.

99% of evolutionism is inferential and based upon circumstantial evidence. To infer from the presence of purposeful biological entities and physical laws that there is an intelligent designer behind it all is hardly unreasonable or unscientific.

The only thing I would leave outside the capacity of science to determine in regard to a higher intelligent being is what that being's personal disposition toward the observer might be. Otherwise science ought to be free to assume an intelligent beings' involvement with the universe or discard such thoughts. Most science takes place without regard to either premise.

[js1138]

So after all the fuss, ID boils down to...

[js1138]

Isn't it rather ironic that you cannot propose conditions under which you would be scientifically convinced that an intelligent designer created the universe and sustains it to this very moment?

The problem is, there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove such a proposition.

So while the charge that evolution seeks to disprove or replace God might apply to individuals, it cannot be applied to science as an activity.

Science does not seek evidence of God. It seeks to discover how things work. It is not science which seeks to find evidence of miracles or signs from God, and it is not science that is disappointed when none are found.

I think you should be ashamed for expecting an enterprise that limits itself to the visible, physical world would be able, somehow, to put God under a microscope.

It is not science that is the problem here, and it is not God that is the problem. You have been warned about demanding signs, and you ignore the warnings. It is you and your understanding that has the problem.

[Proud_texan]

Ah, I really appreciate Fumento, ran into his work with his "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", gee, more than a decade ago. Think I picked up an excerpt from the book in The American Spectator, not exactly mainstream or huge exposure, but that's hardly his fault.

I'd have to recheck his CV but I don't think he is a "scientist" by the usual standard, more of a reporter that can engage in critical thinking. I may very well be wrong about his background.

Now I know the MSM will never give equal billing but I think it's incumbent on science itself to clean up it's house. That's not to say that there aren't some that have strong disagreements, and probably more than don't speak out because of fear of losing funding, but peer review needs to be opened up to critics, not just the choir.

Agree absolutely that it's always been there, it just seems to be that science has appeared to become more agenda driven than in the past. If that's not correct then I think it would be a good thing for the scientific community to come out with a strong statement repudiating agenda driven science entirely. I'd still be skeptical, but I'd be willing to wait and see.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You have been warned about demanding signs . . .

That is because "signs" are not needed. God's creation and providence are self-evident. Proofs and disproofs are not the prerogatives of science to begin with.

[js1138]

Then why are ID proponents looking for signs in the physical aspects of life?

[betty boop]

Well, we don't agree. But I don't want to get into it until I've calmed down from this Bill Frist fiasco. I'm just not in the mood right now.

Unfortunately, PH, this is the very sort of thing that happens when something -- anything -- is "politicized." Sadly, science has been politicized. And this is an all-too-typical result.

I don't know whether you saw the fine editorial in the current issue of National Review (August 29 edition), "For Devolution." I think it is a fair, balanced, and wise critique of President Bush's recent remarks about the teaching of intelligent design in the public schools, which apparently Senator Frist has endorsed.

To quote from the article, "We see no reason to dispute the vast majority of scientists who believe in the common ancestry of life on earth -- which many of the IDers ... accept -- and also believe in natural selection as the mechanism by which it attained its present variety. At the same time, we see no reason to accept the notion, made current by some popularizers of Darwinism, that natural selection can explain absolutely everything about human beings. This is not just a matter of science's having some mysteries still to solve: We doubt that a material explanation can in principle be found for the non-material phenomenon of consciousness. (Which is why those who are committed to the proposition that such an explanation can be found are so keen to redefine consciousness as a material phenomenon" [e.g., Lewontin, Pinker, Dawkins, Monod, et al.])

I happen to agree with these statements. And, like NR's editorialist(s), I do not wish to see ID taught in biology class, preferring to see its problems covered in a course (yet to be designed) devoted to issues in science that would take the form of a general survey course, "Problems in Science" or other like name, that would touch on physics, biology, information science, scientific cosmology, geology, astronomy. To me, this would be a reasonable compromise that would (hopefully) de-politicize the issue, and at the same time (hopefully) inspire young people to pursue careers in science as a result of their exposure to what science's currently unsolved problems actually are.

However, I imagine in some neo-Darwinist circles even this would be unacceptable. For some of the "popularizers" (as NR calls them) are committed to the idea that the processes of mutation and natural selection are absolutely random, blind, and/or unguided. This is what they're "selling," which is at the root of the present political problem, IMHO.

