"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.

[js1138]

That's twice now...

[longshadow]

700

I've long suspected your membership in that club....

[PatrickHenry]

There is a bit of a connection. My secretary's cousin works for Robertson. (But that probably won't save me.)

[Fester Chugabrew]

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

They're just doing what science does and reaffirming what science is all about: exploring God's creation. Their method of research and manner of expression may be oblique, but there are other times and places for direct experience and speech. Just as God does not reveal Himself except in ways He chooses, man is limited in explaining God's ways from a scientific standpoint.

I hardly think it is the purpose of ID proponents to prove the existence of God. They would be "seeking signs" if they expected God to make a command peformance just to satisfy their curiosity or sate their appetite for vengeance, justice, and proofs outside of the Creator's intent.

Just as science has difficulty in pinning down what constitutes a species because species have a continuity about them, it has little idea what constitutes a miracle because it was born into a continuous miracle. It is by no means normal for the particles of the universe to form together as they have and perform as they do. Occasional physical behaviors outside the norm, in view of the overall behavior of the universe, are not as spectacular as either science or theology would make them out to be.

As awesome as the more detailed picture of reality becomes (by virtue of true scientific efforts), it doesn't begin to reflect either the mind of God or His will toward us. That information is reserved for particular means through which God desires to reveal Himself; means that are not intrusive as one might expect or desire, but humble, gentle, quiet, and unassuming. Sort of like George Burns.

[DBeers]

Hey, that's a good one. Mind if I add it to my rotating list?

LOL -as if one more will make your argument any more credible?

Your stories lack any relevance to the discussion -whether it be evolution, the theory that attempts to describe change or ID the theory of where things came from initially.

You are lost -you attempt to discredit creation on topics that at best skirt it. You are just an anti religious bigot -post more stories and pat yourself on the back while others like myself read between the lines and occasionally respond to tell you that you are not fooling anyone bud. LOL

[js1138]

George Burns was, in my opinion, the best ever manefestation of God in a Hollywood movie.

I happen to think it is both wrong and misguided to look for God in apparent miracles, or to use apparent miracles as evidence of God.

The problem is, when you do this you shut down curiosity about natural processes, and wind up accusing those who debunk miracles as being anti-God.

Anyone who actually folllows science whether it be physics or biology, knows that natural processes are far too complex ever to be unraveled by humans. There is no danger of ever coming to the end of science, or ever completely cataloging the attributes of physical reality.

[Coyoteman]

Your stories lack any relevance to the discussion -whether it be evolution, the theory that attempts to describe change or ID the theory of where things came from initially.

You are lost -you attempt to discredit creation on topics that at best skirt it. You are just an anti religious bigot -post more stories and pat yourself on the back while others like myself read between the lines and occasionally respond to tell you that you are not fooling anyone bud. LOL

Tolerant today, aren't we?

As for "anti religious bigot" -- that's not a very appropriate or charitable comment.

What I object to is the intrusion of religion into science.

My creation story posts are designed to make the point that if creation science is to be taught in the schools, let's teach ALL of it. But the people advocating CS and ID are against that, because their true goal is to teach their religion and the bible. I think the creation stories I post make the point very well.

Have a good day.

[PatrickHenry]

But you've neglected African stories. Here's a website with a bunch: African Fables and Stories.

[LogicWings]

Simple. You've never witnessed macroevolution. No one has. Not once. Yet it is stated to have happened and that it can happen as a matter of faith.

To think that the Theory of Evolution is an accurate explanation of how life evolved is not a matter of "faith" by definition. To say so is the Fallacy of Equivocation.

the whole concept of macroevolution must be taken on faith and in absence of anything observeable or falsifiable, believers in the guise of scientists merely invoke the concept that time will make something happen that thus far has otherwise proved impossible.

As I observed elsewhere, nobody has observed, can observe, the creation of gold in a supernova but it is considered fact. In that case, nothing is fact, nothing is provable, and everything is faith.

But if it were a precept of evolution, though absurd and impossible, the beg-off would likely be a matter of a textbook equipped statement to the effect of "after standing on the spot for millions of years, one's outstretched hand adapts and touches the moon's surface."

This is the kind of sad argument that makes me want to give up on this place. The evidence of the tides is something that gives proof to the existence of the moon, just as fossils give evidence of the existence of simpler, pre-existent life forms. You want, "Can't be falsified" as the criteria for evolution while "Impossible of verification" is the criteria for ID.

That's right, the miracle creator of evos is their god of choice - TIME. Can't see macroevolution - that's because it takes great time. There of course is no proof of this, it's just stated as if it were so. It's offered in place of, well, science.

Since the ToE is built entirely upon existing evidence this last statement is just wrong. It is science precisely because of this limitation. ID can never be considered science because its definition is impossible of verification. This article at TechCentralStation utterly refutes your point. The question is, do you get it? Muddle Theology

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL! But I am glad you evidently realize that the intelligent design hypothesis does not seek to replace evolution theory but instead, supplements what is already in it by focusing on "intelligent cause" to explain "certain features".

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your excellent essay-post and for the excerpts from the National Review article!

