"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.

[aft_lizard]

Dang it I was going to quit arguing but you had to drag me back into it. :)

So GOD creating a neutral balance, which means good along with evil, love along with hate. Automatically removes him from worthy of being worshipped?

heres the good one you came up with, its excellent:

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.>>

WOW, just wow. Because GOD may know all, be all the alpha and the omega. And he knows that what might happen to you, does not change the fact that you create your own destiny, that you make your own choices, he gave us freewill.


I know I am going to die, its unavoidable. So since its etched in stone and unavoidable, I should say go ahead and shoot myself no, or better yet how about quit my job sell my car by a gun and kill many people, maybe thats what I should do, I mean since there is no greater intelligence out there I will just cease to be and since I am going to die anyways whats the harm in a few people cut short by me. And if I followed your argument on this that means I only did what I was meant to do.

No more arguing for me, supper time.

[Gumlegs]

Incapable of clicking on links? Okay. Here's one paragraph on the subject:

In biology, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles (alternative forms of the same gene) in a population from one generation to the next. In other fields evolution is used more generally to refer to any process of change over time.

[LogicWings]

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

And how objective are you? Fallacy of Poisoning the Well.

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.

This assumes that none have been written. Unless you have read them all, every one, then this is an Assertion Without Proof.

There is no "Darwinism." This isn't about the limits of evidence for the Theory of Evolution but about the fact that despite all your screaming and wailing, there is absolutely none for ID.

The fact that life exists has a very clear implication for a mistake in the way we look at the Universe. The ID argument merely obscures this mistake because it provides an explanation that is incapable of verification or validation. It is functionally worthless.

[Gumlegs]

My wife used yggdrasil in her meat loaf. Mmmmmm.

[Coyoteman]

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?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html.

Check this link for a pretty good explanation. Then get back to me with any other questions you may have.

[PatrickHenry]

I don't recall that you've ever posted the Greek creation myth:

Before the beginning of the universe, there was nothing in existence until Chaos came into being. Who or what was Chaos was, the Greeks not really made clear. The Greeks usually associated Chaos as a male entity. Chaos could be personification of the abyss or void, a formless confusion.

Out of the void, came Nyx ("Night") and Erebus ("Darkness"). Also from Chaos - Eros ("Love"), Gaea ("Earth") and Tartarus came into being. It was Eros that made it possible for propagation between two beings – to produce offspring.

By her brother Erebus, Nyx became mother of Aether ("Upper Air") and Hemera ("Day"). This was the first sexual union. By herself, Nyx became mother of several abstract personifications: Thanatos ("Death"), Moros ("Doom"), Hypnos ("Sleep"), the Fates or Moerae and Nemesis.

Gaea, by herself, bore Uranus (Sky), Ourea (Mountains) and Pontus (Sea).

Gaea mated with her son Pontus and she became mother of two ancient sea-gods, Nereus and Phorcys, as well as Thaumas, Eurybia, and the sea monster Ceto.

Gaea married her other son, Uranus, and he became ruler of the universe. Gaea became the mother of the Titans, Hecatoncheires (Hundred-Handed) and Cyclops ("Wheel-eyed"). The birth of their children resulted in a war by the gods that lasted for generation.

Uranus became ruler of the universe after marrying his mother, Gaea. Uranus was the father of the three giant creatures with hundred hands and fifty heads, Briareus, Cottus and Gyges. These giants were known as the Hecatoncheires (Hundred-Handed). They were monstrous in size and strength. They were so ugly that Uranus hid them within their mother's body. Uranus probably did the same to his other three offspring known as the Cyclops. The Cyclopes were also giants, with a single eye in their foreheads. The three Cyclopes were named Arges, Brontes and Steropes. Imprisoning the six gigantic creatures within her body caused Gaea a great deal of pain.

The Titans were also his offspring, but they were smaller in size and fairer in looks. Unlike their ugly brethren they weren't imprisoned. Gaea was furious at the treatment of her earlier sons, so she appealed to her son, Cronus, youngest of the Titans, to overthrow her husband and his father.

At night, when Uranus was about to lay with his mother-wife (Gaea), Cronus castrated his father with an adamantine sickle and threw his father's genitals into the sea, near the island of Cythera. The Giants, Erinyes (Furies) and Meliae were born from the blood that fell on the ground, thereby impregnating her (Gaea). The Olympians would later fight the Giants, aided by the hero Heracles.

In the sea, the water began foaming around the severed genitals of Uranus. This foams drifted across vast distant of sea, before it reached the isle of Cyprus. From the foaming sea, Aphrodite, goddess of love, divinely beautiful and naked, sprang into being, already as fully grown young woman.

Waiting on the shore of Cyprus, Eros (Love) and Himerus (Desire) waited to greet her. The other gods paid honour to her. Aphrodite would later become the member of the Olympians, even though she was technically not an Olympian.

[WhiteKnight]

evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles

I always ask the question of each individual because I get differing answers on this particular question; therefore, your assumption about my ability/inability to use a link is incorrect.

What you posted however is not a theory per the Scientific Method. It is in fact an observation. Want to try again?

WhiteKnight

[longshadow]

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

My personal fav (right after the Flying Spaghetti Monster) which is an ACTUAL creation myth, is that of the "Cargo Cult" people of the Pacific, and their legend of "John Frum," along with all the ritualistic talking into make believe microphones and waving around make believe radio antennae, and buring cardboard suitcases filled with trinkets so that the Great Silver Birds will once again return with their Prophet, "John Frum," and once again make life easy and bestow suitcases full of free booty upon the faithful.

[Coyoteman]

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

[WhiteKnight]

Check this link for a pretty good explanation.

I didn't request an explanation; I made what a simple request: the "Theory of Evolution". This should be easy for any knowledgable Evolutionist.

W.K.

[shuckmaster]

What was 7 days to GOD may as well been 7 billion years to us.

So, do you believe that when god rested on the 7th day he took a billion years off?

[PatrickHenry]

Mind if I add it to my rotating list?

Please do. I am a river to my people.

[js1138]

A man of many waters.

[shuckmaster]

my "superstition" is also a legitimate scientific theory also. And you cant disprove the scientific theory part of it.

Oh, another one of those...

[WhiteKnight]

Delete "what".

W.K.

[Coyoteman]

Check this link for a pretty good explanation.

I didn't request an explanation; I made what a simple request: the "Theory of Evolution". This should be easy for any knowledgable Evolutionist.

I posted a link to a pretty good explanation of the so-called "Theory of Evolution." If you don't want to go to the link, fine. I can post the entire page here with a little html. Is that what you want? Or are you so opposed to the "Theory of Evolution" that nothing will satisfy?

[Gumlegs]

Here's a whole page on the matter, even including "definitions" that don't quite make the grade.

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.

Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.

Standard dictionaries are even worse.

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers

"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!

Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!

Scientists such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public understanding of science. We need to work harder to convey the correct information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that does not mean that we are dishonest. On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help.

From here.

[aft_lizard]

So, do you believe that when god rested on the 7th day he took a billion years off?>>>

Sure why not. He had to let the evolutionary process stand on its own sometime didnt he?

[JCEccles]

The bigots who force feed America the dark ignorant nonsense of neodarwinism have enlisted the MSM for a frontal attack on their honest critics.

Eventually the bigots will lose. They are already starting to panic.

[js1138]

Interesting. I am entering he seventh day since I asked ID advocates what it is they would teach if they were in charge of schools. So far the only response I have gotten is that ID would teach that science doesn't know everything about how evolution happened.

What I am looking for is a statement about what ID stands for in the areas of science not directly related to natural selection. Are there any elements of content from mainstream science that ID agrees with?