NR puts it this way: "Let us grant that God did not intervene to suspend the laws of nature so that mankind could come into being. Let us further grant that the laws of nature are blind, knowing nothing of what they are generating. [Yet] Who [or what] made a universe with just the laws that could produce mankind? For a man to walk on water would be a miracle; but for water to exist at all is another kind of miracle. Forces of nature may be blind, but that does not mean they were set in motion blindly. So proof that blind forces of nature created man hardly undermines the plausibility of the argument from design."

The article concludes, "We are in favor of basic scientific education that reports the consensus of scientists on questions of scientific fact while carefully avoiding disputed theological or philosophical claims.... There are no national standards that require evolution, or any other subject, to be taught in a certain way in the public schools.... Whatever the outcome of the debate over evolution, it should be conducted at the local level. A federal judiciary that sees fit to police the boundaries between science and religion has already lost sight of its own boundaries."

As a possible compromise between the two sides of this appallingly noxious "debate," this seems eminently reasonable to me. What do you think, Patrick?

[js1138]

...preferring to see its problems covered in a course (yet to be designed) devoted to issues in science that would take the form of a general survey course, "Problems in Science" or other like name...

The course is already designed and taught in high schools that have IB programs. It's called Theory of Knowledge.

[betty boop]

The course is already designed and taught in high schools that have IB programs. It's called Theory of Knowledge.

Glad to learn that, js1138! What's in the curriculum, specifically?

[Ohioan]

My, oh my! Time Magazine has always been pompous superficially. It has also, always, been Left of Center.

Let me inject a note of common sense here. Evolution and Creation, Intelligent Design and whatever, are not necessarily conflicting concepts. The problem for both science and theology has always been the pursuit of truth--how to find truth; how to build on the truth we have found, to learn more of truth, etc..

One can recognize evolution--the dynamic of evolution. Anyone familiar with the history of animal husbandry is well aware of evolution within the historic period. But nothing in that answers the question of whether evolution is chance or planned; or a combination of chance and planning. They found definite evidence in the Kruger National Park, about 20 years ago, give or take a couple, that mutations among some of the species appeared to have been programmed in advance. That would certainly support the idea of Intelligent Design.

For scientists to appear threatened by being forced to acknowledge the probablility of a Creator, is a result purely of the attack on religious beliefs, that has been mounted since the French Revolution, primarily by Leftist forces, seeking to undermine the social infra-structure of Western peoples. Does Time understand that? Perhaps. As mentioned above, they have always been to the Left. It was no accident that Whitaker Chambers wrote for Time while he was a Communist, before he saw the Light.

Personally, I have often quoted the wisdom of Dr. J.C. Nott:

Man can invent nothing in science or religion but falsehood; and all the truths which he discovers are but facts or laws which have emanated from the Creator. All science, therefore, may be regarded as a revelation from Him; and although newly-discovered laws, or facts, in nature, may conflict with religious errors, which have been written and preached for centuries, they never can conflict with religious truth.

I would imprint that statement in every science text book, and then invite the freest possible inquiry into every aspect of the controversy.

William Flax

[PatrickHenry]

As a possible compromise between the two sides of this appallingly noxious "debate," this seems eminently reasonable to me. What do you think, Patrick?

If ID isn't presented in science class (where it doesn't belong) as if it were science (which it is not) then perhaps they can find some other place to put it. But it's almost certain to have an aura of religion about it, so I don't know if it can be "sanitized" sufficiently to pass the Constitutional test. And I don't know what such a course would actually teach, as there's not much to it other than philosophical objections to evolution. The ID folks admit they don't yet have a curriculum. But something along those lines might be workable.

I'm not in the mood to discuss this in detail. Bill Frist is an idiot.

[js1138]

It's not really that structured. My daughter took it for two years. the first part would be what I call philosophy. The second year requires an independent research paper, usually a survey of literature, fifty pages or so, on some fairly narrow topic in science or philosophy.
These are graded by a national committee rather than by the teacher. The result is one or two semisters of college credit.

[betty boop]

I'm not in the mood to discuss this in detail. Bill Frist is an idiot.

Jeepers, PH -- Well, I guess that just takes care of that. "Bill Frist is an idiot" is your most telling argument.... And one's "moods" are a bar to rational discourse.... Good grief, but I can get better conversation out of my cat Jazzy!

No offense intended.

[betty boop]

It seems the course you describe does not cover the material I suggested needs to be included in a "Problems in Science" course. No?

But I am glad your daughter (presumably) did so well with it.

[js1138]

There is not much chance that a course covering your specific interests will be widely offered. I could think of things I want taught, but it ain't gonna happen.

Theory of Knowledge would allow any student interested in the subject of evolution or ID to spend an entire year reviewing the literature and writing a paper for college credit.

[PatrickHenry]

700