It saddens me, too, that this whole debate has become political. And I do like your idea of a scientific cosmology course to field a number of issues including intelligent design.

It appears we will have to wait to resume our discussion of such things - and the core issues - with the usual correspondents until the political winds blow over. That also makes me sad.

[LogicWings]

I find it difficult to follow your arguments because they are so disconnected. For example:

I like logic also but I do believe in a grand creator or the originator of a grand design. To answer your question, I would simply say that the design whether you believe in an originator or not, contains intelligent creatures that get to decide actions outside of animal instinct, like a cat for example.

You "like" logic but logic is not an emotion, it is a skill. How well do you wield the skill? The sentence portion "contains intelligent creatures that get to decide actions outside of animal instinct, like a cat for example." Makes no sense. Cats don't "decide" anything. All they have is instinct. The sentence is self contradictory.

Part of what science cannot understand or explain at this point in time, are the reasons we are guided by moral principles of right or wrong. The bible and other spiritual beliefs offer theories as to why this is.

If all "spiritual beliefs" taught the same thing then I might agree with you, but they don't. What is evil in one religion is good in another, and vice versa, destroying all hope of objectivity. It is merely one opinion against another.

God is a faith issue

I completely agree, and as such, has no place in compulsory government schools that my tax dollars go to fund. Tax dollars should not go to fund the teaching of any religious faith.

America was founded as 'one nation under God' bearing a moral standard of being good by promoting freedoms.

Not so. The phrase you quote was a compiling of a socialist pledge combined with an injected religious doctrine at a much later date.

Should we all be able to mention God, Allah, Christ or whatever you believe at school?

Who is "we?" Teachers, administrators, principles. Then I disagree with you. If my tax dollars go to support compulsory government schools then religious teachings should be no part of it. Whether it is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or Wicca it shouldn't be part of a government school curriculum.

The whole issue of the removing God or an originator from the pledge of allegiance

I don't think children forced to attend compulsory government schools should have to recite ANY mantra, Pledge of Allegiance or otherwise. That is what is wrong with this line of thinking. Stop programming kids how to think and teach them the three Rs and science and computers and geography. Not reciting pledges, how to put on condoms and other social brainwash programming.

. . . but I do believe in a grand creator . . . I believe it is the genetic blueprint of DNA . . . I believe it can and should be taught . . . Freedoms which include which beliefs . . . whatever you believe at school . . .

I the logic of this speaks for itself.

[LogicWings]

It is the anti-ID camp who want to assert the unprovable belief that intelligent intervention did NOT happen.

The Burden of Proof is upon those who make the assertion. I don't have to "Prove" ID is false because there is no evidence that it is true. None. It is a classic logical fallacy to say "This must be true because you haven't proven it false." This is an example of the woeful lack of logic in the ID community today. ID destroys science.

[LogicWings]

Then, categorically, they are both immaculate conceptions...

Not if the Universe wasn't empty.

[RobbyS]

And he said what he meant by "days," which is the point? Years ago, I spoke with a Muslim and asked him about evolution. He simply shrigged and said the whole matter is irrelevant. God made the heavens and the earth and it exists in accordance with his will.

[LogicWings]

God can be surprised at the choices we make. Read the bible for yourself. Most of the posters make claim to what their religion teaches them in respect to the bible. The bible says that God was surprised at men building out the tower of Babel, advancing too fast scientifically.

Then God is not Omniscient, thus violating the very definition of a "Supernatural" God. You may "like logic" but exercising correctly it is another issue.

And this "read the bible yourself" business. I have read the bible a number of times. I've read the founding documents of all the great religions of the world and studied the subject extensively.

If God is one level higher then man

This is not the accepted definition of God, an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Supernatural Being IS. If you want to define Him however you want then words mean nothing.

[Sloth]

It is a classic logical fallacy to say "This must be true because you haven't proven it false."

And who has asserted such a thing?

[Gumlegs]

To be precise I did characterize Fumento as a "science writer," not a scientist.

I suspect few scientists have the gift for either relating easily to reporters or for story-telling (which is the nature of mass communication), themsleves. Properly expressed, science has so many qualifiers (the dreaded "If," "Perhaps," and "Maybe" Syndrome), that the wonder isn't that science is badly reported, the wonder is that it gets into the media at all. They may also consider "public relations" as a distraction from their real work. In this day of politicized science that may be the wrong attitude, but there it is. Someone like Carl Sagan steps forward and is attacked by both sides.

[Proud_texan]

You're absolutely right and indeed I did unintentionally put words in your mouth by being imprecise. My apologies, I was too focused on the idea of hearing from the "community" members themselves, perhaps like the open letter signed by the bunch of scientists telling Bush to sign Kyoto or not go to Iraq.

Perhaps an open letter decrying falsifying results or calling for a standard of ethics, the violation of which would be cause for loss of tenure, employment, etc. I ain't holding my breath.

Thanks also for the reminder of Fumento, really enjoyed his web site and was surprised to find he's also trained in law. I was also surprised to see how widely he is published. I had recalled reading him in AS as noted and on reflection in National Review, but he enjoys much wider distribution than that and that's a good thing.